Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..

[Beardedone]

Yes, I know, that's why I said it I noticed that you were in Quebec.

Beardedone wrote:
Quote:
It's okay to be biased and like Sonar. It's a nice product.

Et non, je ne suis pas Quebecois...mais j'aime les Quebecois


Beardedone wrote:
Salut LijEyasu! Thanks for the summary. Cubase workflow killed me. I experienced a major headache trying to use Cubase not least being stability and unintuitive functionality. Yes I am a long time Sonar user and am therefore biased. Native VST support really is not an issue in S4 and is now gone woth S5.

Btw Quote:
Je me souviens.

Vous etes Quebecois?



I asked because "Je me Souviens" is the slogan on the Quebec license plate/tag.

Damn I am slow!

[RapRogue]

- Cubase always seemed to have a more responsive interface and to just act "smoother & tighter" in operation. This is surprising to me given that Cubase is a Mac port and Sonar is Windows native.

Nope Atari, they did go Mac for a bit when Logic was Pc
as well.

[bduffy]

Theres one feature Cubases dont have yet and never will and thats the fact that the new Sonar5 actually makes all your Vstis and Dxis sound better.

Now go run home now and keep comparing it all boils down to SOUND , also no way cubase can compete with sonar5, esp with additions like V-Voice, Perfect Space, Sfz, rgc and thats just a few, how bout the new midi features and the new Alias factor, or the brand new 64bit mixing engine.

yeah dream on Cubase all I can say is If you owned Sonar5 and Cubase like I do you could see the VAST difference in QUALITY, I will admit Sonar4 and Cubase were on even ground but the new Sonar5 TOPS MOTU, which I have, Logic also have this CubaseSX dosent even compare, Samplitude, And abletonLive, only host I dont own is T2.
keep grasping for straws and do yourself a favor stop fooling yourself and dump whatever your using just Demo Sonar5 if they have one and youll soon be singing the praises.

Sonar was already awarded more awards than any other host last year and thats before the advent of Sonar5 which is leaps and bounds above Sonar 4 even. sorry for the biased opinion but I wasted money on alot of hjosts I will only tell you what works best for me compared to others Ive tried not HEARSAY.

Would you say that it sounds...20% better than Cubase?

Just to put a positive Cubase post in here:
I started off using Cakewalk Pro Audio 7 and stuck with it through the advent of Sonar (very exciting when that 1st came out!). I was adamant that Sonar was the best, and when we got Nuendo at work, I hated it and swore I'd never leave Sonar. But slowly, as I got used to the VST environment, I started to see what interesting features it had (VSTi's, offline processing,etc). I held out for a long time, until I sat in on a full Cubase mixing session with my brother, and after spending a week really getting to know it, I was blown away and hooked for life.

I especially find the VST Mixer much more fluid and satisfying than Sonar's (keep in mind Sonar didn't even have native EQ's in the mixer until recently) and Cubase's automation was much easier to use.

But the pros and cons change almost daily, and I have to agree with what ResonantOrder said; that you have to stick with something and learn it until it's your own. For me, Cubase is the right fit, but it took some patience to find that out. And, btw: it doesn't sound scientifically worse that Sonar.

[Rabid]

... I held out for a long time, until I sat in on a full Cubase mixing session with my brother, and after spending a week really getting to know it, I was blown away and hooked for life.

...

That is the key to any software. If you have an opportunity to learn first hand from someone it really makes a difference. I don't think one is really better than the other, it is a matter of what is comfortable for the user, and not all users are the same.

As for sound, I'm sure the new 64 bit engine makes Sonar sound better, but I'm also sure that Cubase will match this in the near future.

Robert

[Meffy]

bduffy: The correct, full formula is "20%-40% better." :-D

[HanafiH]

The Memphis chapter of the Cubase Appreciation Society gather this year at the Grand Ole Opry to perform their annual synchronized finger up the arse ceremony.

[bduffy]

Yep - that's me, third from the left.

[kevink]

The "native" vst support in Sonar 5 still sucks. They just integrated their crappy vst wrapper in de main program. It still doesn't scan vst's properly: you have to manually put settings for pdc, tempo based etc. and you get a long list of plugins. All your work in sorting your plugins in folders is lost that way.

That does suck a bit, but then again I, like most long-time Sonar users, have already invested in DirectiXer. ;o)

If Cakewalk gets this right the way Cubase has it (or energyXT) maybe I'll switch from Cubase SX to Sonar.
It's beyond me why a 800 dollar host doesn't implement vst support properly. EnergyXT does it for 50 bucks.

I have no idea whether this is really true, but now that I think about it, there actually is one likely reason why Cakewalk's VST and ASIO implementations aren't up to their usual relatively high standards of quality: To get the real ASIO and VST development kits from Steinberg, one has to sign a legally binding license agreement. As an arch-competitor, I could easily imagine Cakewalk refusing to put themselves in any obligation to Steinberg, so they might have had to work from second-hand information and reverse engineering.

[kevink]

ASIO and Sonar 4 at least,was very ackward, i think people who can get it to work shoud be given a medal.

I've had no problems per se, but it's true that in Sonar 2.2/3/4 Cakewalk had a fundamental bug in their ASIO implementation that introduced a single-buffer-latency-time delay between MIDI and audio playback. Several of us RME users managed to prove this, and it was semi-acknowledged by Cakewalk, but up to now it's never been fixed. RME, being a class operation, actually provides "Sonar ASIO" variant drivers that implement the spec as Cakewalk misunderstood it, for their Sonar customers, but it's almost as easy to work around the problem by introducing a compensating delay in one of the Sonar configuration menus.

Other than that, all of the horror stories that I've heard about Sonar and ASIO seem to have been traceable to badly written ASIO drivers. Of course, if you're stuck with a soundcard that has a wonky ASIO driver for which Cubase fails less dramatically, that could be an incentive to work in Cubase, but it's a second-order thing.

[GypsyJazz]

ASIO and Sonar 4 at least,was very ackward, i think people who can get it to work shoud be given a medal.

For me..ASIO Drivers in S4 just worked.
Low latency...no dropouts or glitches.

No problems.

What was your exact problem with S4 & ASIO?

[GypsyJazz]

For the rest I like the Cubase SX graphics better, it looks more professional. And I find it easier on the eyes. On the other hand you can tweak the GUI of Sonar more than Cubase.

heheh ......just goes to show it takes all kinds to
make a world.

I absolutely prefer the graphics in SONAR to Cubase.

Cubase just looks old to me.
And it's not intuitive.....
Just getting a VSTi loaded and assigned to a track is
a major PITA.

I've tried to switch to Cubase a number of times but I
just don't like it..SONAR seems superior in just about
every way.... now , with S5 I think they'll finally pull ahead of Yamaha/Steinberg...

My vote goes to SONAR.

[Rownin]

I have no idea whether this is really true, but now that I think about it, there actually is one likely reason why Cakewalk's VST and ASIO implementations aren't up to their usual relatively high standards of quality: To get the real ASIO and VST development kits from Steinberg, one has to sign a legally binding license agreement. As an arch-competitor, I could easily imagine Cakewalk refusing to put themselves in any obligation to Steinberg, so they might have had to work from second-hand information and reverse engineering.

Haven't thought about this, but it must be something like that.

[xylyx]

Roland owns a portion of Cakewalk, hence V-Vocal (based on variphrase technology) being included in Sonar 5. Its all a matter of perspective. I'm happy Cake is mostly owned by themselves, this ensures they can do what they want to do, and with their intelligent acquisition of some of the top software companies out there, I'm confident in their ability to grow as a company

Has this ever been proved? I have never seen any official indication that Roland bought into Cakewalk. It seems that since Edirol became the distributors for Cakewalk in certain areas, that people assume that they took part of the company in the process...was there any announcement that this was the case? I get the impression that it is more of a 'mutual benefit' type deal with the two company's...Roland supplies Cakewalk with some plugins for their sequencers; Roland get Cakewalk sequencers to bundle with their audio devices.

I could be wrong on this, but I would prefer to see an official document on the Roland owning [part of] Cakewalk thing rather than a commonly stated supposition.

[whyterabbyt]

The "native" vst support in Sonar 5 still sucks. They just integrated their crappy vst wrapper in de main program. It still doesn't scan vst's properly: you have to manually put settings for pdc, tempo based etc. and you get a long list of plugins. All your work in sorting your plugins in folders is lost that way.

It doesnt need to be, and Im not aware of another host that allows third-party software to completely manipulate the settings of plugins. Most other hosts Ive used seem to have fixed schemes for how they set up plugin menus and settings that cant be customised at all.
These days, funnily enough, I'm actually glad that Sonar does things via registry entries which can be changed, rather than have to move plugins about in folders, or compensate for a plugin which reports itself as a synth when you want it as an effect (like some vocoders do).
And now you can do that customisation without having to stop and restart Sonar; that's a useful improvement...

[AudioWhore]

I moved to Cubase SX from Sonar a few years ago because:

* Had less problems with VSTis loading in Cubase. Sometimes all the available outs a vsti offered was not allowed in Sonar (maybe not an issue now)

* MIDI triggering of VSTs (like midi gate effects) was not allowed in Sonar (maybe it is now)

* I hate it when Sonar stops playing because the cpu usage gets a bit high. Cubase just creates some audible clicking sounds.

* In Cubase you can open new VSTis and wavs while the sequencer is playing.

* I just generally prefer the workflow of SX. I hated the old Cubase but they improved it with SX. I like the automation and the Reason implementation. The Midi editing took a little while to get used to (I still reckon logic has the best) but it does everything I want. Im totally used to it now, and have made my best tunes in Cubase SX so I dont see any point in changing.

I just wish sx had customisable wallpaper images for the arrange window. Im sick of grey hehe..