Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..

[bonch]

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.

Such lists illustrate that the reason one might choose a different sequencer is due to personal workflow and expectation. But to people earlier in the thread claiming Sonar is stomping over the entire DAW world, I say, please. Not until Cakewalk goes after that damn Mac-based studio market.

I reiterate, if Cakewalk released a "Sonar X" for OS X on Mac, I'd be chomping at the bit to try it out. Logic is making me pull my hair out, and the alternatives are too damn expensive for what they offer in their various versions (and of course I've got the requisite Pro Tools set up). If Cakewalk started targeting the Mac-based studio market where everybody is paying $10,000 for Nuendo and Pro Tools systems when Sonar 5 PE does what they do at half the price, you'd have a true "Pro Tools killer" on your hands.

I contacted some Cakewalk customer support person about a Mac version, and they said they'd "pass the suggestion to the relevant parties." Man, here's hoping. It's a pipe dream, but I'm never givin' it up.

[womoma]

just wanted to reply to a couple of people if i may:

I reiterate, if Cakewalk released a "Sonar X" for OS X on Mac, I'd be chomping at the bit to try it out. Logic is making me pull my hair out

Yeah I agree that Sonar OSX could be very successfull.

Behringer BCA 2000 is a nice sound card with a decent sound but their ASIO drivers are close to a nigthmare.
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.

Ill try that and see if it helps. Thank you very much.

I can't imagine why anyone would buy a sequencer just to be like the majority.
***What he said!

I already explained my opinion about the benefits of using the most popular software, nothing to do with being "like the majority"

like a built in audio editor) that would be nice in Sonar,

I agree

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

Its nice to see people consider their options.
If youre going to be dealing with Sonar in college, I think you should invest in a copy. It doesnt mean you have to leave Cubase behind forever. Think of it as "another string to your bow" perhaps.

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

lol

One could easily make a list going the other direction pointing out holes in the competetive packages to SONAR

Most definatly.

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' ??

It is a feature I would love to see in Cubase. Seems strange they havent implemented it already.

To add some further observations as a Sonar user who is investigating Cubase, Ive noticed that there are many workflow features in Sonar that Cubase doesnt have, acid style looping being one of the more obvious.

Sonar 5 is an excellent product.

I get the impression that very often Sonar users are more objective in their views, and most of them have actually tried the competition.

Im glad Ive spent this time trying out Cubase, and would reccommend any Sonar to try it out if they havent already. Likewise Im sure there are plenty of Cubase users who would be pleasantly surprised by Sonars workflow and capabilities.

Sorry to sit on the fence, but they are both really good products, although they could learn a thing or 2 from each other, about customer support, and GUI design, respectively. [no prizes for guessing which ones which!]

[GypsyJazz]

* Can Sonar 5 now route a DX/DXi/VST/VSTi MIDI out to the input for a MIDI track?

Evidently not and it's major PITA!
I just posted to the SONAR forum about
a workaround I saw last week but lost track of.......

* 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.?)</snip>

I haven't tried S5 yet but there are many users complaining about the native VST
support on the SONAR forum.

Of course, as with all forums, the majority
of posts are about complaints & problems.

FWITW I have never had a problem with the
cake VST adaptor....except for the above mentioned lack of midi out capability....

[flugel45]

I just don't get the complaints about GUI design. For every person who loves one gui, another hates it, so it's a moot point. The developers have made both of these apps quite customizable, and if someone can't be arsed to learn how to make it fit their own tastes, whose fault is that?

[kevink]

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.

I don't want to get into my-CV-is-longer-than-yours games here, but I've been doing professional software engineering for over 25 years, and while my work has been C/C++/assembler/Java/Perl for the last decade or so, I have to dispute the assertion that CAL syntax is awkward. It's actually rather more regular and readable than Perl, in my view, though as a degenerate bastard descendent of Lisp, it's regular in a way that may be unfamiliar to people who learned programming in Windows/Linux PC universe.

That having been said, I was very disappointed when I rolled up my sleeves and tried to actually *use* Cal to do some of the looping and voice assignment algorithms I wanted to implement. It wasn't the language, it was the way the interpreter is integrated with the sequencer that made it impossible to do what I wanted. So I had to learn to write MFX plugins instead. I'd rather have put up with Cal syntax than Microsoft's DirectX environment any day!

[Alex Westner]

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.

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"?

Brandon's right. The entire signal path in SONAR 5 is 64-bit - even in and out of plug-ins. Most of the plug-ins in SONAR 5 support it, and we've posted a vendor-specific opcode that tells 3rd party plug-in developers how to instruct their VSTs to work with 64-bit double buffers. The DirectX standard already supports 64-bit double buffers.

Even without the plug-ins, if you're running a lot of tracks and buses, you'll absolutely hear the difference.

[WillieJenkins]

We got a great theoretical presentation of why 64-bit across the entire mix engine is superior at AES

I've got the whitepaper here in front of me, and the math doesn't LIE!

[maoinhibitor]

Yep, I can't believe a pro app like Sonar wouldn't work great at low latencies with decent hardware.

Dude, what are you talking about?

I'm running SONAR 5 at 1.5 ms of latency with my Delta 10/10. When I get to upwards of 30 tracks, I need to pull back the atency to about 10 ms.

Or is a Delta 1010 not decent hardware anymore?

And whoever said ASIO is hard to set up, I've been using ASIO since version 2.something. It's just a matter of selecting a different driver in audio options...wow that was tough.

[stag]

Well i select ASIO allrigth, getting it to monitor and record that´s another thing, yep Sonar is great for people who like it, got no problem with that, since money doesn´t grow on trees i´m kind of stuck with SX, willingly, i must add.

Bye.

[bonch]

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.

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"?

Brandon's right. The entire signal path in SONAR 5 is 64-bit - even in and out of plug-ins. Most of the plug-ins in SONAR 5 support it, and we've posted a vendor-specific opcode that tells 3rd party plug-in developers how to instruct their VSTs to work with 64-bit double buffers. The DirectX standard already supports 64-bit double buffers.

Even without the plug-ins, if you're running a lot of tracks and buses, you'll absolutely hear the difference.

I'll kiss your feet if you port this sucker to next year's Intel Macs.

[womoma]

I'll kiss your feet if you port this sucker to next year's Intel Macs.

Youre not the only one whos been talking about Sonar on OSX. I wonder what reason would they have for NOT doing it?

[bduffy]

I think they should stick with PC only. They know it better than anyone else, too many formats will slow down/mess up PC development (Kontakt, e.g) and hey - Logic is Mac-only, don't we get our own?

[bonch]

I'll kiss your feet if you port this sucker to next year's Intel Macs.

Youre not the only one whos been talking about Sonar on OSX. I wonder what reason would they have for NOT doing it?

Cakewalk's new release of the Dimension Pro plug-in is cross platform for Mac and PC, which is interesting (when was the last time Cakewalk released something for Mac?).

Maybe we'll start to see rumblings of Sonar for Mac when the Intel Macs come out next June. Many people are expecting those computers to be 64-bit across the line. Sucks having to wait and see.

[Beardedone]

Why! Oh why! They have Logic and DP - We have Sonar, eXT, Saw and good old Fruity. Please keep Sonar pure and free of the Jobian stain!

[saturdaysaint]

When we can dual-boot Windows and OSX, does compatability even matter? My own plan is to install Windows on an intel Mac (just for Sonar and a few work applications) and use OSX and Apple's beautiful programs the rest of the time. I'd rather pay $100 for another OS than have Cakewalk spend time on porting that they could be spending on the application.