Nuendo vs Sonar again
-
- KVRist
- 495 posts since 5 Sep, 2002 from Boston, Mass
I actually would LOVE to try a demo version of Cubase SX or Nuendo now, just to see what they have cooking. However, with no demos for download... :/
If it sounds good it is good.
-
- KVRAF
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
I agree, I don't think you were bashing either but it's turned that way partly because certain Nuendo users have to big up Nuendo at the expense of everything else rather than offering a constructive and balanced comparison. And certain Sonar users get defensive and start running Nuendo down - it just perpetuates the flame war.LoRez wrote:For what it's worth, I don't hink anyone thought you were bashing one or the other.SickNick2020 wrote:some of you people took this thread the wrong way, its not supposed to elect one program best and trash the other. i think sonar 4 is a great program its almost identical feature wise to nuendo, there are many differences but bottom line every program offers basic features that are pretty much the only thing people use. i just said ill take nuendo over sonar just because i prefer the workflow and automation on it. it just works better for me it does things without me asking it. the programs are almost identical, just small features that 1 includes that the other dosent, nd different work flows for each, some prefers sonar workflow some prefer nuendo's or cubase's. i wasnt trying to trash another program or put it down, i know what each is capable of
They're both very capable hosts for creating sound for multimedia.
-
- KVRAF
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
I notice that none of you have answered back in the last 20 minutes so I hope you're all feeling properly chastised and will behave properly from now on.
Otherwise there'll be tears before bedtime!
Otherwise there'll be tears before bedtime!
-
- KVRist
- 45 posts since 26 May, 2004 from Australia
One big problem with these kinds of debates is that people can't see past the paradigm of their main sequencer prog ( often the 1st one they learnt)
So...... when they are trying a new or different sequencer they're looking for the same way to do something as the program they normally use.
The "new" prog may be able to do what they want it to do.... it just does it differently....but people will dismiss it out of hand because it's different.
There seems to be a reluctance to learn a new way of doing a particular task...
The simple truth is that both SONAR and Nuendo are very good programs, which, in the right hands should enable the user to make good music.
They just come at it with different approaches.
The rest is just bullshit!
So...... when they are trying a new or different sequencer they're looking for the same way to do something as the program they normally use.
The "new" prog may be able to do what they want it to do.... it just does it differently....but people will dismiss it out of hand because it's different.
There seems to be a reluctance to learn a new way of doing a particular task...
The simple truth is that both SONAR and Nuendo are very good programs, which, in the right hands should enable the user to make good music.
They just come at it with different approaches.
The rest is just bullshit!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 42 posts since 26 Oct, 2004
Perfect, it just depends on the way people like the lay out of the program.muku wrote:One big problem with these kinds of debates is that people can't see past the paradigm of their main sequencer prog ( often the 1st one they learnt)
So...... when they are trying a new or different sequencer they're looking for the same way to do something as the program they normally use.
The "new" prog may be able to do what they want it to do.... it just does it differently....but people will dismiss it out of hand because it's different.
There seems to be a reluctance to learn a new way of doing a particular task...
The simple truth is that both SONAR and Nuendo are very good programs, which, in the right hands should enable the user to make good music.
They just come at it with different approaches.
The rest is just bullshit!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 42 posts since 26 Oct, 2004
1 more question a lil off topic, but is there a drum map in tracktion? i like to be exact when it comes to drums
-
- KVRist
- 178 posts since 21 Oct, 2003 from France
02R or SSL ? 
You guys should compare SX and Sonar. It's not very clear for cubase users either.
SX = MUSIC PRODUCTION
NUENDO = MUSIC + POST PRODUCTION.
though let's start with
1. Import and Export of AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) integrates the most modern project interchange format which is supported by companies such as AVID, Apple, Digidesign, SADiE, Merging, Fairlight and Adobe
2.The new Warp to Picture feature allows lightning-fast matching of audio to picture, such as fine tuning of dialog replacement or aligning music to picture
3.New AFL/PFL functionality: pressing the L (Listen) button on any channel enables you to exclusively monitor channel signal on the audition bus with routing and the output to your mix bus remaining untouched
4.External FX plug-ins: Nuendo 3 offers direct integration of external hardware effects processors into the VST audio mixer, allowing you to use your favorite outboard gear just like plug-ins – including delay compensation
5.MixConvert is a plug-in capable of translating from one surround format to another, all down-, cross- or even up-mixing is done automatically by MixConvert still leaving user options to optimize the new mix.
Shall i continue ?
If a program can help you concretizing your ideas, it's all that counts, be it a 60$ sequencer or 1.000.000$ tool, as they say, shit in > Shit out.
you have to feel good in environment that 'talks' to you, rest is bullshit. Some people did wonders with less sophisticated tools than we have now... it's good sometimes to set a limit and get some work done.
cheers.
You guys should compare SX and Sonar. It's not very clear for cubase users either.
SX = MUSIC PRODUCTION
NUENDO = MUSIC + POST PRODUCTION.
though let's start with
1. Import and Export of AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) integrates the most modern project interchange format which is supported by companies such as AVID, Apple, Digidesign, SADiE, Merging, Fairlight and Adobe
2.The new Warp to Picture feature allows lightning-fast matching of audio to picture, such as fine tuning of dialog replacement or aligning music to picture
3.New AFL/PFL functionality: pressing the L (Listen) button on any channel enables you to exclusively monitor channel signal on the audition bus with routing and the output to your mix bus remaining untouched
4.External FX plug-ins: Nuendo 3 offers direct integration of external hardware effects processors into the VST audio mixer, allowing you to use your favorite outboard gear just like plug-ins – including delay compensation
5.MixConvert is a plug-in capable of translating from one surround format to another, all down-, cross- or even up-mixing is done automatically by MixConvert still leaving user options to optimize the new mix.
Shall i continue ?
If a program can help you concretizing your ideas, it's all that counts, be it a 60$ sequencer or 1.000.000$ tool, as they say, shit in > Shit out.
you have to feel good in environment that 'talks' to you, rest is bullshit. Some people did wonders with less sophisticated tools than we have now... it's good sometimes to set a limit and get some work done.
cheers.
-
- KVRer
- 11 posts since 16 Jun, 2002 from Germany
Before I started with cakewalk, I have tried Cubase (it is some years ago, it was the time of VST 4 or 5 I think) and also I tried to work with Logic. But I was either too stupid in order to handle these programs properly or something else prevented me from liking them. Then - comletely frustrated - I finally tried Cakewalk Pro audio (8 or 9). Guess what? I was IMMEDIATELY able to use this programm for my needs. Everything was so logical and well structured for me. I simply immediately fell in love with CW.
So this is my subjective experince. It does not count much, but It is MY experience and it led me to be a SONAR user till now and I never felt the desire or the need to switch to Cubase or Logic. Why should I?
So MY primary criterion was the simplicity of use. And for ME, Cakewalk WAS and IS the most simple sequencer. Thats why I use it.
Best regards
So this is my subjective experince. It does not count much, but It is MY experience and it led me to be a SONAR user till now and I never felt the desire or the need to switch to Cubase or Logic. Why should I?
So MY primary criterion was the simplicity of use. And for ME, Cakewalk WAS and IS the most simple sequencer. Thats why I use it.
Best regards
-
- KVRist
- 161 posts since 31 May, 2004
LoRez wrote:
The difference between Cubase and Sonar is that Steinberg updates every version of Cubase to make working with midi or audio faster. On the other side, Cakewalk updates a feature not before the user start to scream for it.
I can give you some examples where Cubase does a far better job in the midiarea. These are some samples what you can do in the pianoroll view of Cubase:
You can split, mute notes.
You can resize multiple notes at once.
You can change the size of the controller lane.
You can see multiple controller lanes at once and you can even save different sets for fast recalling (for example: velocity + pitchbend + aftertouch).
Cubase has an infobar just above the pianoroll. It shows you for every note the lenght, start time, end time, velocity and pitch. If you want to change the velocity of note(s), you just select it and drag with the pointer over the velocitiy number in the info bar up/down. This works also for multiple selected notes.
In Sonar (and I don't think that a brush tool, mfx or midi loop is a improvement in the workflow, besides the fact that cubase has the same features) I miss especially the split and mute tool. When I want to shorten or lenghten a 8 finger piano accord, I have to redraw each note individually. Also, Sonar needs IMHO an update of the way how you select notes or even clips in the track view. Sonar is the last (big) sequencer, where you can select multiple events only if you draw a lasso arround them. In Cubase, Logic, whatever you don't need to draw the lasso all around a clip or multiple clips. It is enough if the clips get touched by the lasso. You can even "draw" a line and all touched clips are selected.
I wouldn't make a difference between audio and midi. Both features are generally equally needed. I always have the feeling that Cakewalk updates their products partially (Sonar3 was mainly a cosmetical update, Sonar4 finally has an audio metronome and significant improvements in the audio part of the program. But, I am not eager to pay for their updates and to wait when they will finally decide to catch up with another program (mainly cubase).
In fact, you can "draw" in Cubase the number of repetitions of one clip. It is fast and as easy as in Sonar. The difference is only that you can't draw back (from right to left).I'll give you one: Midi groove clips...and they're freakin' cool. No equiv in Cubase
A lot of musicians starts their projects as midi and in midi and at the end of the project they bounce to wave. I am sure that midi is still an important part of production.So really wouldn't you think that the imporvements over the years needed to be based around audio, and virtual instruments and mixing, etc. What do you need to do to Midi in Sonar that you can't do now?
The difference between Cubase and Sonar is that Steinberg updates every version of Cubase to make working with midi or audio faster. On the other side, Cakewalk updates a feature not before the user start to scream for it.
I can give you some examples where Cubase does a far better job in the midiarea. These are some samples what you can do in the pianoroll view of Cubase:
You can split, mute notes.
You can resize multiple notes at once.
You can change the size of the controller lane.
You can see multiple controller lanes at once and you can even save different sets for fast recalling (for example: velocity + pitchbend + aftertouch).
Cubase has an infobar just above the pianoroll. It shows you for every note the lenght, start time, end time, velocity and pitch. If you want to change the velocity of note(s), you just select it and drag with the pointer over the velocitiy number in the info bar up/down. This works also for multiple selected notes.
In Sonar (and I don't think that a brush tool, mfx or midi loop is a improvement in the workflow, besides the fact that cubase has the same features) I miss especially the split and mute tool. When I want to shorten or lenghten a 8 finger piano accord, I have to redraw each note individually. Also, Sonar needs IMHO an update of the way how you select notes or even clips in the track view. Sonar is the last (big) sequencer, where you can select multiple events only if you draw a lasso arround them. In Cubase, Logic, whatever you don't need to draw the lasso all around a clip or multiple clips. It is enough if the clips get touched by the lasso. You can even "draw" a line and all touched clips are selected.
I wouldn't make a difference between audio and midi. Both features are generally equally needed. I always have the feeling that Cakewalk updates their products partially (Sonar3 was mainly a cosmetical update, Sonar4 finally has an audio metronome and significant improvements in the audio part of the program. But, I am not eager to pay for their updates and to wait when they will finally decide to catch up with another program (mainly cubase).
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35475 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
mojkarma : "name 5 things that are changes to MIDI since Pro Audio 6"
folk : <list stuff>
mojkarma : "Oh I dont consider them to be improvements in workflow, and anyway cubase has them as well. And look what I think is better in Cubase"
Who woulda thought it, eh?
folk : <list stuff>
mojkarma : "Oh I dont consider them to be improvements in workflow, and anyway cubase has them as well. And look what I think is better in Cubase"
Who woulda thought it, eh?
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 2327 posts since 13 Apr, 2004 from Vancouver, Canada
Hans who? Wasn't he that guy who played that guy in that violent, Roman fighting-guys movie?
Gary Newman drinks Coke... So all of you who sit at your DAWs drinking some other brand are so 'insanely' and will never achieve his level of success.
Weeeeee! This forum is about as useful as screendoors on a submarine... I am actually glad to see the number of level-headed posts regarding workflow as being the foremost deciding factor on one's choice of software...
As an aside, I've never seen a thread contain the word 'esoteric' as much as this one has... I love that word! The meaning of that word is perhaps a little arcane, and a bit of a mystery to most people who see it... Oh the irony of it all!
Kaufi: Wow... Nuendo and Waves platinum 5! That must've set your parents back a few grand!
OK... I am done now.
Gary Newman drinks Coke... So all of you who sit at your DAWs drinking some other brand are so 'insanely'
and will never achieve his level of success.Weeeeee! This forum is about as useful as screendoors on a submarine... I am actually glad to see the number of level-headed posts regarding workflow as being the foremost deciding factor on one's choice of software...
As an aside, I've never seen a thread contain the word 'esoteric' as much as this one has... I love that word! The meaning of that word is perhaps a little arcane, and a bit of a mystery to most people who see it... Oh the irony of it all!
Kaufi: Wow... Nuendo and Waves platinum 5! That must've set your parents back a few grand!
OK... I am done now.
-
- KVRian
- 694 posts since 6 Aug, 2002 from London, UK
At least no-one has used "exoteric". Until now. Damn.
-
- KVRist
- 189 posts since 29 Jan, 2003 from location, location, location...
But aren't these just the new v.3 features copied verbatim from the Nuendo info page? I looked at this too and that's why I mentioned AAF in an earlier post. Regarding Sonar4 I could go on aboutRNJ wrote:02R or SSL ?
You guys should compare SX and Sonar. It's not very clear for cubase users either.
SX = MUSIC PRODUCTION
NUENDO = MUSIC + POST PRODUCTION.
though let's start with
1. Import and Export of AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) integrates the most modern project interchange format which is supported by companies such as AVID, Apple, Digidesign, SADiE, Merging, Fairlight and Adobe
2.The new Warp to Picture feature allows lightning-fast matching of audio to picture, such as fine tuning of dialog replacement or aligning music to picture
3.New AFL/PFL functionality: pressing the L (Listen) button on any channel enables you to exclusively monitor channel signal on the audition bus with routing and the output to your mix bus remaining untouched
4.External FX plug-ins: Nuendo 3 offers direct integration of external hardware effects processors into the VST audio mixer, allowing you to use your favorite outboard gear just like plug-ins – including delay compensation
5.MixConvert is a plug-in capable of translating from one surround format to another, all down-, cross- or even up-mixing is done automatically by MixConvert still leaving user options to optimize the new mix.
Shall i continue ?
If a program can help you concretizing your ideas, it's all that counts, be it a 60$ sequencer or 1.000.000$ tool, as they say, shit in > Shit out.
you have to feel good in environment that 'talks' to you, rest is bullshit. Some people did wonders with less sophisticated tools than we have now... it's good sometimes to set a limit and get some work done.
cheers.
Surroundbridge, TRUE Surround and stereo busses in the same project, etc. Aren't these "post" features also? And feature #3 (AFL PFL) has nothing to do with post whatsoever. Are you using Nuendo3 now? No offense, but if so I would have thought you could have given us these important features off the top of your head rather than just pasting the marketing copy from Steinberg. Notice one of the new "features" in Nuendo3 (that you didn't include) is that you can have clip based envelopes...something Sonar has had forever.
My point? My point is that, if anything, Sonar4 falls somewhere between Cubase and Nuendo as far as Media production is concerned. The comparison to Nuendo is just as apt at this point as a comparison to Cubase. A comparison of Sonar4 to Cubase when talking about audio for video and post would be amazingly unfair to Cubase as the surround, encoding, and delivery capabilities are just not comparable.
In short I'm saying comparing Sonar4 to Nuendo is nothing like comparing an O2R to an SSL console.
(bracing myself for counter-attack)...
