• SONAR
  • Sonar is not industry standard? (p.11)
2016/06/15 18:42:43
jimfogle
Early computer days DOS and Windows audio support was V-E-R-Y weak because sound was NOT included in the pc standard.  I'm talking no native sound generation capability and have to run a basic program to modulate the beeper speaker with square waves because the computer did not have any other sound generator weak.  Some non pc computers (Atari, Texas Instrument, Coleco, Commodore) included native sound support but they did not follow the pc standard and fell by the wayside.
 
Apple supported audio with hardware and software from the beginning.
2016/06/19 21:06:04
phil5633
THambrecht
We digitaze and restore thousands of tapes, vinyl and other recordings for customers. Therefore we need a lot of restauration tools.
Almost no one uses for this purpose a MAC, ProTools or any other "Standard" DAW.
Rather Steinberg Wavelab or Adobe Audition is used.
We use SONAR.
 


What restoration programs or plugins do you use with SONAR for restoration work?

Bill
2016/06/21 11:06:57
Tim Flannagin
abacab
"It was twenty years ago today..."
 
Well not quite, but close, when I walked into a software store in the Mall (remember those?). I believe it was called Babbage's, the predecessor to GameStop.
 
Since I owned a Windows PC, and had seen a Mac setup for music at the local music store, I asked the guy if he knew of anything like that for Windows. He quickly replied "you need to check out Cakewalk!".
 
I did.
 
Cakewalk is still my standard :-)


Pretty much sums up my experience. I've been using Cakewalk since the Twelve Tone Systems / Windows 3.1 days. That said, I don't really care who's standard it is. It's my standard and that's all that matters to me.
2016/06/21 11:47:21
stratman70
vladasyn
So it is the Microsoft to blame for losing the battle to Apple for being industry standard?
I build computers and I love Windows 10 on the latest hardware. I do not use Xeons processors, but Intel i7 is plenty for good performance. I don't see how Apple holds the monopoly so strong with the prices they have.
 
But I am thinking- is the ProTools that much better than Sonar? The ProTools is industry standard- PC or Mac, right, or just on Mac? I have been looking in to it and considering to install it and see if it really that much better.


No if you actually did your homework you would know that MAcs were the early leaders in the studio. All the big studios used macs because "AT THAT TIME" windows was no match for macs in the area of music and graphics. That changed a long time a go. So all the studios were invested big time in macs and weren't about to change. $$$ is your answer. IMHO that was a really childish reply to your question from Waldorf. Both platforms have their plus and minus's. It's a personal choice whichever you use. I am an old retired Tech...long time. 
I got tired of the mac vs PC BS a long time ago. Make music, isn't that the idea. 
2016/06/21 12:20:56
berlymahn
From the Article Above...
 
"What hasn't changed is the fact that Sonar offers an astonishing amount of power for the money, however you slice it up. As promised, Cakewalk has kept the regular updates coming, and it remains one of the finest Windows DAWs."
 
Have friends with ProTools and Cubase..... good products, but I love Sonar Platinum.  Keep it rolling CW!
2016/06/21 13:28:01
brconflict
I may be repeating something here, but here's a perspective, which not only applies to Macs, but also ProTools, and even Adobe products. My dad bought a Macintosh in 1986, which had the little 9(?) inch screen, and only Black & White. He didn't really maximize its use until PhotoShop version 1 was released around 1989. Then, color monitors were available to him at great expense. Now, my dad has made over $1m in his career from Photoshop alone. It was a professional program. It quickly became the industry standard. But why did it take so long to port to Windows?
 
Back then, Windows was not really seen as a professional OS. If I recall, Apple prioritized software and hardware to be used in the Visual world, such as in publications, illustrations, etc. and not so much in games or home use, as once advertised--too expensive. It was also not designed for commercial applications, such as running a logistics or inventory management system/database. In many of those cases, Unix was still very likely used--or flavors of that. BAAN was a system I used in the '90's, which was mostly green-screen.
 
Macs came into my view as a publication computer, one used for high-end graphics and fonts. Sun Systems were used for CAD type programs and many Telecommunications advancements, where Windows was only used as an end-user system.
 
As the industry grew in the publication/photo world, with Photoshop, QuarkExpress, and CorelDraw, etc. being the front runners before Microsoft could conceivably catch up, they because the industry standard. Adobe was not exactly willing to dive into the Windows world until users demanded it and were seeking alternatives (since Macs were expensive). The industry finally demanded it. The drawback? These programs were mostly ported over to Windows, and what intuitive functions Windows users knew from Microsoft products did not comply with how drastically different these ported programs were for Windows users new to this software. These ported programs weren't intuitive. However, Adobe and others couldn't simply just change all that without alienating their already lucrative user-base. Their customer base were so used to the way things worked on the Mac that they really had to be the same (or very close) inside Windows.

With more people moving to cheaper Windows machines, these programs had to be more friendly to Windows users or lose market-share to those alternatives that really weren't that good at the time. ProTools went through this, as well. They had their way on the Mac, but in Windows, good luck making it easy! You were better off growing up with ProTools on the Mac first.

So, why did these companies start on the Mac, when Windows could have sufficed? The hardware. When you're pioneering software for a still young computer industry, making the software stable and efficient alone is challenging enough. Trying to make it work well with disparate hardware in the Windows world, where users can just use whatever hardware they want, makes refining the software that much more difficult. Plus, only the professionals who could afford the Macs were buying the software to actually make money with. Not every home needed PhotoShop or ProTools, and most home users wouldn't have the first clue how to use these programs.
 
Today is entirely different. With the industry stuck in the Mac world, and props to Steve Jobs and Apple for keeping that way, Windows still suffers from outrageously varying hardware, but it's so easy to buy a Windows machine cheap and piecemeal upgrade it as you need. To build a machine to perform as an equivalent Mac Pro might cost you half as much, but software manufacturers may not have certified the software to match. Studios don't want that. They want totally reliable and tried-and-true solutions that not only will stay strong and steady throughout a session recording a spoiled, impatient big name artist, but will always be able to open sessions recorded at other studios.

We're still struggling with that. the industry simply won't let up, and many of them simply scoff at Windows. I don't blame them. Windows has enough to gripe about, and even though their stability is getting better and better, they want more from users. And you can't pirate it as easily now. Hmmmm....

Windows was, at the time, end-user-friendly, and easy to get, Microsoft really gained benefit from piracy because all the theft resulted in more users learning Windows. Where they lost money before, they can make it up now. In theory.
 
Return to the Mac.
  • Predictable results
  • Free OS updates forever
  • Certified hardware with software
  • Industry already accepts them
This is my observation as to why the older industry standard and widely used tools (ProTools) may not be as easy to use, frequently chosen, or nearly as intuitive and friendly as Sonar that we love. It's also why Sonar wasn't in the list. Soon, it very well should be!

With Macs still boasting a huge chunk of the industry and artists using their hardware, it makes sense that Sonar was left behind on that survey. Again, though, this is about to change, and I think we're about to witness that.
2016/06/21 14:01:07
JohnEgan
Some of us want something better than the "industry standard", hopefully Sonar doesn't lower itself to that level.  
2016/06/21 16:34:25
Zargg
JohnEgan
Some of us want something better than the "industry standard", hopefully Sonar doesn't lower itself to that level.  



2016/06/21 16:50:32
doncolga
JohnEgan
Some of us want something better than the "industry standard", hopefully Sonar doesn't lower itself to that level.  


Yes!  Exactly!  Who would want to be "standard"?  Many fine autos are not the industry standard in that world.
2016/06/21 17:31:34
Sanderxpander
I feel like a total misanthrope, or perhaps an misappleogist or something, but for the past three weeks I've been gathering FB snippets of friends and acquiantances freaking out about something on their Mac breaking or crashing or whatever. Just because it annoys me so much when Mac users forget about all those things and pretend they never crash or break. Literally the same people will turn around and say "get a Mac, I never have problems!"

All computers suck. End of story.
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account