Skip to main content

Nuendo Vs. Cubase

Ok...
This may be obvious to some people, but what is the difference between Nuendo and Cubase?
I'm used to reaper for multitrack recording and audition for wave editing, if that helps to correlate.
JJ

Comments

cj1973 Sun, 10/05/2008 - 12:02
Hi ALL

Thanks for the great feedback. I am starting to get more confident and lean towards Cubase.

Qn: Do you think there may be limitations in using Cubase over Nuendo based on the type of XP I use (32bit or 64bit or vista) on PC and also on say software/VSTis such as Quantum Leap Eastwest stuff where they mention that those softwares have additional features if used on 64bit...

Qn2: How would the CUbase 4.5 upgrade work if I purchase Cubase 4 from say Ebay or a dealer? Is the 4 to 4.5 free?

hackenslash Sun, 10/05/2008 - 17:45
If you're making music, Cubase is the bogsdollux. If you're doing cinematic post, you need Nuendo. I run both, only because a job came along that required some of the video functionality of Nuendo, and the value of the job justified it. 90% of my work uses Cubase only.

Unless you need pro video facility and silly sample rates, you have njo need for Nuendo.

Member Fri, 08/08/2008 - 10:55
From what I know Cubase and Nuendo used to be pretty darned similar, but now since Cubase 4 was released they have made an effort to distinguish between them more--e.g. taking some of the more music-specific features out of Nuendo, which as someone mentioned are now only available for Nuendo if you buy the special add on pack.

I've used both and enjoy both.

Some Mastering engineers once told me that they prefer Nuendo's sound engine, but maybe they are the same now...?

BrianaW Mon, 06/02/2008 - 22:39
You're probably right, I haven't used Cubase in so long I guess I didn't realize how many features they've added. I still have an unopened copy of SX3. I didn't even know they added the VST System Link which is genius in my opinion. I generally record everything from start to finish in Nuendo and "master" in Wavelab. I like the way Nuendo is laid out quite a bit, but obviously that doesn't make it better. It's prolly the 192 thing that makes it more expensive... that and the video editing/scoring thing. It's all Steinberg anyway right? As long as it's Steinberg who cares? :)

Member Mon, 10/06/2008 - 20:45
SeniorFedup wrote: hello

192k sounds nice! does an one have this setup to be able to record at such high rates??
How close is it to analog!?


How close is it to Analogue? About as far as you can get.
AnalogueDigital
I could have gone further but you get the point. Or do You?

192k does sound nice though.

dterry Tue, 06/03/2008 - 11:54
Scott, that's only partially correct as far as significant differences, as I noted earlier. Yes, Sony 9-pin is unique to Nuendo, as well as a few other sync/offset options, but there are other even more commonly needed and equally important points for consideration between the two, whether doing work for broadcast or not.

If you are producing music, recording, etc - Cubase 4 is the way to go. If you are doing any form of audio for video (post, sound design, etc), or even higher end mixing, Nuendo is the way to go, or at least worth considering - Cubase may still be all you need. For mixing, the new automation system in Nuedno is excellent.

12.2? There's actually a 22.2 format for ultra-high def video. But not in most DAWs. Nuendo supports up to 10.2, which is probably what he meant. Cubase supports up to 6.0.

pr0gr4m Thu, 05/29/2008 - 23:15
You are better off getting that specific info from the Steinberg website.

For audio recording, Cubase and Nuendo are essentially the same. As I understand it, Nuendo is more often used in audio/video productions while Cubase is more often used in just audio productions.

Cubase is all you need and if you need a separate wave editor, you can still use Audition.

BrianaW Fri, 05/30/2008 - 05:04
Hi,
I've used both quite a bit, and of the two I chose Nuendo 3. If it really doesn't matter to you which one you use (if price isn't an issue for example), I'd recommend Nuendo 3. It has more features than Cubase and also has the ability to work in 192k, if that's something you find you'd like to use. For specific details on the differences, follow pr0gr4m's advice. Again, I've used both and chose to dump Cubase for Nuendo, but that's just my personal preference. IMHO, Cubase is really just Steinberg's budget conscious software, there isn't anything it can do that can't be done in Nuendo as far as I know.

fourone3 Fri, 05/30/2008 - 07:06
That's the way I understand it, too. I believe there are several versions of Cubase though. Cubase Studio 4 is a dumbed down version of Cubase 4 and Cubase 4 is built on the (old?) Nuendo engine - I think.

Then Nuendo brings all the capabilities you want. I've played around with it here and there and have to say that if you can afford it, and it's something you think you'll need, definitely go for it. If you're a student, perhaps you can look into an educational edition.

Member Mon, 06/09/2008 - 09:09
Greetings

Greetings@

i just loaded Cubase 4 on my comp. and so far i could have not picked a better daw for its price range AND versatilty. last year i was running nuendo 2 (hacked version) and decided to go ahead and BUY the software use to make things happen. save your money and go for cubase four. (nuendo is at retail 1800$)

doubleJ Fri, 05/30/2008 - 10:02
Thanks for the replies...
I was reading on their website before posting and from the descriptions they seemed to be, basically, the same program.
I guess I just don't know enough about audio programs to know the difference.
I'm sure that what I use programs for is about 0.021% of what they are capable of (I did software routing, and delay, for the first time this week in reaper). I mostly just record and then edit.
JJ

pr0gr4m Fri, 05/30/2008 - 11:32
I have to disagree about Cubase being Steinberg's buget audio software. fourone3 had it right. There is Cubase 4 which is their flagship audio software and by no means cheap, but then it has lesser versions that are for the more buget conscious.

Here's the thing...

Cubase is really geared towards Audio production while Nuendo is geared towards Post Production.

Nuendo has more features that are meant for people doing post production. Check this out. It's from version 3 (not the current 4 version) but you can get an idea of some of the things that Nuendo has that Cubase doesn't.
ftp://ftp.steinberg.de/Download/Nuendo_3/3.2.0.1128/Nuendo_3.2.0_exclusive_feature_list.pdf

If you do things like MIDI drum editing and have Nuendo you'll need to buy an expansion pack because it's not included. However that is in Cubase. Notation is also something that's not included with Nuendo and only available in the expansion.

Cubase 4 has the "control room' feature which previously was only available in Nuendo. It's great that it's now in Cubase and a big plus

Nuendo does have features that Cubase doesn't..some of which would likely be helpful but to me, NONE of the things make it worth spending twice as much for it. Yes, Nuendo 4 costs twice as much as Cubase 4.

For me, the only thing Nuendo has that I want in Cubase is Track Sheets. I like having a sheet of paper showing me what tracks there are.

dterry Fri, 05/30/2008 - 22:30
I have both Nuendo 4 and Cubase 4, and use Nuendo 4. The differences are:

1 - Advanced automation in Nuendo (not in Cubase) - think high end console automation, not typical DAW automation.

2 - Up to 192k sample rates (actually maybe 384k, but I'm not in front of Nuendo at the moment).

3 - Edit mode for scrubbing events/clips to video - critical for and spotting effects.

4 - Pull up/down sample rates

5 - Extended file import/export options (I think Cubase only supports OMF, where Nuendo supports AAF, TLAudio, etc).

6 - Network support (for multi-user configurations - not useful for single users).

Outside of that, they are the same - same midi, same editing, etc in each.

If you need any of the above features, then Nuendo would be the way to go. If not, Cubase is the same app, but without the above (and a few others I may have missed).

Regards,
Dedric

hueseph Wed, 10/08/2008 - 13:34
SeniorFedup wrote: so your saying we need MORE than 192k? this is getting crazy

Sample rate has little to do with how analog-like a digital recording can sound. There are plenty of ways that Digital surpasses analog. Especially at 192kHz. Particularly noise floor. Not only do you get less noise with digital recording but when you bounce the noise is not compounded nearly as much as with analog and the only noise that is compouded is due to the analog gear in your chain.

Clarity is certainly superior with digital and yet that is one of the complaints about it. Magnetic tape just sounds different than 1s and 0s. Not necessarily better but certainly more pleasant in many ways. If they can get that quality in digital recording, we'll all be in I think.

Member Wed, 10/08/2008 - 22:56
Shove the noise floor up your nose.

Listen to the sound, listen to the way the sound comes at you, listen to how smooth the transients are. I'd rather have a steam engine making nasty background noise in the room with me and be listening to a hissy tape than some of the digital crap I hear.

Sometimes digital can give you clean accurate nice sound. Still got nothing on when you get phat tunes from a piece of spinning floor covering.

I don't care how hot and realistic your plastic vagina is. My girlfriends' still more fun. Trying to say I'd hit up lunch lady Doris before I'd roll with a blow up doll.

Too far?

Member Thu, 10/09/2008 - 06:12
Greener wrote: Shove the noise floor up your nose.

Listen to the sound, listen to the way the sound comes at you, listen to how smooth the transients are. I'd rather have a steam engine making nasty background noise in the room with me and be listening to a hissy tape than some of the digital crap I hear.

Sometimes digital can give you clean accurate nice sound. Still got nothing on when you get phat tunes from a piece of spinning floor covering.

I don't care how hot and realistic your plastic vagina is. My girlfriends' still more fun. Trying to say I'd hit up lunch lady Doris before I'd roll with a blow up doll.

Too far?
:shock:



too far nothing.... 8)
some just dont really understand the difference.
the reason i believed 192 can boost more to the analog sound is just getting more samples of the sound . .. . . ... .. . . . ... ..

BUT! what if i recorded the tracks on to my tascam 388 (4th inch) then dumped it on to cubase at highest res. would THAT have the analog sound embeded within the track? or would the conversion and samples CHOP EM OUT?

p.s. A suggestin l expect to see posted is try it for yourself... sorry if i wasted your time but school full time leaves me with no time for even updating my software!
x