sharke

Beepster
IIRC Pro Tools is still 32 bit limited so it would be a good selling point considering they are a major competitor. 

I still find it incredible that Pro Tools seems no closer to a 64-bit version, given that it's the *cough* "Industry Standard" *cough*. 


From what I've heard, it's going to require a complete rewrite of their audio engine, so God knows how long that's going to take them. I remember when speculation was rife that Pro Tools 10 would be 64 bit, and yet it wasn't. 


One thing's for sure. If they're going to be releasing a 64-bit version of Pro Tools that's essentially a rewrite from the ground up, I wouldn't like to be an early adopter. 

Actually, I spoke to the European marketing executive - or whatever his position was - earlier this year and 64-bit pro tools is on its way. Apparently it's even more or less finished and being tested. The problem is it will require new hardware and updating and reorganizing plugins etc etc and they were worried that their pro clientel would have massive problems with that, both in terms of down time and cost. New hardware has arrived and they've made a new plugin standard. My guess is that the outrageous upgrade price to PT10 is because of this.
 
It sucks being the "industry standard" when you have to consider all that stuff too 

 
It sucks being the "industry standard" when you have to consider all that stuff too 

Protool's issues have more to do with the new plug-in format and their new hardware than anything to do with being 64-bit. Mainly, 24-bit fixed-point DSP is getting stale, and host plug-ins are giving DSP a good run for the money. Floating point DSP is where they need to go..which is precisely what they are doing. 




As you indicate, they have a huge installed base...Being proprietary is a two-edged sword: you get the client lock in, but the client base also locks *you* in technology-wise. So Protools steps carefully....

@sharke... I don't really like to cheer for reasonably well meaning companies going under but Avid really seem to have rested on their laurels. That kind of sloth and arrogance doesn't fly in the current business climate. I also always hated the fact they forced you to buy their proprietary hardware for far more than other brands. Just not cool. Cheers.

@FBB... lol, yes. You and I both were actually trying to get a forum member to zoom in more because he wasn't able to trigger the hotspots. To me it's not a bug but a bit of a design flaw. It works as intended but I just find it awkward constantly having to zoom in and out while editing. Zooming horizontally is to be expected because you want to get at the Zero Crossings and now in X2 it's super easy with the new ruler zooming option but to have to zoom vertically just to get at the hotspots is just awkward and tedious. It very much slows me down. Just something maybe the Bakers should take a look at. Maybe like a sub HUD specifically for slip editing. Cheers.

@Project M... Thanks for all that info. I was not aware of most of that. Weird thing is I don't recall Nuendo ever crashing or freezing up on me but it was a very early version and I wasn't doing anything to crazy with it. I like the idea of video capabilities but not enough to warrant the expense... at least not until people start offering me money to do it. The networking is pretty much completely unnecessary as I am totally by myself on one main system (might fire up my old DAW in the new place just for fun but if I ever move anything around I'll just use my thumb drive as I have been). As far as that new tune I realized it had gotten buried in the songs forum so here a link to the thread. It's nothing too special but every element was written and physically performed by me (including the "drums"). Cheers.


http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2710421

Beepster


No dice, but I promise not to grind too much.

So have we successfully derailed this thread yet?

I think yes.

;-p

I remember you had issues with those of us complaining about not receiving emails from cakewalk for over 6 years on another thread. :-)

@FBB... Yeah... I guess I could see. I mean they are still usually there (but not all the time) but I find it very hard to hit the spot I want and it ends up messing with fades or editing the wrong way. Auto Zoom helps somewhat but I actually turn that off particularly when editing so I can see the other waveforms better. IDK... I just need to spend more time with it all to get my workflow happening a little more smoothly but at the moment it's slowing me down. I'm not upset about it or anything. Just something I think could be improved. Just like some tweaks on the take lanes and whatnot. Cheers.

Beepster


@FBB... Yeah... I guess I could see. I mean they are still usually there (but not all the time) but I find it very hard to hit the spot I want and it ends up messing with fades or editing the wrong way. Auto Zoom helps somewhat but I actually turn that off particularly when editing so I can see the other waveforms better. IDK... I just need to spend more time with it all to get my workflow happening a little more smoothly but at the moment it's slowing me down. I'm not upset about it or anything. Just something I think could be improved. Just like some tweaks on the take lanes and whatnot. Cheers.

I don't think it's you Beepster, there's others complaining they are hard to hit or don't respond as well so I think there's definitely something funny going on there.

I've never in my life seen a DAW have the extent of incompatibility issues and impedance as Cubase. I develop nebula presets, and just in that realm alone it is mostly Cubase users with the issues. 

bapu


Seems all this talk has still not got anniedog to return to fold.

Try harder will you guyz?

Who's anniedog?

mike_mccue


Would it be possible for you to articulate what SONAR's strengths are compared to the others you have mentioned?

To do this justice would require several thousands words of compare and contrast...I'll try to keep it brief. Too bad you missed my presentation at Sweetwater's GearFest where I did an Electronic Musician magazine-style roundup of all major DAWs.

Before moving over to Sonar (I didn't use Cakewalk Pro Audio), I bounced between Acid (for looping) and Cubase (for audio and MIDI). Sonar was the ONLY program at the time that could handle looping, hard disk recording, and MIDI equally well. Any limitations it had compared to Acid or Cubase were totally outweighed by my being able to do everything I needed to do in a single host program. As I've stuck with Sonar over the years, I've become really proficient at my "instrument," and that also counts for a lot.

First, let me explain why/when I use other programs.

Ableton Live: Nothing is better for live performance. Well, except for a smokin' hot guitar setup
 
Traktor: I really liked Torq, but I don't think it's going anywhere, and Traktor just keeps getting better and better. Sonar is NOT a DJ program. 
 
Reason: Despite adding Record, for me it will always be a "rewire really cool instruments into something else" program. 
 
Pro Tools: I collaborate with people who use Pro Tools. Sometimes I render the tracks to bring into Sonar, sometimes I work within PT. It depends on the type/complexity of the project. 
 
Cubase: Very comprehensive program, but more than I need. It's also more difficult to constantly swap out interfaces and studio setups than Sonar, which matters given how much stuff I review. 
 
Studio One Pro: A nimble, reliable program that handles the needs of most musicians, but currently lacks several strategic features that are important for what I do (e.g., edit Acidized files, MIDI plug-in support, run 32-bit plug-ins with 64-bit version, no equivalent to Matrix view). However, I use it all the time for its mastering page. No matter which DAW I used, I'd have SOP installed for the mastering page to take advantage of features like DDP and disc image export.
 
Sony Acid: I still have a lot of Acid projects that need the occasional remix, as well as an album that was never released in its entirety - only selected single and remixes - that I'm finishing up. 
 
Mixcraft Acoustica: Has basically replaced Acid when I need the absolute fastest way to put together something like a music bed for video or music library material. A lot of that is because it comes with tons of useful content, so I can throw something together without leaving the program or looking through sample libraries. 
 
MOTU Digital Performer: My preferred choice when working exclusively in a Mac environment. 
 
Reaper: I keep trying it out, but it always seems to be lacking something I need. Then it acquires that feature, but Sonar has moved on and improved as well. 
 
Samplitude: This is the most underrated DAW out there. I don't why it seems to be a big secret. If Sonar didn't exist, I'd probably use Studio One Pro or Samplitude.

As to why Sonar is my main DAW, it does 100% of what I need 85% of the time, and 85% of what I need to do 100% of the time . That's the highest average of any of the programs I use, but bear in mind, that's in terms of the kind of work that I do. If I did mostly hardcore audio-for-video for feature films, I'd be using DP 85% of the time. If I was doing broadcast work, it would be Sequoia 85% of the time. 

Here are the main Sonar features that are important to me.

Edit Acidized files. I have literally thousands of Acidized files and use them all the time for soundtracks and video work. Most commercially-available Acidized libraries are not acidized well and need editing. Only Sonar and Acid can do that, and Sonar is a better program for me overall than Acid.

Matrix view. I think Ableton Live is brilliant, so being able to incorporate that way of working into Sonar rather than having to deal with rewiring two separate programs is great.

V-Vocal and AudioSnap. I don't have the problems other people seem to have with these functions, and use them regularly for touching up parts. I use V-Vocal a lot with bass as well and also take advantage of the format and amplitude editing. SOP adding Melodyne was a smart move, but again, Sonar has had pitch correction for a long time so it was there when I needed it.

Workflow. This is a big one for me. For whatever reason, possibly my using it for so long, the "Sonar way of life" is congruent with the way I think. I can get things done fast, but I must say, I now get them done faster with X2. X2 has boosted my productivity dramatically, as evidenced by my posting two new songs on my YouTube channel since installing X2. I usually work at a pretty glacial pace, so I even surprised myself.

ProChannel. I love having all those elements saved as part of a project that can be transferred over to other Sonar installs, and also, the visuals of being able to see all the plug-ins centralized in one place as opposed to opening up a bunch of windows. That falls under the better workflow category. I also think the stock plug-ins are as good as pretty much anything else out there.

The Guitar Neck view. Step sequencing for guitar players

The Console Emulator. I thought this was stupid at first. Now I use it all the time. Sure, I could use a different DAW with the Slate VCC or Waves NLS, but having everything I need in one host is one of Sonar's strong points for me.

MIDI plug-ins. I live in fear that someday Sonar will drop support for these. I can't imagine editing virtual instrument parts without MIDI plug-ins. The only Windows program with better support for MIDI plug-ins is Cubase. I also like Sonar's Sys Ex support, which makes it easy to consolidate all MIDI data in a single project.

Video window. Sonar's video capabilities are fairly weak, as are most DAWs (except, curiously enough, for Mixcraft which has exceptional video options). However, what Sonar offers is perfect for what I do, as I can use Acidized files, Rex files, and tempo changes to compose music that lines up perfectly with the visuals. Bounce the music, combine it with the video file in Vegas...done.

V-Studio support. The only other program I use with a dedicated control surface is Ableton Live, thanks to the APC40. I'm a big believer in dedicated control surfaces once you learn your way around them. 

This forum. I've had so many questions answered by the many helpful and highly intelligent life forms that populate this forum. That's one reason why I post here - to try and give something back.  

Those are just off the top of my head, but they're all features that are very important to me. Those, coupled with the fact I simply don't have reliability/stability issues beyond the usual expected hiccups, make Sonar very well-suited to what I need to do. But again, it's all about what I do. I would not expect to haul hay in a Miata, or take curves at 50MPH in an SUV.

Thanks Craig, well worth the read. 

It is good that a new Cubase is coming out.  I hope it is awesome.  Competitiion will help all these DAW manufacturers make better and better products.  It is a win for the consumer.

I a still using 8.5.3 because I have had a long project going on it.  And as long as one is switching from 8.5.3 to X2, and going to have a learning curve, why not also check other DAWS.  This is good for everyone.

Anderton

mike_mccue


Would it be possible for you to articulate what SONAR's strengths are compared to the others you have mentioned?

To do this justice would require several thousands words of compare and contrast...I'll try to keep it brief. Too bad you missed my presentation at Sweetwater's GearFest where I did an Electronic Musician magazine-style roundup of all major DAWs.

Before moving over to Sonar (I didn't use Cakewalk Pro Audio), I bounced between Acid (for looping) and Cubase (for audio and MIDI). Sonar was the ONLY program at the time that could handle looping, hard disk recording, and MIDI equally well. Any limitations it had compared to Acid or Cubase were totally outweighed by my being able to do everything I needed to do in a single host program. As I've stuck with Sonar over the years, I've become really proficient at my "instrument," and that also counts for a lot.

First, let me explain why/when I use other programs.

Ableton Live: Nothing is better for live performance. Well, except for a smokin' hot guitar setup

Traktor: I really liked Torq, but I don't think it's going anywhere, and Traktor just keeps getting better and better. Sonar is NOT a DJ program. 

Reason: Despite adding Record, for me it will always be a "rewire really cool instruments into something else" program. 

Pro Tools: I collaborate with people who use Pro Tools. Sometimes I render the tracks to bring into Sonar, sometimes I work within PT. It depends on the type/complexity of the project. 

Cubase: Very comprehensive program, but more than I need. It's also more difficult to constantly swap out interfaces and studio setups than Sonar, which matters given how much stuff I review. 

Studio One Pro: A nimble, reliable program that handles the needs of most musicians, but currently lacks several strategic features that are important for what I do (e.g., edit Acidized files, MIDI plug-in support, run 32-bit plug-ins with 64-bit version, no equivalent to Matrix view). However, I use it all the time for its mastering page. No matter which DAW I used, I'd have SOP installed for the mastering page to take advantage of features like DDP and disc image export.

Sony Acid: I still have a lot of Acid projects that need the occasional remix, as well as an album that was never released in its entirety - only selected single and remixes - that I'm finishing up. 

Mixcraft Acoustica: Has basically replaced Acid when I need the absolute fastest way to put together something like a music bed for video or music library material. A lot of that is because it comes with tons of useful content, so I can throw something together without leaving the program or looking through sample libraries. 

MOTU Digital Performer: My preferred choice when working exclusively in a Mac environment. 

Reaper: I keep trying it out, but it always seems to be lacking something I need. Then it acquires that feature, but Sonar has moved on and improved as well. 

Samplitude: This is the most underrated DAW out there. I don't why it seems to be a big secret. If Sonar didn't exist, I'd probably use Studio One Pro or Samplitude.

As to why Sonar is my main DAW, it does 100% of what I need 85% of the time, and 85% of what I need to do 100% of the time . That's the highest average of any of the programs I use, but bear in mind, that's in terms of the kind of work that I do. If I did mostly hardcore audio-for-video for feature films, I'd be using DP 85% of the time. If I was doing broadcast work, it would be Sequoia 85% of the time. 

Here are the main Sonar features that are important to me.

Edit Acidized files. I have literally thousands of Acidized files and use them all the time for soundtracks and video work. Most commercially-available Acidized libraries are not acidized well and need editing. Only Sonar and Acid can do that, and Sonar is a better program for me overall than Acid.

Matrix view. I think Ableton Live is brilliant, so being able to incorporate that way of working into Sonar rather than having to deal with rewiring two separate programs is great.

V-Vocal and AudioSnap. I don't have the problems other people seem to have with these functions, and use them regularly for touching up parts. I use V-Vocal a lot with bass as well and also take advantage of the format and amplitude editing. SOP adding Melodyne was a smart move, but again, Sonar has had pitch correction for a long time so it was there when I needed it.

Workflow. This is a big one for me. For whatever reason, possibly my using it for so long, the "Sonar way of life" is congruent with the way I think. I can get things done fast, but I must say, I now get them done faster with X2. X2 has boosted my productivity dramatically, as evidenced by my posting two new songs on my YouTube channel since installing X2. I usually work at a pretty glacial pace, so I even surprised myself.

ProChannel. I love having all those elements saved as part of a project that can be transferred over to other Sonar installs, and also, the visuals of being able to see all the plug-ins centralized in one place as opposed to opening up a bunch of windows. That falls under the better workflow category. I also think the stock plug-ins are as good as pretty much anything else out there.

The Guitar Neck view. Step sequencing for guitar players

The Console Emulator. I thought this was stupid at first. Now I use it all the time. Sure, I could use a different DAW with the Slate VCC or Waves NLS, but having everything I need in one host is one of Sonar's strong points for me.

MIDI plug-ins. I live in fear that someday Sonar will drop support for these. I can't imagine editing virtual instrument parts without MIDI plug-ins. The only Windows program with better support for MIDI plug-ins is Cubase. I also like Sonar's Sys Ex support, which makes it easy to consolidate all MIDI data in a single project.

Video window. Sonar's video capabilities are fairly weak, as are most DAWs (except, curiously enough, for Mixcraft which has exceptional video options). However, what Sonar offers is perfect for what I do, as I can use Acidized files, Rex files, and tempo changes to compose music that lines up perfectly with the visuals. Bounce the music, combine it with the video file in Vegas...done.

V-Studio support. The only other program I use with a dedicated control surface is Ableton Live, thanks to the APC40. I'm a big believer in dedicated control surfaces once you learn your way around them. 

This forum. I've had so many questions answered by the many helpful and highly intelligent life forms that populate this forum. That's one reason why I post here - to try and give something back.  

Those are just off the top of my head, but they're all features that are very important to me. Those, coupled with the fact I simply don't have reliability/stability issues beyond the usual expected hiccups, make Sonar very well-suited to what I need to do. But again, it's all about what I do. I would not expect to haul hay in a Miata, or take curves at 50MPH in an SUV.

+1

John


Mr. Anderton is one of my heroes. Has been for many, many years. 

I've been keeping up with him since his Electronic Projects for Musicians days.  If I'm not mistaken he was one of the original Electronic Musician Magazine people (editor/founder?).   He's a great source of information and his 'Craig's List' is usually my first read in EM.

vintagevibe


I've been keeping up with him since his Electronic Projects for Musicians days.  If I'm not mistaken he was one of the original Electronic Musician Magazine people (editor/founder?).   He's a great source of information and his 'Craig's List' is usually my first read in EM.

I have to say, "Craig's List" is soooo much fun to write but it's also really hard work. It's true what they say, writing comedy is serious business.

But your mentioning Craig's List, coupled with this thread, inspired the subject of my next Craig's List: "Five Reasons Why You're Using the Wrong DAW." It'll be in the February issue. Thank you!!!

(And yes, Electronic Musician was my idea and I'm the one who coined the term. I started editing it in 1984, left in 1990, and returned in 2011. Now that's what I call a long loop.)

Good Bye threads alsmost always turn into a productive conversation!!!