[FR] Clip Effects for Nuendo

I’ve seen this in old threads but haven’t found this in Nuendo 7 yet and I think it’s time to request this again.

I’ve just seen Avid’s IBC 2016 announcements for Pro Tools 12.6. I think it’s a great way of adding just this one effect to one clip without having to create a whole new track just for one clip with a different setting.

Working a lot on dialog in documentaries, there are certain recordings where the mic seemed to have been held differently, the character moved, or some other thing suddenly changed the sound a bit and I’d like to smoothen it by adding an EQ. But I have to create a new track just for that one clip.

With Clip Effects it would be much easier, would reduce tracks, and make overview of the project better.

Take a look at Clip Effects and how PT implements it.

Not sure why you need new track just to add eq?
why not automate eq in the inserts?

You’re right, this would work. But I found this process to be error prone. And also from looking at other people mixing and editing a movie in a theatre with Pro Tools, they’d suspend automation, dial in a new EQ setting and punch it in. Great. Only the guy’s I’ve seen would forget to punch 3 times out of 10. And if you spent a lot of time on some adjustments this is really annoying. So I see automation with lots of mixed feelings. It’s nice for certain things, but for others I don’t think it’s the right tool. Clip Effects being one of those.

Well this is the way it is done…
When talking about projects where you have anyway maybe hundreds of tracks your way of doing would increase that to thousands as I automate for example eq a lot to get equal sound thru the sound track.

My advice is not to forget any steps of the workflow. It is easy. And it is basic skill for editors and those who mix professionally, really… U have never ever had any troubles automating eq. Reverbs are slightly different thing. But also revebs work very well. You just have to find right workflow for each reverb…

Hey Chris…
You would still need to address each clip individually, no ?
How about;

  1. apply a close enough clip gain to each on the track
  2. insert filter/EQ/NR/dynamics chain on the track
  3. go to the problem ones and set it up to your liking
  4. render in place

Would that work ? You could also use some channel presets if some clips are identical . Shouldn’t take that much longer than applying clip processing on each…
And…not all of us would have a PT HD install to even use clip effects.

Thoughts ?

Then that way maybe isn’t good enough anymore in today’s day and age? Processes and workflows should be looked at from time to time to see if there’s a quicker solution using today’s technology. To me, clip effects seem like a more efficient solution for certain (of course not all) tasks.

My goal actually is to reduce tracks, and thus project complexity, and I think Clip Effects could help me with that. Not sure why you think it would increase tracks. Besides, it would not be an either Clip Effects / or Automation. If you automate, you could continue working the way you want. No harm done. Clip Effects are an option, not a replacement.

You could say that to people who died climbing mountains: My advice is, buy ropes that don’t snap, only step where there’s solid ground, and hold tight to the rock wall, don’t let go. Fact is, people multitask, they think about many things simultaneously, get distracted, they do make errors and don’t always remember to press every button in a multi-step choreographed shortcut dance. Good software design should try to prevent most of the common pitfalls from happening. If there’s an easier way to do a certain, common task, it’s worth exploring and thinking about supporting that way.

@Lemix: I found the macro idea from the other thread quite good and efficient for EQ automation. Doing what you suggested would also work, but to me, adjusting settings, then doing RIP, manage the new tracks etc. seems like a longer workaround. I know you said it’s not much longer. But when doing this several times a day I think it would add up, just my opinion though. I’m gonna try the Macro way for now.

Chris. You just have to get used to automate stuff. It’s neither hard or error prone.
I never add extra tracks to deal with simple eq changes or similar, that would be a waste of time and resources.
Yes of course it’s possible to make mistakes but you’d make similar mistakes using clip effects I am quite sure.
Not that I would have anything against clip effects as such. Just that in your example you are looking at trying to solve a problem in a less than perfect way.

As for eq, as a mixer (and sound editor) I’d hate to get clip effects that I couldn’t easily see or control on my surface.
Automating eq is simple and fast in Nuendo. I automate the eq on pretty much each and every dialogue line of every mix I do (TV drama series and features).

Preview punch is my preferred mix setup (for static changes). When editing I have fill loop on all the time so I can quickly change the eq or filter easily for any selection. It’s super fast.

You’re probably right. I see the surface problem, it would need a completely new control layer. And I probably just have to get quicker with automation. I’ve learned a lot in recent weeks thanks to posts from Fredo and all you guys and studied the manual, looked at videos and practiced it on test projects. Together with the Macro from Lemix, it’s really quick.

I guess I’m trying to solve a problem that’s not really there. Or I thought was there because I wasn’t fluid enough with Nuendos many other options.

OK guys, thanks. I think this case is closed :wink:

The thing that would be so cool about clip effects would be the ability to change the length of an audio clip and maintain the effects. For me it’d have to be ProQ2 rather than the Nuendo EQ, though.

No I wouldn’t say the case is closed.

Sure EQ automation might work effectively … though it does irritate me sometimes … but there are many, many occasions for other processes which would work much more efficiently ( ok , for me) using a clip based effect/preset. I do find that a complex automation set up occasionally bites me in the ass later on in the project.

In the past I did a lot of Radio work using Wavelab which has track and clip based insert chains. It was incredibly useful. More recently I work a lot in Final Cut Pro X and often have to sweeten the sound in-app due to time constraints. The clip based approach there works very, very well … though of course it’s lack of track based effects hurts!

Nuendo needs both. I understand most DAW’s are built over a Virtual Channel based mixer , but there are other ways of approaching the process.