I at one point had a mackie mcu pro - and had very spotty performance with sonar.  The Nucleus 2 with Dante from SSL has some really nice solutions.  Does anyone know how well these desks perform with SONAR

SSL has not invested a single cent from overpraised Nucleus 1 into Sonar support, it can work like MCU Pro + MCU Pro XT  (there was reports a bit worse... in the forum you can find re-posted replays from SSL, blaming cakewalk (?) for that).
 
I guess by "Compatible with ProTools, Logic, Cubase/Nuendo and all major DAW applications" they do not count Sonar.
 
So, as control surface, MCU Pro + XT will work with Sonar not worse then Nucleus by definition of how that is organized. But from the price difference, it is possible to get: MCU+XT+ RME UFX + decent computer to run Sonar
 
Is "SSL" label on the device and 2 channel interface worse the difference, is up to personal preferences.

 
I guess by "Compatible with ProTools, Logic, Cubase/Nuendo and all major DAW applications" they do not count Sonar.
 
 
Seriously, Why the majority of the companies in the music industry don't count Sonar???  It is about 15 years or more I am a fan of the Sonar but still haven not get my answer.

Thanks for the replies. Has anyone had any actual experience with this combination?

reza
 
I guess by "Compatible with ProTools, Logic, Cubase/Nuendo and all major DAW applications" they do not count Sonar.
 
 
Seriously, Why the majority of the companies in the music industry don't count Sonar???  It is about 15 years or more I am a fan of the Sonar but still haven not get my answer.

I feel the same way. Until Cakewalk gets aggressive about working with these vendors, they will never be taken seriously.

FLZapped
I feel the same way. Until Cakewalk gets aggressive about working with these vendors, they will never be taken seriously.

It's not about getting aggressive. Cross-platform applications reach a potentially much bigger user base, so companies will prioritize their limited development time ensuring compatibility with those programs.

Anderton

FLZapped
I feel the same way. Until Cakewalk gets aggressive about working with these vendors, they will never be taken seriously.

It's not about getting aggressive. Cross-platform applications reach a potentially much bigger user base, so companies will prioritize their limited development time ensuring compatibility with those programs.

I am really sorry Craig that I am in disagreement with most of your recent opinions, that is not my intention. But that is the case also this time.
 
I have made it clear in this forum and on my forum several times that I can integrate any Control Surface with Sonar at the level Sonar allows that (so VS700 / Mackie / a bit more). And that will cost close to nothing for producers, at most the price of one unit (internal price, I mean for them that is much less then the sale price). If they do not want spend a single cent, internal technical documentation can also do the trick (much less convenient for me and someone will be forced to alpha/beta test the result, but even such approach can have success). I have even tried to contact some of them. But I got usual (no) reply.
I conclude the problem is not in limiter resources... May be you know where it really is.
 
My recent project a week ago was accessible Behringer X-Touch Compact preset. Apart from usual functionality (the feedback is audible instead of visual), we have implemented "ACT Learning" using device only, I guess the first time that was done (that feature was essential since without monitor it is hard to touch a control by mouse, even one time for learning). That was done by 2 "developers" in 2 weeks (during free time), one without the device and another with the device but without a possibility to look at it.

Anderton

FLZapped
I feel the same way. Until Cakewalk gets aggressive about working with these vendors, they will never be taken seriously.

It's not about getting aggressive. Cross-platform applications reach a potentially much bigger user base, so companies will prioritize their limited development time ensuring compatibility with those programs.

I'm sorry, but this is about the end user making money by being able to work efficiently. I don't think Cakewalk has that perspective properly aligned in it's priorities. You can have all the cross platform bells and whistles you want, if it is inefficient, it won't last.

soo......  no one has used it?  HAHA!!!

FLZapped
I'm sorry, but this is about the end user making money by being able to work efficiently. I don't think Cakewalk has that perspective properly aligned in it's priorities. You can have all the cross platform bells and whistles you want, if it is inefficient, it won't last.

thedukewestern
soo......  no one has used it?  HAHA!!!

As a conclusion from my previous posts, but just a guess:
 
Nucleus (2) is targeting other segment. Roland has tried working there with Sonar, they had VS700. And that was unsuccessful. There is no reason for SSL to look in Sonar direction since (most?) Sonar users are not looking in SSL direction. This forum is filled with questions about sub $500 devices, top end is around $2000. For a reason I think there are some people which use Sonar with "real" studio equipment, but they are not active in this forum and the number of them is not sufficient for an attention from such equipment producers.