Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
Hope the subject was clear enough. I hate people who either intentionally or even unintentionally use vague subject lines.
I just upgraded to Sonar 8. Couldn't resist the $50 savings. Nevertheless I'm curious about the new VST3 articulation feature in Cubase. Among other goals I want to pursue learning MIDI mock-up orchestration and this Cubase feature seems like a real productivity enhancer. Instead of multiple tracks to handle the various articulations of an instrument like violin or flute, this allows it all to be done in one track.
The question: For anyone with experience in MIDI orchestration, especially with Sonar, do you think I'm missing out on a lot by using Sonar instead of Cubase? Exactly how much?
Thanks!
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
Susan G
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12016
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:49:26
- Location: Putnam County, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 05:59:10
(permalink)
Hi Nick- I'm not answering your question, I know,  but to you or anyone: Does Cubase now have a dongle-free demo? Thanks- -Susan
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
kp
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1496
- Joined: 2004/01/21 15:22:09
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 06:16:02
(permalink)
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 06:17:43
(permalink)
One more post about the Cubase dongle issue and this thread is officially hijacked 
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
gordonrussell76
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1879
- Joined: 2006/12/15 05:28:08
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 06:26:37
(permalink)
Does the new cubase dongle have thread hi-jacking capability?
Oops i guess it does
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 07:35:39
(permalink)
In all fairness - he did ask about mock-up orchestrations. 
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 08:22:19
(permalink)
I use EWQLSO.
I run seperate instances of ti for different instruments.
I load up different articulations for each instrument in the EWQL GUI
All articulations for the same instrument are accessible in SONAR on the same MIDI prv screen, all you have to do is change MIDI channel - what could be simpler?
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 11:20:15
(permalink)
Thread back on track. What is "ti"?
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 11:21:46
(permalink)
What is "ti"? It spelled backwards?
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
marce
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2006/10/03 13:53:23
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 12:29:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Bristol_Jonesey
I use EWQLSO.
I run seperate instances of ti for different instruments.
I load up different articulations for each instrument in the EWQL GUI
All articulations for the same instrument are accessible in SONAR on the same MIDI prv screen, all you have to do is change MIDI channel - what could be simpler?
so, Is there any way to label the channels name? Or to labels the piano keys with the keyswitches name, similar to the percussion maps?
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 18:09:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Roflcopter
What is "ti"?
It spelled backwards?
Gotcha. I find myself doing that more and more as I get older. So he means he runs several instances of EWQLSO for the different instruments. Okay, so as I understand it, BJ's strategy involves whatever plays the EWQLSO samples (I think they have their own proprietary sample player now) is multitimbral. This is unlike a sample-playback unit such as DimPro. But you'd still need a separate track for each MIDI channel, and thus for each articulation unless I'm missing something. This is theoretically the advantage of the Cubase 5 system - one track for multiple articulations. No?
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
papa2004
Max Output Level: -10.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2005/03/23 12:40:47
- Location: Southeastern U.S.
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 18:29:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: marce
. . .so, Is there any way to label the channels name? Or to labels the piano keys with the keyswitches name, similar to the percussion maps?
Yes. Create an "Instrument Definition" for the softsynth/sampler app/instrument patch you want to use. I did one several months ago just to see how "easy" it was or wasn't. It's faily simple to do but seemed time-consuming for my use. I use EWQL so much I basically have the key-switchings memorized. I suppose if one were to create a lot of instrument defs on a regular basis it wouldn't seem so time-consuming but I really don't need them often enough to do so.
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 18:38:34
(permalink)
Okay, let's say a person was to settle on EWQLSO with the play engine. I notice many articulations available. That's great. So assuming that library, is Cubase 5 even able to use its articulation feature on that library? If so, again, what would be the downside of using Sonar instead?
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
Roflcopter
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6767
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:10:06
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 18:45:08
(permalink)
I'm a perfectionist, and perfect is a skinned knee.
|
pianodano
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1160
- Joined: 2004/01/11 18:54:38
- Location: Va Beach Virginia
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 19:00:34
(permalink)
I don't understand why anyone would use a different track for different articulations, if they are using a instrument with key switches. I thought it was worked out long ago that when you change keyswitches you just extend the last switch out across the grid until the next change so that you could remember which switch was active. On the other hand, if you are using multiple instruments with different articulations (in multiple slots), I can't imagine having those on the same track and I thought everyone put those on different tracks for clarity and precise level control. I have both EW gold (Konpakt) and I have used it as I described for years. I recently bought the Platinum Plus Play version and I have used it the same way. Danny editted to correct spelling
post edited by pianodano - 2009/05/20 19:46:07
Best, Danny Core I7, win XP pro, 3 gig ram, 3 drives- Lynx Aurora firewire- Roll around 27 inch monitor, 42 inch console monitor- Motif xs controller - Networked P4's and FX Teleport for samples- Muse Receptor VIA Uniwire for samples and plugs- UAD QUAD Neve - UAD 1- Sonar X1 but favor 8.5 GUI - Toft ATB 32 - Vintage hardware - Tascam MS-16 synched via Timeline Microlynx -Toft ATB32 console
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 19:05:20
(permalink)
That's a good point. Separate tracks allow you to control levels better. I guess with Sonar you could keep things organized with track folders as well.
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 19:42:40
(permalink)
I just watched the Cubase video again. I don't think this VST articulation thing is that huge of a workflow improvement. You still need to choose the articulations and enter them either on the score page or in the MIDI edit window. In other words, you still need to tell the computer that you want a specific articulation. So I guess it comes down to where you do that - either on separate tracks, or on one track using this new feature.
Bottom line: I don't think major midi-mock-up people are going to drop their current DAW format and switch to Cubase just because of this feature. Nevertheless, I hope the Sonar development team will have taken a look and consider adding it to Sonar.
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
marce
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2006/10/03 13:53:23
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 21:14:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Nick P
I just watched the Cubase video again. I don't think this VST articulation thing is that huge of a workflow improvement. You still need to choose the articulations and enter them either on the score page or in the MIDI edit window. In other words, you still need to tell the computer that you want a specific articulation. So I guess it comes down to where you do that - either on separate tracks, or on one track using this new feature.
How the program will know what articulation you want if you dont say it? Reading mind... next feature for Sonar! Just joking. Well, i believe it`s a big improvement for the Staff view. You just add a pizzicato, tremolo, etc mark, and you get the right keyswitch. You cant do that in the current SV. And is a big improvement when you switch from one library to another. Since keyswitches are not standarized, they can be diffrent in each library, if you switch from one library to other, you need to re-write the keyswitching. With this feature, you just need to load the mapping, and voila.
post edited by marce - 2009/05/20 21:25:20
|
Nick P
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3112
- Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
- Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2009/05/20 21:21:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: marce
How the program will know what articulation you want if you dont say it? Reading mind... next feature for Sonar! Just joking.
Well, i believe it`s a big improvement for the Staff view. You just add a pizzicato, tremolo, etc mark, and you get the right keyswitch. You cant do that in the current SV. And is a big improvement when you switch from one library to another. Since keyswitches are not standarized, they can be diffrent in each library, if you switch from one library to other, you need to re-write the keyswitching. With this feature, you just need to load the mapping, and voila.
Hmmm....
Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
|
JAL2000
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9
- Joined: 2004/01/05 05:56:54
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/02/24 11:11:22
(permalink)
This feature add to Sonar will be a very important upgrade I think, To work with big orchestral libraries is very important know what keyswitch changes the articulation. The system used by Cubase is fantastic because is very complicated to remember all keyswitchs, you only need to create maps for each library.
|
Kalle Rantaaho
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7005
- Joined: 2006/01/09 13:07:59
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/02/24 13:38:09
(permalink)
Where do you guys dig up these years and years and years old threads??
SONAR PE 8.5.3, Asus P5B, 2,4 Ghz Dual Core, 4 Gb RAM, GF 7300, EMU 1820, Bluetube Pre - Kontakt4, Ozone, Addictive Drums, PSP Mixpack2, Melda Creative Pack, Melodyne Plugin etc. The benefit of being a middle aged amateur is the low number of years of frustration ahead of you.
|
JAL2000
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9
- Joined: 2004/01/05 05:56:54
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/02/24 15:47:57
(permalink)
For me is not a old threads because Sonar not have this feature after a lot of upgrades.this days I was watching a video from a composer Blakus to learn more about orchestration with samples libraries, then i see he uses a keyswitch panel in piano roll in Cubase like a control o velocity panel.
I don't use Cubase then i don't know it have this tool.
I think there is a important tool to include it in Sonar.
i can't believe people talking about request track colors or a lot the basic features in new Sonar version.Nothing talking about a real important tool like this to work with big libraries.
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/02/24 15:58:28
(permalink)
I don't know Cubase and I don't work much with orchestral libraries, but I would think Drum Maps (a misnomer as they are really all-purpose MIDI maps) would address the primary need to see keyswitch labels in the PRV.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8424
- Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/02/24 21:26:49
(permalink)
The forum should lock threads after a year in the dust bin..READ ONLY FILE .
Then when people dig them up they can start a new thread and just post a link to the old one.
Google will be digging up 12 year old posts soon..
" My P2 400 Mz laptop won't recognize Cakewalk 1.0" . as the Title is a dead giveaway..
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re: RE: Cubase Articulation Feature vs. Sonar
2014/03/03 15:03:33
(permalink)
brundlefly
I don't know Cubase and I don't work much with orchestral libraries, but I would think Drum Maps (a misnomer as they are really all-purpose MIDI maps) would address the primary need to see keyswitch labels in the PRV.
Quite right Steve. Reading this thread again, my workflow as alluded to in my [much] earlier post has totally changed since i bought EWQLSO Platinum. Now, all my articulations are controlled by their own Drum Map - I have about 40 or so in my orchestral template - and this works superbly for me.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|