KVR Audio

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:36 pm

Hi to all!

What I really need to see is a straight out opinion shootout over cubase sx 3.x and sonar 4.x from people who use both! There seem to be lots of alternative discussions(like cubase sx 3.x vs live 4.x), but not the most obvious one. (If there's already a thread covering this, please direct me to it, as the obvious search doesn't render a reasonable result.)

Now, I was told by a salesman that cubase, simply, has a higher quality sound than sonar. Is this really true? Also, cubase is advertizing some optimization of Athlon 64 bit processors. Anyone observed the benifits of this optimization? Also, how good are sonar's and cubase's time stretches? As good as acid's?

Anyway, thanks for any responses here. I have limited cash and I'd really like to put it in the right place!

aaastronomer

OzoneJunkie · Post by **OzoneJunkie** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:10 pm

One thing that seems cool about Cubase, that it doesn't appear Sonar has, is the "InView" editing - similar to Traktion, where a piano roll can be viewed right in the track lane, as opposed to a separate window. That looks nice...

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:11 pm

[DELETED]

_niko_ · Post by **_niko_** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 8:14 pm

Hi,
Here is a lenghty thread discussing the pros and cons of the two:
http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60082

Btw, ttoz, I wholeheartedly disagree, I love S4. To each his own

Niko

TeeLangSun · Post by **TeeLangSun** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:00 pm

After hearing every possible point about both Sonar and Cubase, you will probably still not be sure of which way to go. They both share the vast majority of features and they each have an ace or two up their sleeves. I believe that I finally think that Sonar is more stable than Cubase although Sonar was once one of the most unstable and buggy application I'd ever seen. Cubase has always been buggy and my current version SL 2 is absolutely no exception. In fact, I don't think I could get through a single Cubase session without some kind of crash. I only have the Sonar 4 demo, but it hasn't crashed yet. It's still a very jerky, clunky feeling application, but it's not crashing. It has more than it's share of glitches though. The audio engine is better than it was in the past, but there's still lots of glitches when opening and closing windows or moving around audio clips. Cubase is much better in this regard. Just smoother to operate. Setting up hardware controllers is vastly better in Sonar than Cubase. See, this is why it's hard to come away from this kind of discussion with a clear winner.

Mystical_Fantasy · Post by **Mystical_Fantasy** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:26 pm

Removed!

ahja · Post by **ahja** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:29 pm

Whatever you decided to do... Don't believe people that say SX is unstable. It's all a matter of hardware configuration, and how well your PC is set up to handle an application, like so. I'm only using SX 2.2.0.35 right now, but it has not crashed since... I can't even remember, and I use SX2 for hours, daily.

Goodluck.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:34 pm

I agree with most of that, Mystical. Cubase works well if you have a fixed studio installation with good hardware equipment. Reviews of SX3 particularly mention that it is beneficial to have a dual screen set up and a hefty amount of processing power.

If you have a lighter setup and are basically a hobbyist/home user, Sonar may suit you better and prove more stable.

You should also consider cheaper - but also excellent alternatives, especially Live 4 and Tracktion.

In the end it depends on your own musical needs. Each program has its own strengths, and which suits you will depend on how well they match your personal musical aspirations.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:28 am

headquest wrote:I agree with most of that, Mystical. Cubase works well if you have a fixed studio installation with good hardware equipment. Reviews of SX3 particularly mention that it is beneficial to have a dual screen set up and a hefty amount of processing power.

The interface is 99% the same in 2 and 3. If you didn't need 2 monitors before, you still don't. Most of those articles seemed like people were just trying to find something to write about. It's like they didn't even have the app, or barely installed it long enought to get past the first launch.

I use less CPU in 3 than in 2, not more. But, in general there is not a huge change in processor requirements either way. More horse manure from the articles.

The PC I run SX-2 on has every application, game, web tool, dev kit on it you can name. It has the internal soundcard and a Delta 1010 in it too. Its an XP 2100+ with 512MB ram. SX-2 never crashes burps, farts or otherwise has issues.

In the end it depends on your own musical needs. Each program has its own strengths, and which suits you will depend on how well they match your personal musical aspirations.

This is true for almost anything you buy.

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:20 pm

Mystical_Fantasy wrote:In regards to all these claims of Cubase being bug ridden is ridiculous.

Well...I think this statement goes a little too far. I've seen cubase 1.x (I have the lastest version of the first release) alter my midi files!! It changed the notes somehow (swished the intervals -- anybody have an explanation of this? could i have closed a project incorrectly? could i have executed some option to do this by omission? commission?). I thought I was going crazy. Lucky I had a copy. This, against a background of: crashing due to quick mouse moves during certain operations, vstis causing it to quit without explanation, stuttering when I change note properties, locking up after some other app had the audio interface, locking up my operating system, etc.

Now, I've learned how to work around these and I guess some of these have been cleared up in the newer versions, but I can assuredly say that cubase has been buggy.

Thanks for all responses, so far.

aaastronomer

ahja · Post by **ahja** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:36 pm

Sure... We're talking about version 3 right now though, aren't we?

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:38 pm

oh...from what i've read so far, it looks like version two of cubase sx did make significant bug fixes...

i have ableton live 4.x...very nice app...i do all my wav work on it and acid 4.x...but, i do most of my midi work in cubase...

i'm still coming to grips with project 5...while kinetic is a piece of cake(walk?)it is too restrictive...but sx is just right (i really like the way it handles multi wav file acid projects).

i also use fl studio 4 a lot, but that's another story (and another upgrade)...

aaastronomer

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:40 pm

ahja wrote:Sure... We're talking about version 3 right now though, aren't we?

i'm just considering version 3, but using version 1 everyday...

aaastronomer · Post by **aaastronomer** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:43 pm

ahja wrote:Sure... We're talking about version 3 right now though, aren't we?

you're right, but if i see the wrong response, i'll end up waiting for sx version 4...!

tetraplan · Post by **tetraplan** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:02 pm

ttoz wrote:engine is just absolutely abysmal still.

What problems did you experience?
In my experience it (1) isn't flawless, I haven't seen anything that would justify calling it "absolutely abysmal".
Groet, Erik

(1) Sonar 3.1.1 SE's engine here, on a Athlon XP 2400+/ASUS A7N8X-E DeLuxe. With a crappy onboard unSoundcard, too.

//edit
Stuf that seemed too much like an attack edited out

cubase sx 3.x vs sonar 4.x