If an extra subscription charge is genuinely required to offer a better level of support then that’s certainly something I’d consider. I must admit one of the reasons I upgraded to Nuendo was with the, in my opinion mistaken, expectation that the extra cost would reflect an increase in the quality and speed of support offered (along with the extra features of course) Avid’s business decisions over the last decade have been, arguably, focused around maximising profit and taking advantage of their market position with scant regard for the service offered. I would also suggest that the price of the Avid support plan is not remotely proportional to their costs of maintaining that service. The team are active on the forum and very quick to respond.Ĭompared to an average wait in excess of a month for help on a Nuendo support ticket the difference between the two support experiences is, with no disrespect intended towards the Nuendo team, Just for sake of comparison, Dorico runs on the same licensing/financial premise as other Steinberg products yet the support I have received from the Dorico team has been outstanding at all times.
So really it seems to me that if support really costs a fair amount of money to offer us then we might have to pay more. With Nuendo you pay about $1k to own it and then the upgrades are far less. Or if you go subscription it’s $800/ year, every year.
#STEINBERG NUENDO LICENSE#
If you pony up $2,600 for a perpetual license you get one year of support, and if I remember correctly it’s $400/ year after that. I think that all we really have to do is to take a look at what it costs to be on PT Ultimate and it’s easy to see that it really costs some money to get that support.
#STEINBERG NUENDO PRO#
This too is very unlike Avid Pro Tools support. Nowadays I am referred to ‘local distributor’ in AU (Yamaha) and that particular website is buggy, requests are not answered etc.
Personally, I’d also add that no longer being able to raise a support ticket directly with Steinberg is not acceptable & especially at this price point. 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)
