Cubase SX3 vs. Sonar 4

[Stupid American Pig]

You might also want to consider Logic, although you have to spend some $$$ on a Mac to run it.

I seriously think that Logic 5.x on PC is still a viable choice (if a Mac is out of the question). I wonder if you still get the Logic PC when you buy the new Mac version?

There are only a couple of features that are missing, like freeze. But if you have a fast enough computer, you don't need freeze. It kinda forces to not to make your tracks too cluttered.

IMHO, Logic 5.x MIDI editing and arranging features are better than in any other PC host, even with the new versions.

Admittedly, if you mostly use your host for multitrack recording and mixing it's not the best choice. But if you actually _compose_ new songs with the computer...

Oh, and most of the problems with new plugins and lack of MIDI control in insert FX can be remedied with Chainer, EnergyXT or somesuch.

I was browsing the Sonar 4 new features and there some of them were already in Logic years ago.

Also, somebody said that Samplitude has all that Logic has. No, it's MIDI editing features are rudimentary compared to Logic.

you could take any 2 hosts and make a blanket statement like that.


Back to the original point of the thread- SX3 and Sonar 4 have basically similar feature sets, it comes down to the features that you need and the way they are implemented. Cubase would not have such a large user base if it completely sucked, though it seems as if steinberg has had trouble in the past with some buggy software releases. Im sure SX3 is a great host though.

I am an S4 user and can say that the release is very stable, the freeze function works great, and it does everything I could ask it to. Furthermore, I like the fact that the copy protection is pretty much hassle free, and I can reload it on my machine as many times as I want. Plus, as long as I use it on only one machine at a time, I can install and use it on as many machines as I want. Keeping track of a dongle just seems like more trouble than its worth. Its called a DONGle for a reason ya know

[spaceman]

I'm not sure how SX 3 handles this..

is bouncing tracks in SX still a matter of soloing or muting tracks? Because I found that to be a pain in the backside, because even though you've muted tracks, SX still seems to process them.. or is that just Cubase being f**king slow?

in S4 you just select which track to bounce (or bus..) not to mention the option to bounce tracks to separate wavs

that's a big plus for me

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

For me these things are important so for me S4 is better than SX3.. if you've got other priorities you might have an other verdict.. or in other words, whatever suits you is the best

[visa tapani]

IMHO, Logic 5.x MIDI editing and arranging features are better than in any other PC host, even with the new versions.

Could you illustrate a bit (give examples, list features...)? The nro.1 usage of a host to me is midi editing and arranging, I actually compose my tracks with midi, so I'm pretty interested in this.

Also I'd be interested in hearing how Sonar4's midi editing is behind that of SX3?

[CypherOne]

I'm not sure how SX 3 handles this..

is bouncing tracks in SX still a matter of soloing or muting tracks? Because I found that to be a pain in the backside, because even though you've muted tracks, SX still seems to process them.. or is that just Cubase being f**king slow?

in S4 you just select which track to bounce (or bus..) not to mention the option to bounce tracks to separate wavs

that's a big plus for me

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

For me these things are important so for me S4 is better than SX3.. if you've got other priorities you might have an other verdict.. or in other words, whatever suits you is the best

how do the manuals compare? got any pics?

[visa tapani]

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?

[Stupid American Pig]

the manual for S4 is 400+ pages and is about 7" x 10" and weighs in at 25 lbs.

naw the manual is very comprehensive in S4

[spaceman]

how do the manuals compare? got any pics?

I've sold SL2

I still have page 22 though.. I guess that will at least give you some idea

[spaceman]

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

[djmontyq]

In the U.S., The SONAR 4 manual is very comprehensive at 700+ pages, although the index is missing some keywords to content, so you have to think creatively to find some info. You could do very well with this manual without having to purchase additional how-to books.

The SX3 Manual is the 250+ page "Getting Started," highlighting basics and new features. Full PDF and online help docs sit on your hard drive. You will need to reference the hard-drive docs to get specifics on many features.

IMO SX is more intuitive and elegant in general, and is "easier to look at" for extended sessions, regardless of your preferred colour scheme. I still find myself saying "what the heck do all these buttons do" with SONAR. SX, however, lacks some of SONAR's user-friendly looping capabilities, easy browsing, auditioning at project tempo, and drum features (the pass-thru drum map from DR-008 is an example, although you can use a wizard to make one for Cubase). Personally, I don't like that Auto-Quantize on record is not an option in SONAR--you need to use a plug-in--but depending on your use you may not care. SX3 does feature new loop-friendly manipulation and Ableton-esque arrangement tools, but SONAR still wins for ease of drag, drop, and chop.

SX also allows you to change instruments while playing, and I find that it hiccups less than S4 PE in general when the audio is running. In my work mode, it's a big plus to be able to leave a loop running while adding a VST. On the downside, MIDI drag and drop in the SX series can be inconsistent and temperamental. The sound quality difference between the programs is not noticeable to me on my Delta 1010. Loading SX takes MUCH longer than SONAR.

Finally, the SX series always seems to have a lot of little bugs to work around, and updates are generally slow and far-between. Steinberg appears to prefer major updates to fixing a bunch of little things at once quickly and regularly. A program of this sophistication should be updated at least monthly if major issues exist for some users. A visit to cubase.net will show you that while the situation is improving, there is still room for better responsiveness. My experience with SONAR and Ableton have been the opposite--fewer bugs out of the box, and quicker fixes.

Generally, I'll use SONAR as a sketch pad to flesh out a loop-based concept, and ultimately Cubase to develop or recreate the concept.

That's my 4 cents

[SJ_Digriz]

I'm not sure how SX 3 handles this..

is bouncing tracks in SX still a matter of soloing or muting tracks? Because I found that to be a pain in the backside, because even though you've muted tracks, SX still seems to process them.. or is that just Cubase being f**king slow?

in S4 you just select which track to bounce (or bus..) not to mention the option to bounce tracks to separate wavs

that's a big plus for me

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

For me these things are important so for me S4 is better than SX3.. if you've got other priorities you might have an other verdict.. or in other words, whatever suits you is the best

The above is the kind of mis-informed stuff I was talking about.

You can bounce any combination of events, single or multiple tracks to either another track or just plop it into the pool in every version of SX. It's not new, it's not hard and it's most of all NOT HIDDEN. You can also make a macro to batch handle various version of doing this process.

There is so much more mis-information about what hosts can and can't do in this thread it isn't funny.

[lanark]

I'll list things that sonar is missing: you cannot mute notes, you cannot split them, there is no object editor just above the pianoeditor, you cannot change as fast values in sonar as in cubase, you cannot shorten/lenghten multiple notes at onec, you cannot resize the controller pane, you cannot see multiple controller panes. If you want to edit notes in sonars pianoroll you always have to switch between the tools: for example: the selection tool only selects the notes. In cubase with the selection tool you can select notes but you can also shorten/lenghten the note(s) without switching the tools. And in Sx3 when you move your mouse to the controller pane it can automatically switch to a pencil tool and you can edit your controller data. Sonar doesn't show note names in the note brickets and sonars step editor is not a part of the pianoroll. The only advance in sonar that I can see is that it has a scrub tool to hear the midi notes as you move the cursor over the notes.

1. In Sonar you cannot start a blank project, hit the metronome and listen, just to decide which tempo you will use for your new song.
2. Sonar doesn't have fast forward and revind. You can only move by measures (or by clicking on a specific time).
3. sonar shows only grids on the beginning of a bar, not between.
4. Sonar doesn't creat automatically folders for your instruments: imagine, you insert a sampler with 16 outs: you promptly get 16 tracks in your track view. And the most stupid thing: if you remove the instrument, sonar will, unlike Cubase, not remove the not more used audiotracks that the instrument was assigned to.
5. No sample editor in sonar. Inferior audioprocessing tools (you can normalise only to a maximum, you can change the gain of audio only with +/- 3 gain, you cannot flip stereotracks)
6. Sonar doesn't have a glue tool, you can bounce clips but this creates a new clip that looses its name and in the case of audio, it makes a new audio clip.
7. Sonar doesn't have a pencil tool in the track view for creating autiomation data.
8. There is not an audio pool, you cannot for example change the name of your wave or manage your audio as good as in cubase.
9. There are no macro commands in sonar.
10. Compared to sx3, sonar doesn't have an inplace editor, and the ability to create controller maps for your hardware synths and some other improvements.

This are just a few things where I think that Cubase is the better option, but you can still download Sonar4 demo and see if it fits your needs.

You are quite wrong on a LOT of this things, how much time did you spend with SONAR??

The more obvious flaw:

9. There are no macro commands in sonar.

What about CAL??? Have you tried it? I'm using it from the MIDI only times in Cakewalk... It's so powerful, and amaizingly, my old ten-years old scripts still work.

Regards!

[Stupid American Pig]

cal is truely a powerful tool

[Rabid]

And CAL has been around a long, long time. How can anyone claim to know a lot about Sonar, or even the old Caskewalk sequencers and not know about CAL?

Overall, it is very hard to know what is correct, what is wrong, and what is colored by preference in these threads. If you are not passionate about your host, or even comfortable and happy with it, then it is worth your time to get some demos and look elsewhere. The reason the big three have different strenghts is because not everyone likes to work the same way.

Robert

[Mr. Slater's Parrot]

Cakewalk didn't changed anything regarding the pianoroll view or the way how to edit midi since proaudio six are even earlier. Absolutely nothing, ...

Sorry, but, that's just not true.

[Stupid American Pig]

besides that cakewalk's piano roll editor is one of the best there is. there is a reason that cakewalk went from a one man shop to a big(by niche market standards) company. the piano roll hasnt needed much improvement since PA6, its always been good...