If SONAR Doen's Get Bought Out (Cubase Vs Studio One)

[arimalan]

Which One Is More Similar To Sonar And Has A Lesser Chance Failing (Like Cakewalk)? I'm Still Hoping For A SONAR Buy Out, But Want A Plan B.

[Zexila]

Cubase, they really got their act together in .5 release and won me over.

[Apratim]

i was using cubase and yes they are great but after 8.5 i felt like the stoped on cpu efficiency and made cubase a cpu hog for rushing of features so studio one is the one i would suggest to you between the two

and if you have other options for daw
i will strongly recommend Reaper over any othe daw (yes over ableton live** for production use only not live shows )
reasons
=there are shit ton of reason why reaper is awesome (could be awaful to eyes at startup but you can customize ui as your liking)

[Romantique Tp]

Cubase is Sonar done right.


Cubase has pretty much zero risk of dying right now, specially since it's crazy popular in Japan. Yamaha is pretty chill as a company, and they're doing really well financially (on the rise for almost 10 years straight).

I doubt that Presonus is going to kill off Studio One any time soon though.

i was using cubase and yes they are great but after 8.5 i felt like the stoped on cpu efficiency and made cubase a cpu hog

Cubase 8.5 and above is actually more CPU efficient than previous versions.

The performance is even better if you use Cubase 9.5's new 64 bit mixing engine, as reported by multiple users.

[ATS]

Cubase is Sonar done right.


Cubase has pretty much zero risk of dying right now, specially since it's crazy popular in Japan. Yamaha is pretty chill as a company, and they're doing really well financially (on the rise for almost 10 years straight).

I doubt that Presonus is going to kill off Studio One any time soon though.

i was using cubase and yes they are great but after 8.5 i felt like the stoped on cpu efficiency and made cubase a cpu hog

Cubase 8.5 and above is actually more CPU efficient than previous versions.

The performance is even better if you use Cubase 9.5's new 64 bit mixing engine, as reported by multiple users.

I remember before Studio One 3 came out people were starting to think they were going to abandon it. Even if they did I would still use it.

[whyterabbyt]

=there are shit ton of reason why reaper is awesome (could be awaful to eyes at startup but you can customize ui as your liking)

Not sufficiently, unfortunately.

[fallacy]

I enjoyed Cubase but haven't upgraded since v8 and went back to Logic X and Ableton - and thats partially due to the frequent version updates that cost a fair amount of money, that get more expensive the longer you stay behind. Unless there's something in Cubase that you absolutely must have, there's better bang for buck elsewhere - particularly if you're doing this for a hobby.

PS. I love Halion Sonic and it came along with me when I moved on, but I still have v2.

[rod_zero]

Both are going to grow now that Sonar is gone, Cubase being probably the biggest player on PC.

I feel Studio One has more risk of being dropped but right now it seems it has solid development.

[patchhunter]

Both daw software are really popular. Studio one I think will be popular for years to come because of the frequent updates, they implement features that their customers want and it is tightly integrated with the hardware that they sell which is their bread and butter.

[Apratim]

Cubase is Sonar done right.


Cubase has pretty much zero risk of dying right now, specially since it's crazy popular in Japan. Yamaha is pretty chill as a company, and they're doing really well financially (on the rise for almost 10 years straight).

I doubt that Presonus is going to kill off Studio One any time soon though.

i was using cubase and yes they are great but after 8.5 i felt like the stoped on cpu efficiency and made cubase a cpu hog

Cubase 8.5 and above is actually more CPU efficient than previous versions.

The performance is even better if you use Cubase 9.5's new 64 bit mixing engine, as reported by multiple users.

i dont know man it was just my experience what i shared
and and as far as the mix engine goes the more you add bits the more precise the data samples it can read
and the more precise it can control the signal level
but that is of no use because the audio can go up to 32 bit in this age(may be in future we will have 64 bit audio interface insted of 32bit/192Khz at top) so i think cubase is just boasting about that like crazy or future proofing it
and + the additional mathematical roundoff of audio signal will consume more cpu and the cpu has to handle more of the numbers so take care of dat cpu

and can cubase open 3000 midi/audio track on a laptop without crashing with 64 bit mixing engine 48Khz @1024 buffer (2.4GHZ quad core to be precise)???????

may be that why many companies are switching from cubase to reaper

[jancivil]

64-bit audio engine is internal, not being represented at the output stage/audio card is not relevant. The idea is that certain editing, for one increasing gain results in less rounding noise.
It's not about transduction, ie., recording or outputting to speakers.

I'm not seeing any interest from the OP in REAPER, btw. Your arguments are all over the place.