Quality of CW Mixers Vs. Nuendo 2.x Mixer

Basic Pitch · Post by **Basic Pitch** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 9:30 am

Hi all,

Well I am wondering how you all would classify the quality of the CW mixer and EQs versus say the Nuedo mixer, as it stands currently I use both, but the EQs in Nuendo sound soso, not what I would hope for from a 1300.00 dollar app, but theres always 3rd party EQs. What I do now I rout anything I want effected from Nuendo into the STM2448 and use the Nuendo mixer for most basic stuff like VST's such as battery since things like this can take up a massive amount of channels.

I am considering building a patch that fully merges both worlds and basically completely bypasses the Nuendo mixer and fully takes advanatage of the CW mixer. I just sort of feel I am not getting much use from the STM mixer since at usual I will only have maybe 5-8 channels running at once.

If the mixer is deemed to have better or more transparent sound I am gonna try and make it a more seamless enviorment.

Just looking for some thoughts on the subject, I really havent delved very deep into the mixers to be honest, devices yes, mixers? not enough to be able to make a judgment, and since the way I write audio these days, ala not exporting audio and burning straight to wavelab, it might be beneficial enough if the mixers are that much better.

Your thoughts and time are always appreciated!

Cheers!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 9:52 am

there was this great idea recently by someone to run 2 SFP mixers parallel and then phase out one to see what's left as the 'difference'.
You could do the same with the Nuendo mixer and an SFP one parallel.
Btw isn't Nuendo's price tag mostely influenced by those licensing fees for Dolby encoding stuff ?

cheers, Tom

Basic Pitch · Post by **Basic Pitch** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:38 am

Believe it or not, the encoding tools are an add on package, I thing they calling the DTS encoding series?

I dont do post so I dont worry about it, infact I could basically just use SX for my needs but I upgraded from SX to nuendo before SX had PDC, which was the primary thing I needed at the time having 3 DSP cards of different manufactorers.

It was becoming a living hell trying to use plugs from DSP cards, every plug added would introduce more latency and then throw all of current tracks off to the point I would have calculators sitting at the desk to figure out compensation times from the other tracks. Was a royal pain.

Aside from the that I love the ease of workflow in Nuendo. But I am guessing the price is due to all of the post features, OMF, 9 pin, all the sony compatible stuff to go along with video.

Cheers!

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:26 pm

Hi Basic Pitch.

Sorry for the dumb question but... What the heck is PDC?

Using 3 different cards I can see would be a problem. However I hate the Nuendo 1.6 mixer for many reasons. Not least is the screen real estate it takes up. Don't know whether that's changed in 2.0?

I'm also curious what you mean by building a patch to bypass the Nuendo mixer? One of the things I really hate about it is the L/R mix channels always take up 2 ASIO outputs, even though I never use 'em.

Cheers,

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:49 pm

PDC = plugin delay compensation.
I can't speak for Nuendo as I'm on Cubase SX2, but I imagine the two systems are similar. I always bus stuff out on as many channels as I can to Scope.....or at least separate out main parts - I'm sure you get better sound that way - more clarity - less things clogging up the main outputs, and you get a whole lot more control over gain structure.

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:32 pm

Thanks Plato. I assume PDC is for VST plugins then, right? (I almost never use them anyway.)

I too mix either in SFP or outboard. But Nuendo insists on using up 2 ASIO channels for Mix L / R. Even though I don't use the Nuendo mix bus at all. Dunno if SX "steals" 2 channels too? If there's some way around it I would love to know!

Thanks + cheers,

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:04 pm

Yep, you're right about PDC.
Not sure I quite understand that thieving business.....SX defaults to all channels outputing on BUS 1, but you can define which Scope ASIO source channel any bus will appear at if you want, and of course which BUS any VST channel outputs to - FX, Group & VST instrument channels included

Basic Pitch · Post by **Basic Pitch** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:42 pm

Just got back in,

Yes as said PCD is basically to compensate the delay created by VSTi's but the real gem of this comes into play when using DSP cards, if im not mistaken its been some time, on lets say a UAD-1 each (1) plug plaved within the VST eviorment actually doubles your entire system latency, so imagine that latency between a Scope Pro, UAD-1 and a Powercore utilizing 50%+ DSP on each card, your talking one huge delay.

By having PDC this automatically fixes all delay times of tracks that are not utilizing any of these dalay inducing tracks. If not for PDC you would have to use compensators for each card on every track of get tricky and put every track without those plugs on a sub group and then throw a compensator on it.

Its just a really awesomething to have which makes using these cards seamless with typical VSTi pluggins.

Now as far as Nuendo stealing 2 ASIO channels per track, yes both SX and Nuendo 2 still do this, BUT! its not really a big deal seeing as how the STM mixers work, just add enough asio outputs to cover your entire mixer including busses and all is well, I see no reason not to take full advanatage of what owning a CW card is all about, I have never had any issues with ASIO before.

So when I said basically bypass Nuendo's mixer all together I pretty much meant patching "every" track from the Nuendo mixer into a device like the STM2448 of ever the 48 channel counterpart

Cheers!

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:00 pm

Thanks for the info on PDC guys. Not important to me right now (I'm not using VST plugins at all for the moment) but very good to know for future. Cheers!

Plato, Basic Pitch's approach is what I use:

patching "every" track from the Nuendo mixer into a device like the STM2448 of ever the 48 channel counterpart

I've never mixed more than probably 30 or so channels (call me a minimalist

). But I just don't like the fact that Nuendo requires 2 channels be dedicated to a mix bus that I don't use. I want all 64 ASIO channels free, durnit!!!

Thanks,

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:24 am

Sorry, I'm being a bit slow on the uptake here....what do you guys mean by this 'stealing two channels'.....just don't route the master out to anything if it's a problem......
I tend to leave it alone and use the master out as a general purpose channel for anything that doesn't require individual treatment.....maybe some VST fx returns & incidental noises etc.....seems quite useful to me.

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:02 am

this channel are used also for the previwing of off line plugins treatment ....

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:11 am

True, spiderman.....editing would be a bit difficult without them

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:28 am

On 2004-07-06 07:24, Plato wrote:
just don't route the master out to anything if it's a problem......

That's just it though, the Master always takes up 2 ASIO channels. Whether I want it to or not. I was hoping Basic Pitch had discovered some way around this.

Anyway it is sometimes useful even to cranky old me. During tracking you can only send the metronome out on the master L/R channels. Another weakness of Nuendo IMO. Nevertheless for that reason I occasionally use the master bus.

Grumpf!

Incidentally what do offline plugins have to do with editing?!?

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:53 am

Well, you can permanently impose the effect of a plug-in on a wav so you don't have to run the plug-in anymore.
Also you preview any audio processing like gain-changes, envelopes etc via the master outs.

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:13 pm

Ah.

I never use plugs in Nuendo except when someone screams "Give me AutoTune!" As for gain + level changes -- I used to add gain in SFP and set level outboard. These days I do both in SFP. Nuendo stays at unity, always.

Cheers,

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:02 pm

I'm talking more about transient peaks and manually de-essing bright vocals etc, or doing more experimental stuff....apart from that I'm pretty much the same....I try to avoid losing volume in Cubase so the Scope mixer is pumped with healthy levels.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Plato on 2004-07-06 14:04 ]</font>

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:28 pm

Yeah, vox are a pain. Everyone uses crappy mics to record their vocals. Rent a decent mic, for gob's sake. I don't get why anyone would use an SM58 for vox. (Ducking as the Shure firebrands come storming in.)

I do all my editing in Nuendo but I've never really considered plugins to be part of my editing toolbox. Perhaps short-sightedness on my part, maybe there's something I've missed that I should try!

Actually, though, I did lie. I always do volume (and sometimes pan) automation in Nuendo, especially at the beginnings & ends of songs. So it's not always unity. I take back all my previous statements.

Still, I never change the mixer faders in Nuendo. We could undoubtedly debate this but let's just say I don't believe in keeping digital levels "hot". If there's any difference in the way SFP scales a 2-4 byte word, compared to how Nuendo scales it, it's very subtle and my rock'n'roll ears just don't care. I don't mean to offend you in any way Plato, but for my tastes there's just too much voodoo surgery in audio shop talk circles these days. I need to see quantified test results, and charts and diagrams, before I change my practices.

In the outboard world, of course, I keep everything hot because adding gain adds noise, changes EQ, and so on. Not only are there plenty of charts and diagrams to show how this happens, but I can also hear it with my not-very-surgical rock'n'roll ears.

Cheers,

Johann

Plato · Post by **Plato** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:53 pm

I find even with a half decent mic, I can never quite get the results I want on vocals with a de-essing plug.....probably coz I haven't got a lovely expensive pre-amp, which inevitably involves becoming a voodoo micro-surgeon-pedant,and getting the editing tools out for some boring, anal-retentive tweaking.....I hate it really but it does seem to pay off.
Also I guess it depends on the genre you're working in.....I tend to do a fair bit of electronic-based stuff that demands a bit of creative editing....don't get me wrong - I love all sorts of music, but even on natural-sounding tracks, I find my lack of expensive outboard gear forces me into a fair bit of fixing things in the computer.....maybe one day.....
PS. there is an incredible world of plugins out there, but it does take time going through them, and working out which ones you like.....who was it that said they're like pretzels on a stick?....I suppose their sheer abundance can lose your respect for them, but there is some very hot stuff available, and I do love the whole experimentation thing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Plato on 2004-07-06 14:58 ]</font>

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:38 pm

Yeah I don't have any hot pres either, but I still find a decent mic a lot easier to work with. Condensers will add a lot of high end. But I like that -- there's a certain "hiss"y sound to them, but it's like the singer is spitting in your face.

It's the high-mids that I can't stand. For lack of a better word, I dislike "nasal" sounds.

This whole issue has been eating away at me lately. Just like everyone else, I like "coloured" sound. I like vocals to be rich and warm and fat and all that. But at the same time there's a little imp on my shoulder who keeps saying: "What's wrong with just reproducing sound?" Transparency and accurate reconstruction of sound used to be the holy grail of recording, mixing and mastering. These days we have pretty darned good transparency. But everyone wants that old-school sound of dirt and heavy colouring. I wonder if this desire for "warmth" isn't just a fad.

What does this have to do with de-essing? Well, maybe we all use too much de-essing... Too much sound-shaping, too much colouring. Generally too much artifice in this realm of [url=http:// http://www.redhotjazz.com/liverystablebluesinfo.html" TARGET="_blank">what was once art</A>.

I dunno, just a thought. Sorry for being grouchy!

I agree there are many -- too many! -- plugins out there. I should really spend more time with them. But I am glad for <A HREF="http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=31&31]threads like this one[/url] which narrow my options!

Planet Z has always been a great place to learn. But the more time I spend here, the deeper it gets. This is a fine board IMO. I just wish it wasn't so bloody addictive!

Cheers Plato,

Johann

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:43 pm

Wow, I nuked the BBCode engine... Cool... Can't even edit my post...