Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..

[whyterabbyt]

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.

Amen!

[bduffy]

...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.

AMEN x 2!

[mojkarma]

Dear whyterabbyt,

I don't care who is using what and why. I have both products (actually I tested S5 on my friends computer). It was definitely not my intention to say that cubase is better even if my post sounded that why.
But I get allergic when I read posts like the one from GipsyJazz who is praising sonar over cubase without one single argument. At least, I'm trying to give some points (and I didn't mention all of them by far) pro and contra the one programm or the other.
As I said, Cubase is not perfect and especially the abilitiy to reorder the inserteffects is one big advantage of sonar over cubase.
I could completely subscribe your post because that is actually what I wanted to say.
The points I mentioned are just an example what is important for me and I guess a lot of other people, so a post like "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....... " is - sorry to say that - just stupid.

Also, I don't make music since the arrival of Sonar5. I guess the most already have a pitchcorrection vst. Sure, it is nice to have it, but when I evaluate a sequencer, I look for the features that only a sequencer can give me.
An example, if I want to split midinotes or to mute them, there is no option in sonar. I cannot buy a plug-in! It is just not there.
Put the whole thing in a context: we (or you and the sonar users) had to wait until sonar5 to be able to shorten/lengthen multiple notes in the pianoroll at once! This is a important feature for all people working extensively with midi. Cubase can do this since I don't remember how long. Sorry but I get upset when somebody is praising sonar as the big new deal and forgets that the competition (not only cubase) has this for a long time.
So, I just appreciate that they give me that for so a long time and I don't care if the people at Cakewalk are nice.
Guess what, the big new feature in Sonar6 will be that you can rename the inputs and outputs!

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.

Please, read my post again. I'm not talking about doing something in the same way but about missing features. Even if I would talk about the same, I stil appreciate not Steinberb, but every manufacturer who makes my live easier and my work quicker.
Just a last example: try to make a screenset in sonar and a shortcut for it. Count the mouseclicks. In cubase you need to press just one button (capture screen). Cubase gives you automatically a shortcut!

[Stupid American Pig]

But Sonar *really is* a WAY better product...

[JerGoertz]

But Sonar *really is* a WAY better product...

Indeed, it is 5/3 times as good as Cubase since Sonar is at v.5 and Cubase is stuck at v.3.

[bduffy]

But Sonar *really is* a WAY better product...

Indeed, it is 5/3 times as good as Cubase since Sonar is at v.5 and Cubase is stuck at v.3.

Of course: I'd say it's 20-40% better.

[stale bread]

some good info in this thread, and not too much blood

[whyterabbyt]

Dear whyterabbyt,

I think you should actually be addressing saturdaysaint, since he made the post I was agreeing with.

Put the whole thing in a context: we (or you and the sonar users) had to wait until sonar5 to be able to shorten/lengthen multiple notes in the pianoroll at once! This is a important feature for all people working extensively with midi.

Nope, its never been an important feature for me.

Cubase can do this since I don't remember how long. Sorry but I get upset when somebody is praising sonar as the big new deal and forgets that the competition (not only cubase) has this for a long time.
So, I just appreciate that they give me that for so a long time and I don't care if the people at Cakewalk are nice.

So?

wasnt saturdaysaint's point, which you claim you were agreeing with, that single individual features
aren't necessarily as important to other people?

Guess what, the big new feature in Sonar6 will be that you can rename the inputs and outputs!

Yeah, but only to people who childishly completely ignore all the other major features.

Please, read my post again. I'm not talking about doing something in the same way but about missing features.

'Missing features' to you; not everyone. That was the point.

Even if I would talk about the same, I stil appreciate not Steinberb, but every manufacturer who makes my live easier and my work quicker.

Cakewalk gave me fantastic style acid-style audio looping years ago. That makes my work quicker. Do I thus get to say that because of one implementation feature that Cubase has missed that it has 'missing features' ??

Just a last example: try to make a screenset in sonar and a shortcut for it. Count the mouseclicks. In cubase you need to press just one button (capture screen). Cubase gives you automatically a shortcut!

Why? I dont need or use screensets. They're not important or useful to me at all.

[Brandon Ryan]

Here are some observations that I made about sonar5. I invite especially those who think that sonar5 finally makes cubase looking old, to read:

One could easily make a list going the other direction pointing out holes in the competetive packages to SONAR, but professional courtesy prevents me from doing such a thing. Finding ten things that are missing/subpar, etc in any DAW is quite a simple task if you take the time to think about it.

[DeBro]

That screenshot you've shown of Sonar would turn anybody off.

you show me a nicer one then..

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.

Well, here are some of my observations about that screenshot: the tool bars containning buttons for new and open projects, save, cut, copy, paste, undo, and redo can be removed and keyboard shortcuts used for those functons. Why have the same readouts and transport controls in the toolbar section as they are in the large transport bar at the bottom of the screen. To me, track icons are better placed in the console view than in the track view. The track header strip already has a small midi icon letting you know its a midi track. Plus they take up space. One last thing, have lighter track name backgrounds. Just my opinion.

[Beardedone]

For the sake of argument :

http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/shoot ... ummary.htm

[JerGoertz]

Here are some observations that I made about sonar5. I invite especially those who think that sonar5 finally makes cubase looking old, to read:

One could easily make a list going the other direction pointing out holes in the competetive packages to SONAR, but professional courtesy prevents me from doing such a thing. Finding ten things that are missing/subpar, etc in any DAW is quite a simple task if you take the time to think about it.

Some missing/subpar things are more important than others (of course the importance of some things will be more/less depending on personal preference), and having lists like this is really important to those who are trying to make an informed decision. Brandon, I realize that professionalism would prevent you from posting your list of downsides to non-Sonar apps, but I DO think that making these lists isn't a time-wasting exercise by any means.

[Brandon Ryan]

Here are some observations that I made about sonar5. I invite especially those who think that sonar5 finally makes cubase looking old, to read:

One could easily make a list going the other direction pointing out holes in the competetive packages to SONAR, but professional courtesy prevents me from doing such a thing. Finding ten things that are missing/subpar, etc in any DAW is quite a simple task if you take the time to think about it.

Some missing/subpar things are more important than others (of course the importance of some things will be more/less depending on personal preference), and having lists like this is really important to those who are trying to make an informed decision. Brandon, I realize that professionalism would prevent you from posting your list of downsides to non-Sonar apps, but I DO think that making these lists isn't a time-wasting exercise by any means.

Fair enough in that I don't think it is necessarily time wasting. I guess I was just questioning what it proves I suppose. Your point is well taken and well articulated. Some missing and subpar things are definitely more important than others, I will certainly agree.

Which is why I use SONAR

(it's a joke folks)

[WilliamK]

For the sake of argument :
http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/shoot ... ummary.htm

Very good site, thanks bud.

Just one note, could someone ask the webmaster to change that terrible background image?!

Wk

[JerGoertz]

<snip>

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.

Glad that CAL works for you, but I'm sure its archaicism matters to others. Me for instance; I was a professional software engineer for over 6 years, and the CAL syntax is just bass-ackwards to modern languages like C/C++/Java/Perl/etc. It's not pretty and it seemed to lack a lot of the features you'd want in a scripting language, though I can't say for sure because I couldn't get past its awkwardness to find out. Not having a section in the manual about it didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, I ain't no Sonar hater, yo, I've been a Sonar user from 2-4 and I reserve the right to criticize what is overall a very nice product. A couple other questions for anyone who knows:

* Can Sonar 5 now route a DX/DXi/VST/VSTi MIDI out to the input for a MIDI track?
* How is the native VST support? (I.e., are there performance hits to the VST's, does it take forever to scan them like Cubase, etc.?)