KVR Audio

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:00 am

_niko_ wrote:Hi,
Here is a lenghty thread discussing the pros and cons of the two:
http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60082

thanks for the link. the exchanges don't make the choice any easier! a lot to think about here. wish i could demo sx3 at home though. the effects bundle in sonar 4 is something for me to consider, as i won't be getting the high-end commercial effects (before i'm rich, at least), but the arrangement of automation control is also important for me. here, sx3 seems better setup. oh well, i'll just have to spend more time in my local music store playing with sx3 and running the sonar 4 demo at home.

aaastronomer

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:25 am

As you probably know, the customer support from Cakewalk is reputedly far better than from Steinberg (I know quite a few folks who have received poor - or no - response and treatment from Steinberg when problems have arisen. The Cakewalk guys even look in on K-V-R and post here. So if that is important to you (and it possibly should be) then it could be a decider for you in Sonar's favour...

Ron Kuper [Cakewalk] · Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:56 am

ttoz wrote:and the pdc is far superior to sonar's which loses sync after looping depending ont he plugin combination

That is simply not true. Perhaps you were using a VST and didn't rescan it and/or check the little checkbox that tells SONAR to use PDC for the plugin(s) in question?

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:07 am

Besides that I hear that steinberg uses a cracked version of microsoft visual C++ to compile Cubase.

maoinhibitor · Post by **maoinhibitor** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:48 pm

I switched to Sonar from Cubase SX because of the bugs around version 1.

I have been very happy with Sonar and I disagree with the comments regarding automation. I find the automation in Sonar to be very easy to access and manage.

I'll tell you, the fact that they added Acid style features to SX3 had me intrigued, so I decided to check out the demo at AES. Maybe it was the person doing the demos, but I was underwhelmed. Frankly, the new features, minus the inplace editing, didn't seem intuitively integrated to me, or that much of a big deal.

I'm thrilled with Sonar 4 and will be staying with it.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:57 pm

[DELETED]

Ron Kuper [Cakewalk] · Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:29 pm

ttoz wrote:i am just as hapy in sx3 to right click timestretch and do it that way with mpex algo

Do you mean SX3's "Audio Warp" feature? This feature does *not* use MPEX, it uses different DSP that is suitable for real-time streaming.

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:31 pm

no he measn right click select time stretch - which does use the mpex algorithm

Forever Sun · Post by **Forever Sun** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:55 pm

ttoz wrote:
engine is just absolutely abysmal still.

Ha ha ha ! You kidder ! It is if you are recording through a wooly jumper !

I use Sonar4 for proper recording sessions with my local musos and as my VSTi platform of choice. Sounds superb.

Let's be balanced in our views ...

Sonar is evolving at a great speed with a first rate customer support. Features it may not have will surely be implemented soon, those which are implemented but users want improved/changed, are improved and changed. ( a wave drawing pencil would be nice...). I've seen my requests implemented in V.4
Nice.

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:02 pm

In all honesty, both Cubase and Sonar have their strong suits and weeknesses. Saying that Either suck or are lacking in features is completely false.

Besides, ttoz cant even find and stay with a hardware platform he's happy with, are we to know take his software advice?!?!?!?!

really Im just messing with you ttoz. But I can say that S4 is stable and performs flawlessly here. I am sure Cubase does the same and I am glad you are happy with it..

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:06 pm

[DELETED]

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:54 pm

S_A_P wrote:Besides that I hear that steinberg uses a cracked version of microsoft visual C++ to compile Cubase.

yiiikes!! VC++ isn't ANSI standard!!!

i don know...from what i'm reading i might just go with acid 5, fl studio 5, and live 4...

sx 1.x works fine as a final repository of work done elsewhere and imported as wav...add a little effect to the audio tracks with the imported wav data, and off you go!

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:10 pm

aaastronomer wrote:
S_A_P wrote:Besides that I hear that steinberg uses a cracked version of microsoft visual C++ to compile Cubase.
yiiikes!! VC++ isn't ANSI standard!!!

i don know...from what i'm reading i might just go with acid 5, fl studio 5, and live 4...

sx 1.x works fine as a final repository of work done elsewhere and imported as wav...add a little effect to the audio tracks with the imported wav data, and off you go!

If that's what you want, you should check out Adobe Audition - 128 tracks of audio recording and editing with awesome effects and noise reduction/click pop removal, etc.

Also ReWire and VST host.

Brilliant for finishing off tracks with that final spit/polish and mastering. Also you can master straight to CD within the application.

Demo here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/audition/main.html

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:33 am

headquest wrote: If that's what you want, you should check out Adobe Audition - 128 tracks of audio recording and editing...

Well...it wasn't what I wanted from SX, but it's what SX seems to do without problems. Now, I've seen lots of good things said about Audition in posts here, so I will give it a go.

Also, I've seen lots of Cubase SX 3 postings in this forum that suggest that this is as buggy a release for Steinberg as any. (I guess they do public debugging like lots of other s/w companies.) Well...looks like my 2005 studio will be:

Live 4
Acid 5
FL Studio 5
(and...Cubase SX 1.x)

running on a Compaq GX5050 and a HP zv5340us through a Hammerfall Fireface 800.

I'll check out SX 3 next year. Should be better by then. Thanks for the input!

flugel45 · Post by **flugel45** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:01 am

headquest wrote:As you probably know, the customer support from Cakewalk is reputedly far better than from Steinberg (I know quite a few folks who have received poor - or no - response and treatment from Steinberg when problems have arisen. The Cakewalk guys even look in on K-V-R and post here. So if that is important to you (and it possibly should be) then it could be a decider for you in Sonar's favour...

And if you don't believe the above, you probably also weren't aware that Cakewalk's own VP of Engineering has been participating in this very thread.

JD

cubase sx 3.x vs sonar 4.x