ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

Is that right.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

I cant wait to hear the responses from all the computer scientists listening through Alesis Mk2's.

Placebo = no way.

Can i post results = to a select few.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

When you do a test like this, there's always a few important things that people tend to overlook, which can make the test biased towards one app over the other. One major difference is in pan laws used between the 2 apps. These pan laws will also be different depending on if you're using MONO tracks or Stereo tracks. You did not mention that you made sure Sonar and Protools where using the same Pan laws or if you where using Stereo or Mono tracks. From that point perspective your test is already flawwed and does not hold any credibility. I don't mean any offense by that statement, but I suspect it's something that you overlooked.

Another factor is what driver of your sound card did you use for each app. It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware. The Kmixer can dither bits and resample the audio without you knowing it. Remember Windows on the most part has been developed for non DAW users, this means the general Windows user does not care about sample rates, and bit depth incompatibilities, they just care that if they click on and play an audio file then they hear sound. Thus the reason for the Kmixer performing it's resampling and bit debt conversions without you knowing it. You have not mentioned what driver was used for each app, thus another concern for biasing one app over the other.

Yet another factor is "dither" types and "noise shapping" used between the 2 apps. Both Sonar and Protools have different dither types you can choose. You have not stated that you made sure that you used "non-dithering" on both apps. Thus, another factor that can bias one app over the other.

Placebo = no way.

Sorry, but you where joking right when you made that statement? I'm hoping you weren't serious, because that would show you really don't understand what is meant by "Placebo". The fact that you conducted the test yourself and KNEW which mix was ProTools and which mix was Sonar, you have definately Placeboed yourself, thus introducing yet another factor that could bias your opinion.

There are still viable reasons to buy Pro Tools HD.

I think Pro Tools is popular because it is pretty much guaranteed to work (tried and true system). Not to say it does not have its share of bugs and crashes (Even adats would crash). But if I had the money, I probably would invest in a TDM system.

External controller support. This is a big one. Old school studio owners come from a world of knobs and faders. I think if they were told to replace their $200,000 analog studio with a computer and a mouse for all of the interaction. (Yeah right.). There are strides being made in this market Mackie, Tascam, and such but there is yet nothing out that competes with an Icon or Pro Control.

User Interface. While Pro Tools isn't known for its stellar midi editing, I found its audio editing interface great still above Sonar. What I liked:

Wide variety of editing tools (the region tool is one that comes to mind). Sonar default tool is for "moving" clips not "highlighting" them. This isn't normally a problem if your project is synched to tempo and aligns perfectly with the bar grid.

Sonar's method of highlighting clips works (the alt drag command), but thats the only good thing I can say about it. I'm not talking about highlighting clips with the snap set to musical time, Sonar does that well but if you are trying to determine tempo of a region, edit audio at a fine resolution, the Pro tools method (and Sound forge method) is a lot smoother. I find I can think a little better and audition a little better just having to use one hand to do something than both.

I am known to make a big deal over small things but IMO small things are the big things that really count.

Pro Tools also has very customizable gridlines. Sonar's grids just default to quarter notes. The Grid helps out also for editing audio, With it on you can easily see where something is getting off time. Fruityloops even go an extra step with gridlines and allow you to display swing. Sonar's grid method is a bit behind in times right now.

Another thing Pro tools allows you to display mutiple rulers in the arrange pane. Also handy.

Another thing is Pro tools method of auditioning regions for offline plug in processing is very logical. Sonar don't play what you highlight for offline processing. It instead just plays the beginning of the clip. This makes offline processing a bit useless.

A lot of things too aren't neccesarily things Sonar can't do and Pro Tools can but the problems is usually one program might have easier ways of doing something. Pro tools repeat command comes to mind. Just select a region click the repeat command and enter the number of repeats and voila. To do this in Sonar I'm am taken back to my days in Calc II (no it is not that bad). In sonar you first must copy the region to the clip board, choose paste, enter the time where you want to start, enter the number of repetitions, enter the track where you want to start, and choose the proper interval length. Pro tools way of doing this task is extremely easy, where Sonar's method is extremely easy to do something wrong. Things like this are things Sonar needs to seriously consider. Most programs have dedicated repeat, duplicate commands as well as copy and paste commands.

On a good note since I started using Sonar back on 2.2, Cakewalk has made significant progress. Back in the 2.2 days when Sonar was compared to Pro Tools as far as audio was concerned, I felt Pro Tools was definitely better. Since then Sonar has rewritten their audio engine (less gaps, better mixbus), added clip muting, clip based effects, a better mixer, nudge commands, and a lot of these features Sonar benefited a lot on implemented them. Clip muting comes to mind. I used to drudge having to silence clips to arrange parts but now clip muting makes this ridiculously easy.


I think Sonar will catch up with Pro Tools interface in due time. Currently Pro Tools is still a little better on the audio side (to me for editing), but I get by with Sonar now as most of my problems have definite workarounds. But too many workarounds usually mean there could be a more direct way to get something done.

It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware.

I believe Pure Wave or something uses the kernel mixer but WDM's implementation in Sonar bypasses it. That is Sonar is able to get below 30ms of latency using WDM.

I'll agree with you though for a listening test it would be better to choose the same drivers for comparing sound though. Also making sure pan law are the same, turning off dithering and such.

ORIGINAL: Guyunique
I have never used any other DAW/Software since I started using Sonar but I am just curious as to why "almost" every hit record/Album you look at today will give credit to Pro-tools as the DAW/Software used to record the abulm.

Why not ask why other crappy products have the vastmarket share in their industry: microsoft, harley, gibson les paul - to name a few. They all suck, there's far far better and cheaper alternates, and yet they maintain dominance. WHY? Monopoly practices. They shut out the competition, use fear - uncertainty - doubt (FUD) to slam the competition, advertise the crap out of them to build mystique, etc, and if all else fails - they buy the competition.

There's no free market in the USA; the barriers to entry are phenominal. Ever notice every local pizza joint has a coke refrigerator and that it sells nothing but coke products? To get that fridge they have to sell their soul and they do. The same with recording studios, music stores and has any indie music artist tried recently to get their CD sold at some national record store chain? Don't bother, they'll laugh in your face - or even more likely: you'll never even get to speak to someone about it.

Protools is total utter garbage: crashes, doesn't have 1/100th the features of sonar or cubase and is uber expensive.

Now how'bout you save the world and free us from our overlords? Oh wait, george bush has already passed their monopolies into unchallengeable protection under the law. Tough shi t, get back to picking cotton all you wiggers, chiggers and ****s.

ORIGINAL: Rumpled Foreskin

ORIGINAL: Guyunique
I have never used any other DAW/Software since I started using Sonar but I am just curious as to why "almost" every hit record/Album you look at today will give credit to Pro-tools as the DAW/Software used to record the abulm.

Why not ask why other crappy products have the vastmarket share in their industry: microsoft, harley, gibson les paul - to name a few. They all suck, there's far far better and cheaper alternates, and yet they maintain dominance. WHY? Monopoly practices. They shut out the competition, use fear - uncertainty - doubt (FUD) to slam the competition, advertise the crap out of them to build mystique, etc, and if all else fails - they buy the competition.

There's no free market in the USA; the barriers to entry are phenominal. Ever notice every local pizza joint has a coke refrigerator and that it sells nothing but coke products? To get that fridge they have to sell their soul and they do. The same with recording studios, music stores and has any indie music artist tried recently to get their CD sold at some national record store chain? Don't bother, they'll laugh in your face - or even more likely: you'll never even get to speak to someone about it.

Protools is total utter garbage: crashes, doesn't have 1/100th the features of sonar or cubase and is uber expensive.

Now how'bout you save the world and free us from our overlords? Oh wait, george bush has already passed their monopolies into unchallengeable protection under the law. Tough shi t, get back to picking cotton all you wiggers, chiggers and ****s.

here at livid we usually just ask for money rather than mortal souls - it pays the bills ;)

I must say your point about getting music into shops is something i would've agreed with you about until we actually went ahead and did it ourselves. The shops are definately into getting music in their stores - you just need to get a decent distribution company and really, I have to say if your stuff is good enough - that's just a matter of picking up the phone and calling around some folks who've already got their stuff in shops - or even send some emails to radio djs to see who they get stuff through.

I do think alot of people just moan about something they've actually never got off their butts and tried to do ;)


EDIT - sorry for going way off topic there ;) - pro-tools is an anagram of rot pools ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

There's no free market in the USA;

Are you considering Pro Tools a monopoly? I don't think that is the case (maybe right now if you only consider the professional market). I think there are some companies that are monopolies like you mentioned (coke, microsoft), but Pro Tools has a good amount of competition, Logic, DP, Cubase, Nuendo, Samplitude, Sonar, Live, Fruityloops (well maybe not Fruityloops).

But the music industry right now is not making money like they used to back in the 80's and early-mid nineties. Studios go bankrupt left and right. Most people who buy $200000 worth of equipment do that on a loan, and I hear cases of people who just had to end up selling everything because money would not come in.

I don't really read magazines like mix, and such they are kind of dedicated to the elite bunch who owns every piece of gear over $5000. But looking a magazines like Keyboard, EQ, and Scratch I'm starting to see Logic mentioned a whole lot. I see Performer get mentioned a great deal (esp in Keyboard mag). I don't hear Cubase or Sonar being mentioned as much as the former programs, but that alone shows you people are choosing other pieces of gear than Pro Tools. Pro Tools does have a nice chunk of the market but I think people are starting to realize there are other things out there.

I think a huge reason Sonar don't get too much attention is being PC based. Based on Misconception or not , people still shy away from PC's when it comes to music but then PC's have the dominance in about every other app.


I also think there will be a trend more into native programs like Sonar, and a sturdy PC (or Mac system).

The cost of owning a studio is expensive (building, construction, microphones, interfaces, outboard gear, and a Pc or mac based recording system(this includes plug-ins and control surfaces)). With a HD system, you still spend a great chunk of change on your recording system ($3000 computer + $15000 and up Pro Tools system). Pro tools systems often come into the $40000 price range. With Sonar or other native daw you should be able to get everything significantly less most likely under $10000 including plug-ins and such.

I think when people start seeing this, a lot of studios will start converting to native systems.

One thing that will keep professionals studios from converting to a native system is it's support plan. I hear with Pro Tools it is easy to get someone on the phone concerning your system. Most other systems are email based, Sonar's response time is around a day (which is known as the best support for a native system). I think software companies would definitely have to improve on this though. Maybe have an option where if you pay estra $$$ for the software you can have 24 hour phone support, if you don't pay the fee you will be limited to email support. I think a lot of people will consider paying this extra money for phone support. I don't know what effect this will have on Cakewalk being considered a nice or mean company but I understand 24 hour support cost money. Just an idea.

For years I have had a prehistoric PC with Win 98 and Pro Tools Free sitting on it that is kept purely so that I could truthfully answer "Yes" to that question and not lose the business at the first hurdle. Of course I don't use it ... and I've never had one that's eventually walked out the door dissatisfied with what we've produced with Sonar.

Good for you!

THE SOUND IS MUCH BETTER

ORIGINAL: bvds

THE SOUND IS MUCH BETTER

Why?

sonar is higher fidelity, the converters depend on your choice of gear and even the effects are running at a higher fidelity (64bit float)

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

Is that right.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

I cant wait to hear the responses from all the computer scientists listening through Alesis Mk2's.

Placebo = no way.

Can i post results = to a select few.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

When you do a test like this, there's always a few important things that people tend to overlook, which can make the test biased towards one app over the other. One major difference is in pan laws used between the 2 apps. These pan laws will also be different depending on if you're using MONO tracks or Stereo tracks. You did not mention that you made sure Sonar and Protools where using the same Pan laws or if you where using Stereo or Mono tracks. From that point perspective your test is already flawwed and does not hold any credibility. I don't mean any offense by that statement, but I suspect it's something that you overlooked.

Another factor is what driver of your sound card did you use for each app. It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware. The Kmixer can dither bits and resample the audio without you knowing it. Remember Windows on the most part has been developed for non DAW users, this means the general Windows user does not care about sample rates, and bit depth incompatibilities, they just care that if they click on and play an audio file then they hear sound. Thus the reason for the Kmixer performing it's resampling and bit debt conversions without you knowing it. You have not mentioned what driver was used for each app, thus another concern for biasing one app over the other.

Yet another factor is "dither" types and "noise shapping" used between the 2 apps. Both Sonar and Protools have different dither types you can choose. You have not stated that you made sure that you used "non-dithering" on both apps. Thus, another factor that can bias one app over the other.

Placebo = no way.

Sorry, but you where joking right when you made that statement? I'm hoping you weren't serious, because that would show you really don't understand what is meant by "Placebo". The fact that you conducted the test yourself and KNEW which mix was ProTools and which mix was Sonar, you have definately Placeboed yourself, thus introducing yet another factor that could bias your opinion.

I love ****s like you who presume ive done the test in a completely biased manner and spend an hour tying to convince others of it.