It appears that the differences are real, though the technical differences that have been identified would not really account for the HUGE differences reported. I agree that timing would be uppermost in the minds of the SONAR programmers but not only are they working within the constraints of the operating system (windows) but also offer a method of adding third party plug in's. Neither of these are under their control and any delays external to SONAR could be a source of timing error. If a third party plug in has not received sufficient processor time (from windows) to present its latest value to SONAR it might be correct to assume that SONAR would pick up the previous value for a second time. I really don't know if the software interface allows this to be recognised, but even if it is there is no time left to do anything about it.

For my own part, I do not actually have an issue with SONAR's audio quality BUT if there is an improvement to be made, why not? If there is a difference I am just trying to put up some realistic possibilities for the that difference. As Mr. Austin says, there are many ways of cracking the software nut and I am sure that Nuendo and Sonar are different in the detail of their solutions. I have only taken issue with him as he has homed in (with erroneous logic) on a simple area that is not significant enough to be relevant to the differences claimed. I am confident that he cannot refute my challenge with anything other than baseless rhetoric.

I wonder what Ron is doing.

To condense everything he's said in the last couple months into three words:

Sonar 4 development

Sonars' Midi is much more user friendly and oh, so much faster and easier to operate than Nuendo. I agree, Nuendos' Audio engine is pretty neat but there's nothing wrong with Sonar. I work on Nuendo all day at the studio, but my home studio is equipped with the evergreen SONAR 3!!!!

ORIGINAL: jamies_ice

Does the original author of a thread get some kind of cash reward if it goes on for a specified amount of time?
Wow... do you guys realize that over 30,000 people have clicked on ths link?

Probably more like 30,000 clicks from ten or twenty different people.

This makes reply number 666!

ORIGINAL: 6stringsat100mph
<6stringsat100mph>
why dont you two just take a deep breath and relaaaaaaax....how do you know all this is not just tongue in cheek? You dont because you dont know any of us. You take yourselves and this type of banter so seriously and I fear you are being a little silly.

Perhaps. You're right, I don't know any of you. I have no way of knowing what's tongue-in-cheek and what's antagonistic and belligerent, other than the way it reads on my screen. To come back to this thread, looking for insights, and to find two new pages worth of posts that seemed to have more venom than substance, gave me the impression that your posts had some animosity to them. If it was all in fun, then I apologize for not recognizing that. Please forgive my ignorance.

ORIGINAL: steve austin
<steve austin>
and anyway Mr graham,your post sounded pretty patronising itself. give me a self taught photographer with a natural innate gift over a Uni trained geezer any day.Some people do music with a passion and most successful artists have the passion or a natural gift,programmer singer or otherwise.So don't give us your techni snobbery.

You're right, my post was patronizing. But remember, Mr. Austin, nothing in my post gives you any indication of whether I am a successful artist. I come to this forum to learn how to use the tools better, so that the tools become transparent. For me personally, the better I know the program, the more energy I can spend towards creativity during a session, as opposed to thinking about how to accomplish what I want to technically. I come to this forum to learn (and sometimes to try to help), and at the time that I last posted, I felt that the multitude of seemingly belligerent posts did nothing to help me be more creative or productive. That has nothing to do with education. My post, if you reread it, was actually in support of the possibility that you might have a point. My only goal in stating that I am educated was to illustrate that I can understand everyone's technical explanations, but that we shouldn't close our minds to other possibilites.

Clearly my post was not received in the spirit in which I intended it. I did not mean to ruffle more feathers. I'll stick my nose out of this thread now.

And just when I thought this thread was starting to fade away...

Hey Mr Austin, I (and presumably many others here) would love for you to post a link to those golden tracks that you have mixed with with Logic/Nuendo/whatever. Just so that we can all hear the sound-quality we are missing out on, as we continue to use the 'sub-par' Sonar program that you seem to have such issues with... I am not kidding here. I like to think that I have pretty sensitive ears when it comes to assessing the quality of a mix. If you could somehow show us the 'magical results' you have achieved with Logic, then I'd probably be the first to question my willingness to stick with Sonar.

I have heard many, many, many mixes from all the different major DAW programs out there, and from a technical standpoint, none have ever stood out as being 'leagues above the rest'... Actually, that's not true... A while back, I listened to a pre-mastered mix (from an amature, home-musician) that really got my attention. It was technically (and artistically) stunning... And most surprisingly, it was done using an earlier version of Fruity Loops... (Do I really need to expand upon the point I am trying to make here?)

Mr Austin, if one or two of us Sonar users were to join the Logic forum just to point out how much better our DAW is, do you really think any Logic users are going to be swayed by our opinion? Food for thought...

I eagerly anticipate some of those examples that I had asked for above...

I can only conclude therefore that you are out of your depth technically or indeed behaving as I have been warned. I think it is most likely the latter.
Good-bye and have a nice life.

i think my post has blown your uncertainty out of the water,and therefore you are correct to leave.

It most certainly has. My only doubt was your motive. I am now certain that BOTH of the above apply. I'm just sorry I did'nt spot this earlier.

Apologies to all (except one) for digressing. Mr. Austin, feel free to prove me wrong by taking up my very simple challenge.....

ORIGINAL: SteveJL
Now we can all just wait patiently for Ron's feedback, or Sonar 4, whichever comes first.

If I was Ron, I would've given up on this thread a long time ago.

Yes, Bill, not a bad idea. Buried a few pages back (don't blame you one bit if you missed it) I/we asked for something similar, basically a new "In response to..." thread from a Moderator posting the issue raised, key findings, and resulting action items (if any, i.e. patches or feature changes in S4, such as the selectable pan law). They could do a nice job of summarizing everything right at the top. Especially Ron Kuper; I'm continually amazed at his level-headed and succinct way of stating the essential facts.

And now for something completely different: "waffle"? Bill, over here, besides the obvious edible usage, that's a term for politicians who say anything to get elected. especially if it's 100% opposed to a position they held earlier. I think I know what you meant, though. Hey... maybe the term applies that way here too!

This thread has spiraled way off topic. Regrettably I feel I have no choice but to lock it from additional posts.

However I have not yet given up on this issue, even though I am pretty busy these days. I am still working on getting to the bottom of the sonic differences reported by shea. I will definitely report my findings once I have some solid data to provide.