So what? You do see the difference between fundamental functionality such as grouping as well as functionality that has been around for over a decade, compared to new stuff and stuff that isn’t fundamental, right?
I can guarantee you that among those who uses groups in PT professionally you would be in a minority. q-link pales in comparison to everything else PT provides for grouping.
What kind of argument is that?
And please quote me where I said we should try to reproduce every single function of one in the other! I didn’t say that, did I? I’m not suggesting Nuendo to be PT, that’d be daft…
Just answer my questions: What is it that PT does that you don’t want to see in Nuendo, and what is it you want to see in Nuendo that currently doesn’t exist - specifically? You keep saying “Don’t do it the same way because it shouldn’t be the same way” but you give no specifics for what it is that you have a problem with. Just because one DAW maker improves one functionality of a competitor doesn’t mean that always can or has to be the case. We’re making choices here, and they involve design and development time and money. Let me give you an example:
-
The newest version of Nuendo gives us the ability to normalize to loudness standards including true peak. Great, right? Sure, I was glad when i saw that but quickly realized that anyone delivering stems would face a problem: The final mix output when normalized wouldn’t be the same as summed stems! Is this a problem for me? No, because it probably didn’t take that long to implement. The measurement feature was already there, and Nuendo already includes peak limiting plugins. Probably a relatively simple thing to do, similar to fulfilling a request here to log peaks on the loudness track.
-
But there is other functionality which I bet takes a much longer time to create, because it involves not just planning and execution but the actual design of the thing. Like the ADR system. That Steinberg had to come up with, not just as a concept, but in greater detail. That takes time of course since it involves not just plugging into the signal flow but also a new set of GUI. But well worth it. Great functionality that sets it apart from PT! Awesome stuff. I mean it. And worth developing further.
I already said I’d be fine with something better than PT, but if it’s between a PT clone and waiting another 5 years then I’ll take the clone. And I KNOW many other users would as well. There’s nothing wrong with PT’s way of dealing with groups, and you’re still invited to how exactly it’d be wrong implementing that in Nuendo.
Again, trying to one-up PT on groups seems a bit silly when other things are much more unique. Between MediaBay and ADR there’s plenty of innovation done and refinement to be done. I’d rather time be spent on that than coming up with new ways to do grouping if that’s not necessary.
It’s 2014 and the state of grouping (and lack of VCAs) in Nuendo is so far behind PT it’s not even funny. Get your own version out now or just copy the darn thing and be done with it. This isn’t rocket science, it’s just engineering 101.