themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 09:18:59
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: tunekicker
I forget exactly where the break is, but with PT LE 7 and on, there is no option to "Enforce Mac/PC Compatibility." It just works. With older versions (I want to say anything older than 6.9?) you will need to make sure this is checked when you first create your Pro Tools file.
Peace,
I think you're right. I don't pay attention when I create sessions these days 
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 09:31:27
(permalink)
I guess comparing Pro Tools vs. Sonar depends on what your emphasis is.
Personally I think Sonar is great for recording, mixing, and soft synths. I don't have a control surface so I can't help with that angle.
Pro Tools has some great audio editing functions.
Things I like about Pro Tools:
1. Flexible Grid (In Sonar you must use the Inline Piano Roll and even that grid isn't as flexible as Pro Tools). Gridlines can be important for checking/fixing timing problems with projects syncronized to a tempo, duplicating parts.
2. Duplicate/Repeat (This is a no nonsense approach to having to repeat some clips. Just select a section, navigate to repeat and type in the number of repeats you want. Sonar's method is more time consuming and tedious. Highlight the selection you want to repeat, press Ctrl C to copy, Acknowledge the pop up menu, Press Ctrl V where a big menu pops up where you must select where you want the repeats to start, how many repeats you want, what track you want the repeats to start and the interval length of the Repeat. I don't see how some Cakewalkers find this more efficient although it is probably more flexible in for some advanced applications but for simple repeating measures I think a Duplicate function is needed).
3. Better Auditioning in Offline Processing (In Pro Tools you hear what you highlight when auditioning a plug-in, period. This is how it should be. In Sonar you hear several seconds of the beginning of the clip which in a lot of cases is not the part where you want the effect to come in, you can adjust the audition length but what is the point of having to wait if you want to audition an effect like 3 minutes into the song. Sonar's clip based plug-ins help eliminate this issue partly but is still time consuming having to chop clips when you only want an effect in certain parts of the clip. Also the goal of offline processing is to reduce CPU strain so having to use plug-ins is counter-intuitive).
4. Input Quantize (The only place where I can see where Pro Tools midi surpasses Sonars. Sonar really needs this feature).
5. Maybe better choice of high end plug-ins (Some plug-in manufactures only design plug-ins for TDM/RTAS. This is not really a Sonar problem though because Sonar has a big variety of VST/DXI options).
Sonar has tons of things over Pro Tools (probably too much to mention). Some of the basics:
1. Wide variety of 3rd party plug-ins/softsynths (With VST compatibility there are tons of choices to choose from. Pro Tools might be able to use a VST adapter now).
2. No nonsense approach to handling softsynths (In Sonar you just insert a softsynth and a respective midi and audio track pops up which gets you jamming immediately. Other programs seem a bit more cumbersome in this respect.
3 Superior Bouncing. (Pro Tools bouncing is in realtime (or at least older versions were)).
4 Great Bussing architecture (Sonar gets props for having a highly configurable mixer).
5 Inline EQ (A quicker alternative than inserting a plug-in when you want to plop off some low end on something).
6 Superior Piano Roll, Notation, midi editing midi effects (Pro Tools doesn't even do notation, For detailed midi editing Sonar beats pro tools).
7 More friendly environment for hardware synths (Things like program changes, drum maps, sysex makes this possible).
8 Intuitiveness (this might just come from using Sonar from some times but most of Sonar's layout just makes sense and minimizes guesswork).
|
Guest
Max Output Level: -25.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4951
- Joined: 2009/08/03 10:50:51
- Status: online
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 10:57:57
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: tunekicker
Thanks much! Could you please expand a bit regarding this quote: "you may need to enforce PC compatibility if Pro Tools is running on a Mac." His version of protools in indeed running on a Mac... What do you mean by enforce PC compatbility?
]d
I forget exactly where the break is, but with PT LE 7 and on, there is no option to "Enforce Mac/PC Compatibility." It just works. With older versions (I want to say anything older than 6.9?) you will need to make sure this is checked when you first create your Pro Tools file.
Peace,
they retired the Mac/PC flag session compat. option with PT7 .. they go back and forth just fine between Mac OS/X and XP with no problems. some of this was switching to use BWF as the native audio format and the other were file name restrictions from OS 9 and below. at the recent Digiworld, they hinted at concentrating on the Midi and authoring tools (such as the Sibelius integration) for a post 7.3 release. i hope so, because as TheMidiRoom has accurately stated .. the midi editing is horrible. one area that it's not horrible, however, is in the area of tick vs. sample based tracks .. it makes tempo matching to video events a snap. the realtime midi events/automation are a good idea, just not taken far enough. other than that, i'm hard pressed to think of a single midi editing feature in PT that isn't better implemented in another DAW program. for audio editing .. PT is the best ... a super efficient interface with tons of very well thought out modes and commands. jeff
|
davidchristopher
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1360
- Joined: 2004/06/18 15:51:14
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 12:08:52
(permalink)
One has to be careful when comparing Sonar to ProTools; I hate these threads because it's really an apple to oranges comparison- they're both fruit, and they're both yummy, but they're not the same. But to chime in. Again. And Again.  I just mixed a 32 track project for a perspective client that would have: 1) Choked my PC (not because of the track counts, but because of the plug ins) This point is moot for ProTools|LE, mind you- PT|LE would also have choked on the same project. However, on TDM, I was able to eq every channel, pitch shift and autotune several tracks, several kinds of delay on the guitars - including a stereo ping pong on one of them; compression on quite a few tracks. All using less than 35% of my MIX++- system resources. I was also able to sidechain, which for this project, is CRITICAL. 2) Taken twice or three times as long. Granted, my proficiency in Sonar is waining lately, but the keyboard shortcuts and clicktricks in Protools make life much easier for me. In this particular case, the project came in to me as an omf file - so I didn't use my mixing templates. I wanted to roll off the lows at around 120hz on every track execpt a few; and this was done in I think 3 or 4 clicks. Easy peasy. The audio editing features - including 'strip silence' were a godsend here. Lining up tracks (such as the room mics and the spot mics on the drums) was also quick and painless. 3) Control Surfaces are Cool. I have a Control|24. I love it. I can actually mix a project w/o looking at the screen, at all. I started recording on tape, and although I never got to work in the 2" medium- (I would have loved to, but it wasn't in the cards) I learned to mix while recording "live off the floor". I still do live shows that way- live to two track. I'm visual. I like to see the faders. I also am known to grab more than one channel at a time, and the control surface allows me to do this easily. Sonar has excellent support of things like the MCU (I've owned three of them, and didn't like any of them); but once you've sat down at a Control|24 or even better D|Control or D|Command, you'll wonder how you ever got along without it. Now, there are some really cool things in Sonar that I miss in ProTools- for example: 1) Track folders. What a great way to organise your project! I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of S6 to see what's new in the workflow here! 2) Per Channel EQ. This was just a great idea from the start- every channel gets an eq 'built in'. I don't always eq every channel (ok, yes I do, even just a little) but gawd this is handy to have 3) OMF file import/export. Yeah. Thank's Digi for chargin' $500 for this 'feature'. It's still cheaper for me to keep a current version of Sonar around **just** to be able to do omf. How silly is that?!? 4) Because I'm on ProTools|Mix, I'm not able to move up from 6.4.1 in the big studio, so I can't comment on the new PT 7.x features for dealing with softsynths, but the Sonar way of doing it is better compared to the 6.x versions of PT. 5) Sonar's bussing is easier - in ProTools, the bussing is fantastic, but it's not as easy as it is in Sonar. I'd have to set up the busses in the i/o panel and then create my aux tracks in Protools. In Sonar, you just create a buss. It's really just a workflow thing for me. The bottom line is, that it depends on your taste, your project, your requirements and your budget.
|
djjd5000
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 32
- Joined: 2006/10/17 04:04:48
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 12:56:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Spyda KB
Actuially, to save yourself the time, simply export all of your indiviual tracks as Broadcast Waves. They automatically bounce down and align starting at 00:00:00. When you import the tracks in PT, they are all aligned properly into a new session.
This is huge! Thank you!
|
mddmoderndaydavid
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 100
- Joined: 2006/05/01 10:08:47
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 13:00:27
(permalink)
Bronze Member I was a devout Sonar user since it was introduced. Last year, I made Pro Tools my primary tracking and mix platform. The main reason: To be compatible with a larger market that either uses Pro Tools exclusively or has it in their facility. Pro Tools has improved my workflow as far as mixing and also editing. It has a much better integration with my Mackie Control. The automation is much more flexible in my opinion. On the flip side, midi in Pro Tools is down right horrible. If you like softsynths, go with Sonar. I will continue to use Sonar for all my midi production and track into Pro Tools from there. The fact that both programs sync well with midi time code makes this work quite well. I have worked with all of them and I agree with you it is what works best for you. However, one point that I do disagree with and in my opinion it has been a deception for a lot of people is your statement about compatibility. All of these DAW's have OMF 2 and understanding how it works, you can be compatible to not only Pro Tools but to Cubase, Nuendo or any DAW that imports OMF files. I use it constantly and I do not have any problems. What differ for me is the mixing capabilities. I am coming from Nuendo, so with the change in how Sonar deals with it's automation (version 5 vs. 6). I am good. I will admit that the plug-ins that come with Nuendo is the bomb and very simple to use but like I stated it is what you are comfortable with. In my opinion ProTools Le systems are a waiste of money because there are great limitations that exist in regards to plug-ins, track-count and other features. If you ever worked on a real Pro Tools systems (HD Accel cards) you know the difference. I feel you get more power for your money and you are not limited on the hardware side. Remember, you can only use compatible hardware.
Peace MDD WITHOUT A VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH FAILURE TO FOCUS IS A HAZZARD
|
Spyda KB
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 293
- Joined: 2003/11/07 15:51:51
- Location: LA 2 JA
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 13:34:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mddmoderndaydavid
In my opinion ProTools Le systems are a waiste of money because there are great limitations that exist in regards to plug-ins, track-count and other features. If you ever worked on a real Pro Tools systems (HD Accel cards) you know the difference. I feel you get more power for your money and you are not limited on the hardware side. Remember, you can only use compatible hardware.
I agree, right now my PL LE system is just acting like a import application for me as am I slow at getting around using it for composing...BTW PT LE or HD still is lacking as a music composition tool when compared to Sonar, Cubase, DP or Logic. I'm always heading back to Sonar to start track a new tune. I also do hate the fact I cannot take advantage of the 24 i/o (via firewire) on my Tascam board with PTLE while I'm forced to pretty much mix in the box with the Digi002R. So that is the price I have to pay just to maintain some compatibility with the outside world. Regarding OMF...it works but it is clearly not perfect. Exporting to BWFs appears, to me at least, the better option when getting raw tracks from one application to another. - KB
post edited by Spyda KB - 2006/10/27 13:50:12
|
davidchristopher
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1360
- Joined: 2004/06/18 15:51:14
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 13:35:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mddmoderndaydavid
However, one point that I do disagree with and in my opinion it has been a deception for a lot of people is your statement about compatibility. All of these DAW's have OMF 2 and understanding how it works, you can be compatible to not only Pro Tools but to Cubase, Nuendo or any DAW that imports OMF files. FYI: Omf import export for Protools is a $500 add on. Although Digi 'invented' this format, it doesn't come out of the box with any version of PT. As I said, it's still cheaper for me to keep a copy of Sonar around just for this one little feature Also: PT uses split mono files for stereo tracks, while other daws use stereo interleaved files. PT cannot use DirectX plugins. PT cannot use VST plugins without a third party wrapper So it's definately not a 1:1 compatability situation; however these are all easily worked around. David
|
javahut
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 361
- Joined: 2005/11/25 19:35:23
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 14:11:05
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: davidchristopher
I just mixed a 32 track project for a perspective client that would have:
1) Choked my PC (not because of the track counts, but because of the plug ins)
This point is moot for ProTools|LE, mind you- PT|LE would also have choked on the same project. However, on TDM, I was able to eq every channel, pitch shift and autotune several tracks, several kinds of delay on the guitars - including a stereo ping pong on one of them; compression on quite a few tracks. All using less than 35% of my MIX++- system resources. I was also able to sidechain, which for this project, is CRITICAL. If your PC choked on 32 tracks in Sonar, it's time to upgrade PCs. This is increasingly a non-factor, as Core Duo and quad core chips emerge, along with 3rd party DSP like TC Electronics. I'm running projects with about the same track count you mention, along with many delays, multi-tap delays, 2 or 3 reverbs, assorted other bus effects, and compressors and EQ on just about every track. Granted, the latencey is up to about 1024 samples for mixing this, but for mixing, this is also a non-factor. The only relevant point left is the control surfaces. I personally don't ever care to use hardware faders again, as I much prefer the accuracy and visual cues of adjusting automation envelopes. So, from what I hear, the hardware mix controllers do use up a good amount of native CPU overhead. And Digi definitely has some awesome (and super expensive) mix controllers (they'd enjoy selling you  ) that native PCs can't compete with. But like I said, I don't care if I never use another fader again for mixing in the studio. But with the new processors and 3rd party DSP... comparisons of native systems and PT HD is increasingly relevant. And I'm coming from using a PT III system with 4 farm cards since '97, up until about a year ago. Native is getting oh so close to PT HD in just about every function except control surfaces. And in many ways, as you stated, going native has it's own virtues that going Digi precludes. Because I'm on ProTools|Mix, I'm not able to move up from 6.4.1 in the big studio, so I can't comment on the new PT 7.x features for dealing with softsynths, but the Sonar way of doing it is better compared to the 6.x versions of PT. This is one thing that bothered me with Pro Tools from about the start of my experience with Digidesign. About 3 months after I purchased my PTIII rig... they changed up the hardware so that future upgrades began to be impossible rather quickly. You could no longer upgrade Mac OS, Pro Tools software, get plug-ins that would function correctly... pretty much anything upgrade wise, unless you had Pro Tools latest hardware. Their support for their legacy products dropped rather quickly, along with 3rd party plug-in companies who, guess what?, would start designing for the new Digi hardware, and leave the old Digi hardware users behind. And all Digi wanted from me was an arm and a leg to follow their hardware upgrade path, which wasn't that much less expensive than buying new again. I made my decision pretty quickly that I'd just have a more or less static system and get 8-10 years of use out of PTIII, and then I'd be switching to a system that's much less proprietary than Digidesign's upgrade trap... er... path, I mean . And now, a year after switching to Sonar, I'm so glad to be done with Digi... for good.
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 14:52:48
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mddmoderndaydavid
I will admit that the plug-ins that come with Nuendo is the bomb and very simple to use but like I stated it is what you are comfortable with. In my opinion ProTools Le systems are a waiste of money because there are great limitations that exist in regards to plug-ins, track-count and other features. If you ever worked on a real Pro Tools systems (HD Accel cards) you know the difference. I feel you get more power for your money and you are not limited on the hardware side. Remember, you can only use compatible hardware.
I agree with you for the most part. Quite a few of my clients track their own material and send it to me to be mixed. Having the ability to simply open up the session and immediately start working is priceless to me. When I was exclusively using Sonar and exporting and importing, there were times it took half or more times as long to import the song as it took to mix it. I agree that Pro Tools LE is quite limited. Much of the work I do requires 64 or more tracks of playback and sometimes double that number in plugins, so I had to go HD Accel. I don't regret it one bit. My Sonar PC still cranks away. I have tons of old projects that I have done on Sonar and I still prefer it for midi sequencing. I've heard good things about the Nuendo plugins. What I don't like is the buggy nature of Steinberg products.
|
davidchristopher
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1360
- Joined: 2004/06/18 15:51:14
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 15:38:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: javahut
If your PC choked on 32 tracks in Sonar, it's time to upgrade PCs. This is increasingly a non-factor, as Core Duo and quad core chips emerge, along with 3rd party DSP like TC Electronics. I'm running projects with about the same track count you mention, along with many delays, multi-tap delays, 2 or 3 reverbs, assorted other bus effects, and compressors and EQ on just about every track. Probably. But why? I've got everything I need. Remember, I'm not knocking Sonar. or host based systems. ORIGINAL: javahut
Granted, the latencey is up to about 1024 samples for mixing this, but for mixing, this is also a non-factor.
What is that in ms on your system? - It is an issue if you use external hardware, or if you want to reamp a guitar track... Again, just a different way of working. ORIGINAL: javahut
So, from what I hear, the hardware mix controllers do use up a good amount of native CPU overhead. And Digi definitely has some awesome (and super expensive) mix controllers (they'd enjoy selling you) that native PCs can't compete with. But like I said, I don't care if I never use another fader again for mixing in the studio.
No, Digi's control surfaces - The Control|24 new ICON D|Command and D|Control and the older Pro Control surfaces anyway - I dunno about the Command|8 - have their own cpus - and communicate over ethernet. There is very little cpu impact on my ancient G4800 with my C|24. The MIDI ones... eeehw, gawd they eat up everything. My cat went missing, and I think I know where it went. ORIGINAL: javahut
But with the new processors and 3rd party DSP... comparisons of native systems and PT HD is increasingly relevant. And I'm coming from using a PT III system with 4 farm cards since '97, up until about a year ago.
Hey, 8-10 years out of a DAW... wow, that's not bad, eh? I'll point out, however that you went from PT|III to Sonar. That's quite a leap. That's more like skydiving into a field of soft fluffy pillows. Moving from Protools v4 to recording directly to an edison cylinder would have been an improvement (lol).
|
Ale74 ITA
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1
- Joined: 2006/10/27 14:10:07
- Location: Italy
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 15:46:31
(permalink)
Hi! I'm a newer italian Sonar user (sorry for my english!). I used Pro Tools for about 2 years and I found it great but i'm appreciating Sonar so much for its midi features. I would share my personal experience... 1) Pro Tools in my Intel Centrino based Notebook is too much power consuming as cpu usage is continously at 100% with the fan always active. I dislike so much this! I can't work quietly this way!!  2) I love changhing multiple midi tracks inputs/outputs with just 2 or 3 clicks in Sonar... I hate selecting output for each track when changing the virtual synth kit playing a GM based midi song in Pro Tools!  3) ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
Superior Bouncing. (Pro Tools bouncing is in realtime (or at least older versions were)).
In my opinion Pro Tools is a little better than Sonar in this feature as in Sonar you can't bounce a final mix based on midi tracks with virtual instruments without preventively bounce midi tracks on a audio track (and you have to do it in realime!) In Pro Tools you can bounce it without using any further disk space!
post edited by Ale74 ITA - 2006/10/27 17:12:36
Intel Centrino 1.6 Ghz, 1.5 Gb RAM, 3 HDs (system + recordings + sample libraries), M-Audio FW 1814, Shure Beta58, Korg Is40 keyboard, Sonar 6 (formerly Pro Tools 7)
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 17:14:15
(permalink)
Quite a few of my clients track their own material and send it to me to be mixed. Having the ability to simply open up the session and immediately start working is priceless to me. which is why a "Save As PT 7.xx" feature in SONAR would rock.
|
davidchristopher
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1360
- Joined: 2004/06/18 15:51:14
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 17:27:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ale74 ITA
3) ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
Superior Bouncing. (Pro Tools bouncing is in realtime (or at least older versions were)).
In my opinion Pro Tools is a little better than Sonar in this feature as in Sonar you can't bounce a final mix based on midi tracks with virtual instruments without preventively bounce midi tracks on a audio track (and you have to do it in realime!) In Pro Tools you can bounce it without using any further disk space!
Funny thing, all of the other engineers I know say NOT to bounce to disk in PT, but to record to another track via an aux. For some reason - and I can attest to this - bouncing to disk sounds different than playing back normally. Seems the automation can't keep up...
|
javahut
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 361
- Joined: 2005/11/25 19:35:23
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 18:02:53
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: davidchristopher
No, Digi's control surfaces - The Control|24 new ICON D|Command and D|Control and the older Pro Control surfaces anyway - I dunno about the Command|8 - have their own cpus - and communicate over ethernet. There is very little cpu impact on my ancient G4800 with my C|24. The MIDI ones... eeehw, gawd they eat up everything. My cat went missing, and I think I know where it went. Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough. I agree with you. I'm saying Digi's control surfaces are a plus. What I meant was mix control surfaces in native DAWs (like Sonar), from what I understand, eat up quite a bit of CPU overhead... not Digi's control surfaces. Digi has their mix control hardware down, which is still where they're way ahead of the competition. I guess also, if you're doing massively huge sessions (64+ tracks to sky's the limit with tons of plugs... for example film scoring and mixing), PT HD is still unbeatable. I'm really just saying 3 things... 1) It is more relevant than ever to compare PT HD to native DAW systems because the capabilties of native DAWs are growing exponentially. Which means... 2) It's now less necessary than ever to pay large amounts of money to Digidesign to do fairly large and intricate projects in a DAW environment. Which means... 3) You don't have to be locked into Digi's relatively expensive hardware upgrade program to stay current with technology. #3 being my biggest gripe with Digi. Maybe they've changed (I doubt it). But being locked into using their hardware pretty much obsoletes your investment in their DAW when they and all their 3rd party partners decide being backwards compatible with their new stuff is not as profitable as they would like, so they stop supporting it relatively quickly (as you've found out in that you can't use Digi's latest Pro Tools version with your current hardware). And it seems Digi is more often prone to this method of operation than most DAW related manufacturers. Just MHO.
|
javahut
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 361
- Joined: 2005/11/25 19:35:23
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/10/27 18:18:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: davidchristopher
Hey, 8-10 years out of a DAW... wow, that's not bad, eh? I'll point out, however that you went from PT|III to Sonar. That's quite a leap. That's more like skydiving into a field of soft fluffy pillows. Moving from Protools v4 to recording directly to an edison cylinder would have been an improvement Not bad... but you have to consider, at the time I bought it, PT III was their top of the line big bad boy. 3 months later, they were on their way to obsoleting the system with PT24. And... maybe 2 years after I bought it... there was literally nothing I could do to upgrade any part of the system without upgrading everything in the system at once. Even something as simple as buying a new plug-in to use was pretty much unavailable due to all the new TDM plug-ins required PT24 hardware or better to run it. Believe me, I remember clearly wanting so bad one of the new multi-band comp plugs that were coming out at that time, but my Digi farm cards were not compatible.
|
mddmoderndaydavid
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 100
- Joined: 2006/05/01 10:08:47
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/11/02 12:45:39
(permalink)
BTW PT LE or HD still is lacking as a music composition tool when compared to Sonar, Cubase, DP or Logic Yeah, I have a couple of Mac friends that switched to DP. They sware by it. One Kat I know sold his HD system and is jus t rocking DP. I wouldn't have sold the HD system (personally). The clients most times don't know what your using as long as it's sounding right. Regarding OMF...it works but it is clearly not perfect Well, you have to know the 24bit limitation rule. Anything over the 24bit limitation will give you distorted tracks. I find OMF 1 to be tricky but OMF 2 works fine for me. Never had any problem importing into Sonar Producer .
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/11/02 12:59:22
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mddmoderndaydavid
I find OMF 1 to be tricky but OMF 2 works fine for me. Never had any problem importing into Sonar Producer .
I probably could have made this work, but Pro Tools HD was the direction I wanted to go anyway. Sonar is a valuable tool and I will continue to use it for sequencing and working on my legacy projects. Davidchristopher, There is a HUGE ongoing debate about whether to mix in or out of the box in Pro Tools. I have done both on Pro Tools and Sonar and find very minimal differences if any. Maybe if I was mixing into an SSL or something, it might be an advantage to mix out of the box.
post edited by themidiroom - 2006/11/02 13:18:10
|
johngree
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 157
- Joined: 2006/10/13 15:27:08
- Status: offline
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/11/03 14:59:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
4 Great Bussing architecture (Sonar gets props for having a highly configurable mixer).
One of Sonar's strongest features.
|
Guest
Max Output Level: -25.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4951
- Joined: 2009/08/03 10:50:51
- Status: online
RE: Pro Tools vs Sonar?
2006/11/03 15:21:38
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: davidchristopher
Funny thing, all of the other engineers I know say NOT to bounce to disk in PT, but to record to another track via an aux. For some reason - and I can attest to this - bouncing to disk sounds different than playing back normally. Seems the automation can't keep up...
boy did i learn this .. i was doing a long bounce .. and i wanted to splice in a sectional bounce . and the automation didn't line up. recording to a track does not have this problem. while the automation in PT (either way) is not sample accurate, it's a heck of a lot closer recording directly from the audio engine than using bouce to disk. they sound different too. amusingly, i was a PT user conference when somebody from digi was in the audience .. and this topic came up. the digi rep was remarkably mum..... probably a skeleton in the closet. jeff
|