Cubase SX3 vs. Sonar 4

[jens]

people have already mentioned the superior freeze in S4.. just thought I'd mention it again

So how is it superior to the freeze in SX3? What are the key differences?

you can edit/move the frozen track, use the audio for other tracks (or loops), enable/disable track fx, add fx to frozen tracks, it only freezes data not empty space, etc.. and it's fast

and it removes the plugs from memory (sfz with malmsjö-piano anyone?)

So can SX3, so ner de ner It can do all of those things except editing/moving the frozen tracks. You can use frozen audio as you wish. It's extremely fast now, and only freezes used parts of the track. And it has cupholders

SX3?

Do they still offer a crossgrade?

[griels]

people have already mentioned the superior freeze in S4.. just thought I'd mention it again

So how is it superior to the freeze in SX3? What are the key differences?

you can edit/move the frozen track, use the audio for other tracks (or loops), enable/disable track fx, add fx to frozen tracks, it only freezes data not empty space, etc.. and it's fast

and it removes the plugs from memory (sfz with malmsjö-piano anyone?)

So can SX3, so ner de ner It can do all of those things except editing/moving the frozen tracks. You can use frozen audio as you wish. It's extremely fast now, and only freezes used parts of the track. And it has cupholders

SX3?

Do they still offer a crossgrade?

Dunno.

Bear in mind that it's reportedly still much buggier than Sonar, although it's been fairly solid for me (aside from the odd non-fatal glitch). It's just what I know best, as I say.

[griels]

Ah, found it, you can still crossgrade if so inclined:

http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/pro ... m?pid=5729

Personally I'd hold out to see how effective the bugfixes in SX3.01 are before taking the plunge. But I'm pretty happy with it.

[jens]

Ah, found it, you can still crossgrade if so inclined:

http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/pro ... m?pid=5729

Personally I'd hold out to see how effective the bugfixes in SX3.01 are before taking the plunge. But I'm pretty happy with it.

Competitive Crossgrades are available to US residents only.

[pitchdrifter]

you might want to read the cakewalk forums. sonar4 is way from bug free, just like any other sequencer really. but whats really ugly is the interface got even slower than it was in version 3, and when you get a couple tracks together thats rather annoying.

[spaceman]

So can SX3, so ner de ner It can do all of those things except editing/moving the frozen tracks. You can use frozen audio as you wish. It's extremely fast now, and only freezes used parts of the track. And it has cupholders
..

cup holders

[kuniklo]

It looks like the grouping bug, which makes grouping of automation data and midi parts useless, will be solved in SX 3.01 in about a month.

Where did you hear this?

[Dschungelfieber]

It looks like the grouping bug, which makes grouping of automation data and midi parts useless, will be solved in SX 3.01 in about a month.

Where did you hear this?

Some Steini told me, but nothing is for sure until we have it in our hands. This bug is also confirmed in the info base at cubase.net, so there is a very good chance.

[Stupid American Pig]

you might want to read the cakewalk forums. sonar4 is way from bug free, just like any other sequencer really. but whats really ugly is the interface got even slower than it was in version 3, and when you get a couple tracks together thats rather annoying.

Becareful who you listen to on the cakewalk forums..

As with any large software package there is inevitably going to be some bugs. However, there are no *showstopper* bugs in S4 and it is probably one of the most stable .00 releases of any major host. Further, there are many improvements that were made to sonar 4 which make it faster than S2 or S3. Zoom performance has been much improved, the gfx perfromance in general has been made *much* faster. If someone on CWs forum was complaining about that then they are way off base.

I can tell you that sonar 4 is a huge improvemnet over previous versions, you may not like sonars layout or work flow, and that is absolutely your right. If you think that SX3 will work better for you then great- what ever helps *you* make the best music. competition is great because you dont *have* to settle for something...

[pitchdrifter]

I bet the people at the cakewalk forums who say they have to wait a couple senconds when they solo a track or make a new track are just making that up.

[Stupid American Pig]

I bet the people at the cakewalk forums who say they have to wait a couple senconds when they solo a track or make a new track are just making that up.

I bet that the people who say that they dont have problems with cubase are making that up...

of course, you could just not purchase Sonar if you dislike it but I guess trolling is more fun...

[neptunefix]

I found that SX1 uses less CPU than SX 2 and that I could run more plugs in SX1 than 2.. however, I found Sonar 3 tobe more efficient than SX1 or SX2.. Im sure SX3 is even slower (which isn't slow at all) and that's something to be said for Sonar's performance.

I'm still a SX guy.

[Andrew Milne]

Both hosts have their deficiencies. For me the advantages of SONAR are the flexible bussing; the clarity and efficiency of the UI - in the main view every track exposes volume, pan fx and send controls etc; all automation is written in the same track; three layers of gain structure (clip envelope/trim, track envelope, offset controls); easily moveable fx. AFAIK SX3 has none of these or the elegance which these features provide when you're actually working.

I am impressed with what I've seen advertised in SX3 - in place editing and play order stuff looks cool, and I assume it also provides a gapless environment? But right now I think SX's UI is very inefficient compared to SONAR.

[TVD]

this pointless war is helping no-one

can we just agree that both hosts are good

and are better than fruity !

First of all, this is Cubase vs. Sonar. So keep FLS out of this.

And another thing, go to hell Pro-Tools freak.

Besides, the editing power in Audition is more superior anyway. But that another thread.

[JerGoertz]

. . . I think Sonar4 is way much better than Power Rangers Live! . . .

I own both SX2.2 and recently Sonar4 (and 2.2 & 3 before that) and in my experience, they both have plusses and minuses to the point that I couldn't say which is "better" overall. I really think the major factors when you get hosts at this level of maturity and sophistication is a matter of workflow and what you're used to (or what just "clicks" for you).

Here are my personal observations:

- Sonar seems much more intuitive to me; as someone said before, a lot of the relevant data you'd like to see is right out there in the track view. I also found it easier to insert synths, effects, etc. The MIDI editing also seems nicer than Cubase.

- Cubase feels more "sturdy" to me than Sonar. It's less prone to glitch/gap, in my experience, and the screen updates, menu opening, etc. seems quicker & smoother.

Just my 2 cents.

- Jer