First official SONAR 4 review is in!

[nocompromise]

@Koorby - sounds like you need to make music WITHOUT a host or a computer even. Go buy a piano and show us all how to write a proper tune.

[Sepheritoh]

... ...

allert!

[hugolp]

Not really. In fact you get 1 track less. You have as many midi tracks as you want. Choose one as the main one, route all the other to that one, and open the instrument in the choosen midi track. In fact, you get 1 track less in the screen, 1 less track to route to the instrument... Live is easy. They really put a lot of effort on that.

Check Live 4, though I am using Cubase still as my main sequencer. But for composition and quick arrangement nothing beats Live. Its there a lot of people like me having problems with Cubase?. I hate it. With the freeze option, I am checking Sonar 4 demo when it comes.

Hugo

munchkin quoth ]An example of how to organise synth tracks in a different way to Sonar is how Live 4 does it. A synth is opened in a midi track. That track can have audio and midi effects on it. For multiple outs just open as many tracks as you need and route the synth outs to them.

Sure its an alternative, but once you get to a multitimbral synth, or a drum synth, where you want different MIDI tracks feeding into your synth, and the synth has multiple outs, then you've got three different kinds of track, not two (audio, MIDI, and audio/MIDI-special-mixed-instance-for-softsynths).

Thats far less linear than just having audio tracks and MIDI tracks. To me.

[whyterabbyt]

hugolp quoth Not really. In fact you get 1 track less.

It might be one less track (and it being there makes no difference at all to me) but it still means 3 track types.

And potentially two different kinds of plugin in one.

You have as many midi tracks as you want. Choose one as the main one, route all the other to that one, and open the instrument in the choosen midi track. In fact, you get 1 track less in the screen, 1 less track to route to the instrument... Live is easy. They really put a lot of effort on that.

Its still (for me) counterintuitive. Why should softsynths have a different signal flow from that used for hardware synths?

[hugolp]

Men, I would pay for that. Is it that hard? I guess so. VST, arrangements,...

Hugo

[quote="kuniklo]Live 4 still wins for just tossing stuff together quickly to sketch out ideas though, especially if you're using a lot of loops. I wish there was an easy way to import a Live set into Cubase.[/quote]

[hugolp]

Wow! That was a quick answer. When I finish reading the post I get my answer.

I dont really understand the 3 track types. I only see two types. Audio and Midi. A softsynth is a program that transforms midi into audio. So you plug it into a midi track and thats what it does!

I cant see you dont like Live, but for me is the best, fastest, and easy creative host that I have found. When they solve the slightly quality diference on the sound with the other sequencers there woul be no competition (I havent tried Tracktion though).

hugolp quoth Not really. In fact you get 1 track less.

It might be one less track (and it being there makes no difference at all to me) but it still means 3 track types.

And potentially two different kinds of plugin in one.

Its still (for me) counterintuitive. Why should softsynths have a different signal flow from that used for hardware synths?

What?!?!?!?!?!?! two different plugins in one?!?!?!!? diferent workflow?!?!?!? Dont know, but for me is faster.

Hugo

[kp]

I think I see where WhyteRabbit's coming from.

Type 1: Audio track - hardware/software audio input, some processing, audio out

Type 2: MIDI track - MIDI input, some processing, MIDI out

Type 3: Hybrid: MIDI input, soft-synth, audio out

[hugolp]

I know, I know. But what you see in screen is Audio tracks and Midi tracks only. But the good think in Live is that all of them send audio out. You dont have a track that doesnt sound and then a track that sounds but cannot be controlled (and have to be controlled from the other track). For me, it makes more sense to have all in one, and is more intuitive. But no more theorical discusion about track types. Who cares!!!!! Try it and decide whats good for you. Just say that I find Live the easiest and quickest. You dont? Fair enough. Use whats good for you.

Hugo

I think I see where WhyteRabbit's coming from.

Type 1: Audio track - hardware/software audio input, some processing, audio out

Type 2: MIDI track - MIDI input, some processing, MIDI out

Type 3: Hybrid: MIDI input, soft-synth, audio out

[Alex Westner]

I think using a wrapper for VST(i) is a better situation overall. If some incompatability is found, we can correct the problem by a very small wrapper udpate, instead of a full application update.

I see your point!

Will there be a demo at some point ? - I'm very interested in S4

Yes, we'll post a demo sometime this week.

[Rabid]

For me Live 4 is quicker and easier to throw together a simple song, but I would never consider using it to finalize the song. Comparing Live 4 to Sonar 4 is like comparing Microsoft Access to a SQL database.

Robert

[kuniklo]

For me Live 4 is quicker and easier to throw together a simple song, but I would never consider using it to finalize the song. Comparing Live 4 to Sonar 4 is like comparing Microsoft Access to a SQL database.

Robert

The other thing that keeps me using Live is its superb beat programming features. Live's legato clips and variable loop lengths and start points make it easy to turn straightforward loops into a fluid improvisational jam. Live's brilliant midi mapping makes it stupidly easy to do. I can do most of the other things I do in Live in Cubase, or at least get pretty close, but this I can't do without.

This is something I think any of the more traditional linear, track-oriented sequencers are going to have a hard time emulating. If Ableton continue to refine their midi editing and arrange view I won't even look at other hosts. Even now I find myself spending almost all my time with Live 4. The ease with which you can just jump in and start jamming and throwing things together results in music that's a lot more fluid and interesting than the more rigid stuff I tend to come up with in hosts like Cubase or Sonar. Most electronic music gets boring for me pretty fast because it's so rigid and quantized and repetitive. Live helps bring back some of the human element.

[whyterabbyt]

hugolp quoth Wow! That was a quick answer. When I finish reading the post I get my answer.



I dont really understand the 3 track types. I only see two types. Audio and Midi.

Well in Sonar, there are only two types; Audio and MIDI... but if you start sitting audio-generating synths on a MIDI track, that's different from current MIDI tracks, which you'd still need, so you'd need three types of track...

If you were using hardware a MIDI track would go out to a hardware synth, which would get recorded onto one or more audio tracks...
Just because a Synth is software, doesnt (to me) mean that that way of doing things suddenly becommes illogical. So you create your MIDI track, and it feeds a softsynth which then feeds into one or more audio track.

To me, it doesnt make sense that you might have a MIDI track with a softsynth on it, and some audio tracks also with softsynths on them.
Especially in a situation where you can have plugins which affect MIDI, as well as more usual audio plugins. If you're affecting the MIDI going to a synth, then conceptually sitting that synth on that same MIDI track where audio plugins affect what's coming from that track doesnt make sense to me.

A softsynth is a program that transforms midi into audio. So you plug it into a midi track and thats what it does!

Or its something that receives MIDI and sends out audio, so you send MIDI to it, and plug it into the input of an audio track...

I cant see you dont like Live,

Where do you get that from? I never said that. In any way shape or form.

but for me is the best, fastest, and easy creative host that I have found. When they solve the slightly quality diference on the sound with the other sequencers there woul be no competition (I havent tried Tracktion though).

Thats fine; I'm very much in favour of people using the tools that suit them best. But someone stated they thought Live-style behaviour would be better in Sonar, and I disagreed.


What?!?!?!?!?!?! two different plugins in one?!?!?!!?

In one track. MIDI pugins processing MIDI going to a softsynth, and audio plugins prcessing audio coming from a softsynth.

diferent workflow?!?!?!?

I actually said signal flow. But Ive made the same point a couple of times now. MIDI to synth, audio from synth. MIDI plugnis before synth, audio plugns after synth. A consistent signal flow whether you're using hardware or software.

Dont know, but for me is faster.

Maybe. But since its still one operation to insert a softsynth in Sonar, I dont see how a one-track or two-track method makes a significant difference to speed. Organisation, yes, but speed?

[hugolp]

Ok. But you havent use Live a lot, cause you cannot have a "MIDI track with a softsynth on it, and some audio tracks also with softsynths" That doesnt make sense cause it doesnt exist. Audio tracks play audio. And Midi tracks play midi and then when you get the synth it outputs sound. For me its better cause you have everything in one chanel and you see what you are doing to that instrument alltogether. The chain goes: Your midi files, then your midi fx (if any) then your softsynth and then your sound fx (if any) and beween all the boxes little midi or volume indicator showing you if and where the audio is cliping, or if some fx is not working and not sending signal out. Obviously before the synth you get midi indicator with the signal and after the synth you get audio. And all intuitive and in one screen. Can you ask for more?

And maybe traditional sequencer look more like hardware, but that does make it better?

Anyway I dont get paid from Ableton and this is a Sonar thread. So: I love Ableton and love the new way it handle things so quick. You prefer more traditional aproach, maybe you used lots of hardware before and it works better because you are use to it. Fine. Both happy

Actually not really, cause I still use traditional sequencing, because I find Live doesnt sound as good as other sequencer (slightly but still). I hope they find the way of getting an audio engine that can manage to change the tempo in real time and get the sound quality of traditional sequencers...

Then we will be both happy

At the moment Live is only the first step of music making.

Hugo

hugolp quoth Wow! That was a quick answer. When I finish reading the post I get my answer.



I dont really understand the 3 track types. I only see two types. Audio and Midi.

Well in Sonar, there are only two types; Audio and MIDI... but if you start sitting audio-generating synths on a MIDI track, that's different from current MIDI tracks, which you'd still need, so you'd need three types of track...

If you were using hardware a MIDI track would go out to a hardware synth, which would get recorded onto one or more audio tracks...
Just because a Synth is software, doesnt (to me) mean that that way of doing things suddenly becommes illogical. So you create your MIDI track, and it feeds a softsynth which then feeds into one or more audio track.

To me, it doesnt make sense that you might have a MIDI track with a softsynth on it, and some audio tracks also with softsynths on them.
Especially in a situation where you can have plugins which affect MIDI, as well as more usual audio plugins. If you're affecting the MIDI going to a synth, then conceptually sitting that synth on that same MIDI track where audio plugins affect what's coming from that track doesnt make sense to me.

A softsynth is a program that transforms midi into audio. So you plug it into a midi track and thats what it does!

Or its something that receives MIDI and sends out audio, so you send MIDI to it, and plug it into the input of an audio track...

I cant see you dont like Live,

Where do you get that from? I never said that. In any way shape or form.

but for me is the best, fastest, and easy creative host that I have found. When they solve the slightly quality diference on the sound with the other sequencers there woul be no competition (I havent tried Tracktion though).

Thats fine; I'm very much in favour of people using the tools that suit them best. But someone stated they thought Live-style behaviour would be better in Sonar, and I disagreed.


What?!?!?!?!?!?! two different plugins in one?!?!?!!?

In one track. MIDI pugins processing MIDI going to a softsynth, and audio plugins prcessing audio coming from a softsynth.

diferent workflow?!?!?!?

I actually said signal flow. But Ive made the same point a couple of times now. MIDI to synth, audio from synth. MIDI plugnis before synth, audio plugns after synth. A consistent signal flow whether you're using hardware or software.

Dont know, but for me is faster.

Maybe. But since its still one operation to insert a softsynth in Sonar, I dont see how a one-track or two-track method makes a significant difference to speed. Organisation, yes, but speed?

[Stupid American Pig]

I think that I am going to have to side with the rabbyt here- it doesnt make sense to have audio data streaming from a midi track. if you attached softsynths to midi tracks, what would you do for multiout synths? create more midi tracks? how would you add audio efx to the midi tracks?

I see why you would want it set up that way, and FL studio handles it similarly, however, since Sonar is more of a multitrack recorder than a loop arranger then the workflow should differ accordingly. there is no rule stating that you have to use softsynths in Sonar anyway- and if you have Live, cant you just rewire it into sonar? add your softsynths to live and rewire the project to sonar if you wan to multitrack with it...

[hugolp]

No, you create more audio tracks and youll find the option of using one of the multiple outputs of the synth as an input for your audio track. I agree that thats not the best option, but I think is if when you open the soft synth with multiple outputs the other outputs would apear as audio tracks automatically would be better (or have it as an option at least)... mmm... I think I am going to suggest that to Ableton.

And about rewire Live to a traditional sequencer: no. I was complaining about Live sound quality (but I love the rest) so what do I win rewiring it. The sound is still the same. What I do is compose everything in Live and then copy it to Cubase (probably Sonar soon) in the same way I had it in Live for the final render.

Hugo

I think that I am going to have to side with the rabbyt here- it doesnt make sense to have audio data streaming from a midi track. if you attached softsynths to midi tracks, what would you do for multiout synths? create more midi tracks? how would you add audio efx to the midi tracks?

I see why you would want it set up that way, and FL studio handles it similarly, however, since Sonar is more of a multitrack recorder than a loop arranger then the workflow should differ accordingly. there is no rule stating that you have to use softsynths in Sonar anyway- and if you have Live, cant you just rewire it into sonar? add your softsynths to live and rewire the project to sonar if you wan to multitrack with it...