Nuendo's Digital Mix Buss

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeeRosario
  • Start date Start date
True. Either way, come time to mix, I would have compensated and even factoring in the pan law, I'm still getting a difference there.

I've done a few dozen different test mixes on both PT and Nuendo respectively, and to my ear, I'm still getting something favorable on Nuendo.

Like I said before, on a soloed out track, my processing sounds a good deal better, which would have nothing to do with pan law.
 
So wait, now another thing that brings me to:

Can anyone tell me if there are any major sonic differences between VST and RTAS technology? Assuming is the same plugs.

Working with Nuendo will be the first time I really rely on VST plugs to handle my mixes. I'm mostly familiar and used to RTAS, TDM and analog stuff. I'm wondering if that will have a major impact on the situation here.

I'm experienced, but still open to being a student right now...
 
LeeRosario said:
So wait, now another thing that brings me to:

Can anyone tell me if there are any major sonic differences between VST and RTAS technology? Assuming is the same plugs.

Working with Nuendo will be the first time I really rely on VST plugs to handle my mixes. I'm mostly familiar and used to RTAS, TDM and analog stuff. I'm wondering if that will have a major impact on the situation here.

I'm experienced, but still open to being a student right now...
Click to expand...

AUDIBLE differences would be up to the manufacturer. The nature of the older PT routing system meant that only 24 bits could enter or exit plugins, not sure what the rules are now

There arent any reasons I am aware of that could make TDM/RTAS plugins superior to VST plugins. There are some reasons why TDM/RTAS plugins couldn't be as accurate as VST plugins AFAIK, but I dont think it would be an immediately audible difference
 
LeeRosario said:
I've been doing side by side comparisons on a set of drum tracks (for starters) that I tracked recently and applied the exact same settings from a PT LE mix as I had on the Nuendo version.

No pan law, etc etc. What I was getting was better detail throughout the soundscape without hazzyness down the center channels. In fact, especially the center channel material. I even dumbed it down to 24-bit to even it out with LE, which is what I'm used to using at home anyway.
Click to expand...
Are you using the same hardware for your comparisons? More specifically, are you using the same DA converters?
 
LeeRosario said:
yeah, pretty much. I'd be using an 002 rack to monitor the mixes.
Click to expand...
You WOULD be using or you ARE using the 002 rack? Sorry for nitpicking because if you right now use a different converter to evaluate Nuendo, you could be hearing the effects of the DA converter rather than the summing bus.

There was a major improvement in the overall mix "rendering" (Steinberg's word) when they moved from Cubase VST5.1 to Cubase SX/Nuendo 2 platform as the rendering is done in non-realtime... i.e. it's an offline process, which Steinberg argues provides better results as it doesn't bog down the CPU, so you get better performance from everything, the audio engine and the plugins. Not necessarily an improvement over the way the summing is performed, but how everything is processed as a whole.

Don't know how this compares to other DAWs as I haven't used them.
 
LeeRosario said:
True. Either way, come time to mix, I would have compensated and even factoring in the pan law, I'm still getting a difference there.

I've done a few dozen different test mixes on both PT and Nuendo respectively, and to my ear, I'm still getting something favorable on Nuendo.

Like I said before, on a soloed out track, my processing sounds a good deal better, which would have nothing to do with pan law.
Click to expand...
Do you know how to do a null test? It would be pretty easy to determine whether what you are hearing is psychological or not, all things being equal... that is, same plugins, same pan law.
 
noisewreck said:
You WOULD be using or you ARE using the 002 rack? Sorry for nitpicking because if you right now use a different converter to evaluate Nuendo, you could be hearing the effects of the DA converter rather than the summing bus.

There was a major improvement in the overall mix "rendering" (Steinberg's word) when they moved from Cubase VST5.1 to Cubase SX/Nuendo 2 platform as the rendering is done in non-realtime... i.e. it's an offline process, which Steinberg argues provides better results as it doesn't bog down the CPU, so you get better performance from everything, the audio engine and the plugins. Not necessarily an improvement over the way the summing is performed, but how everything is processed as a whole.

Don't know how this compares to other DAWs as I haven't used them.
Click to expand...

yep yep. I know I know. D/A is very famaliar territory and on the 002 rack, the D/A is decent at best. Good that it only involves my monitoring and has no direct effect on my mix. I may not hear it as clearly as I would with better D/A and wordclock, but thats fine for me. As it stands now it's the 002 rack unless I'm given a budget to work with something better.


Great insight on the Nuendo information.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top