digital performer compared to other daws?

[Hink]

Hi, I have pretty much given up on Reaper and am looking for a more professional product..

@ Robert Randolph.. Because, in this case, of the quote above. It's become a kind of parrot phrase around here - ironically usually said by folks who aren't professionals in the field. In fact, I would say it's arguably the MOST professional DAW for many reasons to do with stability and backward compatibility amongst other things. As a professional I can actually rely upon reaper more-so than any other DAW. Updates almost never break anything - if they do it's fixed within days, even hours sometimes. It just gets very tiresome this ridiculous assertion that it's somehow not professional.

but now woggle has stated he wanted this to stay on the topic of DP, you have had your say and I respectfully ask you keep it on topic.

[woggle]

On a happy note I have been impressed with Sonar (and their lifetime update deal). Cubase is also very impressive but currently lacks clip fx which are something I like to use quite a bit. If Cubase 9 comes out before the end of year I will check it out again to see if they have introduced them. Studio One sadly doesn't handle video very well yet so that is out of contention but otherwise is excellent. DP and Samplitude need another look - I'm still trying to figure out if DP can do clip based fx with automation for example

[Robert Randolph]

On a happy note I have been impressed with Sonar (and their lifetime update deal). Cubase is also very impressive but currently lacks clip fx which are something I like to use quite a bit. If Cubase 9 comes out before the end of year I will check it out again to see if they have introduced them. Studio One sadly doesn't handle video very well yet so that is out of contention but otherwise is excellent. DP and Samplitude need another look - I'm still trying to figure out if DP can do clip based fx with automation for example

DP can not do clip-based FX. You can automate FX though.

The potential issue is that automation does not move with soundbites (clips/regions/events) in DP. It only moves with selections, which may not correlate to your soundbites.

Cubase 9 should be out on wednesday most likely, so you may want to wait a few days.

[woggle]

On a happy note I have been impressed with Sonar (and their lifetime update deal). Cubase is also very impressive but currently lacks clip fx which are something I like to use quite a bit. If Cubase 9 comes out before the end of year I will check it out again to see if they have introduced them. Studio One sadly doesn't handle video very well yet so that is out of contention but otherwise is excellent. DP and Samplitude need another look - I'm still trying to figure out if DP can do clip based fx with automation for example

DP can not do clip-based FX. You can automate FX though.

The potential issue is that automation does not move with soundbites (clips/regions/events) in DP. It only moves with selections, which may not correlate to your soundbites.

Cubase 9 should be out on wednesday most likely, so you may want to wait a few days.

thanks Robert, yes I am waiting for Cubase 9 to compare to Sonar. Nothing is perfect of course, but Sonar has been very impressive and is quite cheap for the Professional version. Cubase seems to cut down the cheaper Artist version quite a bit in terms of track and VST numbers to the point where I would have to go the full version. Still, if it is worth it ....

[vintagesamples]

Sonar can not show note-names on notes like Cubase/Reaper
that could be a big drawback

[woggle]

Sonar can not show note-names on notes like Cubase/Reaper
that could be a big drawback

thanks - Not a deal breaker for me but I can see how it would annoy some

[planetearth]

I would say your top two contenders will probably end up being SONAR and Cubase. I use SONAR and have used Cubase. If I ever leave SONAR, I'll go to Cubase. It doesn't have everything I need (but it has enough), and it's cross-platform, which helps when collaborating.

The latest version of SONAR has a lot to offer--probably more than most of us will use. Cubase is probably up there with the features too, by now. After a while, it gets harder for the developers to squeeze in something else the DAW "should" do, especially if only a few people are asking for it. SONAR and Cubase can always stand some "under the hood" improvements over flashy, new features, but "under the hood" improvements don't sell software as much as flashy, new features (such as SONAR's new support for WASAPI audio).

Let us know what you decide!

Steve

[lfm]

Cubase seems to cut down the cheaper Artist version quite a bit in terms of track and VST numbers to the point where I would have to go the full version. Still, if it is worth it ....

Late summer july-august and fall as september there usually is a 30-40% discount on upgrades.
So going for Cubase Elements or Artist now, might give you pricing that is more attractive.

But don't know your timetable.

Cubase do serious cutdown on features in not-Pro versions, so might not be good as a start even for everybody.
I ran Cubase Elements(v7-8) a year or so parallell with Sonar Artist to learn the basics - and things I missed the most was track lanes, all multiple takes on top of each other and track archives/templates to resuse track setups. I did not do video at the time, so not sure how bad that is.

In general trial version are not out immediately at release. Dorico got trial just now, a month after release, and it's been something like that of delay for Cubase as well as I recall.

So if Cubase 9 comes on wednesday, it might not be a trial until january or so. But for 8.5 there is of course.

[woggle]

Cubase seems to cut down the cheaper Artist version quite a bit in terms of track and VST numbers to the point where I would have to go the full version. Still, if it is worth it ....

Late summer july-august and fall as september there usually is a 30-40% discount on upgrades.
So going for Cubase Elements or Artist now, might give you pricing that is more attractive.

But don't know your timetable.

Cubase do serious cutdown on features in not-Pro versions, so might not be good as a start even for everybody.
I ran Cubase Elements(v7-8) a year or so parallell with Sonar Artist to learn the basics - and things I missed the most was track lanes, all multiple takes on top of each other and track archives/templates to resuse track setups. I did not do video at the time, so not sure how bad that is.

In general trial version are not out immediately at release. Dorico got trial just now, a month after release, and it's been something like that of delay for Cubase as well as I recall.

So if Cubase 9 comes on wednesday, it might not be a trial until january or so. But for 8.5 there is of course.

I'm not really in a hurry - although I am keen to leave Reaper (which I have used for over 10 years). But if Cubase does not have some sort of clip/ object editing then I am not interested anyway. At the moment Samplitude and Sonar are the serious contenders - but DAWs like Studio One are very impressive, just missing some crucial function that I need (eg Studio One is pretty basic for editing to video, does not tempo map as well as Sonar - and I value those functions more than others that no doubt Studio One has implemented better than Sonar)

[jancivil]

Cubase just doesn't use the word 'object'. The word used is 'region'; then the resort is to the Offline Process History if you need it, independent of the linear undo history (and independent of the project's closed/opened or quit status). Regions typically are created from 'ranges', so the region now is a reveal of the range, now in a list to stand alone from the 'part' (or event, a part might be more than one event glued into one part) whose ranges were reliant on the range handles. Any process available to Cubase is available offline in the process history (for all of time so long as you don't obviate it somehow). It doesn't have a similar UI to Samplitude's object editor, you're recalling the particular process and/or plugin parameters.

I do a lot of audio editing; but what I don't do is revisit EQs and takes and fix mistakes much (although I have done, including kind of 'unmastering' a selection), I mostly do tails adjustments and gain, and time stretch... fade-outs etc. Actually I do a certain amount of musical editing such as adding (or lessening) emphasis I got so comfortable with a certain workflow.

PS: Offline Process History is strictly Cubase full v.

[woggle]

Cubase just doesn't use the word 'object'. The word used is 'region'; then the resort is to the Offline Process History if you need it, independent of the linear undo history (and independent of the project's closed/opened or quit status). Regions typically are created from 'ranges', so the region now is a reveal of the range, now in a list to stand alone from the 'part' (or event, a part might be more than one event glued into one part) whose ranges were reliant on the range handles. Any process available to Cubase is available offline in the process history (for all of time so long as you don't obviate it somehow). It doesn't have a similar UI to Samplitude's object editor, you're recalling the particular process and/or plugin parameters.

I do a lot of audio editing; but what I don't do is revisit EQs and takes and fix mistakes much (although I have done, including kind of 'unmastering' a selection), I mostly do tails adjustments and gain, and time stretch... fade-outs etc. Actually I do a certain amount of musical editing such as adding (or lessening) emphasis I got so comfortable with a certain workflow.

PS: Offline Process History is strictly Cubase full v.

Thanks jancivil - i will look for some videos to see how that system works in practice.

EDIT - had a look and as far as I can tell from the info I found is very clunky compared to Samplitude (or Sonar even) ie did not seem to suit me.