I plan on using Pro-tools M Power since I already have the 1814FW from M-Audio.
For now my FW1814 is picking up dust until I can get Pro-tools M-Power.
Maybe if I get cash coming out of my nose then I'll buy Digi 002 Rack but for now it's all Sonar. Like I said I have been using Sonar4.4 and have never looked back. I installed Cubase SX 3 But quickly uninstalled it, the controls are like a croweded train.

The only reason I'm getting Pro-tools is for the sake of having it and knowing it, nothing else.
I was once coming out my Studio when I met a guy standing outside the building, he asked me for a lift, I was scared but felt a little comfortable when he spoke with an African accent, he was from the Republic of Kenya.

He got in the car and I was playing a song I had just finished recording on Sonar4.4, he asked me whose the artist, and where he could get the CD and that he loved the song, he had no idea I was a musician, nor I had a Studio in the building.

I told him I was the artist and he was very suprised. He told me the sound was very professional and asked how long have I been doing music. My point is this, the average listener will not know/care what platform you use as long as they like the overall material.
I doubt people will go to music store buying albums because they were made with Pro-tools/Sonar.

Patrick...Minnesota.

Sonar will never compete with Pro-Tools.......does that mean you can't do the same work in Sonar??

no.....

PT, is hardware......the software was an after thought. It's pretty much the same as the PC vs. Apple thing. Apple is a hardware company, competing with hardware manufacturers........ Microsoft is the smart one. Microsoft figured out that the money is in Software........

PT, is still dirt cheap, and the bang for the buck champ, when you look at it from a hardware P.O.V.
Pro Tools|HD 2 Accel
US List Price: $10,995
Pro Tools|HD 2 Accel includes the HD Core card and an HD Accel card, offering more than four times the mixing and processing power of HD 1 systems, support for 64 channels of I/O*, plus guaranteed support for up to 192 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer. Expanding the system's dedicated processing power and I/O capacity is as easy as adding additional HD Accel cards**.

A Yamaha O2R, lists for $10,200.........Only has 56 channels, I don't think you can get 64Inputs into it, and you only get 4 stereo processors, that run a finite number of effects. The software that comes with the O2R, doesn't come close to the free stuff you get with the PT stuff.

It's about hype, successful marketing in a largely uneducated market place

Dammmmmmmm.....You just insulted about 90% of the pro engineers

Err... agreed with all of that.

The aspect that most pro-tools evangelists mention and that helps their dominance in the professional market is that tight integration with their own hardware. While there are contrary theories out there now, the prevailing sense is that pro-tools is stable and widely accepted because of it. Since other DAW software sits on top of a regular system, or a setup that can be variable and unstable, protools has dedicated hardware and a "rock solid" stability.

I don't know enough about it to deny the claim, but I'd suspect it to be relatively true. Digidesign has had time and support to make sure their stuff is solid, and have been able to rely on their own architecture for improvements and enhancements. Plus, it's widespread usage allows portability and acceptance.

Most people that knock protools these days point directly at it's lackluster MIDI tools, it's functionality more geared towards post-production than creation. This is why they've had to work extra hard after arriving late to the pro-sumer market with the Mbox. I think this is accurate. Plus, it's catch-22 about the dedicated hardware means it's price point and proprietary plugin architecture is a cost barrier to the younger, project studio-type. I think this part is great, because it does allow companies like Cakewalk to bring products like Pro-Audio/Sonar up to pro-level features along with a generation of WRITER/producer/engineers who can now achieve protools like quality with their own goodie-bags of sonic wizardry.

I dont' mind that protools is the big kid in the pro market, I think more and more sound people are willing to be blown away by something made entirely on some "esoteric" system. The emphasis now is on light and fast creation and release, and really every DAW platform has enough users and power-users to support anybody who's making a pro-level release or production capacity.

I think the next big tech barrier will be allowing plugins to get "debriefed" by one another. In this way I could bring my Sonar session with a Sonitus compressor into a protools session and the protools compressor will be able to say "Oh, I see you're using a ratio of 5:1 with a -18dB threshold and makeup gain, okay I'll do that too." I think as we approach the ability for software to more accurately listen and "replicate" sound, the difference with a result like the one I just mentioned will be so slight that people won't care when contrasted against being able to carry a disc of an entire album to any studio in the world.

This is another topic we need as a sticky thread, up along with one about why Sonar is not on Mac, so that we don't have to have this conversation over and over.

Not flaming Guyunique, but a quick search of this forum would have found this topic covered many times over... call me an old cranky ****.

1. Is it because Sonar is exclusively PC based?

Perhaps a little. Most studios in my area are G5-hosted. To switch to a PC
platform, one would have to wait for the two or three year cycles in which
studios retool. I don't believe the studios much care what they're running
as long as it works. The Mac G5 and PT is a relatively risk-free solution
for a studio owner or manager. It's important to note that these guys
are not often the most technically savvy .. they just want something that
works.

2. Is it because Cakewalk does not have hardware interface exclusively designed for Sonar?

The freedom in which we revel to pick whatever hardware and software configuration we
choose means we assume the chore of making it all work and the risk if it doesn't. For a large
studio, being down even a day can make the difference between being profitable that
month or not. If Cakewalk had hardware/software studio bundles which were proven and
had the same degree of support provided by Digi .. then perhaps some studios
would consider it. However, this high support and bundling model is expensive for a
company to provide .. hence the increased cost of a platform like ProTools. Digi makes
it up in volume and support contracts.

3. Is it because Cakewalk products does not cost $200.000.00?

Well, let's remember the systems which PT replaced .. they were far more expensive to buy,
operate and maintain. For engineers, the time savings by being able to edit "in the box" and
not have to cut tape, bounce down, etc. was huge ... not that any of this savings ever made
it to the consumer ;-) While we may balk at the cost of a PT system, studios still have the
mindset that they're saving money by being all digital.

4. Is it because Cakewalk as a company is not giving/shoving free products down the throats of pro/engineers/producers?

Digi doesn't make a habit of giving away stuff ... they make a habit of financing and hardware upgrades.

And then there's the way it sounds ... I think ProTools with Digi hardware sounds really good. I've heard
other systems that sound as good... (like the Apogee's, Lynx's and RME Fireface) .. but when you talk in
this range .. the prices are pretty similar. There's also the plug-ins which you can't get on any other platform
(like McDSP) that are just great.

My point is not to belittle or diminish competitive products like Sonar. I love Sonar .. I love the GUI .. it's
a wonderfully productive and liberating environment to work in. But, I also want to say that it's not fair
to call the people who use ProTools stupid or sheep or anything like that .... because they've made
their choices based on business decisions ... and often these decisions are not rooted in
technical "bestness."

jeff

ONE WORD....


Marketing.

"ONE WORD....


Marketing."

Thats true and i agree with everyone in this thread.

I think one of the reasons is to convince the Producers/clients. Most dont believe a complete Album can be done in your small room. Today`s generation is MIDI and PT is not popular for that. These Musician guys build the stuff in Cubase/Sonar/Logic and transfer the Audio renderings into the big PT thingy in a bigger studio. I feel its only to give an indication to the markets, producers etc who only believe 'Quality' and 'Genuinity' is PT and nothing else. Not a bad idea.

One Answer:

E.) All of the Above

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

Because people are sheep!

Rico

Exactly.

I hate digidesign.