REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER?

Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
Author
scotty L
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3
  • Joined: 2007/11/13 20:25:45
  • Status: offline
2007/11/13 21:01:47 (permalink)

REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER?

Ok guys, why is Sonar better than Reason?
#1

44 Replies Related Threads

    John
    Forum Host
    • Total Posts : 26244
    • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:06:35 (permalink)
    Are apples better then oranges?

    Best
    John
    #2
    InstrEd
    Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1099
    • Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:09:19 (permalink)
    me like Bananas

    Seriously, the programs are like comparing apples to oranges.

    Ed
    #3
    Richard Brian
    Max Output Level: -40 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3520
    • Joined: 2004/02/09 11:16:38
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:13:34 (permalink)
    Exactly. Sonar provides a complete, full-service studio environment. The other does not.

    Hi Scott, welcome!
    #4
    A man named flaw
    Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 135
    • Joined: 2006/11/06 11:56:25
    • Location: Ireland and Spain....Spainland
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:13:44 (permalink)
    SOund NAvigation and Ranging
    Although some animals have probably used sound for communication and object detection for millions of years, the use by humans is initially recorded by Leonardo Da Vinci in 1490. A tube inserted into the water was said to be used to detect vessels by placing an ear to the tube. In the 19th century an underwater bell was used as an ancillary to lighthouses to provide warning of hazards.

    The use of sound to 'echo locate' underwater in the same way as bats use sound for aerial navigation seems to have been prompted by the Titanic disaster of 1912. The world's first patent for an underwater echo ranging device was filed at the British Patent Office by English meteorologist Lewis Richardson, one month after the sinking of the Titanic, and a German physicist Alexander Behm obtained a patent for an echo sounder in 1913. Canadian Reginald Fessenden, while working for the Submarine Signal Company in Boston, built an experimental system beginning in 1912, a system later tested in Boston Harbor, and finally in 1914 from the U.S. Revenue (now Coast Guard) Cutter Miami on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland Canada. In that test, Fessenden demonstrated depth sounding, underwater communications (Morse Code) and echo ranging (detected an iceberg at two miles (3 km) range). The so-called Fessenden oscillator, at ca. 500 Hz frequency, was unable to determine the bearing of the berg due to the 3 meter wavelength and the small dimension of the transducer's radiating face (less than 1 meter in diameter). The ten Montreal-built British H class submarines launched in 1915 were equipped with a Fessenden oscillator.[1]

    During World War I the need to detect submarines prompted more research into the use of sound. The British made early use of underwater hydrophones, while the French physicist Paul Langevin, working with a Russian émigré electrical engineer, Constantin Chilowski, worked on the development of active sound devices for detecting submarines in 1915 using quartz. Although piezoelectric and magnetostrictive transducers later superseded the electrostatic transducers they used, this work influenced future designs. Lightweight sound sensitive plastic film and fibre optics have been used for hydrophones (acousto-electric transducers for in-water use), while Terfenol-D and PMN (lead magnesium niobate) have been developed for projectors. Piezoelectric composite materials are available from several manufacturers including Morgan Electro Ceramics.

    In 1916, under the British Board of Invention and Research, Canadian physicist Robert Boyle took on the active sound detection project with A B Wood, producing a prototype for testing in mid-1917. This work, for the Anti-Submarine Division, was undertaken in utmost secrecy, and used quartz piezoelectric crystals to produce the world's first practical underwater active sound detection apparatus. To maintain secrecy no mention of sound experimentation or quartz was made - the word used to describe the early work ('supersonics') was changed to 'ASD'ics, and the quartz material 'ASD'ivite. From this came the British acronym ASDIC. In 1939, in response to a question from the Oxford English Dictionary, the Admiralty made up the story that the letters stood for 'Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee', and this is still widely believed, though no committee bearing this name has ever been found in the Admiralty archives.[2]

    By 1918, both the U.S. and Britain had built active systems, though the British were well in advance of the US. They tested their ASDIC on HMS Antrim in 1920, and started production in 1922. The 6th Destroyer Flotilla had ASDIC-equipped vessels in 1923. An anti-submarine school, HMS Osprey, and a training flotilla of four vessels were established on Portland in 1924. The U.S. Sonar QB set arrived in 1931.

    By the outbreak of World War II, the Royal Navy had five sets for different surface ship classes, and others for submarines, incorporated into a complete anti-submarine attack system. The effectiveness of early ASDIC was limited by the use of the depth charge as an anti-submarine weapon. This required an attacking vessel to pass over a submerged contact before dropping charges over the stern, resulting in a loss of ASDIC contact in the moments prior to attack. The hunter was effectively firing blind, during which time a submarine commander was able to take evasive action. This situation was remedied by using several ships cooperating and by the adoption of "ahead throwing weapons", such as Hedgehog and later Squid, which projected warheads at a target ahead of the attacker and thus still in ASDIC contact. Developments during the war resulted in British ASDIC sets which used several different shapes of beam, continuously covering blind spots. Later, acoustic torpedoes were used.

    At the start of WWII British ASDIC technology was transferred for free to the US. Research on ASDIC and underwater sound was expanded in the UK and in the US. Many new types of military sound detection were developed. These included sonobuoys, first developed by the British in 1944, dipping/dunking sonar and mine detection sonar. This work formed the basis for post war developments related to countering the nuclear submarine. Work on sonar had also been carried out in the Axis counties, notably in Germany, which included countermeasures. At the end of WWII this German work was assimilated by Britain and the US. Sonars have continued to be developed by many countries, including Russia, for both military and civil uses. In recent years the major military development has been the increasing interest in low freqency active systems.

    In World War II, the Americans used the term SONAR for their systems, coined as the equivalent of RADAR. In 1948, with the formation of NATO, standardisation of signals led to the dropping of ASDIC in favor of SONAR for all NATO countries.



    While reason is a type of thought, logic is a field of study which describes ways of reaching conclusions that are in accordance with reason. This contrast between reason and logic thus extends back to the writings of Aristotle. Although the Greeks had no separate word for logic as opposed to language and reason, Aristotle's neologism "syllogism" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. (When Aristotle referred to "the logical" the source of our word "logic" he was referring more broadly to reason or the rational.)

    Reason and logic can be thought to be distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. But the tendency to a preference for "hard logic," or "solid logic," in modern times has incorrectly led to the two terms occasionally being seen as essentially synonymous (see Reasoning) or perhaps more often logic is seen as the defining and pure form of reason.

    However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can unconsciously associate different perceptions as causes and effects and then make decisions or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things.

    Although this is an old discussion, the neurologist Terrence Deacon, following the tradition of Peirce, has recently given a useful new description in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English traditions such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume, he starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human rational thinking as a type of associative thinking. Reason by his account therefore requires associating perceptions in a way which may be arbitrary (or nominal, conventional or "formal") - not just associating the image or "icon" of smoke and the image of fire, but, for example, the image of smoke and the English word "smoke", or indeed any made-up symbol (not necessarily a spoken word). What is essentially rational, or at least essentially human, is however not the arbitrariness of symbols, but how they are used. See below concerning Reason and Language.



    Hard to say realy.......


    post edited by A man named flaw - 2007/11/13 21:33:36

    Duel core AMD,
    4gig ram
    1000gig Hd
    XP pro
    Sonar 6 prod. ed.
    Delta 192
    Samson Rubicon 5a
    A little keyboard
    and a tune that wont get out of my head
    http://community.mi7.com/profile/9257
    #5
    InstrEd
    Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1099
    • Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:15:38 (permalink)
    LOL,

    You sir have to much time on your hands

    Ed
    #6
    jinga8
    Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5817
    • Joined: 2004/02/14 21:45:01
    • Location: Oceanside, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:22:19 (permalink)
    I used Logic to Reason that Sonar is better than Cubase as far as Pro Tools go. Then Deep Purple told me two things that I've carried with me ever since: Don't fear the Reaper (although I thought that was just cheesy studio gossip i.e., "in Nuendo") and "more cowbell" is nothing more than a crutch when the singer can't hit the high notes cuz he wrecked his voice last night cheering for the local High School lacrosse team (who, by the way, lost 13-12 in overtime.)
    #7
    dontletmedrown
    Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1722
    • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
    • Location: Camarillo, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 21:22:20 (permalink)
    Uh, you can't record audio in Reason.
    #8
    scotty L
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3
    • Joined: 2007/11/13 20:25:45
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 22:07:10 (permalink)
    Thanks for the fast response guys. I didn't think they were thought of as such different programs... Interesting to hear that.

    I just thought Sonar was considered a bit more professional by the public & industry.

    I currently have Sonar LE and was thinking of getting Reason 4 (one of the main reasons for reason (ha) is that it is so user friendly and I have already pretty much learnt to use it from the demo).

    My aim is to produce alot of trance/ ambient/chill music but I'm also in a band so would therefore like to record acoustic/vocal tracks.

    Do you think it would be worth sticking to Reason (move on from the demo to the full program) and using Sonar LE for recording my audio tracks to then place into reason?
    #9
    stratcat33511
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3637
    • Joined: 2004/12/27 09:48:37
    • Location: Tampa FL
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 22:25:09 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: jinga8

    Then Deep Purple told me two things .. Don't fear the Reaper


    I thought you learned this in your Blue Oyster Cult days

    You must have been hallucinating again

    #10
    scotty L
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3
    • Joined: 2007/11/13 20:25:45
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 22:34:27 (permalink)
    alot of weird crap gets posted about here
    #11
    Jose7822
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 10033
    • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
    • Location: United States
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 23:03:09 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: jinga8

    I used Logic to Reason that Sonar is better than Cubase as far as Pro Tools go. Then Deep Purple told me two things that I've carried with me ever since: Don't fear the Reaper (although I thought that was just cheesy studio gossip i.e., "in Nuendo") and "more cowbell" is nothing more than a crutch when the singer can't hit the high notes cuz he wrecked his voice last night cheering for the local High School lacrosse team (who, by the way, lost 13-12 in overtime.)



    LOL
    #12
    InstrEd
    Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1099
    • Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 23:04:31 (permalink)
    you might want to consider the new project pack for with all of the goodies from cakewalk.
    You would get Dimension Pro for bread and butter sounds and you get Rapture for your trance style music. Plus with Z3ta+ you get a very cool synth

    Never thought I would use it, brought it last xmas and found many uses for it. I learned a couple of months ago I can use it as an audio
    FX plug and pass the audio through it. B-rock passed this along. This would be down your alley.

    Yes and we do get silly here.

    Ed
    #13
    dredd i knight
    Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 132
    • Joined: 2006/04/04 21:29:31
    • Location: London UK
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 23:11:47 (permalink)
    if you know reason well, then run with it, i reckon.
    and yes use your sonar le for the audio side of things.
    they are 2 very different programs you see. reason is great for putting midi written stuff together, and although sonar is pretty cool for this too, i think reason has more tools and instruments immediately at your disposal.
    project 5 (also by cakewalk) is more like reason, but you can record audio into it; it comes in at several price ranges depending on what synths you get with, and may well be better value than reason, but if you know and like reason, why put yourself through another l;earning curve?
    do a bit of research and see what floats your boat.

    AMD 64+, Windows XP SP2, Edirol FA66, Beringer Truth monitors, 2*Technics 1200's, Pioneer 909 dj mixer, Sonar 7, Stylus RMX, Guru, Dimension Pro, Rapture, P5v2.5, Trilogy, Battery 3, Atmosphere, Ableton live 5
    #14
    philo156
    Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 429
    • Joined: 2007/08/01 15:04:40
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 23:17:14 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: A man named flaw

    SOund NAvigation and Ranging
    Although some animals have probably used sound for communication and object detection for millions of years, the use by humans is initially recorded by Leonardo Da Vinci in 1490. A tube inserted into the water was said to be used to detect vessels by placing an ear to the tube. In the 19th century an underwater bell was used as an ancillary to lighthouses to provide warning of hazards.

    The use of sound to 'echo locate' underwater in the same way as bats use sound for aerial navigation seems to have been prompted by the Titanic disaster of 1912. The world's first patent for an underwater echo ranging device was filed at the British Patent Office by English meteorologist Lewis Richardson, one month after the sinking of the Titanic, and a German physicist Alexander Behm obtained a patent for an echo sounder in 1913. Canadian Reginald Fessenden, while working for the Submarine Signal Company in Boston, built an experimental system beginning in 1912, a system later tested in Boston Harbor, and finally in 1914 from the U.S. Revenue (now Coast Guard) Cutter Miami on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland Canada. In that test, Fessenden demonstrated depth sounding, underwater communications (Morse Code) and echo ranging (detected an iceberg at two miles (3 km) range). The so-called Fessenden oscillator, at ca. 500 Hz frequency, was unable to determine the bearing of the berg due to the 3 meter wavelength and the small dimension of the transducer's radiating face (less than 1 meter in diameter). The ten Montreal-built British H class submarines launched in 1915 were equipped with a Fessenden oscillator.[1]

    During World War I the need to detect submarines prompted more research into the use of sound. The British made early use of underwater hydrophones, while the French physicist Paul Langevin, working with a Russian émigré electrical engineer, Constantin Chilowski, worked on the development of active sound devices for detecting submarines in 1915 using quartz. Although piezoelectric and magnetostrictive transducers later superseded the electrostatic transducers they used, this work influenced future designs. Lightweight sound sensitive plastic film and fibre optics have been used for hydrophones (acousto-electric transducers for in-water use), while Terfenol-D and PMN (lead magnesium niobate) have been developed for projectors. Piezoelectric composite materials are available from several manufacturers including Morgan Electro Ceramics.

    In 1916, under the British Board of Invention and Research, Canadian physicist Robert Boyle took on the active sound detection project with A B Wood, producing a prototype for testing in mid-1917. This work, for the Anti-Submarine Division, was undertaken in utmost secrecy, and used quartz piezoelectric crystals to produce the world's first practical underwater active sound detection apparatus. To maintain secrecy no mention of sound experimentation or quartz was made - the word used to describe the early work ('supersonics') was changed to 'ASD'ics, and the quartz material 'ASD'ivite. From this came the British acronym ASDIC. In 1939, in response to a question from the Oxford English Dictionary, the Admiralty made up the story that the letters stood for 'Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee', and this is still widely believed, though no committee bearing this name has ever been found in the Admiralty archives.[2]

    By 1918, both the U.S. and Britain had built active systems, though the British were well in advance of the US. They tested their ASDIC on HMS Antrim in 1920, and started production in 1922. The 6th Destroyer Flotilla had ASDIC-equipped vessels in 1923. An anti-submarine school, HMS Osprey, and a training flotilla of four vessels were established on Portland in 1924. The U.S. Sonar QB set arrived in 1931.

    By the outbreak of World War II, the Royal Navy had five sets for different surface ship classes, and others for submarines, incorporated into a complete anti-submarine attack system. The effectiveness of early ASDIC was limited by the use of the depth charge as an anti-submarine weapon. This required an attacking vessel to pass over a submerged contact before dropping charges over the stern, resulting in a loss of ASDIC contact in the moments prior to attack. The hunter was effectively firing blind, during which time a submarine commander was able to take evasive action. This situation was remedied by using several ships cooperating and by the adoption of "ahead throwing weapons", such as Hedgehog and later Squid, which projected warheads at a target ahead of the attacker and thus still in ASDIC contact. Developments during the war resulted in British ASDIC sets which used several different shapes of beam, continuously covering blind spots. Later, acoustic torpedoes were used.

    At the start of WWII British ASDIC technology was transferred for free to the US. Research on ASDIC and underwater sound was expanded in the UK and in the US. Many new types of military sound detection were developed. These included sonobuoys, first developed by the British in 1944, dipping/dunking sonar and mine detection sonar. This work formed the basis for post war developments related to countering the nuclear submarine. Work on sonar had also been carried out in the Axis counties, notably in Germany, which included countermeasures. At the end of WWII this German work was assimilated by Britain and the US. Sonars have continued to be developed by many countries, including Russia, for both military and civil uses. In recent years the major military development has been the increasing interest in low freqency active systems.

    In World War II, the Americans used the term SONAR for their systems, coined as the equivalent of RADAR. In 1948, with the formation of NATO, standardisation of signals led to the dropping of ASDIC in favor of SONAR for all NATO countries.



    While reason is a type of thought, logic is a field of study which describes ways of reaching conclusions that are in accordance with reason. This contrast between reason and logic thus extends back to the writings of Aristotle. Although the Greeks had no separate word for logic as opposed to language and reason, Aristotle's neologism "syllogism" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. (When Aristotle referred to "the logical" the source of our word "logic" he was referring more broadly to reason or the rational.)

    Reason and logic can be thought to be distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. But the tendency to a preference for "hard logic," or "solid logic," in modern times has incorrectly led to the two terms occasionally being seen as essentially synonymous (see Reasoning) or perhaps more often logic is seen as the defining and pure form of reason.

    However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can unconsciously associate different perceptions as causes and effects and then make decisions or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things.

    Although this is an old discussion, the neurologist Terrence Deacon, following the tradition of Peirce, has recently given a useful new description in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English traditions such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume, he starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human rational thinking as a type of associative thinking. Reason by his account therefore requires associating perceptions in a way which may be arbitrary (or nominal, conventional or "formal") - not just associating the image or "icon" of smoke and the image of fire, but, for example, the image of smoke and the English word "smoke", or indeed any made-up symbol (not necessarily a spoken word). What is essentially rational, or at least essentially human, is however not the arbitrariness of symbols, but how they are used. See below concerning Reason and Language.





    No, no, no. I get it. I get it. It's an elaborate (albeit somewhat twisted) metaphor.

    What you're saying is - don't think too much. Just get some good recording software and make music.


    (It's an odd coincidence though, that Reason does look a lot like the control panel on the bridge of a German U-Boat)




    #15
    bermuda
    Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 2271
    • Joined: 2004/04/28 12:34:40
    • Location: Bermuda
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/13 23:20:46 (permalink)
    You could also consider Project 5 + Rapture

    Project 5 records audio supports plug ins , also has the groove matrix...great for trying out things when composing tunes/ideas

    I like Reason 4 but I still find it too linear and cumbersome, when trying to arrange or try out different arrangement ideas

    ps: I have Reason 4, Project 5, Sonar 6 PE and Live 6 is in the post.


     Yes.
    #16
    bartbee
    Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 103
    • Joined: 2004/05/12 02:42:22
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 02:05:24 (permalink)
    Bothe Programs are excellent...once you have sorted your computer and audio interface out.

    You can run Reason with Sonar via Rewire.

    You don't have to choose between the two programs.

    Use Sonar LE for recording audio and then sync it with Reason to program your electronic trance beats.

    Bart
    #17
    subtlearts
    Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1463
    • Joined: 2006/01/10 05:59:21
    • Location: Berlin
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 03:15:41 (permalink)
    Bart's on the right track. The two have very different workflows but they are very compatible. I find it interesting to start things in Reason, working fast and often mobile (laptop) and get some interesting things going on, then Rewire into Sonar and start adding ****es - audio tracks, different synths and FX as textures...

    Jinga, that was one of your best non-sequiturs ever I must say. Was going to go somewhere similar but you have nailed it there, no need for further explorations of the concept.

    tobias tinker 
    music is easy: just start with complete silence, and take away the parts you don't like!
    tobiastinker.com
    aeosrecords.com
    soundfascination.com


    #18
    StuH
    Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 333
    • Joined: 2006/07/28 21:00:50
    • Location: Yukon Territory, Canada
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 05:38:29 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: subtlearts

    ...The two have very different workflows but they are very compatible. I find it interesting to start things in Reason, working fast and often mobile (laptop) and get some interesting things going on, then Rewire into Sonar and start adding ****es - audio tracks, different synths and FX as textures...


    +1
    Get both.
    Reason rocks, the refill packs are phenominal especially Reason Drum Kits 2.0 and Strings plus whack of intereting sonic textures included and loads of very good free refills available for download.

    Works like a charm rewired to Sonar.
    #19
    Nick P
    Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3112
    • Joined: 2006/09/01 18:08:09
    • Location: Area code 392 - Arlington Hts, IL
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 06:00:59 (permalink)
    One thing you'll never find in a group of musicians - a bunch of wiseasses.

    That being said, many people get frustrated hearing the same questions being asked over and over. But being someone who asks a lot of dumb questions, I feel compassion for this poster. So I'll refrain from the wiseass comebacks (was never very good at being a wiseass anway) and just give an answer:

    They're really aimed at two very different target markets. You should just check each manufacturer's website. Each has a huge amount of information, demos, reviews, opinions, etc... And just see how each one feels when looking at it. Believe it or not, your gut will tell you a lot. Try to figure out what kind of music(s) you want to do, then look at each program and try to sus out if that's the one that feel right for what you're aiming at.

    Cakewalk Forums - A Great Learning Resource For All Things Cakewalk!
    #20
    Dickie Fredericks
    Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 288
    • Joined: 2007/09/05 20:24:33
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 07:52:13 (permalink)
    I dont dig anything by Steinberg. Unless Im unaware that Im using it.


    Web Stuff and Tunes done in Sonar
    www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
    Visit my endorsers!
    Deering Valve Amplification
    www.deeringamps.com 
    #21
    Lemonboy
    Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 679
    • Joined: 2004/05/31 11:36:59
    • Location: Dorset, UK
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 08:27:32 (permalink)
    Sonar - A O N R S

    Reason - A E O N R S

    Darn! Reason is better if your are playing Scrabble!
    #22
    quiet time
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 13
    • Joined: 2007/10/28 12:05:13
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 10:43:08 (permalink)
    reason doesn't record audio, so it's not a DAW, it's just a MIDI loop sequencer
    #23
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30304
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 10:49:29 (permalink)
    reason doesn't record audio, so it's not a DAW, it's just a MIDI loop sequencer

    how the hell can you compare 2 different programs. Really, should i make a post saying whats better a Gibson SG or a Tama drum set.
    This is nonsence and i will not take it...
    Cj



    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. Rated # 1 on Top20Sites For Audio Mastering.
     
     
    #24
    time4abreak
    Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 62
    • Joined: 2004/09/23 10:46:57
    • Location: Michigan
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 11:11:24 (permalink)
    More nonsense,

    The way I say see it, and thanks to LemonBoy, the letter E is the initial difference.

    Other than that, the programs are very different altogether, as everyone has pointed out.

    You're welcome,

    LC
    post edited by time4abreak - 2007/11/14 11:23:51
    #25
    subtlearts
    Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1463
    • Joined: 2006/01/10 05:59:21
    • Location: Berlin
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 15:26:24 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: Dickie Fredericks
    I dont dig anything by Steinberg. Unless Im unaware that Im using it.

    ... and this is related to the question how? Neither product has anything to do with Steinberg. (Thankfully?)

    tobias tinker 
    music is easy: just start with complete silence, and take away the parts you don't like!
    tobiastinker.com
    aeosrecords.com
    soundfascination.com


    #26
    Rajay1
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 173
    • Joined: 2006/07/23 09:25:14
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 21:13:39 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: bartbee

    Bothe Programs are excellent...once you have sorted your computer and audio interface out.

    You can run Reason with Sonar via Rewire.

    You don't have to choose between the two programs.

    Use Sonar LE for recording audio and then sync it with Reason to program your electronic trance beats.

    Bart


    I agree. You then get the best of both worlds.

    Rajay
    SPE6.2.1,GS3Orch,GVI,Reason3.0,StylusRMX,Trilogy,VGuitarist2, Battery3,B4II,CoolEditPro2.1,TranslatorPro,IBM M51 P4530 3GHzHT 4GBDDR 80GBSATA,2xWD149GBFW,KurzweilK2500XL,Event 20/20,2xMackie 1604,Delta1010, MidiTimepiece AV, MX8,On and on....
    #27
    jinga8
    Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5817
    • Joined: 2004/02/14 21:45:01
    • Location: Oceanside, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/14 21:24:25 (permalink)
    You then get the best of both worlds.

    I LOVE you HANNAH!!!
    #28
    grupps
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 18
    • Joined: 2006/05/23 07:08:32
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2007/11/15 04:25:16 (permalink)
    Reason is the quickest/easiest program for getting your ideas down. Great instruments, sounds, and you can get as deep and experimental as you want.
    Sonar with audio recording is the perfect compliment via rewire. Nowadays you can have your finished cd or your music published and on the web.
    What more could you want, apart from a 12 inch cock.
    #29
    pickney
    Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3
    • Joined: 2010/04/15 05:43:32
    • Status: offline
    RE: REASON vs SONAR PRODUCER? 2010/08/04 12:47:36 (permalink)
    Reason up to version 4 was certainly no match for Sonar in any way...
    Then came Record allowing proper audio recording and mastering.  I recently attended a master class introduction to Reason 5.  Now there are even more ways to manipulate audio and CV.  No more re-wire issues... (coz there's no need to re-wire at all) no more fiddly input-output issues to mess with (coz everything auto routes... unless you dont want it to)  no more system freeze, overload or crash... its really stable.  No more messy multiple windows...  I could go on.  I have Sonar 8.5 Producer and used Reason/Record in slave mode.  It works ok (ish).  Now I dont need Sonar at all.  There are things in Record/Reason that are simply impossible to re-create in Sonar.  OK there are a couple of synths in Sonar that are really cool, but again, nothing that could not be mimicked with a Thor synth and a bit of application.  Last but not least.  If you find music aint your bag you can sell on your software and transfer your license with no hassle at all!!! 

    ...Wait!  it aint all bad news for Cakewalk.  I really love the way the arpeggiator works in Sonar.  I also find the notation mode very useful when working with musicians who like to refer to printed music.
      Close enough that we all know what we are talking about. I guess thats reason enough to hold on to my 8.5 for the time being.

    Before anyone asks.... No I dont work for Propellerhead. 

    #30
    Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
    Jump to:
    © 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1