Sonar 6 information is available now.

[JerGoertz]

Are there any audio demo's (A/B) of the Vintage Channel?

Sounds neat, but I've learned the hard way that you can't go by feature checkboxes when evaluating sound quality.

[christianmusicmaker]

Liquid can be had for less than $500 and upgrades are reasonable. Canopus is pricey but easy to use and the quality is exceptional.

http://www.avid.com/products/liquid/

Interesting price. I might consider it for the future but Vegas meets my needs for now.

[headquest]

Maybe AA2 is diffferent, cannot say as I have not used it but I think Headquest has, so he will know better than me.

Well AA (Adobe Audition) 2.0 is fairly straightforward, provided that you have some understanding of what audio editing is all about. It is a powerful program that lets you do stuff to audio files that sequencers such as Sonar and Live simply don't offer. I find it indispensible.

I'll give you one example. Load a stereo wave file into track one in the multitrack view. Select it and choose the effect called "Frequency Band Splitter (process)". This gives you the option to literally create up to 8 seperate audio files (automatically loaded into different track lanes) which scientifically seperate the different (fully customiseable) frequency bands that you specify. Once you have done that could not merely use this as a "multiband compressor on steroids", but you can obviously process each frequency band with whatever effects you want to, pan them in wild ways, etc. Just stuff that isn't possible in a sequencer.

As for "ease of use", I'm coming around to the view (in my old age!) that it's better to think about "streamlined use". I think that Sonar, Audition and Live all have this. Their ergonomics are such that once you have put in some effort to learn the program, it is easy to access all the features without unnecessary steps.

This is different from saying they are necessarily easy for a beginner to learn. Programs that are easy for a beginner to learn might be so because they simply lack useful features! That is really not a compliment to them, because in the long run they create an artificial sense of success that later leads to frustration when the user realises what they are missing out on.

In terms of video editing, I have no idea. But I guess that as a reasonably happy Audition 2.0 user, my first port of call would be to look at Premier Pro, as it intergrates specifically with Audition.

[headquest]

Are there any audio demo's (A/B) of the Vintage Channel?

Sounds neat, but I've learned the hard way that you can't go by feature checkboxes when evaluating sound quality.

You could check out the demo for GAC-1 by Kjaerhus. The Vintage Channel is basically this plug with a facelift.

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/gac-1.php

[dgkenney]

Well...if that is the case now, and if Cakewalk take P5 to the level IMHO it has to be to compete with pretty much most of the other hosts out there then it will not take many features for it to be (for want of a better word) a parallel option to Sonar on an equal footing.

Features like...
Dual core support
32 bit file support
More sends
Better metering

I suspect many will find just these 4 features enough to use P5 instead of Sonar...

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I had high hopes for P5V2 but don't see it really making it as a top tier host. There are some severe limitations such as limited audio inputs and routing, very basic audio editing, almost, painful audio loop editing and the whole "layering channels and tracks" with multi-timbral synths.

As a midi/synth workstation I think it's fine but its audio defficiencies and basic work-flow-thought-process limits its broader application. The groove matrix gives the impression that it is Live-like but it's not really.


Dan

[headquest]

In response to christianmusicmaker's Live vs Sonar epic: Part One!

I think that the difference between Cakewalk's and Ableton's approaches can broadly be sumnmarised as follows:

* Cakewalk looks at the ideas and features others implement and finds ways to improve on and implement them into its lower-cost but top-drawer products.

* Ableton looks at the ideas and features others implement, considers their appeal, ponders and discusses how they relate to other features, and then invents a whole new way of doing them that fits their own streamlined approach and character.

They are both excellent - but different - approaches. Let's use "Freeze" as an example, as its an area where both can claim to be market leaders...

Once Upon a Time, people using software sequencers would bounce their MIDI tracks to audio in order to conserve CPU grunt. Then one or two developers (such as Julian Storer) came up with "Freeze" - a one-click way of in effect bouncing to audio (while retaining the MIDI date for further editing if required).

Cakewalk looked at this, found ways of making it much more flexible, and added it as a superb feature to Sonar. In fact, their freeze was the Best one! In addition to this however, they left the old "Bounce to Track" feature, an alternative way of fully rendering a MIDI file to audio. And so it presumably remains in Sonar 6 - two different but very similar features for users to learn and use!

Ableton had only just added MIDI at all by this point. And users - including me! - were complaining vociferously about how CPU hungry Live 4's MIDI was! So in Live 5 they added a Freeze function that pretty much copied all that was good in Sonar's implementation (e.g. the ability to remix and move around frozen clips - gaplessly in real time of course ). However, they were still scratching their chins, wondering how this could be done better, and in a more Ableton-like manner. I remember last year discussing this with Ableton personel on the Live 5 beta forum even before it was released, and even then it was clear they already had something better up their sleeves...

And so here it is! Live 6's freeze function seemlessly integratges the concepts of the most flexible freeze currently available with a "render in place" / "bounce to track" funcitionality that they simply call "flatten". Within minutes of testing the freeze/flatten function in Live 6 I realised that it makes Cakewalk and others look totally stupid for keeping freeze and render as seperate functions.

i don't say that to belittle or show disrespect to Cakewalk, as they are a fabulous crew who produce fantastic products. I love Sonar, and it is well ahead of Live in certain areas still at this point... (although I know that Live 7 is going to change that... see Part Two later!).

It is simply a matter of outlook though - Ableton do seem committed to creativity and innovation in terms of workflow and producing a program squarely aimed at experimental and performing musicians (rather than engineers). This simple outlook seems to enable them at this point to remain about the only major player who is INNOVATIVE.

[headquest]

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I had high hopes for P5V2 but don't see it really making it as a top tier host. There are some severe limitations such as limited audio inputs and routing, very basic audio editing, almost, painful audio loop editing and the whole "layering channels and tracks" with multi-timbral synths.

As a midi/synth workstation I think it's fine but its audio defficiencies and basic work-flow-thought-process limits its broader application. The groove matrix gives the impression that it is Live-like but it's not really.


Dan

+1

P5v2 simply does not compare with Live, although I think christianmusicmaker pretty much said that elsewhere.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Are there any audio demo's (A/B) of the Vintage Channel?

Sounds neat, but I've learned the hard way that you can't go by feature checkboxes when evaluating sound quality.

but you can go by the cool retro looking graphics of the psuedo vintage gear...the other way you can tell is if there are "gothic" style graphics, then it's sure to sound way rad...

[headquest]

In response to christianmusicmaker's Live vs Sonar epic: Part Two!

Taking part in the Live 6 beta project has been interesting and I have learnt a few things that are worth sharing. Specifically I think there has been a change in Ableton's approach to development this year...

In previous years (I beta tested 4 and 5), it seemed as if Ableton were working towards the update as a specific product with a particular planned package of feature improvements. Not so this time. It seems as if they now see development as a more organic, ongoing project, with the annual update basically like taking a cross-section of new innovations and going public with them.

Clearly they now have a team of people, many of whom have specific development assignments to explore. Some of those came good and make it into the upgrade. In some cases, stuff they hoped to do was not ready, while in other cases (e.g. improved metering) it came together just in time. In discussing feature improvements, Robert Henke and others have been regularly and openly discussing stuff that they are working on that didn't appear this time but WILL be in Live 7 (or sooner).

From what I have gleaned, some of the stuff they are working on appears to be so far outside the box that it tramples the box into the dust. For example it seems they are working on a new solution for PDC (as a concept) that will make other hosts' PDC look as redundant and backward as Live 6's freeze makes all the other hosts' freeze functions look now. I can't wait to see what they have come up with - clearly it is something pretty revolutionary. It didn't quite make it into 6, but the indications are it is nearly ready to unveil.

Other stuff that the Abes have revealed includes the fact that they currently have developers working on a complete revamp of Live's arrangement view, and a new take on MIDI editing that will bring the whole concept of MIDI sequencing truly into the 21st century

Some of this stuff is plain to see if you are prepared to dig on the public beta forum (and no, I'm NOT doing the legwork for you!). Other stuff comes from PMs exchanged with Ableton personnel. All I can say at this point is that if a quarter of the stuff they are working on makes it into Live 7, it will be the most revolutionary music product since the invention of the piano!

That said, RH is even discussing stuff which he says will more likely be in Live 9 (ETA June 2009). Their whole attitude to devlopment seems to have taken a rather refreshing turn in terms of transparent honesty with no BS. Knowing some of this has made it easier for me to make a choice and decide that Live 6 is the must-have purchase to go with at this point. However, Sonar 6 remains a good update to a well-thought out and mature sequencer, and as an audio recording alternative I think I may well upgrade that also at least for this year.

Sonar 7 vs Live 7 though... well, that may be another matter entirely based on all the signs at this point. It's going to be an interesting year ahead!!

[RTaylor]

All I can say at this point is that if a quarter of the stuff they are working on makes it into Live 7, it will be the most revolutionary music product since the invention of the piano!

A bit like Cakewalk's early products and Live 1. I do wish that Cakewalk was as innovative as they used to be.

Sonar 7 vs Live 7 though...

Use both.

[urock]

In response to christianmusicmaker's Live vs Sonar epic: Part Two!

Sonar 7 vs Live 7 though... well, that may be another matter entirely based on all the signs at this point. It's going to be an interesting year ahead!!

I don't use my computer live at gigs so I have a different perspective.

Coming from the days where the Tascam 4 track was the pinnacle of home recording, to me its gotten to the point where most of the major sequencers seem to do basically the same stuff with slightly different implementations.

I find that more and more these days trying out other software ultimately ends up being a waste of my time. Not because Sonar (my primary sequencer) is flawless, but because everything is so fundamentally similar that it makes no sense to change.

Between "LE" versions that come with hardware purchases and demos, I tried too much recording software. In the past year or so, I spent time with
Cubase LE
Ableton Live Lite 4
Reaper
Riffworks 2 Line 6 Edition demo
Podium demo
Tracktion v1 freebie
Magix Audio Studio 11 (aka some previous version of Samplitude)

Nothing against any of them, but the only one I really thought I might really want to use long term is Riffworks. Why? Because it was super easy and does its particular job well. However, it has a miniscule number of features compared to the sequencers. And I'd have to finish a song started in Riffworks in one of the others.

My time trying out the above software would have been better spent writing, playing or recording music.

This isn't a plug for Sonar in particular. I feel that if I would have started on one of the other sequencers years ago, I'd likely come to same conclusion and stick with that one.

[headquest]

Use both.

It's certainly tempting

However, I think that urock's points are VERY good ones, and probably prevail. Sooner or later I will almost certainly be better off deciding on just one of the two...

[Johnny Cherry]

Good post headquest.

[RTaylor]

Use both.

It's certainly tempting

However, I think that urock's points are VERY good ones, and probably prevail. Sooner or later I will almost certainly be better off deciding on just one of the two...

I'm not denying most of that but I do see them as serving two different functions. Personally, I'd rather see them stay that way and both programs work at optimizing within their particular forte. The reason I use Sonar is because it's not a bloated piece of crap and I'd like to see it stay that way... lean, powerful, simple and easy to use.

[headquest]

I'm not denying most of that but I do see them as serving two different functions. Personally, I'd rather see them stay that way and both programs work at optimizing within their particular forte. The reason I use Sonar is because it's not a bloated piece of crap and I'd like to see it stay that way... lean, powerful, simple and easy to use.

Yes, I see what you mean, and this is how I have used both up to this point - very different programmes with different uses. I agree that I don't want to see either become too bloated or lose its distincitiveness, and as such I would continue to enjoy useing both for different tasks. HOWEVER...

Live 6's key new features include multicore support, video, really good level metering, etc - all things Sonar already has ...

...while Sonar 6's key new features are things Live already has - good MIDI controller support for live playing of VSTs, native VST hosting, and Elastic Audio.

So in a way if I update both I am gaining nothing - just overlap. Which is strange and a bit disconcerting!