Cubase SX3 vs. Sonar 4

[Dschungelfieber]

Hi!

I'm using Cubase at the moment, but want to consider Sonar.
2 things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically. Freezed tracks aren't editable. Are this things implemented better in Sonar.
Are there window layouts in Sonar? Does the piano roll hold up to the key editor in Cubase? Is there a good drum editor in Sonar? How is the automation system? What could a Cubase user miss in Sonar?

DF

[kuniklo]

Hi!

I'm using Cubase at the moment, but want to consider Sonar.
2 things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically. Freezed tracks aren't editable. Are this things implemented better in Sonar.
Are there window layouts in Sonar? Does the piano roll hold up to the key editor in Cubase? Is there a good drum editor in Sonar? How is the automation system? What could a Cubase user miss in Sonar?

DF

You might also want to consider Logic, although you have to spend some $$$ on a Mac to run it. I started with Sonar, switched to Cubase, and finally wound up with Logic. I particularly like the way Logic handles vsti automation. I think Sonar's automation handling is the weakest of these three hosts but I'm sure people with other opinions will chime in here shortly.

There's a Sonar demo available on Cakewalk's website so you can try it yourself and see what you think.

Unfortunately these discussions tend to generate a lot more heat than light around here. People are often emotionally attached to their hosts.

[Dschungelfieber]

Yeah, I know the automation system of Logic, which is just way ahead of Cubase concerning the way I work, as I have used Logic before I switched to Cubase. I won't get a Mac, never ! Way to expensive here. So, if the automation of Sonar is actually inferior to that of Cubase it will kill Sonar for me. These are the things I'd like to know before spending hours on the demo.

[kuniklo]

Yeah, I know the automation system of Logic, which is just way ahead of Cubase concerning the way I work, as I have used Logic before I switched to Cubase. I won't get a Mac, never ! Way to expensive here. So, if the automation of Sonar is actually inferior to that of Cubase it will kill Sonar for me. These are the things I'd like to know before spending hours on the demo.

I don't think it would take you hours to decide what you think of the automation system in Sonar. The thing I really dislike about it is that it stacks all the automation curves on top of each other on the clip. Once you get more than two of these, especially if their values are close, editing them becomes a huge pain. You can toggle the display of individual envelopes but this quickly becomes tedious as well.

In most other respects I think Sonar 4 has largely closed the gap with Cubase. The new in-place editing feature in SX3 is pretty cool but I've found the play order track to be too limited to be of a whole lot of use. In version 4 Sonar has folder tracks, multi-lane recording, freeze etc. I still think Cubase is the best sequencer available on the PC, but not by much.

I can understand your reluctance to invest in a Mac but I personally think Logic is worth it. Have you tried Live 4?

[headquest]

Live 4 is very well worth a look.

Also look into Samplitude... it has a reputation as being the ONLY software on PC that covers all the ground Logic covers... although it'll cost you about £800.

I use a combination of Live 4, Tracktion (mostly for teaching purposes) and Adobe Audition, which between them cover my bases (along with Reason 2.5 for synths/samplers). But there are some Samplitude users around here who can fill you in on that program and explain just why it is so good

[Kraznet]

Also look into Samplitude... it has a reputation as being the ONLY software on PC that covers all the ground Logic covers... although it'll cost you about £800.

I don't know where you got the £800 price-tag from. Samplitude Pro V8 is 999 EUR which is £692.847 at the present exchange rate .Or you can crossgrade from SX/Nuendo/Sonar/Logic/Acid Pro/Soundforge Etc for 599 EUR /£415.406 .Which is what what I will do .(You Just need to send in the original CD or manual cover page )

http://www.samplitude.de/de/v8_preise.htm

Kraznet

[Andrew Milne]

I don't think it would take you hours to decide what you think of the automation system in Sonar. The thing I really dislike about it is that it stacks all the automation curves on top of each other on the clip. Once you get more than two of these, especially if their values are close, editing them becomes a huge pain. You can toggle the display of individual envelopes but this quickly becomes tedious as well.

It's precisely this that I prefer about SONAR's automation For me Cubase's way of doing it takes up way too much space -- just goes to show that it's all about personal preferences.

[original flipper]

HI

Isn't Samplitude Pro V8 availible yet?

Flipper.

[Kraznet]

Isn't Samplitude Pro V8 availible yet?

It's due out at the end of October.
Kraznet

[headquest]

I don't know where you got the £800 price-tag from. Samplitude Pro V8 is 999 EUR which is £692.847 at the present exchange rate .Or you can crossgrade from SX/Nuendo/Sonar/Logic/Acid Pro/Soundforge Etc for 599 EUR /£415.406 .Which is what what I will do .(You Just need to send in the original CD or manual cover page )

http://www.samplitude.de/de/v8_preise.htm

Kraznet

Thanks for the tip - not as expensive as I thought then . ANd I followed your link - Samplitude v8 is looking mighty fine

Dschungelfieber, you should definitely check this out...

http://www.samplitude.com/de/sam8_info_center.htm

[mojkarma]

Hi Dschungelfieber,

based on your questions and as a owner of both programs (actually SL2 and Sonar3) I would suggest you to stay with Cubase. Anything other than upgrading Cubase will cost you more money.
Based on your questions I will try to give you some answers.

2 things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically

I don't know if it's done automatically but it is possible. Don't know because I don't use the feature.

Freezed tracks aren't editable. Are this things implemented better in Sonar.

What do you mean by editable? Do your edits and freeze the track. Sonar4 and SX3 can freeze vst's and audiotracks.

Are there window layouts in Sonar?

Yes there are layouts in Sonar, but IMHO Cubase has it implemented much, much better.
For example: in Cubase, make your layout and press alt + keyp 0. A window appears asking you to give it a name. You press enter and your new layout is stored and a key shortcut is automatically asigned to open the layout (alt + num 0-9).
In Sonar: make your layout, go to view, click layout, click add, enter a name and hit enter. Then go to options, click keybindings, search and find your layout and give it a shortcut, press enter.
In Cubase you have to do one mouseclick. In Sonar it is almost six clicks away: for every single layout.

Does the piano roll hold up to the key editor in Cubase?

In my opinion no, nowhere near.
I'll list things that sonar is missing: you cannot mute notes, you cannot split them, there is no object editor just above the pianoeditor, you cannot change as fast values in sonar as in cubase, you cannot shorten/lenghten multiple notes at onec, you cannot resize the controller pane, you cannot see multiple controller panes. If you want to edit notes in sonars pianoroll you always have to switch between the tools: for example: the selection tool only selects the notes. In cubase with the selection tool you can select notes but you can also shorten/lenghten the note(s) without switching the tools. And in Sx3 when you move your mouse to the controller pane it can automatically switch to a pencil tool and you can edit your controller data. Sonar doesn't show note names in the note brickets and sonars step editor is not a part of the pianoroll. The only advance in sonar that I can see is that it has a scrub tool to hear the midi notes as you move the cursor over the notes.

How is the automation system?

I would say inferior to Cubase. One of the most important thing for me, in sonar ther isn't a pencil tool. You cannot draw your automation data. You have to click and add nodes to make a simple curve. Personally I prefer how cubase shows the automation curves in a single track. If you have more than 2 or 3 lines in sonar, it can be a mess. Also, in Cubase you can turn off a single autiomation, in sonar only generally, not a single autiomation. Cubase offers you different ways how automation will be done (latch, etc.). Sonar doesn't have anything like that.

What could a Cubase user miss in Sonar?

First to say something, there are a lot of users that are very happy with sonar. Also, good music depends on your talent, not the tool. I can give you my observations why Cubase is still a superior program:

1. In Sonar you cannot start a blank project, hit the metronome and listen, just to decide which tempo you will use for your new song.
2. Sonar doesn't have fast forward and revind. You can only move by measures (or by clicking on a specific time).
3. sonar shows only grids on the beginning of a bar, not between.
4. Sonar doesn't creat automatically folders for your instruments: imagine, you insert a sampler with 16 outs: you promptly get 16 tracks in your track view. And the most stupid thing: if you remove the instrument, sonar will, unlike Cubase, not remove the not more used audiotracks that the instrument was assigned to.
5. No sample editor in sonar. Inferior audioprocessing tools (you can normalise only to a maximum, you can change the gain of audio only with +/- 3 gain, you cannot flip stereotracks)
6. Sonar doesn't have a glue tool, you can bounce clips but this creates a new clip that looses its name and in the case of audio, it makes a new audio clip.
7. Sonar doesn't have a pencil tool in the track view for creating autiomation data.
8. There is not an audio pool, you cannot for example change the name of your wave or manage your audio as good as in cubase.
9. There are no macro commands in sonar.
10. Compared to sx3, sonar doesn't have an inplace editor, and the ability to create controller maps for your hardware synths and some other improvements.

This are just a few things where I think that Cubase is the better option, but you can still download Sonar4 demo and see if it fits your needs.

[kuniklo]

2 things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically

I don't know if it's done automatically but it is possible. Don't know because I don't use the feature.

This actually isn't possible in Cubase and it's the #1 reason I dropped it.

[neptunefix]

Hi!

things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically.
DF

This aspect also drives me nuts! I wish I could have effects, panning, etc loaded for a track and just click on various VSTi's to audition them.

I have only compared SX2 to Sonar 3.

From what I can tell, SX2 has a barely noticeable clearness advantage over SX3 as far as low end goes. Perhaps something to do with the mix/sum bus?

Another thing is that I can't import Rreason MIDI into Sonar 3 without it being all messed up, but it works fine in SX2.

Also, VST support is native in SX2 and you need a wrapper in Sonar 3.

There are more knick nacks that are a little different, as well.

[Rik]

Freezed tracks aren't editable. Are this things implemented better in Sonar.

What do you mean by editable? Do your edits and freeze the track. Sonar4 and SX3 can freeze vst's and audiotracks.

In Sonar 4, you can copy the freeze track in any audio track and use them as audio clips.

How is the automation system?

I would say inferior to Cubase. One of the most important thing for me, in sonar ther isn't a pencil tool. You cannot draw your automation data. You have to click and add nodes to make a simple curve.

I think there is not a single answer to this question. I would never need a pencil for drawing automation data, there are enough types of curves you can use there.

And I never would need any of the other features mojkarma listed... Sonar has a different workflow than Cubase I believe...so I think you should try the demo and decide by yourself.

Talking about automation, nobody mentions Fruityloops which has a great automation implementation... Automation is totally transparent, you don't need to even know what it is. For all tasks that require lot of automation, I recommend Fruityloops.

Erik.

[SJ_Digriz]

2 things I don't like in Cubase: Vsti-Automation Data isn't linked to midi tracks, doesn't get moved/copied automatically

I don't know if it's done automatically but it is possible. Don't know because I don't use the feature.

This actually isn't possible in Cubase and it's the #1 reason I dropped it.

This is only partially correct. Although the automation follows events option doesn't apply to vsti data (because VSTi is not the MIDI event), you can copy vsti automation, cut & paste, etc....

Also, I prefer that the MIDI automation and the VSTi automation are seperate. It's much more versatile that way. The idea that the MIDI data has anything to do with the vsti automation has always seemed a little odd to me.

I won't get into the which is better thing because it's a rediculous argument. I'll just say that no matter which app you choose, there will be things you like and things you hate. I've tried almost every app and half the time I can't figure out why people want to use some of them.

It seems like people don't want to use Cubase kind of like they don't like Microsoft. They don't have a reason other than they think Bill Gates is the devil. Which is based purely on the fact that someone else told them that they heard from an aunt that a close friend of hers was at a resteraunt where she over heard someone that wore a tie say that "Bill Gates is the devil".

Cubase is a great application. Samplitude is a great application. Logic is a great application. etc... 99% of all the Steinberg hate threads are total BS. Most of the time when someone tells me they can't do something in Cubase there is a reason why it works the way it does and we can find a solution that is work flow friendly. Most people just don't spend enough time getting to know there software.