sonar or samplitude?

[Hink]

Personally I never got what was special about object editing - nothing that you could make an object from everything in a range of timeline, including tempotrack - which I hoped for, just moving one part anywhere as an object. Why give it an abstract name like object editing anyway - even in marketing - who knows and can explain it even? I never got what was special about it compared to how you did things in any other daw. But a lot of care to have the right mode or editing affect much more than you expected - it's not fully built on that what is selected is affected - do a readup on that.

you dont have to, myself and many others have found how awesome it can help our work flows. Do you know how much you can do with an object in Samp...it's far more than you seem to imply.

Start here, which is just about fx


here are many more videos for everything else including automation, freezing...object editors are even one of the best channel strips I've seen
https://www.google.com/search?q=objects ... mwHIpqCYAQ

Very impressive video.

Clip or event effects and automation is very important to my workflow.
It should be that anything you can do to a track can do to a clip.

If I recall Samplitude was known for the audio quality. Is it better then the other DAW's?

Amplitude is weak on midi. A deal breaker for me.

how is it weak on midi? I heard this argument 10 years ago when I was first interested in it and I have yet to discover how.

[Kalamata Kid]

Personally I never got what was special about object editing - nothing that you could make an object from everything in a range of timeline, including tempotrack - which I hoped for, just moving one part anywhere as an object. Why give it an abstract name like object editing anyway - even in marketing - who knows and can explain it even? I never got what was special about it compared to how you did things in any other daw. But a lot of care to have the right mode or editing affect much more than you expected - it's not fully built on that what is selected is affected - do a readup on that.

you dont have to, myself and many others have found how awesome it can help our work flows. Do you know how much you can do with an object in Samp...it's far more than you seem to imply.

Start here, which is just about fx


here are many more videos for everything else including automation, freezing...object editors are even one of the best channel strips I've seen
https://www.google.com/search?q=objects ... mwHIpqCYAQ

Very impressive video.

Clip or event effects and automation is very important to my workflow.
It should be that anything you can do to a track can do to a clip.

If I recall Samplitude was known for the audio quality. Is it better then the other DAW's?

Amplitude is weak on midi. A deal breaker for me.

how is it weak on midi? I heard this argument 10 years ago when I was first interested in it and I have yet to discover how.

Ok midi implementation is not as complete as Cubase but no other DAW is.
So please list the midi implementation in Samplitude.
Where does it stand in relation to the other DAW's other than Cubase.

Did some research to see about midi. Did not find that much and unfortunately did not spend enough time to really learn the truth about midi in Samplitude. Samplitude now has ARA so I am willing to add it to my list of possible DAW's to be my main DAW or my one and only DAW. The audio looks great so now the midi remains to be scrutinized.

MIDI editor

The MIDI editor integrates different editors, views, ranges, and tools. For example, a piano roll, drum editor, score editor, controller editor (e.g. velocity, MIDI volume, etc.), and an event list are all available. You can also specifically set and change any parameter such as velocity, sustain, and other effects. MIDI quantization is also possible without any additional steps.
The beginning of notes, note length and pitch are all precisely displayed in the piano roll. You can copy, move, lengthen, shorten and play back all notes here.

Google saerch
Samplitude midi fx OR effects OR "list editor" OR "piano roll"
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... no+roll%22

SOS
http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/mag ... ude-pro-x2

edit
Many videos on Samlitude and midi


Second Edit: Ok, you are right! Samplitude has some decent midi implementation!
Now I will have to spend some more time checking it out.

[Uhotug]

Personally I never got what was special about object editing - nothing that you could make an object from everything in a range of timeline, including tempotrack - which I hoped for, just moving one part anywhere as an object. Why give it an abstract name like object editing anyway - even in marketing - who knows and can explain it even? I never got what was special about it compared to how you did things in any other daw. But a lot of care to have the right mode or editing affect much more than you expected - it's not fully built on that what is selected is affected - do a readup on that.

you dont have to, myself and many others have found how awesome it can help our work flows. Do you know how much you can do with an object in Samp...it's far more than you seem to imply.

Start here, which is just about fx
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">>

here are many more videos for everything else including automation, freezing...object editors are even one of the best channel strips I've seen

"Objects" are "Clips" in Sonar. They also have own FX rack, automations, can be copied to other project with "everything included". Clips in Sonar can be marked as "groove". That important feature is easy to overseen during short demo period, such clip can be "pitched" and follows tempo changes (also in real time), while "normal" Clip has no such options.

what fantastically useful things does Samplitude have that Sonar hasn't ?

Pristine audio quality
Comprehensive object editing
More comprehensive mastering effects
The underdog in production circles

The "audio quality" of any DAW (unlike analog consoles) is virtually the same, till some processing is involved. In Sonar, "difficult" processing is done by iZotope Radius or Celemony Melodyne. And I have not seen anything bad about the "simple" part (mixing volumes, pan) algorithms (except when corresponding to Pan behavior option is overseen in the preferences).
Cakewalk has recently added 2 own mastering effects (EQ & Comp). And the whole range of bundled plug-ins is huge (from "one knob" style up to "tune everything yourself").

[lfm]

what fantastically useful things does Samplitude have that Sonar hasn't ?

Pristine audio quality

Are you one of those claiming daws do not sound as good as another?

In Sonar you can choose both a 64-bit engine as well as standard 32-bit.
For all VST instruments/synths you have ability to mark for upsampling - meaning that instrument is run at double sample rate than project, making aliasing much less. That without having to start running full projects at 96k.

Clearly noticable difference, I can tell you. And it is summing up for every synth you use - more aliasing - so keeping that down for some -3dB to -6dB extra on every synths track is substantial to a full mix. It depends a little on what kind of sounds each synth do though.

But in other daws I juse Metaplugin to run upsampled instruments - but talking about daw and built in stuff - I think Sonar is alone on that feature.

Myself, I think I'm rather traditional user and use a daw mainly as a tape machine holding my clips and plugins for mixing and automation for final result. Many advanced features in daws I don't use them or need them even.

What you always appreciate though is maintenance for everything to be stable. Magix is not quite up to that task in my book. And not able to scan and use my Waves stuff kind of breaks the deal - I can for VST2 but not VST3 which Samp claims to support. It doesn't matter how much whatever else is there, does it. It's basically Magix Independent sampler that is VST2, otherwise everything is VST3 for me.

I had good use of Samp moving Reaper projects over to OMF format - shortening that process. So it's still installed but never used otherwise since 18 months.

[koolkeys]

how is it weak on midi? I heard this argument 10 years ago when I was first interested in it and I have yet to discover how.

When it comes to MIDI, Samplitude and Sonar are much closer than if you were to compare to Cubase or Logic, which are both far more advanced than Samplitude and Sonar. So in terms of this comparison, it isn't a large of a difference. I will say that Sonar has a few older legacy MIDI features that are still useful, but in terms of the general MIDI editing features, it isn't THAT much greater than Samplitude. Sonar does have inline MIDI editing and a couple of other things, but I don't know if that alone is enough to sway somebody.

For anyone making the "better sound quality" argument, please, stop the insanity. And being a production "underdog" isn't a feature.

For me, I personally like Sonar more than Samplitude because it does give you more track editing flexibility (not everyone wants to work on an object level, though Sonar does give you that as well, albeit on a lighter level than Samplitude). I also happen to prefer the now-improved Sonar interface, though I wish it would take a page from Cubase or Studio One in terms of being more cohesive.

Samplitude has better audio editing than Sonar does, and I also like the Samplitude mixing environment more because of features like mix snapshots (I don't recall if that is the official name of the feature or not). Though I do find the Samplitude interface quite a bit more clunky than Sonar (which isn't exactly the most elegant interface to handle itself), though that is personal preference. Sonar has improved greatly in that area, while Samplitude still feels very "tacked on" with each feature. Not terrible, but Sonar has a slight edge FOR ME in terms of a cohesive environment.

I think the mastering effects in Samplitude are better than those in Sonar, but not really a huge difference here. I think Sonar's overall included effects and instruments are better. Samplitude is more "top heavy" in their included effects, while Sonar is better top to bottom, if that makes sense?

Sonar's copy protection is a little less of a pain, though neither will likely cause you issues. Sonar is better at plugin handling and gives you more flexibility for editing your plugin lists and menus.

So it really depends on what you want the host for. Both are great and have made big improvements to workflow over the past three versions or so.

I will say that if you value frequent updates, Sonar is the clear winner here. Since introducing the subscription option (you can still buy it outright), they have made amazing improvements on a regular, monthly basis. It really is moving forward faster than Samplitude, IMO. But it isn't always a good option to buy based on what a program WILL be, but just for what it is right now. But Sonar is making major improvements by the month, which is very appealing.

Brent

[LawrenceF]

From my admittedly cursory demos of Samp, yeah, the object editor isn't just clips with FX on them.

One of the more... potentially unusual things (I think so anyway).... is that objects have sends. It's not ... quite as unique ... as it once was for some products to have real time FX on clips, or even independently freeze those kinds of things, but sends? Maybe that still is. In that regard, it kinda is an actual "real" fully functional "object" in the project, not just a clip with FX inserted on it.

Also, IIRC, some of the other products that have FX on clips don't allow automating any of it, and I think Samp automates all of it.

[Hink]

Lawrence you are correct about objects, those who think it's just clips are completely unaware of the power of the Object Editor and how in depth it is and yes objects can have their own automation.

Brent you have been saying the same thing about Samp and inline editing for close to 10 years. This is workflow related, my response was directly to the point made in this thread and that being Samplitude is weak on midi and I stand by my statement that I have yet to see this. I simply do not see any evidence in ten years of use that it is "weak" in any way shape or form. Inline is a different story and something totally based on preference, if you feel that makes it weak so be it but in ten years Samp has never left me wanting for anything when it comes to midi.

The fact is I stopped using Sonar in 2006, I never got into it's workflow but that is preference. But then I did like Sonar's fx, however Samp imo has absolutely incredible native effects and DP especially if you buy the suite. I have heard users of many different DAWs say that perhaps they are the best native fx but I cant speak to that. The thing is I cannot compare it to another because I have not tried another DAW in 10 years. My only point in responding here was to clear up two common misconceptions. The first being the underestimating of the power of the Object Editor and the second stating that it has midi problems. To the latter I do believe that earlier versions of Samp did have some problems (earlier than 9 pro which was out a decade ago), but it seems that is no longer the case.

Once again, I cannot compare it to other DAWs so I wont. I will say that there are a few things that I still dont think are all there in Samp Pro X2 (I have not upgraded yet). I do not like the workflow of track comping, but I dont comp tracks as I prefer to use autopunch to correct such things. Samp having multi-point autopunch is huge, for me it's far quicker to go through a take, identify the places I want to fix/change and make punchpoints along the timeline and redo those parts as opposed to sitting at my desk going through takes and comping. Also along this vein the revolver tracks is a feature that now that I have become use to it is a feature I would not want to go without.

I'm not comfortable with the audio quantizing, partly because it is a work in progress (I believe there are changes in Pro X3, but am not sure what if any improvements) and partly because it's not a feature that interests me.

I cant speak to how it behaves under windows 10 because I dont use 10.

I have never had any issues scanning plugins and that one actually surprised me when it was mentioned here but I dont use many 3rd party plugin fx due to the amazing Samp plugins, laziness and lack of gas. I use maybe half a dozen VSTi's on a regular basis and have no need for anything more.

There are so many features though that I simply have become so very comfortable with. Revolver tracks, multi-point autopunch, comparisonics (any DAW can add this), the velocity options in the PR, (the ability to drag a note/event vertically in the PR to adjust velocity while sounding/audtioning the instrument is huge for me with velocity layered samples), the OE with so many features (like I said it can be used as a really versatile channel strip), it's amazing audio capabilities including for me amazing wave editing, the fx and dp processors, VCA's, the freeze (which I use for bouncing in place, not to free up resources) and the fact you can freeze a track, an object or an instrument (with jamstix, 30 seconds to a minute and all the tracks bounced in place is fantastic), the fft (and it's really cool sound clone feature), the mixer, the fact you dont need to use the wave editor for much as pretty much everything you want can be done in place, the universal mouse mode (and other mouse modes), the keystrokes including the keystroke editor and yes for me the way it handles midi which indeed is second nature to me. There are many other things but most are some are just things I do not think about. I understand in Pro X3 there is something similar to warp but I am rather ignorant on that.

So I cannot say if it's better or worse than any other DAW, all I can say is it fits me like a glove and there is no reason for me to look elsewhere. It is quite possible that many other DAWs do indeed have the same and maybe better features, but I see no reason to search out and relearn a new DAW when I click with Samp so well.

[koolkeys]

Brent you have been saying the same thing about Samp and inline editing for close to 10 years. This is workflow related, my response was directly to the point made in this thread and that being Samplitude is weak on midi and I stand by my statement that I have yet to see this. I simply do not see any evidence in ten years of use that it is "weak" in any way shape or form. Inline is a different story and something totally based on preference, if you feel that makes it weak so be it but in ten years Samp has never left me wanting for anything when it comes to midi.

I never said it was "weak" on MIDI. I said it doesn't stand up to Cubase or Logic, but very few hosts do. If you have never explored the Cubase Logical editors and transformers, or the expression map functionality, or the flexibility of the MIDI FX system, the chord track system and how it can control your entire arrangement, including audio, the ability to use display quantize in the notation view, the extensive external hardware integration, custom MIDI device setup, the ability to edit MIDI from a clip level, note expression, and on and on.

You may not need these features. Not everyone does. But there is no question that Samplitude is lacking when compared to something like Cubase. Does that matter? Not to everyone. You don't find it lacking because you either don't need those features or have never used them and don't know how/if they could help you. Nothing wrong with that. But the differences are definitely there.

As for the inline thing, it is an absolutely useful feature. Preference or not, it still isn't there. But even then, in my post above, I stated that I don't know if that difference alone is enough to make a decision on. But it IS a big deal for some people. Regardless, I didn't make a huge deal about it really. Just mentioned it as a difference, which it is.

I only made mention of Samplitude compared to Cubase and Logic for perspective, but as it pertains to this particular comparison (Samp vs Sonar), I stated very clearly that while Sonar might have an edge in MIDI, it is a slight one. I think the audio editing in Samplitude is further ahead of Sonar than the MIDI editing in Sonar is ahead of Samplitude.

The fact is I stopped using Sonar in 2006, I never got into it's workflow but that is preference. But then I did like Sonar's fx, however Samp imo has absolutely incredible native effects and DP especially if you buy the suite. I have heard users of many different DAWs say that perhaps they are the best native fx but I cant speak to that. The thing is I cannot compare it to another because I have not tried another DAW in 10 years. My only point in responding here was to clear up two common misconceptions. The first being the underestimating of the power of the Object Editor and the second stating that it has midi problems. To the latter I do believe that earlier versions of Samp did have some problems (earlier than 9 pro which was out a decade ago), but it seems that is no longer the case.

I didn't say the Object Editor wasn't powerful (I only stated that I personally prefer a little more track-based flexibility), or even that there were problems with the MIDI. So nothing to clear up with me personally.

I'll say again though about the FX. I believe that the best effects in Samplitude are better than the best effects in Sonar. But I think the top to bottom level of effects in Sonar is better than the top to bottom effects in Samplitude. But in the end, we're talking about differences that most people will never even see, and there are so many great effects out there that a person can make up for anything missing in one host or the other.

I have never had any issues scanning plugins and that one actually surprised me when it was mentioned here but I dont use many 3rd party plugin fx due to the amazing Samp plugins, laziness and lack of gas. I use maybe half a dozen VSTi's on a regular basis and have no need for anything more.

I've never had any deal breaking issues with fx scanning personally. Minor issues for the most part. But Sonar has been pretty rock solid as of late with that, which is why I mentioned it. I don't think it is anything that should sway somebody one way or the other. I haven't used the newest version of Samplitude extensively, but just in some testing/demo scenarios (I like to keep up on new developments and my "wish lists" for each host that interests me).

So I cannot say if it's better or worse than any other DAW, all I can say is it fits me like a glove and there is no reason for me to look elsewhere. It is quite possible that many other DAWs do indeed have the same and maybe better features, but I see no reason to search out and relearn a new DAW when I click with Samp so well.

Absolutely!

Brent

[MaroxAudio]

Are you one of those claiming daws do not sound as good as another?

I am yes, and I cannot articulate nor substantiate why I believe there to be a difference very well as I'm not a developer of audio / dsp products or their processes. However I can describe my experience in audio quality differences when I moved from Cubase 8 to Samplitude (being well aware of pan laws).

But not only that, I also have belief in the developers commitment to sound quality and that they should know what they are talking about.

Here's an excerpt from the founders and still developer of Samplitude.

From the very beginning, two hallmarks have defined the philosophy behind Samplitude: [snip] and an obsessive commitment to purity of sound quality.

Herberger is sceptical about the notion that there are no sonic differences between audio programs. [snip]

I think the big thing about the sound quality is to make no mistakes. You must not do mistakes in the DSP. It's a big goal, and a lot of errors and not-clever routines are done by a lot of parties on the market, and people who are trained to hear audio will discover these immediately.

Six or seven years ago, we had a patch for a new Samplitude version, and one day an American guy called us and said 'Hey, you did something wrong in your program. It sounds bad now.'

We measured, and did tests, and after a long time we found out that in the 24th bit of the audio in going from floating-point arithmetic that we do internally down to the sample level through a 24-bit converter, we forgot the dithering.

I personally could not hear this, to be honest — but you can measure it, and in a program as huge as Samplitude, you have a thousand points where you can make a mistake of this sort.”

Source: http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/mag ... tude-pro-x

The "audio quality" of any DAW (unlike analog consoles) is virtually the same, till some processing is involved. In Sonar, "difficult" processing is done by iZotope Radius or Celemony Melodyne. And I have not seen anything bad about the "simple" part (mixing volumes, pan) algorithms (except when corresponding to Pan behavior option is overseen in the preferences).
Cakewalk has recently added 2 own mastering effects (EQ & Comp). And the whole range of bundled plug-ins is huge (from "one knob" style up to "tune everything yourself").

Yeah, same answer as above.

So, what say you both?

[Hink]

Brent, my only point directed toward you was about inline editing, I am responding to the op and others in the thread. I never implied thay you said it was weak.

Very impressive video.

Clip or event effects and automation is very important to my workflow.
It should be that anything you can do to a track can do to a clip.

If I recall Samplitude was known for the audio quality. Is it better then the other DAW's?

Amplitude is weak on midi. A deal breaker for me.

Same with the point about the clips/object editor

Personally I never got what was special about object editing - nothing that you could make an object from everything in a range of timeline, including tempotrack - which I hoped for, just moving one part anywhere as an object. Why give it an abstract name like object editing anyway - even in marketing - who knows and can explain it even? I never got what was special about it compared to how you did things in any other daw. But a lot of care to have the right mode or editing affect much more than you expected - it's not fully built on that what is selected is affected - do a readup on that.

"Objects" are "Clips" in Sonar. They also have own FX rack, automations, can be copied to other project with "everything included". Clips in Sonar can be marked as "groove". That important feature is easy to overseen during short demo period, such clip can be "pitched" and follows tempo changes (also in real time), while "normal" Clip has no such options.

From my admittedly cursory demos of Samp, yeah, the object editor isn't just clips with FX on them.

and again about plugin scanning

I tried the demo for Samplitude a couple of months back but didnt get very far; had the most problems doing plugin scanning Ive ever encountered in a DAW. No idea why, it balked on stuff that even fairly 'touchy' scanners like earlier versions of Tracktion had no problems with, crashing repeatedly.
In contrast, Sonar is the one DAW that's Ive always been able to rely on being able to manage every plugin I have and/or decide to try out, right back to very early synthedit plugins via its bitbridge. Also has the best plugin menu management around. Used to be the only one with custom menus, still might be.

Cant do more of a comparison, that's where I gave up trying, rather disappointedly.

I have absolutely no intent on arguing which DAW is best and I really prefer you dont make it a debate with me, my points were to inform woggle of my experiences. My point is not to sway woggle or anyone else, I have no dog in a DAW fight and will not participate. woggle is looking for help choosing so that's all I am doing, passing on my experience.

We have done the inline editing to death in the past, does Sonar have inline editing? If so explain it to woggle, not me. This thread is about Sonar and Samplitude, not Cubase and Logic too

[koolkeys]

Brent, my only point directed toward you was about inline editing, I am responding to the op and others in the thread. I never implied thay you said it was weak.

You referred to me talking about the inline editing for 10 years, then you said you've been hearing about the weak midi for 10 years, all in the same paragraph directed at me. How else was I supposed to respond?

Also, what good is a conversation if we aren't allowed to discuss things, even if they aren't directed at us? I'm not "arguing". I'm discussing. Are we not allowed to reply if somebody doesn't direct a comment at us?

I have absolutely no intent on arguing which DAW is best and I really prefer you dont make it a debate with me, my points were to inform woggle of my experiences. My point is not to sway woggle or anyone else, I have no dog in a DAW fight and will not participate. woggle is looking for help choosing so that's all I am doing, passing on my experience.

And I'm passing on mine. Not sure where you get the whole arguing thing. It's a discussion, and trying to paint it as turning into an argument is a bit unfair. I haven't been rude or unfair in any way. I'm only trying to help woggle, same as you.

You are a Samplitude user. That is your "dog in the fight". Pretending otherwise is just useless, isn't it? Nobody is criticizing you or your involvement. I'm not sure why you insist this is being made into any type of fight or arguing. If this is fighting or arguing, we should probably ban DAW comparisons completely.

We have done the inline editing to death in the past, does Sonar have inline editing? If so explain it to woggle, not me. This thread is about Sonar and Samplitude, not Cubase and Logic too

Yes, Sonar does have inline editing. And it's been years since we talked about inline editing missing in Samplitude (at least in any conversations I've been a part of). Woggle wasn't involved in those. So I brought it up.

And I brought up Cubase and Logic for reference in the conversation about whether Samplitude's MIDI was lacking. You brought up previous conversations over the 10 years or whatever, where you keep hearing about the MIDI in Samplitude not being as good. I was providing a reference to where people are coming from when they say it is lacking. Compared to more powerful MIDI hosts, it is lacking. But I also circled it back around to the comparison between Sonar and Samplitude.

Sorry if you feel my post was somehow arguing. But I'm just attempting to be helpful. And I feel my comments were nothing more than that.

Brent

[woggle]

thanks for all these great responses - fantastically helpful. I have finished testing for a while and my (long post) thoughts are

I am not in a hurry - that is #1 (and quite unlike me, being an impatient sort as I am)

Samplitude and Sonar are both very good - the choice is between two totally acceptable bits of software for my needs - audio mainly, lots of editing and editing to video, some midi

Reaper (my current and long standing DAW since version 0.4x) has some features I like very much that allow me to work without ever seeing the mixer / console view. Neither Samplitude nor Sonar seems as good at that, they both seem to be built with the traditional mixing console architecture in mind, although it can be worked around - eg it is common for me to use nested folders in Reaper to divide instruments into groups where there might be realtime automation on individual clips in each track, then those tracks are grouped under a subfolder which also has realtime fx on it and then a number of subfolders are grouped into a larger structure which also has its own fx. This workflow allows me to see everything at once in the track view = levels, clips, density of activity and so on - all in one view that is easy to contract and expand.

Sonar and Samplitude sort of allow that but not very well.

But maybe Samplitude, in particular, has a different way of working that will give me what I want - only using the track view, never working from a mixer.

The Reaper modeless mouse is also more convenient but that might be just familiarity.
Neither Samplitude nor Sonar have spline automation - I cannot understand why every DAW does not have this - it is so obviously more efficient for the user.

However whilst Reaper is great at this top level and for basic editing the bolted on incoherent interface and adhoc development strategy gives rise to serious problems in other interactions

Samplitude for me has the better interface - very well thought in terms of workflow - spectral views and comparisonics are things I would use all the time. The object editor is better than using clips in either Sonar or Reaper (although they all have good capability at that level) BUT - Samplitude crashed my machine, first BSOD I have had for years on Windows. Now it does seem there has been a problem with the latest Win10 update as Sonar has also been crashing for people. But it does seem that Samplitude might struggle with some VSTs a bit more than other DAWs. I don't mind a struggle, but BSOD = unusable. I do understand that might just be something about my machine, but it is my machine that I have to use - and it is a very good purpose built one.

Hence I shall wait and reconsider after another win update to see if the BSOD remains - and the Samplitude forum seems to be offline a lot for more than a day at a time - that's not a good look

Sonar has a lot going for it - the rolling updates are a genuine feature and they seem to be responsive to issues / bugs. I like the forum which is more active than Samplitude's and much better than the Reaper forum (which can be helpful but I can't stand the fawning one finds in the fanbase and the general "culture". It was much better in the very early days ). And it is cheap. I really can't separate it from Samplitude - they are both strong in most areas.

So I am going to finish my current project - composing music and video for my Tai Chi teacher to show the qigong shibashi (18 forms ) - in Reaper and see how many times I get frustrated with the interaction, comparing all along with my demo experience with Sonar and Samplitude. Then re-demo as needed. That should take me through to the end of the year.

Cannot thank everyone enough for the kind and incredibly helpful comments you have posted

woggle

[Hink]

see I cant help on crashes, I'm on a dedicated i7 built by pc-audio labs that still uses windows 7 and it doesn't do anything else...not even go online so I dont have security software running either...really stripped down

[woggle]

see I cant help on crashes, I'm on a dedicated i7 built by pc-audio labs that still uses windows 7 and it doesn't do anything else...not even go online so I dont have security software running either...really stripped down

my machine is very good - the crashes seem to be Samplitude and Cakewalk having problems with the latest win10 update. Reaper is not showing any issues. It may be the way S and C use the audio driver. Reaper has no problems sharing the audio driver with other programs whereas both Samplitude and Cakewalk have been very difficult to impossible to get to share the audio driver since this latest update. I don't remember them having any issues earlier

For this reason I am back using Reaper on a project I need to get finished. Otherwise there is a good chance I would have bought Samplitude yesterday. But I hate unreliable programs - I would rather use something simple and reliable than something with lots of great features that crashed a few times a year

woggle

[Zexila]

But I hate unreliable programs - I would rather use something simple and reliable than something with lots of great features that crashed a few times a year.

Why not start with an actual OS than, instead of bleeding edge one with every new update breaking something.