Bandlab Cakewalk vs Cubase

[D-Fusion]

When i think of it i might jump on it if the price is right and the new version uses serial for registration like my X3.

If they demand regular re-activation like the Bandlab version or other type of Online Activation i will stay far away from it because of the Track record Cakewalk had in the past by getting bought out by Roland then sold to Gibson and we know how that went.

I know that they view this as a new company setup so i guess my lifetime key is out of the window too.

[Trensharo]

Cakewalk has everything you need to work with music of any genre. For example, I create ambient.
I tried to start working in Cubase, but the interface was very overloaded. Workflow in Cakewalk is very convenient for me.
There are many features that are very convenient even at the user interface level.
All inconveniences are connected with a simple habit of work.

ACID Pro has everything you need to work with music of any genre. For example, someone creates ambient. They tried to start working with Cubase, but the interface was very overloaded. Workflow in ACID is very convenient for them.
There are many features that are very convenient even at the user interface level.
All inconveniences are connected with a simple habit of work.

^^^^^----- See what I did there?

No one said that you couldn't create the type of music you want in Cakewalk. People were doing that with DAWs far less feature-packed than what we have available to us in 2023.

That doesn't make Cakewalk = Cubase, and while Cubase's UI is certainly a bit more "pressured" than some lesser-featured DAWs on the market... Cakewalk is not one of those DAWs (and certainly not SONAR 8.5 that some people here are speaking of as if it is the holy grail of UI/UX design... it was terrible.

Gaining actually useful functionality and creative possibilities is a small price to pay for a UI that is perhaps a bit more complicated - and that's very debatable.

-----

Unless this new Cakewalk Sonar comes with appreciable improvements, I don't see any reason why anyone should jump on it. I don't think any resurfacing instruments or plug-ins are going to be worth it - not even ProChannel Modules. The only reason to go for it (initially) seems to be HiDPI Support (Vector Graphics Assets). So, the pricing is going to be key...

If the pricing is too aggressive, than users will stay on Cakewalk by BandLab and simply wait for BandLab to actually offer a value proposition worth paying for. All of this is going to happen during cyclical sales/promotions where other DAWs are being sold for 40-60% off. Lots of Cakewalk users are probably unwilling to pay for a DAW at all - otherwise they'd have gotten a better one off Humble Bundle or during some of the super sales we've seen recently.

On its own technical merits, I don't think the DAW competes well enough to convince users it is worth paying Studio One/Bitwig/Logic Pro prices to buy it.

[maanga]

Good.
You have decided everything for others.
Hope people find your post useful.
Regards.

[kritikon]

Didn't Sonar go under? Presumably through lack of popularity/purchase. Dunno why it's going to be any different now. Cakewalk is used only because it's free, and tbh it's a great DAW for free but Sonar will need to be an awful lot better to sell any. Since I used it, I'm sure it will have been improved, but I found it very clunky and circuitous to use. It was a stopgap until I decided which commercial DAW to buy after a few years out of music and I'm thankful that Cakewalk was free at the time. But I can't see many would actively choose Cakewalk over almost any other DAW if they had to pay for it. I wouldn't.

[chk071]

It's definitely a gamble, especially when it's Windows only.

That said, due to its free status, I guess it has attracted some new users. And, Cakewalk/Sonar probably also lost quite a few users to other DAW's (Cubase, Studio One, Ableton) over the years. So, I don't know how popular it is really. Frankly, I don't read much about it anywhere.

[jlgrimes11]

Never used Cubase but Sonar always seemed to have good audio features while being pretty simple to use. It's midi probably isn't as featured as Cubase but it is no slouch nonetheless and can do most traditional DAW functions.

For tracking audio, mixing audio, and even recording softsynths via midi, it works pretty nicely. It has pretty good track management features to as your project increase in size (as most traditional DAWS probably have).

It always seemed a bit more affordable than Cubase as well. Cubase is known for having a pretty advanced midi sequencer. I think Sonar is more for having an easier learning curve but still having some advanced features that most traditional DAWS have. You can definitely test the free version and I think Cubase has a demo.

I don't think you will get a good feel without watching some YouTube videos and reading some manuals and test driving them.


What made me stop using Sonar though was X1. It was buggy at the time. Very buggy . While older versions were pretty stable and I guess they sorted their bugs out, I ended up going to Reaper which was more stable (but with a learning curve regarding midi), Reaper also has very flexible audio features but it can be a bit geeky with its mile long action list and almost infinite feature set which puts many people off.

[BONES]

I guess I’m finding it hard to justify the upgrade prices for a lot of features that I don’t use. I could use the funds from selling Cubase to put towards something I do need.

Have you thought of downgrading to a lesser version of Cubase? I switched from Studio One Pro to Studio One Artist about a year ago. I've just finished making our next album with it and I am yet to come up against any missing features that I had used in Pro. Cubase Artist might offer you a similar experience and greatly reduce your costs, without any worries about compatibility if you ever do have to send someone a project file or work with someone else's project file.

[BONES]

With their sales in the toilet for 12, I'm wondering what Yamaha will do with the company a year from now.

How can you possibly know Cubase sales are in the toilet? It is pure speculation on your part and almost certainly wrong. 90% or more of their customers will just upgrade to stay current, they won't assess the value in an upgrade, they'll just do it.

Cakewalk isn't anywhere near to being on par with Cubase.

Yeah, but that's the whole point - he doesn't need anything on par with Cubase.

Saying Cakewalk's UI - filled with inconsistencies and remnants of Windows 2000-era design is better than Cubase because Cubase's looks "old" is ... a lot.

I'm sorry but from what I've seen from Cakewalk screenshots, its' UI is far more consistent than Cubase's cobbled together horror show. I think Cubase has far and away the worst UI of any of the big players. Of course, that didn't stop me buying or using it but the fact remains - Cuabse looks awful.

Don't think many people care that much about multi-touch, either. I mean, with how many people use macs, and with how SONAR imploded despite being on the cutting edge of that stuff...

Who cares, Cakewalk is Windows-only so 100% of their potential customer base can, theoretically, take advantage of multi-touch.

[Igro]

Imo, both are not good if, for instance, a fast workflow is important (if you are a composer). There are better choices.

[musicproducerdee]

Cubase has one of the oldest looking UIs in the DAW industry. Talk about inconsistency. It still looks like Windows 98/2000s traffic jam. I don't think so Steinberg even plans on doing anything about it (yet). It is a very powerful DAW, but the UI is just awful. Especially if you use some of the more modern DAWs like Bitwig or Ableton or even Studio One to an extent, you'll find the UI in Cubase terrible, as compared.

[Dogbert]

I'm sorry but from what I've seen from Cakewalk screenshots, its' UI is far more consistent than Cubase's cobbled together horror show.

Cakewalk is consistently ugly and dated. In fact they promised a complete GUI refresh for the upcoming non free version.

[chk071]

Cubase has one of the oldest looking UIs in the DAW industry. Talk about inconsistency. It still looks like Windows 98/2000s traffic jam. I don't think so Steinberg even plans on doing anything about it (yet). It is a very powerful DAW, but the UI is just awful. Especially if you use some of the more modern DAWs like Bitwig or Ableton or even Studio One to an extent, you'll find the UI in Cubase terrible, as compared.

To be fair, they did a lot of changes over the years though. A few versions back, it wasn't even possible to show the mixer view integrated in the same window, but it always appeared in a popup window.

That said, yeah, I definitely prefer other GUI's. They also implemented some kind of "comic" look that I'm not that fond of. And, like with everything in Cubase, there's also a lot of redundancy. I don't know, Studio One feels a lot more streamlined, simple and fresh.

[EnGee]

I find Cubase great! I like the contrast and don't have a problem in the UI. It seems crowded a little bit but that because it has tons of functionalities. S1 looks more organised but still Cubase wins overall for me.
Sometimes I prefer the simplicity of Ableton Live and some unique features there, but I still prefer Cubase arrangement view more than other DAWs (Logic is great also).

Cakewalk (or Sonar) was my favourite when it was version 7/8 but X1 complicated things and GUI, and brought endless bugs! I left it at X3. I prefer the GUI of Sonar 7/8. They should have kept developing it and polishing it! Anyway, Cakewalk lost it IMO also when they abandoned Project 5 while Ableton Live made huge steps ahead. Management is the reason I believe in either success or failure.

[BONES]

I didn't think I had a problem with Cubase's GUI until I went back to it, after about 6 months of working exclusively in Studio One. That's when I realised how awful it is. It looks very dated by comparison - as someone said, like something made for Windows XP - but when I had switched from Cubase to Studio One, it didn't feel all that different. It still works, though, so it didn't bother me. I was just surprised at how jarring it was to switch back.

Cakewalk is consistently ugly and dated. In fact they promised a complete GUI refresh for the upcoming non free version.

Compared to what? I actually quite like it - consistent colours, easy to read labels, nice looking sliders and knobs. It looks very cramped at the top, a bit like FL Studio, but if I was using it every day I'm sure I'd get used to that.

To me it looks better than Studio One, which looks better than Cubase, but it's only by the tiniest degree. They are all perfectly usable and the GUI wouldn't stop me choosing any of them. By the same token, none of them are so much better than the others that I would choose any DAW based on the GUI, except maybe Live, where I'd have to really like everything about it a lot more than I do before I'd be willing to put up with the way it looks. But even there, I'm sure I could customise it to a point where I was happy enough with it.