Considering a move from Sonar to Cubase..

[bduffy]

I don't dance, I do computer stuff. Second from the left, holding a chunk of second-generation digital computer, that's me as a human.

I was wondering what happened to my old 386!

[LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY]

Ya some vsts work in everything BUT cubase!

THAT is ....bs?

which ones, seriously?

I seem to recall reading ... Crashes cubase upon plugin scan..

Then "works fine for me in sonar/some other host"

Sorry, i might be mistaken, can't remember what forum, maybe concrete fx or something.. Point is: It COULD be the developer of the plug's fault! Like if a host like ext or sonar (non-cubase) were to accept character strings that are longer than 32 chars for parameter labels and the design spec of vst says not to (therefore cubase wont allow it), then it will crash cubase and not sonar/ext if a parameter has longer than 32 chars. This is not neccessarily steins fault, but it just goes to show it sometimes can be caused by the plug devs.

[HHaynes]

I was wondering has anyone moved from Sonar to Cubase and if they were glad.

A few years back I went from Cakewalk 9 to Logic to Cubase SX 1 at which time I felt like I had finally found a home. I've always managed to "tune" my workflow to the application at hand in order to get the job done. Cubase SX is the first application that made me feel like I didn't have to curb my creative flow in order to get things done. But that's just me. It's different for everyone. There are features in Cubase that I simply wouldn't part with - and now that I'm using Nuendo and doing a lot of film scoring, my feelings are even more deeply felt.

However, asking for someone else's opinion about which DAW platform to choose is a bit like asking someone else to go shopping for clothes for your new wardrobe without you being there. Most likely they'll come back with something that doesn't fit you and is not your style. So why would I try to convince you to agree with me if you didn't need those features? That's just pointless.

There are a lot of statements made against Cubase here that I know not to be true - or - are quickly remedied with a bit of knowledge about the program. But I don't have time to go through point by point and correct every statement that's based on bad information or incomplete knowledge of the program. I think in some cases people spend just enough time with an application to confirm their worst fears and then quickly abandon it to go back to what is familiar. That's part of human nature, but if you want to go beyond those responses that are based on prejudice and gut-level misgivings, then you simply have to find out for yourself. It seems that you are doing that, and my suggestion is to stick with it and decide for yourself.

I was at a Society of Composers and Lyricists panel discussion on using computers for film scoring, and the hand-out that they passed out before the session started had a long list of all the "tools" that you'd *need*, which included a beefy Mac, Pro Tools and Logic.



During the discussion, though, when the subject came up - each composer mentioned that the information in the handout was not really applicable any more, as one composer said he used Cubase on a PC, another said he used DP, and still another said he used Sonar. These are all top-tier guys that know how to get the job done - and aside from their chuckling at the presumption in the hand-out document, they all had equal respect for each other's work and methods.

Here's an intresting set of comments from Tom Holkenborg, aka Junkie XL:

Junkie XL - Expanding Limits with Cubase

Steinberg: That's lots of different projects with different demands. Do you have a main production tool? Or does it depend on the project?

Tom Holkenborg: I work with everything that I can get my hands on. I was definitely one of the first guys who started working with Cubase. I remember in 1985/86 when Pro 24 came out, the first program Steinberg ever released, I started to work with that. And I've been working with Cubase ever since. 2000/2001 I got a Pro Tools set next to my Cubase set. And next to that set I got a Logic set as well. But preferably I work in Cubase. Cubase is my main production tool for making sounds.

Steinberg: What do you like about Cubase?

Tom Holkenborg: If you look at the last 15 years it was always Cubase that was the most innovative program. It always came up with new things. It came up with the audio sequencer; it came up with ASIO driver and with VST technology. Basically other programs followed that. Programs like Logic or Pro Tools took the graphic design Cubase developed in the early 90s. For me, making music in Cubase is great with all the plug-ins that comes with it and all the instruments that are especially made for it. The MIDI programming in Cubase is really great for me.

The interesting thing that he says is "The MIDI programming in Cubase is really great for me." and I think that's the really critical point. It's a personal decision - make your own.

[xylyx]

I could be wrong on this, but I would prefer to see an official document on the Roland owning [part of] Cakewalk thing rather than a commonly stated supposition.

"...Roland is making a minority investment in Cakewalk."

http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/07-18-03- ... liance.asp

Cheers. The investment doesn't necessarily translate to them owning a part of Cakewalk, it could just give them some other leverage. I doubt that this info (the specifics of the investment) will be public domain and it probably isn't important in the grand scheme of things...

[Stairsteps]

How do I break this to you HHaynes, umm lets see let me put it in a graceful way, Sonar5 is out and its kicking the arse of not just Cubase mind you but every DAW including hardware on the planet and it will take Cubase a whole new rewrite of thier engine to be able to compete Sonic wise let alone how sonar has seemed to grab up some pretty hot ass equipment from reknown developers such as Roland, Sonitus, Rgc,Voxengo, Sfz . Even the RolandGroove synth which is not the best instrument they offer is miles ahead of what Cubase offers as far as quality is concerned.

Oh sure you like the workflow of Cubase and im not gonna knock you for that, I have SX and I love what you can do with it as far as Vsts arew concerned, But now Sonar5 has implemented MPEX time streching, and per clip effects, also If I want to open up a Vsti while a song is playing I can do that with project 5 rewire which is how I construct my songs, I always use Project 5 (Cakewalk) to construct my arrangements and then I just use Sonar to track the Vocals & effects.

Bottom line is Sonar 5 is a Fking breakthru product not a evloution but a revolution, its got a host of things that it does now that no other DAW on the planet does, sure you'll catch up one day, but dont think that while you try to catch up Sonar wont be thinking of there next move by that time.

For my AMD 64 Sonar 5 is the only option and the ONLY and FIRST 64bit native DAW on the Market.

Like you think Cakewalk after SWEEPING all the awards in the DAW catagory in the last few years would take a rest but I see they havent and there fan base and company support is second to none, while in the meantime Cubase has gone thru 3 different owners in 3 years and its very hard to get help from there company staff let alone there forum and web help is a joke indeed.

Like I said earlier Cubase can not compete anymore untill they go back to the drawing board, MOTU cant compete, Ableton,T2 all the rest while im sure have tons of merit Sonar5 just took first place in the quality & features department.

[kevink]

How do I break this to you HHaynes, umm lets see let me put it in a graceful way, Sonar5 is out and its kicking the arse of not just Cubase mind you but every DAW including hardware on the planet

At this point, the big red FANBOY ALERT lamp starts flashing and I hear a klaxon so deafening that I don't even read to the end of the sentence. And I'm a Sonar user.

[Improv]

For my AMD 64 Sonar 5 is the only option and the ONLY and FIRST 64bit native DAW on the Market.

Are you running that on 64 bit Windows?

[Rabid]

Cheers. The investment doesn't necessarily translate to them owning a part of Cakewalk, it could just give them some other leverage.

And the difference would be? ...

I doubt that this info (the specifics of the investment) will be public domain and it probably isn't important in the grand scheme of things...

This has been very public. If you followed Cakewalk or Roland you would know they frequently talk about the partnership. Soft instruments based on Roland products are included in Kinetic, Project 5, and Sonar. Roland released the SP-606 which ties in with software from Cakewalk.

The only speculation seems to be your dismissal of this information.

[ResonantOrder]

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

[LIMITAPROACHINGINFINITY]

I will say that Sonar has two features that I can't live without. CAL routines and Midi groove clips. Cubase doesn't have either of them.

Just proves the different strokes for different folks philosophy.. Because i dont give a shti about these.. And I do love sonar by the way!

[woc53]

I could be wrong on this, but I would prefer to see an official document on the Roland owning [part of] Cakewalk thing rather than a commonly stated supposition.

"...Roland is making a minority investment in Cakewalk."

http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/07-18-03- ... liance.asp

Cheers. The investment doesn't necessarily translate to them owning a part of Cakewalk, it could just give them some other leverage. I doubt that this info (the specifics of the investment) will be public domain and it probably isn't important in the grand scheme of things...

I agree it isn't going to change either of our lives, but look here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/Roland-Ca ... ce-faq.asp

What is a minority investment?

This means that Roland has purchased a percentage of Cakewalk significantly less than 50%. Therefore Cakewalk and Roland remain independent companies, who will work together to create joint products and to improve distribution.

[xylyx]

Cheers. The investment doesn't necessarily translate to them owning a part of Cakewalk, it could just give them some other leverage.

And the difference would be? ...

That owning a part of Cakewalk could see them having significant input on Cakewalk's future direction...that they would be taking a slice of profits from Cakewalk etc. However, woc53's link cleared this up...

This has been very public. If you followed Cakewalk or Roland you would know they frequently talk about the partnership. Soft instruments based on Roland products are included in Kinetic, Project 5, and Sonar. Roland released the SP-606 which ties in with software from Cakewalk.

The only speculation seems to be your dismissal of this information.

I own Sonar and Project5, so I am aware of the Roland softsynths included in the product (even if V-Vocal seems to be the first really worthwhile addition to come from this relationship...in my view anyway). That Roland badged products are in Sonar were not evidence that they were in bed together, as Sonar has often included third party products.

But since woc53 did something useful by actually linking to an official announcement (which, if you read my original response, was what I asked for in the first place), the issue is a moot one and the question has been answered...

[xylyx]

I agree it isn't going to change either of our lives, but look here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/Roland-Ca ... ce-faq.asp

What is a minority investment?

This means that Roland has purchased a percentage of Cakewalk significantly less than 50%. Therefore Cakewalk and Roland remain independent companies, who will work together to create joint products and to improve distribution.

Thanks for the link...that answered my original ponderings

[stag]

Hey guys what´s the ig deal???? The man wants to give a spin at SX and you spit the cakewalk marketing blah-blah on him??? shame on you, why doyouget so defensive, i tried S4,
not even for free i want it on my drive, but i´ll check S5 if they deserve my hard earned money, why not pay for it, i did that with SX at the time it seemed the best options, perhsps S5 get my money too, but looking at the last years and assuming Steinberg isn´t sleeping, i don´t see Cakewalk as developers and investops in the same league as Steinberg, see you talk about M-PEX as a god send, well cubase has it implemented, at least from 99, this thingscost a lot of cash now but on 99 i´m sure Prosoniq has asked a lot more money for it than it has asked today.
if they get the Roland technology, something tells me that Steinberg has already had some kind of contsct with Celemony.

[woc53]

Thanks for the link...that answered my original ponderings

You're welcome. Now back to the Sonar-Cubase Wars. (Nah...I'm sick of that endless stuff).