KHS
the one in Cubase is absolutely on par with Melodyne.

Uhhh, no.  I've tried it.  It is only 1/100th the power of Melodyne, IMHO.  The Cubase feature isn't bad (especially for a free feature), but it isn't Melodyne.
 

KHS
best results are usually with a crossfade length between 2-5ms only. Not sure what you are doing that requires more than 500ms?

Does it matter why?  There are times that is the effect I am looking for.  It just seems goofy for the feature to be limited arbitrarily to 500 ms.

cparmerlee

KHS
the one in Cubase is absolutely on par with Melodyne.

Uhhh, no.  I've tried it.  It is only 1/100th the power of Melodyne, IMHO.  The Cubase feature isn't bad (especially for a free feature), but it isn't Melodyne.
 

KHS
best results are usually with a crossfade length between 2-5ms only. Not sure what you are doing that requires more than 500ms?

Does it matter why?  There are times that is the effect I am looking for.  It just seems goofy for the feature to be limited arbitrarily to 500 ms.

Having used both, it is on par with Melodyne, it just cannot do polyphonic stuff at this time.
 
For the Crossfade, for those times you need that effect, you just insert a manual crossfade and you can make it as long as you want. The 500ms is for the auto crossfade only. Nothing goofy about that, you most likely dont want +500ms crossfades on every event you have in your project.
Basically set up the autofades to the length you will use for normal edits, and then apply a manual crossfade for those special cases you need a long crossfade. 

That a reason why I didn't go for Cubase the UI doesn't seem to fit fit in with what it can do every thing seems to be under the hood. I wanted something that was similar to Sonar where I can work in one screen yet delve into the programme with out searching for what may be hidden. If Cubase is the same way as it once was which I believe it to be only because of old code then I would be reticent to use it. I had comments when I showed Sonar to a programmer and they said everything is right there. I think looking for a DAW a fresh DAW was the best option for me. Not something that had been established for over twenty years as things change and things develop. Hence I'm giving Studio One a chance and loving it's simplicity but again I think they are many things under the hood which I would expect seeing that the development team have come across from Cubase. I think they took the best of most DAWs and put it together. I have had Studio One for less than a week so I will continue to use it as see how it develops as my new main DAW. Sure I will be giving Sonar a spin but I am looking to throw all my songs into Studio One at some point. 

joegab
If you record a track (maybe a guitar) for some bars, then you need to record a second section on the same track starting on the following bar (so you need to start recording a couples of bars before) you can't hear what it was recorded before because cubase mutes the track while recording it and this is not so nice.
 
And - similar scenario - using the lanes you cannot hear overlapping clips (if the clips are overlapping a bit, you can only hear one lane at a time and the other lanes are muted)...

I submitted a feature request to Steinberg here: https://www.steinberg.net...c.php?p=698881#p698881

Please vote it up and perhaps clarify how it would benefit your workflow. I suspect Steinberg is happy for the influx of Sonar users and may, for now anyways, be anxious to please us. The more Sonar users that chime in, the more likely we'll see this feature implemented in Cubase 10. Hopefully.

Resort Records

joegab
If you record a track (maybe a guitar) for some bars, then you need to record a second section on the same track starting on the following bar (so you need to start recording a couples of bars before) you can't hear what it was recorded before because cubase mutes the track while recording it and this is not so nice.
 
And - similar scenario - using the lanes you cannot hear overlapping clips (if the clips are overlapping a bit, you can only hear one lane at a time and the other lanes are muted)...

I submitted a feature request to Steinberg here: https://www.steinberg.net...c.php?p=698881#p698881

Hi,
We would like to understand completely the purpose behind this feature request.
It is not about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously (because that would end up easily in a mess) but having a defiend transition between different audio files?
Or are you asking for something like cyle recording like with MIDI just for Audio?
 
Best,
Frank

Frank-USHi,
We would like to understand completely the purpose behind this feature request.
It is not about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously (because that would end up easily in a mess) but having a defiend transition between different audio files?

It is about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously. Sound on sound recording. True, it could end up in a mess. But there are scenarios where having that ability is very helpful. The previously mentioned case where you want to hear the guitar clip to the end while recording next clip is one example but there are others as well. 

Dear Frank:
I also asked for a second feature request here:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=252&t=128909
 
In both case (my suggestion during Recording, the other suggestion AFTER you recorded some audio with a bit of overlapping clips) Cubase mutes something, and using Sonar we are used to do the same things without having the daw muting anything.
 
For the overlapping lanes please consider this example: I record my electric guitar and I use also my lovely delay unit (Binson Echorec - a very old device) which has a particular sound, ok?
 
I record my first section from bar 1 to bar 8 and, using my delay unit, the recording will go through the following bar completely.... (9).
 
Now I need to record a second section FROM bar 9 to bar .... 15....
As you can understand in bar 9 of the first recording I have the tail of my delay, but ALSO the new section.
 
Now, using Cubase it will be not handy at all for manage this situation (I need to move to a different track the second clip, or I need to press X and to "try" to do a complicate CrossFade hoping to have all my material playing).
 
I hope that this could be useful for understanding this problem.
 
Please let us know: in a future release / update of Cubase it would be a nice idea to have fixed these small issues.
 
Regards,
 
Giorgio
 
 

OK, understand - different use cases.
The function I personally also would like to see is, having the already recorded file plus monitoring of the signal you are about to record on the same track at the same time audible. Helpful when you prepare yourself for punching in.
The other one is a kind of cycle/overlay on one track.
Will discuss that.
Best,
Frank

Frank-US
We would like to understand completely the purpose behind this feature request.
It is not about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously (because that would end up easily in a mess) but having a defiend transition between different audio files?
Or are you asking for something like cyle recording like with MIDI just for Audio?

 
For myself, it is about playing back different audio files on one track simultaneously without crossovers.
 
Here's my typical workflow for guitars and vocals:
 

1. Setup loop-recording of eight bars (sometimes, with an extra 1/2 bar before and after).
2. Loop-record the first verse until there's a good take (usually 2-dozen takes, thanks to my crappy guitar skills ).
3. Delete unwanted takes
4. Clean up the "keeper" take, removing silence from tip and tail, and applying fade ins/outs to eliminate clicks.  The final clip is usually longer than eight bars.
5. Duplicate the clip and move it to verse #2.  The duplicates will overlap a bit around bar 9.  This is where we want to hear both clips simultaneously, and because the clips are cleaned up, they require no crossfades. 
6. Done.  And because they're the same instrument, it makes sense to have both clips on the same track.  It's as if we punched in, but actually sounds better (usually) and with less effort.  This also has the advantage of using just one set of insert effects on the one Audio Track, whereas, if the duplicate must be copied to another track, the insert effects must also be duplicated, wasting computer resources.  On the other hand, if those insert effects are moved to a Group or FX track, the option to Freeze those tracks and recover computer resources is lost, again wasting resources.
7. Repeat for bridge, chorus, etc., recording subsequent clips onto the same Audio Track.  Arranging and re-arranging song sections is effortless because there's no crossfades to worry about.  Admittedly, some of those sections will end up in dedicated Audio Tracks anyways for specific processing and automation, but not always.  And, by this time, we're usually well into the mix phase, where computer resources are more manageable (e.g., virtual instruments are rendered to Audio Tracks, sound card buffers are maxed).

Does this help?
 
Maybe there's an easier way to do this, but personally, I avoid crossfades.  I only use them when punching a fix into an otherwise good take.
 

BTW, when recording subsequent takes (Step #7), I want to hear the other clips on the Audio Track, as when recording to a fresh Audio Track.  That's not to be confused with layered loop-recording - I do not want to hear prior passes of the same take during loop-recording.  Such an option would mimic the behavior of Cubase's MIDI Tracks and might make for a cool looper effect that is popular in some "one-man-band" YouTube videos, but it's not my normal workflow.