Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..

[JerGoertz]

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

It's funny you should mention CAL, since to my knowledge (unless it was changed in Sonar 5) Cakewalk still doesn't have a decent section in the manual about it and it's kind of like a vestigial tail that they just wish would fall off and go away. I'm also lead to believe that the CAL language itself is rather archaic as a script language by today's standards.

Cubase does have the logical MIDI editor, which is basically CAL in a point-and-click table entry format.

[HHaynes]

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

Uh, there's Cubase's Logical Editor and Input transformer, then there are VST MIDI Effects as well as Hitpoint detection from which you can derive MIDI groove quantize maps... all of which have been around for some time. What version of Cubase are you talking about? ...must be pre-SX.

[ResonantOrder]

So Cubase has a 'split notes to tracks' function? How about a function where I can take any individual note and turn it into a chord (maj, min, 7th, 9th, etc.)? I can take midi clips and 'acidize' them in Cubase? The entire song, including my midi will change key with one change of the song key tab?

I had asked about these functions on the Cubase forum about a year ago, and don't ever remember a decent reply. I only used SX2 for a short time till I went back to Sonar.

[ResonantOrder]

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

It's funny you should mention CAL, since to my knowledge (unless it was changed in Sonar 5) Cakewalk still doesn't have a decent section in the manual about it and it's kind of like a vestigial tail that they just wish would fall off and go away. I'm also lead to believe that the CAL language itself is rather archaic as a script language by today's standards.

Cubase does have the logical MIDI editor, which is basically CAL in a point-and-click table entry format.

It's true that CAL isn't everything it could be. The midi plugs received a good update with 5, so I hope that Cakewalk is still on track to update it like they said that they would. As far as it being archaic, it works for me, and that's all that matters.

[HHaynes]

So Cubase has a 'split notes to tracks' function?

It's called "Dissolve to parts" function, and can be done on a per-data basis or a per-note basis. I believe that you are speaking of the latter.

How about a function where I can take any individual note and turn it into a chord (maj, min, 7th, 9th, etc.)?

There's a MIDI effect called "Chorder" that will actually let you transform individual notes into full chords any of several different ways (dynamic or static chord transform). It comes in the box with Cubase SX. You can apply it as a post-performance MIDI effect, or you can use it as an insert on a MIDI track and transform the data in real-time and later commit it to the track with "Merge MIDI in Loop" function (which in this example would be more of a "Merge MIDI in Range function, but I won't pick nits).

I can take midi clips and 'acidize' them in Cubase? The entire song, including my midi will change key with one change of the song key tab?

Alt+Drag the MIDI clip across the region, and then select the area where you want to shift things around use the transpose function for either chromatic or key-based (including modal) transposition to shift it into the right range. You can set up a keycommand to create a nifty shortcut to make it even faster than the three mouse clicks it requires.

I had asked about these functions on the Cubase forum about a year ago, and don't ever remember a decent reply. I only used SX2 for a short time till I went back to Sonar.

Well - I'm glad you have an environment that you can be happy with - but don't say that Cubase "doesn't have" something simply because you couldn't find it. A simple search of Cubase's PDF documentation would have desribed most of these functions, and the rest you could have found by simply checking the list of MIDI insert effects in the program. There are articles all over the net about these functions - don't know how you missed them...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan05/a ... enotes.htm

http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center ... 02/02/2005

[womoma]

hey- firstly thanks for all the posts. Very informative and helpfull. I am still experimenting with Cubase and there are some features which I really like.
Im having some MIDI timing trouble, which hasnt been solved via the ignoreportfilter fix. Its quite frustrating to be honest, but Im still exploring Cubases features enthusiastically.

Id like to respond to some posters if I may.

I vote that "which host" threads join politics and religion in the "never-ending useless debate" area.

My initial post was "I was wondering has anyone moved from Sonar to Cubase and if they were glad.
Its something Im considering for various reasons."

Im sorry if you feel this thread turned into that sort of "fanboys compare hosts" thread, but I feel people have generally made interesting objective observations, and with Sonar 5 being so new and exciting, Im sure Im not the only person interested in a little comparison.

However, asking for someone else's opinion about which DAW platform to choose is a bit like asking someone else to go shopping for clothes for your new wardrobe without you being there. Most likely they'll come back with something that doesn't fit you and is not your style.
It's a personal decision - make your own.

(@HHaynes) Thanks for your post. I do intend to make my own decision, but am interested in peoples experiences which will help me make a more informed decision. Thankfully, people have been very helpfull.

Both hosts are playing catchup to each other in certain aspects

Yes this definatly seems to be the case. Sonar 5 borrows some nice features of CSX by the looks of things.

If you feel like your having trouble with Sonar, be sure to pick up the Sonar 4 power book to help establish a good workflow. That book rawks.

When I eventually make my mind up, and I almost have, I will most definatly be getting a book.

If you have an opportunity to learn first hand from someone it really makes a difference.

Its unfortunate that none of my friends are into recording, Id love to share tips in person, perhaps Ill network more here in Dublin via the net.
The closest thing I have in many respects is tutorial videos, which I like a lot. There are so many available for Cubase for free, less for Sonar.

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.

As something of an aspiring designer, Im very much aware of aesthetics, GUIs and navagation etc. I agree Cubase looks sweet, and for me, that carrys some importance.

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.

I agree it is a PITA in Cubase compared to Sonar.
I do hope that Sonar will get even more recognition/acclaim with Sonar 5.

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

A great feature which I would love to see in Sonar.

the difference in attitude between Cakewalk and Steinberg toward their customers.

I agree Cakewalks support is first class, and the forum is full of nice people too.

With WDM drivers, the latency is no less than 10ms.

Ive been using WDM drivers with Sonar too and have had no trouble.

Select one tool and you can't hear a piano roll preview.
I never liked Sonar's 2 tracks, one audio and one midi for each instrument. More useless clutter since no other sequencer I've seen needs two tracks for a single instrument.

AFIK, the piano roll editor, and its workflow, has been drastically improved in Sonar 5, aswell as the tracks view situation.

SONAR VST's DO NOT WORK PROPERLY AS VST's ARE DESIGNED FOR CUBASE.
Cubase simply works.

Pretty sweeping statement. Ive never had any VST probs in Sonar and Cubase simply isnt working properly here!

USE two monitors!!!!!
It will save your life, and you will never go back.

Ive used 2 monintors and gone back to just one. Im using a laptop. The 2 monitors thing caused occassional display problems on startup.
Theres something I prefer about using a single screen that I cant put my finger on.

I think that Cubase lets you intricately edit midi with a better workflow

If you mean better than Sonar 4 I would have to agree.

ONE THING that Sonar is VERY far behind in is Swing..

Yes. I would love to see it implemented better in Sonar tho I think Sonar 5 has some step sequencing feature which presumably has swing implementation.

Why cant cake and stein team up and make the perfect host?

Cunar? heh - I already have a Cunar, but thats a different thread, in a different forum!

Stairsteps- thanks for putting together a constructive informed post on the benefits of sonar 5.

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

Midi groove clips rock.

So Cubase has a 'split notes to tracks' function? How about a function where I can take any individual note and turn it into a chord (maj, min, 7th, 9th, etc.)?

Yeah Ive used these sort of CALs with Pads, brilliant.

Well thats all for now. If anyone has any ideas about how I might fix my "midi notes recording about 80 ms early" problem in CSX3, Id appreciate some advice there.
I followed this guide:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/steinberg- ... ulate.html
The ignoreportfilter fix had no effect. No devices show up in the Direct Music tab. Ill keep trying anyways.

One more thing, part of the reason I was considering the switch to Cubase is that it is, where I come from at least, its the most popular choice of sequencer, and Im guessing colaboration may be easier if running Cubase.
There is a huge amount of tutorials available for Cubase, especially in my many CM magazines, which currently, rarely mentions Sonar.

If I cant fix the my current midi recording timing problems in SX, I wont be using it. My friend is getting Sonar 5 in the next few days and I will make sure to have a good look at it.

Thanks again for your posts.

[ResonantOrder]

It's simple. I went to the forum and asked, and no one gave me an answer.

When I thought the program didn't have what I needed, I dumped it.

Hell, Cubase should hire you to answer questions on the forum.

[HHaynes]

Hell, Cubase should hire you to answer questions on the forum.

Thanks - I wrote a Cubase SX 2 review for audioMIDI.com and got into some of the more "in the corner" features that some folks don't tread across every day (editing polyphonic aftertouch in Cubase's key editor was a favorite of mine - a right smart implementation).

Plus I'm an old Turbosynth hack and like to play around with MIDI data quite a bit. So, when I saw what Cubase could do with the input Transformer and some of the plugs I got pretty excited. I usually put them in play one way or another - that is - if I don't have something else that overlaps it.

The Step Designer has been collecting dust since I got XPhraze, and the arpeggiator too - several synths that do that bit more readily. Still, there are times when they still come in handy - when I have a synth with the *perfect* sound that needs a little nudge in the right direction. However, all of that may be swept away as I get my grubby little claws into Plogue's Bidule. I usually just load it up as a ReWire instrument and cut loose. It's a pretty damned fine MIDI *and* audio mangler.

That reminds me - someone mentioned that the ReWire implementation in Cubase is better. That's to be expected, as Steinberg and Propellerheads are the ones that teamed up to design the ReWire spec - a lot of folks have forgotten that bit of history. It pays to be the progenitor of a "standard" protocol, as the implementation seems to be more solid across the board. With Steinberg being at the genesis of VST, ASIO, and ReWire, it's no wonder that so many DAW platforms seem to follow in their footsteps.

People also forget that Steinberg was doing MIDI sequencing back with Digitools was simply about replacing modules in a Linn Drum. Cubase Audio came out the same year the first Pro Tools system was released (1991) but of course Steinberg had a far superior MIDI implementation - which stands to this day. I wonder what year Cakewalk came out with a sequencer that also did audio?

While we're on the subject, I've noticed that there's quite a bit of balleyhooing bout Sonar's 64-bit audio engine, but it's a bit of a ruse, really. Since you're always limited by the internal precision of your "weakest link", and most plugins are 32-bit, then the full advantage of long-int processing will not be realized. It's cool that Cakewalk can lay claim to the first 64-bit host, but since a good 32-bit floating point implementation can give you all of the advantages with none of the wasted precision, I'm wondering what all of the cheering is about.

Nuendo [and Cubase] actually uses many more bits when working on the calculation within the main processor: where 80 or 96 bits (or 151 bits on a PowerPC!) of information represent the result of adding or multiplying a series of floating point numbers.
In Nuendo [and Cubase] audio files can exist in 32-bit point format. A 32-bit floating-point file has all the characteristics of a 32 number in memory. It maintains accuracy when representing very small numbers, but has a huge headroom over the nominal operating level.

When there are native 64-bit abstraction layers and native 64-bit audio paths through the entire signal chain - then and only then does it make sense to brag about it - but of course your implementation has to be solid not only on number-crunching levels, but musical levels as well. Getting there first is not always as important as getting it right when it matters most.

[womoma]

regarding the GUI.

I think if its properly customised Sonars interface can look very nice.

Sonar:
http://www.womoma.com/files/sonar-5-nice.jpg

Cubase:
http://www.womoma.com/files/csx3.jpg

[bonch]

Time for a Cubase fan to chime in.

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.

Oh, come now. Sonar 5 doesn't make your VSTi's and DXi's magically sound better. It's not like it's somehow going to edit the code of your plug-ins so that they're producing improved audio output now. Your plug-ins are still the same plug-ins outputting the exact same audio as before.

This reminds me of the old VST versus DXi arguments where people were arguing that VST versions of the same plug-in sounded better than the equivalent DXi, when both versions are outputting the exact same WAV output.

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.

Cubase SX has been using Nuendo's high-end audio engine since version 2, the same engine used in post-production facilities. I hate to tell you, but most of your DXis are in 32-bit.

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.

Dude, calm down. Sonar isn't THAT great. This is coming from someone who has used Cakewalk since Pro Audio 9.

Sonar was already awarded more awards than any other host last year

Uh, proof? Not that it even matters. Heck, Pro Tools won an Oscar!

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.

I wouldn't say Sonar 5 is leaps and bounds above 4. Most of the improvements aren't that dramatic. Certainly not as big as going from 3 to 4.

If you go to the Cakewalk forums and ask their CEO (who posts there now and then), he'll tell you Sonar is still using the same summing it's always used. Sonar 5 isn't magically going to make your plug-ins sound better. Until you A/B it and post the resulting waveform differences here, it's just emotions getting in the way...

When all is said and done, though, Sonar doesn't lay a finger on Nuendo, and what goes in Nuendo ends up in Cubase.

[WilliamK]

Time for a Cubase fan to chime in.

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.

Oh, come now. Sonar 5 doesn't make your VSTi's and DXi's magically sound better. It's not like it's somehow going to edit the code of your plug-ins so that they're producing improved audio output now. Your plug-ins are still the same plug-ins outputting the exact same audio as before.

I understand what you mean, BUT, is like testing two mixers. A Mackie and a Home-Made one.

What makes it sound better is the Sonar HQ Mixer, compared to the Cubase Mixer. I used Cubase for a long time, and I must say for sure, that Sonar mixer is much better. That's what makes the sound better.

Also, if a VST outputs a loud signal, a 32 bit mixer will have a lost of quality, that's pure digital talk. A 64 bit mixer will retain the quality.

Hope that makes sense.

Best Regards, WilliamK

[bonch]

How do I break this to you HHaynes, umm lets see let me put it in a graceful way, Sonar5 is out and its kicking the arse of not just Cubase mind you but every DAW including hardware on the planet

Uh...sure, let me know when all those studios in L.A. ditch their Macs for Cakewalk.

and it will take Cubase a whole new rewrite of thier engine to be able to compete Sonic wise

They already did that with Nuendo five years ago. Nuendo is the big competitor to Pro Tools in the pro world, and SX2 started using Nuendo's audio engine.

Oh sure you like the workflow of Cubase and im not gonna knock you for that, I have SX and I love what you can do with it as far as Vsts arew concerned, But now Sonar5 has implemented MPEX time streching, and per clip effects, also If I want to open up a Vsti while a song is playing I can do that with project 5 rewire which is how I construct my songs, I always use Project 5 (Cakewalk) to construct my arrangements and then I just use Sonar to track the Vocals & effects.

That's all cool, but it's not like you can't do any of that in some way in Cubase. People use things different ways.

Bottom line is Sonar 5 is a Fking breakthru product not a evloution but a revolution

I still don't see what's so incredibly dramatic in Sonar 5 coming from 4. There are some great new features, but hardly a "revolution." It's the same DAW competition that's been going on for years, as usual.

its got a host of things that it does now that no other DAW on the planet does, sure you'll catch up one day, but dont think that while you try to catch up Sonar wont be thinking of there next move by that time.

Fanboy alert!

For my AMD 64 Sonar 5 is the only option and the ONLY and FIRST 64bit native DAW on the Market.

It's great, but until the whole signal path is 64-bit, it matters little.

Like I said earlier Cubase can not compete anymore untill they go back to the drawing board, MOTU cant compete, Ableton,T2 all the rest while im sure have tons of merit Sonar5 just took first place in the quality & features department.

Meanwhile, Pro Tools and Nuendo continue to be the standard in professional studio work and post-production. Not that it makes them better, but just pointing out that this incredible revolution you're hyperventilating over isn't gonna happen. I heard the same thing when Sonar 4 came out (ooh, track folders!), and before that, Sonar 3. For the most part, users chose what they're going to use years ago when these products all first came out, and very few switch camps. If I were going to pick the most innovative DAWs, they would be Cubase and Pro Tools, since both were the first to do a lot of things.

A year and a half from now, we'll be hearing about Sonar 6, Cubase SX 4, Logic 9, and Pro Tools 8, and nothing will have really changed that much.

[bonch]

What makes it sound better is the Sonar HQ Mixer, compared to the Cubase Mixer. I used Cubase for a long time, and I must say for sure, that Sonar mixer is much better. That's what makes the sound better.

We went through all these digital summing arguments years ago, though, and it was found that the vast majority of the sequencers all produce the exact same waveform output. They all use the same honest digital summing.

Also, if a VST outputs a loud signal, a 32 bit mixer will have a lost of quality, that's pure digital talk. A 64 bit mixer will retain the quality.

Has anyone tested this in practice? Pro Tools has been using a 48-bit mixing bus for years and I've not heard much difference (http://www.digidesign.com/digizine/arch ... /pic-1.jpg).

[womoma]

Surely the fact that everyone [in europe at least] uses Cubase is an advantage of using it.

Im the only person I know here in Dublin who uses Sonar.

Im not saying its important to be part of the crowd, but having the same host as most other muzos surely has many advantages such as being able to collaborate with them.

Also, Im a Computer Music Magazine subscriber [im considering Future Music for 2006] and most of the tutorials in CM deal with Cubase. In fact, the last 2 major features in CM [sampling and Key commands] covered Reason, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools and Live... they never mentioned Sonar.

There are also hundreds of free tutorials [html, pdf and video] available for Cubase online.

So what Im saying is that perhaps the popularity of a sequencer is good reason to invest in it.

I do like Cubase and would probably convert to Cubase altogether if I could only get its midi timing in sync.

I know sometimes tempers flare and people get silly, but its still important to compare the best products available to us. I think its silly to give out about something one has never tried, Im going to persevere with Cubase and hopefully be able to make an informed decision soon.

[womoma]

INCREDIBLE!

I managed to get the midi timing to about -10 ms. fine for me. hardly noticeable, if at all.

How? Wierdly enough, by using ASIO4ALL driver instead of my native Behringer driver.

http://www.tippach.net/asio4all

Strange but great.

Now I can continue my Cubase SX investigation.

I always used WDM drivers in Sonar with my Behringer BCA 2000, and I think it basically uses WDM better. As far as I know ASIO4ALL uses the WDM driver but converts it along the way. I dont really care why it fixed my problem, Im just glad it did.

If anyone is having midi timing trouble in Cubase I would urge them to try out ASIO4ALL.

Finally I can continue my exploration of Cubase SX. Ill be looking at it for at least another week before hopefully soon coming to a conclusion as to what sequencer is for me, Sonar or Cubase.