i'm very interested in your comparison womoma, it sounds
like you're really going about it in a patient thought out manner, are you going to give sonar 5 a weeks run through after your cubase stent, if so then i'll seriously be looking foward to your conclusions. and thanks for starting the thread ditractors notwithstanding.
Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..
-
- KVRAF
- 1972 posts since 18 Apr, 2004
-
- KVRist
- 393 posts since 19 Apr, 2005
I can't imagine why anyone would buy a sequencer just to be like the majority.
WTF happened to originality?
Apart from the fact that SONAR is an infinitely better product than Cubase and Cakewalk are nice people
compared to the Borg who run Steinberg.......
I would venture to say that switching to cubase just as S5 comes out is a stupid move.
SONAR 5 is about to become the pre-eminent sequencer.
It is the 1st Native 64 bit DAW on the market.
Everything about it screams class.
Cubase is old and tired and very very clunky.
WTF happened to originality?
Apart from the fact that SONAR is an infinitely better product than Cubase and Cakewalk are nice people
compared to the Borg who run Steinberg.......
I would venture to say that switching to cubase just as S5 comes out is a stupid move.
SONAR 5 is about to become the pre-eminent sequencer.
It is the 1st Native 64 bit DAW on the market.
Everything about it screams class.
Cubase is old and tired and very very clunky.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 178 posts since 27 Dec, 2004 from Dublin, Ireland
Cheers Stale,i'm very interested in your comparison womoma, it sounds like you're really going about it in a patient thought out manner, are you going to give sonar 5 a weeks run through after your cubase stent, if so then i'll seriously be looking foward to your conclusions. and thanks for starting the thread ditractors notwithstanding.
I certainly wouldnt be qualified to give an accurate weigh-up of the pros and cons of CSX3 vs S5, rather simply what I like about said products.
Im looking at Sonar 5 at the same time and already love the new features, particulary in workflow. The lack of a more modern GUI is dissappointing, especially considering how easy it would have been to implement. It doesnt take a genius long to string a few nice buttons together in photoshop!
Some of the new bundled stuff in Sonar 5, people may already have too, such as a pitch correction plugin and a couple of subtractive analogue synths
Though Im only starting my investigation, already I cant imagine that many reasons why anyone would switch from CSX to S5.
Im becomming more and more convinced that Sonar 5 and Cubase SX3 are actually quite similar beasts in terms of capability.
Like I said before, Im looking into Cubase to see if I can get my head around it, and to see if the workflow suits me.
If I find that I can do most things which I would normally do in Sonar, at an acceptable workflow level, Ill most likely make the switch.
The reason is not because of the softwares capabilities but because of the many benefits of using the most popular sequencer.
An analagy one might use is a designer using Adobe Illustrator, which is the most popular Vector illustration software here in Europe, and probably the world.
There are many alternatives such as Macromedia Freehand, which is brilliant.
But 9 out of 10 aspiring designers choose to learn Illustrator instead of an alternative, because 99% of design studios use Illustrator, and all the magazines give tutorials in Illustrator etc etc.
Although Cubase doesnt have such a huge share of the market, it is extremely popular, especially here in Ireland.
Another issue is a possibe move to OSX down the line, where I would be glad not to have to start from scratch.
If Im honest, I love Sonar and have loved it since I started using it about 18 months ago, but I still consider myself a beginner and would like to evolve with a more popular and promising sequencer which has vast support from peer users, magazines and pros alike.
Ill let you know how I get on.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 178 posts since 27 Dec, 2004 from Dublin, Ireland
if you cant beat em - join em. -- ONLY KIDDING.. as I already stated, there are lots of benefits for a relative beginner to learn and use the most popular software.just to be like the majority
Cakewalk are nice people
agreed.
hehe Id rather my music be origional than my software.WTF happened to originality?
I havent made any switch yet!I would venture to say that switching to cubase just as S5 comes out is a stupid move.
SONAR 5 is about to become the pre-eminent sequencer.
It is the 1st Native 64 bit DAW on the market.
Anyway I thought Ableton Live was gonna be the future killer app?
Cubase is old and tired and very very clunky.
Dont you think thats a bit harsh?
I quite like it so far and Ive only been using it a few days.
I like the way much of its power is hidden under the bonnet, I mean- the options are there- they just arent shoved in your face.
Do you know how many buttons are shoved in your face in Sonar? about 80! Yes you can customise which buttons you view but only as part of already large groupings of square buttons.
Compare this to Cubase which has a less bloated GUI.
look at these screenshots- count the buttons in Sonar.
http://www.womoma.com/files/sonar-5-nice.jpg
http://www.womoma.com/files/csx3.jpg
I mean, Ive been a Sonar user and fan for 18 months, but only a few days with Cubase and I feel it might be more suitable for me.
Doesnt that say a lot?
-
- KVRist
- 101 posts since 21 Oct, 2004
That screenshot you've shown of Sonar would turn anybody off.womoma wrote:
Do you know how many buttons are shoved in your face in Sonar? about 80! Yes you can customise which buttons you view but only as part of already large groupings of square buttons.
Compare this to Cubase which has a less bloated GUI.
look at these screenshots- count the buttons in Sonar.
http://www.womoma.com/files/sonar-5-nice.jpg
http://www.womoma.com/files/csx3.jpg
I think you need to know how to configure Sonar's UI properly and learn about key bindings for certain functions instead of that mess-mash shown there. 
DB
-
- KVRist
- 140 posts since 14 Apr, 2005 from Los Angeles, CA
Which aspect of Sonar5's signal chain do you believe to not be 64-bit? Also, what do you mean by "musical levels as well"?HHaynes wrote: 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.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 178 posts since 27 Dec, 2004 from Dublin, Ireland
you show me a nicer one then..That screenshot you've shown of Sonar would turn anybody off.
I think you need to know how to configure Sonar's UI properly and learn about key bindings for certain functions instead of that mess-mash shown there.
I do know how to configure Sonars UI properly, and use some key bindings too. Ive been using it for 18 months. Remember also that I said I like Cakewalk and Sonar.
But Im stil able to be objective.
The fact that Sonars GUI needs updating has been well documented by Cakewalks loyal customers in the Sonar forum and elsewhere.
-
- KVRAF
- 2608 posts since 26 Aug, 2002 from here
all of the plug-ins that input and ouput at only 32 bit (except of course the ones you programmed) something to dow ith the vst spec i believeBrandon {Cakewalk} wrote:Which aspect of Sonar5's signal chain do you believe to not be 64-bit? Also, what do you mean by "musical levels as well"?HHaynes wrote: 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.
I believe every thread should devolve into character attacks and witch-burning. It really helps the discussion.
-
- Banned
- 1149 posts since 7 Mar, 2004
Behringer BCA 2000 is a nice sound card with a decent sound but their ASIO drivers are close to a nigthmare, a Tascam US-122 or Edirol USB interface doubles your performance and stability using SX, not to speak of a PCI solution.
if you force the use of USB 1.1 on the BCA 2000, by blocking the Digital I\0, and leving you alone with the Analog I\0 you gain a lot of prtformance, you can lower your Latencies and your system will became a lot more adecuate to use SX.
Bye.
if you force the use of USB 1.1 on the BCA 2000, by blocking the Digital I\0, and leving you alone with the Analog I\0 you gain a lot of prtformance, you can lower your Latencies and your system will became a lot more adecuate to use SX.
Bye.
-
- KVRist
- 161 posts since 31 May, 2004
Here are some observations that I made about sonar5. I invite especially those who think that sonar5 finally makes cubase looking old, to read:
1. Sonar still doesn't remove dxi/vsti audiotracks when you remove an instrument from the instrument rack. You have to do it manually!
Cubase: creates automatically a folder (and subfolders for each new instrument) and removes them if you remove the plug-in. No manually work for the user.
2. Sonar cannot rename midiports or audio inputs/outputs. You have to deal with some large names that doesn't fit in the console view.
Cubase: not only can you rename the audioinputs/outputs, you can also make presets with differently activated/deactivated inputs.
3. Sonar doesn't have zoom presets. In the trackview you are forced to press ctrl+ arrowkeys like a mad person.
Cubase: allows you to make different zoom presets (not to mention logic or protools: everything but sonar)
4. Sonar can only show you one time at once in the timeruler.
Cubase: allows you to open different rulers with bars, beats, seconds, frames, samples...whatever you want, at once (just like protools and logic).
5. Sonar doesn't have presets for all the different icons and features in the track.
Cubase: allows you to show/hide different icons, to change their order and to save them as presets and easily recall them. You can also show/hide and change the order of the buttons in the track view and save/recall them as presets.
6. Sonar has finally (thanks God!) improved the midi editing. But you still cannot split midinotes or mute them.
Cubase: I don't even remember for how long this is implemented in Cubase (not to mention Logic).
7. Sonar still has only one controller lane in the pianoroll view.
Cubase: has it of course. Even Samplitude (a former audioonly aplication) has it. Even more, you can open different controller lane at once and save them as presets for immediately recall.
8. Sonar has vertical gridlines only at the beginnign of the bar in the trackview.
Cubase: the more you zoom in, the more gridlines appear (the same in logic and similar in protools).
9. Sonar has automation on a track. If you want to automate more than 2-3 things you have a mess on the clip. You can hide the automationlines.
Cubase: has visual controls on the track. You know if there is automation or not. You can also turn individual automation on/off. In Sonar you can do that only globaly for the whole song.
10. Sonar doesn't have an audiopool to manage audiofiles. You can not even rename them.
Cubase: has an audiopool and you can of course rename audiofiles and do a lot more.
Some other examples that IMHO shows how bad or unfinished cakewalk implements new features:
In the pianoroll view when you move notes a help ballon appears telling you the position or pitch to which you move the note. That's nice, but why didn't they put the same thing into the trackview? In Cubase, a small window appears also in the trackview and you can see where or how far from the origin you move a clip.
Cakewalk has improved the keybindigs, allowing new shortcuts, but...there is almost none window or function to which you can assign a single shortcut.
An example: if you want to make a shortcut for "show automation envelopes" in the trackview you have to use one key. But, for "hiding the automation envelopes" you have to use another!! Why not just use one key to show/hide.
If you have the trackview on one screen and the pianoroll on the other, Sonar doesn't update the pianoroll view if you click on a different midiclip in the trackview!
There are a lot, lot more things, but I simply don't have the time to name them all.
Cubase is not perfect, but still, IMHO, Sonar5 is everything else but the new best sequencer arround. The more you work with it, the more you see difficult it can be to work with it.
1. Sonar still doesn't remove dxi/vsti audiotracks when you remove an instrument from the instrument rack. You have to do it manually!
Cubase: creates automatically a folder (and subfolders for each new instrument) and removes them if you remove the plug-in. No manually work for the user.
2. Sonar cannot rename midiports or audio inputs/outputs. You have to deal with some large names that doesn't fit in the console view.
Cubase: not only can you rename the audioinputs/outputs, you can also make presets with differently activated/deactivated inputs.
3. Sonar doesn't have zoom presets. In the trackview you are forced to press ctrl+ arrowkeys like a mad person.
Cubase: allows you to make different zoom presets (not to mention logic or protools: everything but sonar)
4. Sonar can only show you one time at once in the timeruler.
Cubase: allows you to open different rulers with bars, beats, seconds, frames, samples...whatever you want, at once (just like protools and logic).
5. Sonar doesn't have presets for all the different icons and features in the track.
Cubase: allows you to show/hide different icons, to change their order and to save them as presets and easily recall them. You can also show/hide and change the order of the buttons in the track view and save/recall them as presets.
6. Sonar has finally (thanks God!) improved the midi editing. But you still cannot split midinotes or mute them.
Cubase: I don't even remember for how long this is implemented in Cubase (not to mention Logic).
7. Sonar still has only one controller lane in the pianoroll view.
Cubase: has it of course. Even Samplitude (a former audioonly aplication) has it. Even more, you can open different controller lane at once and save them as presets for immediately recall.
8. Sonar has vertical gridlines only at the beginnign of the bar in the trackview.
Cubase: the more you zoom in, the more gridlines appear (the same in logic and similar in protools).
9. Sonar has automation on a track. If you want to automate more than 2-3 things you have a mess on the clip. You can hide the automationlines.
Cubase: has visual controls on the track. You know if there is automation or not. You can also turn individual automation on/off. In Sonar you can do that only globaly for the whole song.
10. Sonar doesn't have an audiopool to manage audiofiles. You can not even rename them.
Cubase: has an audiopool and you can of course rename audiofiles and do a lot more.
Some other examples that IMHO shows how bad or unfinished cakewalk implements new features:
In the pianoroll view when you move notes a help ballon appears telling you the position or pitch to which you move the note. That's nice, but why didn't they put the same thing into the trackview? In Cubase, a small window appears also in the trackview and you can see where or how far from the origin you move a clip.
Cakewalk has improved the keybindigs, allowing new shortcuts, but...there is almost none window or function to which you can assign a single shortcut.
An example: if you want to make a shortcut for "show automation envelopes" in the trackview you have to use one key. But, for "hiding the automation envelopes" you have to use another!! Why not just use one key to show/hide.
If you have the trackview on one screen and the pianoroll on the other, Sonar doesn't update the pianoroll view if you click on a different midiclip in the trackview!
There are a lot, lot more things, but I simply don't have the time to name them all.
Cubase is not perfect, but still, IMHO, Sonar5 is everything else but the new best sequencer arround. The more you work with it, the more you see difficult it can be to work with it.
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Nothing's perfect! Like it was said earlier: It really comes down to getting to know a sequencer inside + out. Then once you do, every other sequencer seems foreign and weird - but it doesn't make other hosts any less valid for their loyal users. If you can make the music you want to make, then it's a good host.
And they'll all be 64-bit soon enough. Hats off to Cakewalk for being the first, but I'll still prefer my 64-bit host to Sonar, when it comes out.
And they'll all be 64-bit soon enough. Hats off to Cakewalk for being the first, but I'll still prefer my 64-bit host to Sonar, when it comes out.
-
- KVRAF
- 4878 posts since 13 Jun, 2002 from Montreal
What he said!I can't imagine why anyone would buy a sequencer just to be like the majority.
WTF happened to originality?
Apart from the fact that SONAR is an infinitely better product than Cubase and Cakewalk are nice people
compared to the Borg who run Steinberg.......
I would venture to say that switching to cubase just as S5 comes out is a stupid move.
SONAR 5 is about to become the pre-eminent sequencer.
It is the 1st Native 64 bit DAW on the market.
Everything about it screams class.
Cubase is old and tired and very very clunky.
-
- KVRist
- 224 posts since 23 Jun, 2005
Mojkarma, I never thought Cubase looked old, but IMO it's comical to list Cubase's extremely specific implementation of minute features and expect other hosts to do them the same way. Sonar has about 5 different ways to zoom for example; "zoom levels" might be nice, but they aren't even a remotely envied feature. Likewise, there are positives and negatives to Cubase's "Audiopool" and Sonar's file management that pretty much even out in the eyes of many people who use both (not that you hear anyone using either method complain too loudly). Also, for all the features Sonar has over Cubase (per-clip effects, tightly integrated pitch correction, 64-bit, reorderable inserts, etc.), I think it would be an exercise in futility to add them up and make a case that Sonar is better - there will always be personal preferences when it comes to hosts
Sure, there are a few you listed (and some I know of that you didn't list, like a built in audio editor) that would be nice in Sonar, but I probably wouldn't trade most of them for the ability to, say, reorder inserts. Rather than make lists and futile comparisons, I think it's enough to say that if you can't make music with either Sonar or Cubase, you're probably not cut out for computer music production - they're both that complete.
Sure, there are a few you listed (and some I know of that you didn't list, like a built in audio editor) that would be nice in Sonar, but I probably wouldn't trade most of them for the ability to, say, reorder inserts. Rather than make lists and futile comparisons, I think it's enough to say that if you can't make music with either Sonar or Cubase, you're probably not cut out for computer music production - they're both that complete.
-
- KVRian
- 711 posts since 8 Sep, 2005
I've got a similar dilemma, except- should I move from Cubase to Sonar?
FYI: I'll be going back to school next semester at Berklee COllege of Music. They use Sonar and ProTools; I use Cubase and UAD-1 cards. Yikes! I currently own Cubase SX3, SL3, LE, and V-STack.
Personally, I don't have any loyalty to Steinberg at all. In fact, I'd prefer to deal with another company. However, I got started years ago with one of those free Cubase disks that came with my MIDI controller and have been using it since.
I might have to pick up a copy of Sonar just for class, although I'll be studying theory and probably won't be going through the innards of the recording process like the music production students do.
Pertaining to music production and sequencers, I'm much more interested in principles and would like to be able to transpose one set of instructions on a particular sequencer to another (i.e. Cubase->Sonar; Sonar->Cubase; Cubase->Ableton). Surely, these manufacturers aren't deviating from the basic approach to recording that much- are they? The only product out there that appears to be quite different in at least one major respect, is Fruity Loops (i.e. the grid). It reminds me of a drum machine that incorporates everything else. (No disrespect. I have Fuity Loops and rather like it.)
I'm sure the student discount for Sonar should entice me to pick up a copy. Gee, I'll have as many sequencers as I have VSTi's!
FYI: I'll be going back to school next semester at Berklee COllege of Music. They use Sonar and ProTools; I use Cubase and UAD-1 cards. Yikes! I currently own Cubase SX3, SL3, LE, and V-STack.
Personally, I don't have any loyalty to Steinberg at all. In fact, I'd prefer to deal with another company. However, I got started years ago with one of those free Cubase disks that came with my MIDI controller and have been using it since.
I might have to pick up a copy of Sonar just for class, although I'll be studying theory and probably won't be going through the innards of the recording process like the music production students do.
Pertaining to music production and sequencers, I'm much more interested in principles and would like to be able to transpose one set of instructions on a particular sequencer to another (i.e. Cubase->Sonar; Sonar->Cubase; Cubase->Ableton). Surely, these manufacturers aren't deviating from the basic approach to recording that much- are they? The only product out there that appears to be quite different in at least one major respect, is Fruity Loops (i.e. the grid). It reminds me of a drum machine that incorporates everything else. (No disrespect. I have Fuity Loops and rather like it.)
I'm sure the student discount for Sonar should entice me to pick up a copy. Gee, I'll have as many sequencers as I have VSTi's!