GIM Productions

Jarsve
 How can I reach other than the few first markers in the song with the qwerty keyboard? I often have up to 40 markers in the songs. and they shows in the time bar.
 

 

Ok it's off topic....but Sonar gui is awesome!

In Sonar, how can you quickly get from channel 1 to channel 75 on the console?

Has anyone seen this comparison? 
https://www.slant.co/vers...3/~sonar_vs_studio-one

doncolga
It's like everything is a 1-2 click operation.  It's taken me mixing about 30 songs before getting to what I felt was pretty good proficiency, and I still have much to learn.  But after that, Studio One is just working much better for me now.

Thanks for that post - very useful.  I have around 4 hours now in SOP.  I was really missing the ProChannel, and then discovered the chains setup in the console.  Other thing I used a lot in Sonar was my own plug in management.  With a lot of VST/VSTi plugs I need more than just view based on vendor, file, type.  Need to learn more about Transport controls though as these are quite different.
 
Someone mentioned console emulation options - haven't see those yet, are they plugs to insert over the channels?

tenfoot
Thats incredible bitflipper. I have been running it for 4 days on a laptop also running a dmx controller, x32 control software, traktor dj, Sonar and an autoloader. It hasn't missed a beat. 
 
Equally amazing is that you have only had a dozen crashes in 14 years. I am guessing you skipped X1 and X2;)

Yes, I did skip X1, X2, X3 and the first year of SPlat. I ran the very stable 8.5 all that time, and when rolling updates commenced I rarely updated on day one. I have settled upon a set of stable third-party components from the likes of FabFilter for my bread 'n butter processors, and similarly don't update them immediately, either. My system has been pretty reliable over the years.
 
And yes, it's a natural reaction to blame the environment, on the seemingly logical presumption that if such crashes were commonplace then we'd have surely heard about them. This, sadly, is not the case - for any complex application. Such an admittedly comforting belief can only be sustained by a fundamental misunderstanding of what crashes are and why they occur.
 
When an application fails with a C0000005 error, it's a bug. It means the program attempted to write to an invalid memory location, and is almost always caused by a null pointer. Programmers are not supposed to allow that to happen, but it's very easy to overlook a possible null pointer scenario. In can be extremely difficult to duplicate a crash scenario (which is why crash dumps exist). So it's an entirely forgivable mistake, but still a bug. Not sunspots, not RFI, not humidity, not the brand of speakers or audio interface you use.
 
External components are also part of that environment. The C++ runtime library, the audio drivers, plugins, Windows support DLLS - they can all crash an application. However, the crash dump tells you which module raised the error, which is how I know that 13 of my 14 SONAR crashes were caused by plugins. My current dumps identify Studio One.exe as the module that raised the errors.
 
My test project is minimal: no audio, no effects, just 4 MIDI tracks driving a single instance of Omnisphere. My environment has not changed other than to install some other DAWs. Mixcraft, Reaper and Tracktion all run smoothly with no crashes. And of course, SONAR, which hasn't seen a crash in literally years.
 
Now, I want to emphasize that I have not written off Studio One as a result of these crashes. I quite like the MIDI implementation and overall ease-of-use. It's a well-designed product. All this experience does is call into question the idea that Studio One will necessarily assure greater stability.
 

I finally found how to enable the 64bit engine in s1. I dont think this software is that intuitive at all. Maybe if your a ProTols user it is. But i dont find it intuitive and easy to learn. Like the icon for markers. It doesn't resemble a flag in my opinion. I think i have to work hard to really learn this software!

sonarman1

sharke
Again, for those claiming that one DAW has a superior basic sound than another, answer me this. Why have DAW manufacturers (apart from Harrison) never, ever approached their marketing efforts from that angle? Can you think of one single DAW manufacturer (apart from Harrison) which has boasted about such things as "warmth," or "superior stereo imaging" from their sound? I can't. In fact if anything, the only thing you can imagine them boasting about is how transparent their sound is, and you don't even hear them say that. 

Not true. I have seen Daws marketed as Enhanced audio engine, Superior sound, etc. I have watched a few S1 videos where its marketed as sounding superior. Not sure if its a official video. However the validity of such marketing is questionable.

And dont forget that protools was marketed for a while stating as sounding best. I couldnt find those old promos now. This is one of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPPjpjZGtns
There is another video its all about protools sounding better.  

The only way I hear DAW manufacturers describe their audio engines is with words like "pristine," i.e. "clean." They might use phrases like "best sounding" to describe the whole package of the DAW in general, but that could include things like native plugins and other sound shaping features.
 
No DAW manufacturer makes the same kind of claims made by fans of the DAW on forums - these are claims that pure audio simply running through the audio engine comes out sounding better than through other DAW's. Phrases like "better soundstage" and "superior stereo imaging" and "tape like warmth" are frequently bandied about on forums. They are definitely not referring to the whole package of the DAW including the plugins. They are saying that the bare audio engine itself produces these qualities. 
 
DAW manufacturers stay away from claims like this because they know they can't be proven in properly controlled tests. If Sonar really did have a superior sound stage or better bass response and it was all provable in tests, I believe Cakewalk would have been all over it. If Avid could determine what exactly it was about Pro Tools' audio engine that was better sounding, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. 
 
They're quite happy to let well known producers and engineers make these claims. They're not exactly going to correct them. They just won't make them themselves. 
 
I believe that when I first read Cakewalk's promotional blurb for Sonar back in 2012, it said something like "pristine 64 bit audio engine." I took that to mean that it reproduces sound accurately and without coloring or distortion. There's no other reason to believe that any other DAW does it any differently. 2+2 always equals 4. 

I haven't started a project (song) in Studio One yet.  I'm learning the shortcuts to the basics at the moment.  I'm confident it can get my job done.  I probably won't move full-time to it until a couple more months.  But I have made a decision that it will be my studio DAW in the next year.  So for now it's wrapping my head around how it does things that I'm SO used to in Sonar.  No complaints at the moment.

Sacalait
I haven't started a project (song) in Studio One yet.  I'm learning the shortcuts to the basics at the moment.  I'm confident it can get my job done.  I probably won't move full-time to it until a couple more months.  But I have made a decision that it will be my studio DAW in the next year.  So for now it's wrapping my head around how it does things that I'm SO used to in Sonar.  No complaints at the moment.

+1
 
As far as sound difference, projects I've transferred over to S1 sounds exactly the same.
Software only passes through audio from and to your converters, it does not modify the source file in any way unless you process it. 
It's like saying Windows Media Player and VLC sound different playing raw files. They don't. 
 
 

bitflipper
When an application fails with a C0000005 error, it's a bug. It means the program attempted to write to an invalid memory location, and is almost always caused by a null pointer. Programmers are not supposed to allow that to happen, but it's very easy to overlook a possible null pointer scenario. In can be extremely difficult to duplicate a crash scenario (which is why crash dumps exist). So it's an entirely forgivable mistake, but still a bug. Not sunspots, not RFI, not humidity, not the brand of speakers or audio interface you use.
 
External components are also part of that environment. The C++ runtime library, the audio drivers, plugins, Windows support DLLS - they can all crash an application. However, the crash dump tells you which module raised the error, which is how I know that 13 of my 14 SONAR crashes were caused by plugins. My current dumps identify Studio One.exe as the module that raised the errors.

I am no way going to defend Sudio One. But any DLLs have access to the whole process memory. So it can corrupt something in the data of different module. Plus multi-threading (when and what is called in parallel in plug-in can be DAW specific).
One example - Tracktion tries to solve Waveform + Collective problem for half an year, still no success... Previous bug I hit was due to a bug in JUCE when started under German locale in Linux: observation was complete freeze with consuming the whole RAM
 
When it is possible to claim that the problem is 100% in the DAW? Only with "plug-in firewall". Sonar does not have it. Reaper HAS it. Studio One? I do not know... 

Each DAW advises "enhanced, better" etc but the second part of the sentence that's always missing is "than...." So each is legally in the clear. They never say better than what....If pressed they can say "better than our earlier versions". If there's ever any documented proof, that would be and sometime is, highly pushed.

bitflipper
OK, here's a comparison for you:
 
I've had perhaps a dozen crashes with SONAR in 14 years. All but one one of them was caused by a plugin, not SONAR.
 
I've had 8 crashes with Studio One in 4 days. Mostly access violations, all raised in Studio One.exe.
 
This does not inspire confidence.
 
The good news is that Studio One does generate minidumps by default.

My experience as well.  I really hate recording in Studio One.  As I said my use of Studio One was simply for collaboration with Mac users.  I would often track in Sonar and export the wave files into Studio One.
 
For the person who said we are silly to bring this up because we've only been using a few days, I've been using it for 7 years.
 
I get that S1 works flawlessly for some, but not eveyone's workflow and requirements are the same.  I am usually recording 16 tracks or more simultaneously.  You think that Studio One would handle that better as it was build for their studio live mixers, although Studio One seems more stable on a Mac than on PC.
 
That's one of my reasons for switching to Cubase, is there are more Cubase Windows users than Mac users, so there is more attention to development on Windows.

try looking here:
 
https://forums.presonus.com/
 

Sylvan

Audioicon

sharke
nobody has ever been able to demonstrate conclusively that one DAW sounds different to another. 

 
Correct! Which is why some of the comments are just out of place.
One DAW should not sound different, unless there are effects and or processing applied to the sound.

AI
 

Sigh...
 
Maybe better isn't the word as that is subjective. But to say that all DAWs are absolutely identical when summing tracks and exporting them is simply not true. Have you ever done a real test? 
 
So no body is hurt, I won't say that one is better than another anymore as one may have different ideas of what is better. But as sure as the sun will rise again, there are absolutely differences. It's a simple test to confirm. 
 
If you import the same tracks into SONAR and Studio One or whatever DAW, make a fader move (no plugins!) then export. Export from each DAW. Bring them into another DAW, both starting at zero, flip the phase on one then play back. If they are the same, they will cancel each other out and you will hear nothing. If you hear anything, there is scientific proof that something is different. If you do this, you will see that they do not null (cancel out). That means there is a difference, they are not the same. That is all I and a large number of others is saying. They are not identical. Try the test yourself.
 

I'm sorry but if both mixes null perfectly with faders at unity then that to me is proof that the summing engines are the same. If you're not nulling perfectly after moving one of the faders by the same amount then that's hardly proof that the DAWs sum differently. It could just be that there is a small discrepancy with how the faders work - perhaps one of the DAW's isn't lowering the signal by the full amount that it's reporting you pulled the fader down by. This will just alter the balance of the tracks relative to each other, which in turn will affect the overall tonal balance of the song to the point where you get some left over when trying to null with the other mix. You might even comment on a difference in "warmth" or some other tonal quality that is present in the track that you moved the fader on. 
 
Put it this way - what could faders possibly do to the sound apart from increasing or decreasing the volume level of a track? How could they possibly "add warmth" or "improve the stereo spread" or anything else that isn't just relative volume? And why would this "different" sound be absent with the faders at unity?  Imagine trying to market that: "And Cakewalk Sonar comes with a vastly superior summing engine that sounds better than the competition - as long as you move at least one fader!" Doesn't make sense. 
 
 

bitflipper
[
Yes, I did skip X1, X2, X3 and the first year of SPlat. I ran the very stable 8.5 all that time, and when rolling updates commenced I rarely updated on day one. I have settled upon a set of stable third-party components from the likes of FabFilter for my bread 'n butter processors, and similarly don't update them immediately, either. My system has been pretty reliable over the years.
 
And yes, it's a natural reaction to blame the environment, on the seemingly logical presumption that if such crashes were commonplace then we'd have surely heard about them. This, sadly, is not the case - for any complex application. Such an admittedly comforting belief can only be sustained by a fundamental misunderstanding of what crashes are and why they occur.
 
When an application fails with a C0000005 error, it's a bug. It means the program attempted to write to an invalid memory location, and is almost always caused by a null pointer. Programmers are not supposed to allow that to happen, but it's very easy to overlook a possible null pointer scenario. In can be extremely difficult to duplicate a crash scenario (which is why crash dumps exist). So it's an entirely forgivable mistake, but still a bug. Not sunspots, not RFI, not humidity, not the brand of speakers or audio interface you use.
 
External components are also part of that environment. The C++ runtime library, the audio drivers, plugins, Windows support DLLS - they can all crash an application. However, the crash dump tells you which module raised the error, which is how I know that 13 of my 14 SONAR crashes were caused by plugins. My current dumps identify Studio One.exe as the module that raised the errors.
 
My test project is minimal: no audio, no effects, just 4 MIDI tracks driving a single instance of Omnisphere. My environment has not changed other than to install some other DAWs. Mixcraft, Reaper and Tracktion all run smoothly with no crashes. And of course, SONAR, which hasn't seen a crash in literally years.
 
Now, I want to emphasize that I have not written off Studio One as a result of these crashes. I quite like the MIDI implementation and overall ease-of-use. It's a well-designed product. All this experience does is call into question the idea that Studio One will necessarily assure greater stability.
 

 
Your first comment here Is the 'holy grail' of having a stable DAW. I too have always maintained my studio and live performance rigs with a very limited number of favourite plugins and a stable release of Sonar - and offline. I have a third PC on which I try the latest of anything that takes my fancy, and it is almost never stable. You are also absolutey right in stating 'it works on my system therefore it's not the software' is completely unfounded - and infuriating:) It is no better than the oft sighted 'other software runs fine, therefore its a bug in Sonar' forum favourite. I was not implying either.  I am fully aware that you know your @#£% and have never seen you post anything but the most reasoned observations on any software. I was expressing genuine amazement at how quickly Studio One went pear shaped on your system. Apologies if it seemed any other way.
 
I wish in hindsight I had skipped everything from X1 to X3d. X3e is when the world came good again for me:) That said, I think the Sonar we have now is in part a good outcome of the chaos of that skylight overhaul period. Its a double edged sword. For my money Cubase is an example of software that has not taken too many big risks. I had Version 1 for windows 3 on an Osborne computer back in the early 90's, and I swear it still looks similar:)