There is no point in people coming back with bickering comments, this is definately a fact...

Not a very open-minded approach. You have to accept the possibility that there is a problem with your test methods before assuming some huge audio quality difference between these apps.

The test file is a song called The Rose. Two huge machines, P4 3.2 and AMD 3200 64 bit. The tests were run on both machines with identical sound cards (same result). 18 tracks consisting of:
9 audio tracks and 9 midi tracks
Same plug ins (waves and master reverb)
Midi tracks using Kontakt Reason 2 and Hallion

Any panning? Pan laws are different between these apps (resulting in different relative levels).

The bottom line is that if you'd like to convince anyone here, you'd really need to post your exact methods along with test files. Your word simply is not enough, especially for a guy like me who has access to both apps and has seen far more scientifically run tests than yours that have ended with completely different results than yours.

-S

ORIGINAL: shea

There is no point in people coming back with bickering comments, this is definately a fact

Shea, you have made an unsubstantiated claim. You are being asked to provide substance which will give weight to your claim; that is not bickering, it is expecting intellectual honesty from you.

You have in fact been offered an opportunity to test your claim by a Very Important Person (read back, you'll notice him if your eyes are sharp). Are you still willing?

It's so simple, really -- do you want your claim to have substance? You said you have proof. You can give your argument weight. Or you can continue to bluster. Your choice will determine how your claims are regarded. If you can prove your claim, then you will have done a good thing for Sonar.

... Well?

Meffy

ORIGINAL: losguy

And true for any tool, whether it be a musical instrument or coping saw (but not together, please).

Correct!

For playing music, you need a standard wood saw. A coping saw would be all but useless.

Meffy
(yes, really; it's not hard when you know how to do it)

We're pretty behind here--It's been much too long since we've had a "competitor sounds better" thread......
Before the revised bussing structure of Sonar 3, I was as "good as gone" to Nuendo. I am so glad I didn't go that route.......
How does one "get their hands on" a software package? And, as far as I know, manufacturers aren't making claims of sounding superior to other products. Features, yes. The ever ambiguous and nebulous "sound quality", no. So are we being led to believe anything?
CAA

but that doesn't change the fact that I find the audio engine to be 20-40% better in Nuendo.

Shea,

So just how did you arrive at that "20%-40% better" statement? If you want to be taken seriously, why won't you explain what it is that "sounds" better. How did you measure this to get your percentages?

I personally think Krystal sounds better than everything.

I downloaded samplitude, nuendo, logic6 for pc, cubase, vegas, performer, protools,sonar5 and paris and I can tell you they is NAAASTY compared to Krystal.

course - if you dont believe me then you're all silly too.


Kind regards

DJ "Insert name here"

I used to record everything in Cool Edit Pro. Now that I own Sonar, it's not like I'm blown away with the difference in sound quality.
They both sound the same.
It's just that Sonar has capabilities that will allow me to grow as a musician, and I won't outgrow:-)
Now bring on 4.0!!!!!!

Cakewalk will have no choice but to step it up a notch, and we'll all benefit. The release of Sonar 4 will be delayed, until Cakewalk is able to clear the egg off its face. Cakewalk will offer Sonar 4 free to registered Sonar 3 owners, to restore goodwill.

Cakewalk will offer Sonar 4 free to registered Sonar 3 owners

yay ..this thread is going to be mmmmuchh longer now

hi guys.
IN reply to all of you.
once again why is it when you discover something wrong with sonar on this forum your immediately an allien.
Lets get it straight here im a dedicated sonar user at present and some of the replys on this forum have been ambiguous and bordering very close on accusing me of piracy. how many people on this forum can hold their heads
up and say they dont use pirats I DO NOT.
And dont think for one moment that i would be so stupid and buy nuendo just to compare it to sonar .I did not buy nuendo it was our clients computer(amd 64bit 3200+) that was brought into the studio to be upgraded and he owns nuendo. It was he who wanted a replica on neundo on both machines and beleive me the difference was substantial. So lads the difference is there. if you care toget yourself a demo or copy of nuendo and try it for yourself. Idont see any reason for me to upload anything when im being accused of been dishonest
i.e that i would change one file from the other just to make a point.
Cop yourselves on i have better things to do . this allready has cost me a day of my time but it was worth it in so far that it realy proved to me that sonars engine is suspect.
Lets face it boys i appreciate ron kuper droping in here but if i am totally wrong
why does ron not say so. surely with all his resorses ,it would be simple for him to make a comparison and prove me wrong.
Its very simple lads take any 16bit wavefile , take it into both nuendo2 (by the way )and sonar and if you cant find a difference theres something not quite right with your ears.Thats the simple way to do it but be honest. To me nuendo is warmer,tighter with loads of colour whilst sonar is harder duler with out that same colour.
To ron kuper again if you know something we dont please admit it so that it can be bettered in the next update. It might also stop this argybargy and help pros be more constructive. this in turn will help the less knowledgeable people to improve.
And to all you lads dont get your knickers in a twist over it, im simply a dedicated sonar user lik your selves that strives for it to improve all the time.
After all ,if all we do is praise, it never will be.
I hope i dont seem in any way arrogant because i don mean to be.


shea

I agree. If you're right, please do us all that favor.

I believe Steinberg does claim to be modeled after a tape sound, so there may be some subtle tape simulation going on there...
Maybe put a Voxengo Warmifier over your Sonar mix and see if that's the case...

Someone correct me if i'm wrong,but don't Nuendo and Cubase have a tape saturation effect on the output?
I'm pretty sure . That would account for the warmer, fuller sound ???????

this is hilarious, if everyone has all this empirical evidence , why don't they just dump the wave files and show us? why would Ron Kuper have to do the test to prove you wrong, your claim is still unsubstantiated. Making accusations then refusing the back them up will get you flamed, and rightly so. Telling non-believers to waste our time to find a nuendo system to check it out on it just as foolish. Come on dude, you're doing all this to yourself, post the examples (ie put your money where your mouth is) and all criticism will be silenced.

I'm really in shock that in this day and age of the internet, people like this still exist. If you come into ANY forum and slag the product, and then refuse to prove your point YOU WILL BE FLAMED. Its internet 101.

once again why is it when you discover something wrong with sonar on this forum your immediately an allien. Sorry. We earthnlings always ask for proof of hypotheses offered by hostile aliens.

Lets face it boys i appreciate ron kuper droping in here but if i am totally wrong
why does ron not say so. See above. or maybe he just doesn't like "alliens"

take it into both nuendo2 (by the way )and sonar and if you cant find a difference theres something not quite right with your ears. Our ears just aren't as big as most "alliens'" Besides, people with better ears than mine have already made scientifically and aurally sound comparisons between the products, and posted the conclusions. You just won't accept them.

I hope i dont seem in any way arrogant because i don mean to be. Statements inferring that those who disagree with your assessment have something wrong with their ears don't help. Becoming defensive when viewpoints counter to yours are presented (after you specifically asked for feedback) doesn't help either.

I'm just teasing you a bit. But, people have really only asked you for clarification and substantiation of your claim. In turn, you have only offered this - To me nuendo is warmer,tighter with loads of colour whilst sonar is harder duler with out that same colour. - purely subjective, and hardly reason enough to take your statements as gospel. Clearly, the properties of Nuendo2 (real or perceived) meet your needs better than Sonar. Use it in good health.

P.S. If you are, indeed, a "dedicated Sonar user", put some of that dedication to use and provide Ron Kuper with the files he requested. Otherwise, one would be forced to question your "dedication".

ORIGINAL: keith

ORIGINAL: daverich
I downloaded samplitude, nuendo, logic6 for pc, cubase, vegas, performer, protools,sonar5 and paris and I can tell you they is NAAASTY compared to Krystal.

Percentages, please! I want percentages!!! [sm=tongue.gif]

What you trying to say!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

BLIMEY! - I only come here trying to ENLIGHTEN your ass and go getting all hostile on me.


ARGH.

NOW i know why I didn't wanna come here anyway and why I'm not even gonna bother to reply to your post.



Kind regards

Dave Rich.

ORIGINAL: shea
I hope i dont seem in any way arrogant because i don mean to be.
shea

I think maybe half the reason most of us are taking this with a huge pinch of salt is that we've all used all these programs for years.

you say you were using a 16bit file. - Well that might be the answer right there. Nuendo uses Apogee dithering and sonar uses - *ahem* well nevermind what sonar uses - it's just different ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich.