Why does Nuendo cost so much?

[riley4reason]

I don't have it so I don't know...do you?

Riley

[prene]

most of it due to video licensing, and codecs.

[ericj23]

i kond of figured that it was becuase most of the people who need that feature set are working in businesses where the overheads are written of against tax and pale into insignificance compared to the cost of microphones, pre-amps, video cameras and other such kit

companies don't charge what something costs - the charge what people are willing to pay

[bduffy]

most of it due to video licensing, and codecs.

That, and it's intended to compete with Pro Tools, and compared with a Pro Tools rig, it's not so expensive. And as its geared towards the "pro" studio/post production environment, they'd tend to frown on something that doesn't cost over $1,000. There is also a bevy of timecode sync features, digital formats, dispays that are very specifically demanded by the TV/film industry that most of us yahoos wouldn't give two carps about.

[riley4reason]

Oh..OK. I understand now..Thanks! Riley

[Compyfox]

most of it due to video licensing, and codecs.

That, and it's intended to compete with Pro Tools, and compared with a Pro Tools rig, it's not so expensive. And as its geared towards the "pro" studio/post production environment, they'd tend to frown on something that doesn't cost over $1,000. There is also a bevy of timecode sync features, digital formats, dispays that are very specifically demanded by the TV/film industry that most of us yahoos wouldn't give two carps about.

And Cubase is a pile of sh*t...
YEAH RIGHT!

It's only like 100-200 bucks more expensive due to the fact that it has 2-3 features more than Cubase has. Cubase was first, and is still the flagship of Steinberg.

Nuendo doesn't come with any encoders - NADA! All extra. It's however preferred as "alternative" to ProTools because of it's multichannel capabilities that go higher than 5.1 (up to 10.2 if I can still remember). But it can't cut Video, nor does it make you more popular.

Whether or not the price is adjusted is a totally different issue. But if you're not into "surround producing for cinemas (where at least 7.1 channels are needed)", Cubase works the exact same way and also has Surround support (5.1 - enough for most applications).

The lines are thin between those two sequencers.

[stag]

Nuendo can import\export more formats than god, Also it integrates with pieces of hardware such as Euphonix that make Icon look stupid. Also it has more audio editing functions than cubase, my favorite: batch offline process, not to speak of the video stuff.
Nuendo on a regular studio is overkill but if you're scoring for movies and so it's the a good choice.

[bduffy]

most of it due to video licensing, and codecs.

That, and it's intended to compete with Pro Tools, and compared with a Pro Tools rig, it's not so expensive. And as its geared towards the "pro" studio/post production environment, they'd tend to frown on something that doesn't cost over $1,000. There is also a bevy of timecode sync features, digital formats, dispays that are very specifically demanded by the TV/film industry that most of us yahoos wouldn't give two carps about.

And Cubase is a pile of sh*t...
YEAH RIGHT!

It's only like 100-200 bucks more expensive due to the fact that it has 2-3 features more than Cubase has. Cubase was first, and is still the flagship of Steinberg.

Nuendo doesn't come with any encoders - NADA! All extra. It's however preferred as "alternative" to ProTools because of it's multichannel capabilities that go higher than 5.1 (up to 10.2 if I can still remember). But it can't cut Video, nor does it make you more popular.

Whether or not the price is adjusted is a totally different issue. But if you're not into "surround producing for cinemas (where at least 7.1 channels are needed)", Cubase works the exact same way and also has Surround support (5.1 - enough for most applications).

The lines are thin between those two sequencers.

Did I imply Cubase was a P.O.S.? Or are you just agreeing with me? It's hard to fathom the difference, I know. They're very similar, and I tried to tell my boss at work to just get Cubase, but hey: Nuendo has the street cred, and costs dick-all compared to PT. I think Nuendo does have sync and display features above and beyond Cubase...but again, I say part of the price tag is for credibility; big studios expect quality things to cost "quality" prices. Now, maybe we here know that ain't always true (and I am a professional, oddly enough), but try telling someone who's used to Pro Tools, vintage compressors, dongles and WUP plans.

[aldoofbanga]

nuendo has the network feature id love to see in cubase too

[bduffy]

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[spaceman]

Nuendo has a more expensive paintjob

[Compyfox]

Did I imply Cubase was a P.O.S.? Or are you just agreeing with me? It's hard to fathom the difference, I know. They're very similar, and I tried to tell my boss at work to just get Cubase, but hey: Nuendo has the street cred, and costs dick-all compared to PT. I think Nuendo does have sync and display features above and beyond Cubase...but again, I say part of the price tag is for credibility; big studios expect quality things to cost "quality" prices. Now, maybe we here know that ain't always true (and I am a professional, oddly enough), but try telling someone who's used to Pro Tools, vintage compressors, dongles and WUP plans.

Well if your boss wants to blow out money for the exact same tool, just with 3 "enhanced" features or so - it's his problem. I'm not in the position to blow out a couple of thousand bucks just for a sequencer.

I guess this is the main problem in the industry "good stuff has to cost a lot, and what's costing a lot is the standard". This is my main issue with Waves. The prices is totally unadjusted and most of those plugins are by no means better than known firms where you pay 1/6th of the price.


Vintage Compressors (or outboard equipment) good and fine, too. But here it's not important what sequencer you use, but the converters in the chain for "routing". You can have the best analog compressor/EQ if the AD/DA converters are just the ones from Creative (not the E-MU/Creative Pro - different issue!). THen again I already hear the people rambling "OMG 64bit recordings!". And in the end, audio CDs still use 16bit as endformat, AC3 uses 16bit as endformat and MLP costs 1000bucks "per production" for encoding so that it's even not funny anymore.


But who am I to judge? I use Cubase SX (the inferior sequencer over "Nuendo") and I have a "studio" where professionals would laugh about. I have no right to judge.

[kenn]

I believe ericj23 and bduffy pretty much nailed it - apparently (cos I'm not intimate with it) Nuendo has a whack of features required by studios doing post and higher-end work, and for whom the the rates they charge, and the other expenditures they have can justify the higher software price.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned is that the higher-end software often comes with a higher level of support, especially if the software was purchased from a local pro dealer.

A while back i tried to make the same points about Sequoia and SAWSTUDIO (which I am more familiar with) but there was a general chorus of how these higher-priced offerings were just ripoffs, and charges of elitism for implying that the average KVRian didn't appreciate (or sometimes understand) the requirements and wants of the higher end professional studio.

I was in the audio post field from about mid 80's to '96, and i can recall purchasing professional 2-track recorders (eg Studer 810) for upwards of $4k. I personally bought a Revox B77 for $1800 back then. So hearing people calling $2k + a ripoff for a full blown, post-capable multitrack package like SAWSTUDIO, ProTools or Sequoia is still humourous to me.

(on the other end of the scale, now that i just monkey around in the basement with some toys, my current fave is Reaper )

[kritikon]

Well if your boss wants to blow out money for the exact same tool, just with 3 "enhanced" features or so - it's his problem. I'm not in the position to blow out a couple of thousand bucks just for a sequencer.

I guess this is the main problem in the industry "good stuff has to cost a lot, and what's costing a lot is the standard". This is my main issue with Waves. The prices is totally unadjusted and most of those plugins are by no means better than known firms where you pay 1/6th of the price.

So, why is it a "problem" then?

If studios etc are happy to pay the extra, why is that any skin off your nose? Studios have different objectives and different criteria to both a home hobbyist and a home pro, so they buy accordingly.


There's an awful lot of envy at places like KvR. I personally agree that Waves is overpriced. I personally prefer character FX rather than precise and clean ones anyway, so I have no beef whatsoever with Waves. Hell, I wouldn't buy them anyway, because I won't use an iLok or Pace. But if we're all so confident that pro prices are such a rip off...why don't we feel ever-so-smug when we use our "budget" FX rather than make such a big deal about others paying lots more? It would appear that many of us secretly want to use those very same FX etc that we slag the studios for paying for.

A studio wants to pay more for Nuendo...fine, no problem. It's their money and it affects me not one bit. They do it for a business, they need extra formats that I don't use etc. Do we really think Nuendo was released for the likes of home hobbyists? Do you think any of their marketing etc is aimed at you?



Right...it isn't. So why sour grapes about something you don't want, can't afford, don't need and probably will never buy even if someone dropped a couple of thousand bucks in your back pocket?
"It's too expensive". Who cares? Studios don't think so...end of story.

[eduardo_b]

...So why sour grapes about something you don't want, can't afford, don't need and probably will never buy even if someone dropped a couple of thousand bucks in your back pocket?...

It's probably a response to an unusual aspect of the music software market. There's a very unusual mix of free, almost free, very reasonable, sort of pricey and upward to expensive software, all competing on features for the money. This seems to foster an expectation that nothing should cost more than "[fill in the blank]." I think this shows up at around $200 and up for synths and above $400 for hosts.

I wonder what percentage of features in music software -- and hosts in particular -- are used most of the time by most users. With word processing software, it's generally accepted that at least 80 percent of users only access 5 percent of the features, because that 5 percent pretty much does what most people need almost all the time. So your observation about what they don't need seems right on the mark.