Steinberg on the other hand has a history of releasing features that have very obvious problems that could not have been overlooked in a normal beta testing phase, which can be fun if you want new features to play with but painful if you just need things to work. While AVID can be painfully slow in adopting new features for PT, they usually get them pretty right when they are released. PT offers real snapshot automation (Nuendo only touch collects the first couple of parameters on punch preview), therefore copying and pasting scene or single plugin automation is a breeze on PT and always a potential threat on complex Nuendo mixes.Īt the same time there is no real object based automation (other than rendering) like clip eq/dynamics in PT. Some editing operations are more complicated than they should be (like filling a gap with ambience)ĪAF Import gives less options than PT (like open with rendered fx) Stereo files cannot be split by dragging/copying onto two mono channels Nuendo (other than Cubase) seems less important to Steinberg than PT Ultimate (compared to vanilla) is to AVID.ĮuCon improvements have been non existent up to V11 and left many users screaming for updates When they don’t get a quick fix, they might not get a fix for many years (VCA, stuttering timecode issue). It makes things harder for small companies targeting a niche market (like Soundsinsync, SoundRadix, Non-Lethal, iZotope)īugs are often not addressed. It is a direct consequence of Steinberg trying to do everything themselves. Tools might never get updated to integrate well into Nuendo. However, some of the ‘cons’ listed in the comments section of the OP seem like fair enough criticisms: Like others, I agree that Nuendo is rather wonderful, technically (for the most part).
0 kommentar(er)
