sonar5pe or cubase sx3 which and why?

[fhinspectit]

debating which to get. I mainly use fls and reason as of now. I recently got ableton5 and now I need to know users opinions of sonar5pe and cubase sx3? which offers more useful tools,ease of use. and which is better to use inconjunction which the above, mainly fls,reason

[grymmjack]

cubase is harder but steinberg official vst, and great rewire support rocks. sonar is easier, but requires a vst wrapper. i'd say cubase is more refined yet evasive power, while sonar is a simple hotrod that does a good job at hiding complexity. sonar comes with crappier synths imo, cubase sx3 synths are great (EDIT: this was unfair, really the synths are ok - i was typing this from bed in the early morning and trying to stay concise -- the synhts are not crappy, just not united by one design standard). the steinberg audio plugs are also excellent, but same or similar is offered in sonar. both have great midi plugs as well. sonars are easier to use.

coming from reason and flstudio you may appreciate cubase design (EDIT: and I don't mean just the look, I mean design by layout, function, utility as well) more, as it is more unique and refined and brave enough to venture from standard windows crap like the others you enjoy, but sonar is easier to get up to speed in because it follows the rules.

unfortunately they both have strengths and weaknesses and IMO one is not better than the other. it depends on your ultimate priority. for me i prefer cubase because i hate the vstwrapper. i hate the goofy way sonar looks/acts/feels, and lastly i hate the way my system performs with it..with cubase the asio just runs better for me -- lower latency and no stability issues. i prefer cubase synths/effects over the 3rd party mess given in cakewalk (however the cakewalk.fx plugs and their conforming ui's are exceptions) -- imo bundling 3rd party crap is bad and good, steinberg does their bundling better even with 3rd parties (everything feels and looks and acts consistently, so it's easier to use).

those are my opinions, as you asked for.

(EDIT; edited for the sake of keeping it real).

[bduffy]

...i hate the goofy way sonar looks/acts/feels...

Now, now: be nice, or else this will go to flameland. Well, it will go to Flameland, it's just a matter of how quickly.

fhinspectit, there really are a million of these identical threads on kvr; I'd recommend doing a search. As a user of both, I'd really have to say that you need to go with whatever "feels right' for you. Problem is, you can't demo Cubase. Dumb move for Steinberg.

Personally, I would guess that someone coming from the more immediate world of Reason/FL/Live might find Cubase a little rigid. Personally, I use Cubase, it just feels more like a big mixing desk to me, I find the automation easier to work with, the engine skips less during operations, and I've experienced a lot of the same things as grymjack. But so many users are pleased with Sonar, and a lot of the things I switched for have been changed recently. Maybe try the demo?

[SampleStream]

I like sonar, it does everything I need, I think cubase is too complex for me in what I do – I like things to work, and be intuitive, with very short learning curves – I don’t like having to spend a month learning how to do something that is just one click in one app but a nightmare in another – I think it’s a case of – try ‘em and see if your brain fits them

Also Cakewalk don’t buy in crap products (for either project 5) or to use with Sonar - but infact have very respected quality components, particularly in the latest release - Sonar 5 PE has the convolution reverb with many presets at a click of a button to chose from, the pitch shifter, updated effects from the ultrafunk range etc. Routing is very powerful, but simple to use.

[kingpisser]

sonar comes with crappier synths imo, cubase sx3 synths are great.

Say what ?

Sonar PE now has a load of goodies like Pentagon, Roland Groove Synth, REX player, Edirol GM module that sound pretty tasty. Are they really all that bad ?

[grymmjack]

sonar comes with crappier synths imo, cubase sx3 synths are great.

Say what ?

Sonar PE now has a load of goodies like Pentagon, Roland Groove Synth, REX player, Edirol GM module that sound pretty tasty. Are they really all that bad ?

on their own, no. pentagon is excellent, i haven't tried the others you listed so cant say. the packaging is inferior though (each 3rd party plug is as-is, and not branded or consistent with the core app. this is an aspect of sonar that suffers when compared to cubase. cakewalk gives you a bunch of stuff which is good but they basically throw you to the wolves; each 3rd party plug is not customized to make it easier/consistent and thus more professional as a result. the consistency is very important imo. hence my comment. granted in a 3rd party situation it would not be feasible to do them all, but again, steinberg /does/ take that extra time even with 3rd parties; several of them are given credits as well right in the instrument/effect as proof. cubase was not always this way though, so kudos to steinberg for the attention to detail and for a great in-house/branded bundle of synths/effects.

[headquest]

on their own, no. pentagon is excellent, i haven't tried the others you listed so cant say.

Ahem, but you DID say...:

sonar comes with crappier synths imo, cubase sx3 synths are great.

...even though it turns out you've not even tried them

...and I certainly think that your clearly uninformed opinion is quite wrong.

I own Sonar 5PE and four of the synths in particular (TTS-1, Psyn II, Pentagon and ROland Groove Synth) are outstandaing, while two of the others (RPS and and Cyclone) are hardly duds.

I have also used Cubase SX and didn't rate the synths nearly so highly.

While on the subject of the plugins, the effects in Sonar (including the awesome Roland V-Vocal pitch correction, the Perfect Space convolution and the Sonitus fx Suite - all of which very much HAVE been rebranded to match Cakewalk, contrary to your misinformation) leave Cubase well behind. The Cubase effects are pretty poor for a product in that price range.

...the packaging is inferior though (each 3rd party plug is as-is, and not branded or consistent with the core app. this is an aspect of sonar that suffers when compared to cubase.

Oh I see... so you just think the Sonar synths aren't so pretty?

[kevink]

Probably the best argument for Sonar over Cubase is in the attitude of the respective companies toward their customers. Spend a little time browsing the two user forums and you'll pick up on this pretty quickly. And maybe the best argument for Cubase over Sonar is the VST support. Sonar 5 does integrate VST support, but it's not great. Most of us serious Sonar users shell out the extra $40 for the DirectiXer converter to use on those occasional plugs where the official Cakewalk/FXpansion wrapper fails.

[JerGoertz]

I personally prefer Cubase SX 3 to Sonar 4PE (I don't have Sonar 5), having owned Cubase since SX 1 and Sonar since 2. To me, Cubase just seems more solid & responsive and the interface is more "polished", but again, this is a matter of taste.

That said, I do agree with people who've said it's quicker to get going in Sonar. And I do like the Sonitus FX that's bundled with it (maybe only in PE?), though I'm not claiming to have a good basis for comparison with all that's available.

[grymmjack]

on their own, no. pentagon is excellent, i haven't tried the others you listed so cant say.

Ahem, but you DID say...:

sonar comes with crappier synths imo, cubase sx3 synths are great.

...even though it turns out you've not even tried them

...and I certainly think that your clearly uninformed opinion is quite wrong.

Honestly I posted to help him by sharing my opinion as he requested, not to start an advocacy war, and really, I dont care what /you/ think. He asked for opinion, so I gave it. This isn't a vs. battle, simply stated my opinion. However, I've seen the movies/screenshots, that's all the evidence I need in this category.

I own Sonar 5PE and four of the synths in particular (TTS-1, Psyn II, Pentagon and ROland Groove Synth) are outstandaing, while two of the others (RPS and and Cyclone) are hardly duds.

Ok, great that's wonderful. I'm glad that you enjoy them. However, getting back to the point in this part of my /opinion/ groove synth isn't rebranded to match sonar or any other cakewalkian synth -- the psyn and dimension are atleast similar and look to be designed by the same designer who is excellent (no taking that away wouldn't even try!). but those synths are unfortunately the exception. In cubase. everything has a consistent feel which (read this part twice) makes it more professional /IMO/. That said, some of the cakewalk instruments that I have tried, sound phenomenal, have spectacular interfaces, etc. The point I make is regarding consistency and professionalism with attention paid to detail in the overall impression of cubase. Sonar lacks this consistency and by proxy lacks the professional impression in this category period.

I have also used Cubase SX and didn't rate the synths nearly so highly.

Great

He asked for /my/ opinion, and I gave it. The cubase synths are much better in /my/ opinion.

While on the subject of the plugins, the effects in Sonar (including the awesome Roland V-Vocal pitch correction, the Perfect Space convolution and the Sonitus fx Suite - all of which very much HAVE been rebranded to match Cakewalk, contrary to your misinformation) leave Cubase well behind. The Cubase effects are pretty poor for a product in that price range.

Has it occured to you that my preferences are different than your own? I prefer cubase period. I prefer the way it acts, sounds, looks, and feels over sonar, period. I have seen the v-vocal, from watching the CM music demo movie in a recent issue, it's nothing like sonar interface. The embedded support with v-vocal and sonar is a step in the right direction but they are still miles different (and this is the point). V-vocal is a great application/plugin in it's own right and watching the movie I was amazed at how incredibly great the program was. I have seen the sonitus fx suite r3 screenshots, they are still drastically different than the sonar UI (again the point), unless r3 isn't the latest? More to that point, what /is/ the sonar UI? It's windows proprietary native controls with slight modifications and hand-me-down graphics sitting on top of them, basically? Obviously this is the cross that the cakewalk line has to carry, and to many people i'm sure it's no big deal (I just happen to be one that it is a big deal) - perhaps this is the reason sonar is PC only eh?

However, The cakewalk rebrands that /do/ happen are /IMO/ as visually pleasing /IMO/ as the latest steinberg stuff /IMO/. The problem is that they aren't homogeneous throughout the entire product and it's many synths and effects. A homogeneous consistent frontend interface is very important to productivity and coherence in a complex environment such as that provided by a sequencer/host, so much so that after being a loyal cakewalk customer for years (from v4 in DOS world sequencing to sonar) steinberg won me over to their side with cubase sx. Someone coming from reason and flstudio as the original poster, surely has a keen eye and similar love for good design

The design of sonar is inferior to cubase /IMO/ I don't care what /you/ think about it, but again this is not about us, it's for the original poster. I am replying to you to stress the part about it being an /opinion/.

...the packaging is inferior though (each 3rd party plug is as-is, and not branded or consistent with the core app. this is an aspect of sonar that suffers when compared to cubase.

Oh I see... so you just think the Sonar synths aren't so pretty?

If that is how you want to interpret it in your world, sure. But if you read my comments again without attaching any existing dogma or loyalty to sonar/cakewalk, I said much more than that. I admit that I have not used the latest and greatest versions besides watching them from a distance at stores or reading up on them (always hopeful for cakewalk), so I am not coming from a one-sided perception. I own both, and perfer cubase. I place emphasis on different things because I am a different person, and I am fascinated and perplexed by design. Good design makes me more productive, and bad design makes me less productive. So from a professional standpoint which in my own opinion is based on the unified whole as presented by the sum of it's parts, the two hosts cannot be compared because cakewalk design is not on the same level as cubase design.

Steinberg presents a unified brand, while cakewalk presents a mix and match of whatever is already there, sometimes they fix it and they do a great job when they do take the time, sometimes they dont. Regardless, they have never done it as well as steinberg /currently/ does. SX3 owns sonar on the design front period. This is not an invitation to compare or debate this is my /opinion/. But more than the pretty face which is just the top layer, (and I knew someone would try to invalidate my entire point (because they don't get it or disagree) with this part), it's about form following function. I am not going to sit here and enumerate the benefits of good design as I perceive it, not everyone cares about it and that's perfectly fine. Far be it from me to force my opinion upon anyone else, in this case it was requested that I give it.

That said, in the steinberg synths/effects (whom have also partnered with 3rd parties in several instances just like cakewalk) everything is presented in a consistent, intuitive and logical manner that once you master one interface you dont have to worry about mastering the others. The controls are layed out in a logical manner, everything looks similar but different enough as a whole to distinguish it from others without looking like rainbowbrite vomited upon your display. I prefer understatement and elegance, you may not and that's fine too. It's an adherence to a design standard that is the point, of which cakewalk has none that encapsulates the entire presentation of their offering, whereas cubase /does/.

I /dont/ care whether /you/ can appreciate this attention to detail or not, my opinion is just that /opinion/ which is exactly what I gave. Feel free to ignore it I would like to say though that I am open-minded and not a snob (as some may be thinking after reading this) in this regard. I can see beyond the design flaws in sonar to use it for something specific, but I will not however make it the main tool because the world is so diverse that I don't have to Just like because I hate mushrooms, I tell the cook not to smother my steak with fungus. Same concept.

And now that I have found Tracktion, I may again move. Why? Because tracktion is balls to the wall kick-ass design and I am uber productive in the short time I have used it. It's a testament to how it /should/ be done, and perhaps because I dabble in programming and understand things underneath, I have huge appreciation for the way T2 design transcends from the depths to it's surface, and through and through is almost incessantly epiphanous in it's obvious mastership of tentacle like under-the-hood complexities. T2 astounds me, and puts them all to shame in the category of form following function, hands down, forever and ever, amen, see you later alligator, after while crocodile. I want to point out that the T2 UI is consistent, and unified. It isn't complex, and Ableton's Live is the same -- both products beat the living shit out of anything else design/form-following-function wise, to date. Less /is/ more, and when the /less/ is homogeneous and simple consistency, what do you know, we are all suddenly happy and productive again! Amazing.

T2 is the evolving embodiment of lessons-learned and zen-enlightenment personified in an audio sequencer/host.

This is the kind of design-centric epiphany I refer to which cakewalk lacks and steinberg is lagging behind when compared to the afforementioned. However to their credit and defense cakewalk and steinberg both have legacies that burden them.

I would mention another over-all design, an underdog, which excels and beats the shit out of cubase and cakewalk both: FLstudio, but as the ad says "some people just dont get it" -- I am not implying that those who do not like it are wrong, nor is this a negative comment towards the person who dislikes flstudio but it is true. You love it or hate it. I am not asking you to love it or telling you that because I love it you are wrong, simply offering my perception. Just as I am not _telling_ /you/, headquest, or /you/ requester of opinion, what to do, simply giving my own impression as requested Please consider this as you react to what I have said, with your own diverse and equally subjective opinions.

[Meffy]

The OP already has FLS.

Has anyone from Steinberg ever appeared in a discussion on KVR to offer advice, set the record straight, describe upcoming advances, etc.? Ron Kuper himself visits KVR not too infrequently, providing us with a direct line to the heart of Cakewalk.

To me that single fact outweighs any number of observations that the packaged plug-ins don't all look the same (which doesn't bother me too much, as I have other plug-ins that don't look the same as the ones in the box either).

In the end it makes no difference what you or I think. The OP will have to decide. It's too personal a decision to leave to anyone else.

[grymmjack]

BTW, I love the quote in your sig. Is that from the Tao Te Ching? Great book, I should re-read it soon.

[grymmjack]

The OP already has FLS.

I know he owns FL, and that's why I made it such a point to stress the design. FL and Reason are both much better designs than sonar /IMO/.

Has anyone from Steinberg ever appeared in a discussion on KVR to offer advice, set the record straight, describe upcoming advances, etc.? Ron Kuper himself visits KVR not too infrequently, providing us with a direct line to the heart of Cakewalk.

Definitely is very noble for an exec to mingle with the unwashed masses here for Cakewalk!

To me that single fact outweighs any number of observations that the packaged plug-ins don't all look the same (which doesn't bother me too much, as I have other plug-ins that don't look the same as the ones in the box either).

I honestly haven't needed support from steinberg except the one time I had to phone them to upgrade from VST/32 5.x to SX.

Again, I feel it was fair to mention the sonar requirement of the bloated incomplete implementation that is the VST wrapper, and the lackluster performance I have had with their ASIO implementation. I was also fair in saying that cubase is more difficult to use initially, yes?

Please read my long-whinded reply to headquest for clarification on the point of design.

In the end it makes no difference what you or I think. The OP will have to decide. It's too personal a decision to leave to anyone else.

Exactly. However he /asked/ for opinions, so if we oblige him, and it influences him that is his fault, not ours for offering it.

[Meffy]

re Ron Kuper: As I suspect you understand, I couldn't care less about "noble" (mighty dismissive, that). For Ron to show up here is useful to users and it shows yet again that the Cakewalk guys pay very close attention to their users and are connected. The impression I get from Steinberg, reinforced by many of their users, is the diametric opposite.

You assume I didn't read your long post. Nope. I simply disagree with your assessment of what is "bad design" and "good design," cannot for the life of me imagine what use a "unified brand" is to a musician -- nor to anyone except a marketing department -- and got tired of the pointless denigration. (When you resorted to cartoon characters getting sick, you left the bounds of what I consider reasoned discussion.)

Please don't bother with the point-by-point reply. I've read what you have to say and that will have to do.

To the OP: Make your own decision based on what you hear and what you like. Ignore loaded words. (You'll find a lot of unwarranted assumptions hidden behind those derogatory throw-aways.) Ignore advertising hype. Ignore the personal preferences of people who aren't you, unless they happen to coincide with your own. Use the software first -- if you can.

[woc53]

I like SX, and think it's a fine app. Sonar and SX are pretty much equals, IMO. But I'll stick with Sonar, because Cakewalk continually demonstrates an interest in their users' needs, opinions, and requests.

The Steinberg developers seem sequestered, and rarely, if ever, appear on the forums (with the exception of Dave Nicholson, their wonderful UI designer).

Contrary to Steinberg's de facto policy, it *is* possible for developers to get their work done *and* communicate with customers (e.g., Cakewalk and the Samp/Sequoia team at Magix). It is *wise* to interact with customers from the viewpoints of marketing research, product development, and, of course, public relations.

A Steinberg product manager fairly recently said (on the Nuendo forum, I think) that they couldn't address a certain request because they were "busy preparing the industry for 64-bit."

Remember the title of Aerosmith's first hit song? I'll leave it there.