SAWStudio Recording Software vs. others

As I've mentioned before I think it's the best. For a variety of reasons. But you should go to the SAW forums.

http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

Ask your questions there.

Hi Big-

ORIGINAL: Big Reg

Have anybody out there heard of the SAWStudio recording software? In comparing to Sonar, Protools, Cubase, ect. does it even measure up?

I used SAW (not SAW Studio) many years ago with Cakewalk before Cake software had audio capabilities. I'm pretty sure I used a SMPTE stripe on an AKAI 4-track way back then to sync SAW and Cakewalk.

In some ways I liked it even better than I like SONAR now for audio editing (eg., it had Nudge capabilities & lots more features I found to be extremely intuitive & useful before they showed up at all in Pro Audio and SONAR). Bob Lentini was the sole SAW developer back then, and he might still be for all I know. He was and I'm sure still is *extremely* dedicated to his work. If I had a question or problem, he'd call me back on his own dime (how often do you see that nowadays!<g>) and just keep at it with me until it was sorted out.

I went with Pro Audio when it came out since I preferred an integrated approach, but I did check back with SAW from time-to-time, and at one point several years back I thought they (Bob?) had discontinued development.

I can't compare SAW & SONAR recording quality or the interfaces nowadays, since it's been so long and prety much everything in my setup has changed, but I can certainly vouch for Bob's dedication to his product and customers!

Edited to fix Bob's name! At least I had the beginning and end and some letters in between right -- I told you it was many years ago...

-Susan

Please..........please.........when will this insanity end???????????????.................................

Sonar Rivals a full blown PT HD system for $500.

As a matter of fact Sonar is up and running at 64 bits. When will SAWstudio/ProTools begin working on 64bit systems??

ORIGINAL: Big Reg

Have anybody out there heard of the SAWStudio recording software? In comparing to Sonar, Protools, Cubase, ect. does it even measure up?

I have SAWStudio (the full version), I also have the MidiWorkShop but don't do too much midi stuff, my main goal was to replace/exceed my old 16 track reel to reel and 24x8 Mackie console, as well as a rack full of budget compressor/gates and effects units. It does this job extremely well and I do not regret a single penny I spent on it, SAWStudio was a MUCH MUCH BETTER BARGAIN than the 3 grand I dropped on the Mackie 8 bus and meterbridge. Bob Lentini (SAW's creator/developer), has set the price of SS on what he believes his time and coding skills are worth, to him, each channel on SAWStudio's virtual console, and each track on the Multi-Track has a value, just as it would with analog gear, now most people will part with their money happily for great hardware, why should the software package at the very heart of a computer based studio be any different?

There are different ways of audio recording/editing/mixing, and there are many good software and hardware based solutions out there, to at least some degree all of them work a little differently, the easiest way to see if SAWStudio "fits" into the way you work is to download one of the demos, they are available for all three levels of the program, the 300 dollar "basic" version has the same top notch audio engine as it's more expensive counterparts, if you can live with 24 tracks, 6 stereo aux send/return channels, and 8 stereo I/O, you'll find no number of plugins at once limitations, or any differences in the quality of the built in channel EQs, and compressors/gates, from the more expensive versions, the way the automation works in SAWStudio is unlike anything else I've ever used and I really like it. Some people are turned off by the "look" of SS, but there are many different "shades" available to change the way the GUI's appearance.

A few weeks ago I bought SAWStudio Basic to run on an older computer that I have set up at my drummers place for drum tracking, sure, since there is no copy protection on SS I could have installed my full version on it for free, but I didn't, this was partly due to the lower system requirements of SSBasic, but it was mostly out of respect for, and in support of, someone who's given away at least 15 free updates in the 14 months I've been using SS, about half of these updates added new features, and the rest were bugfixes, as soon as Bob can reproduce a bug, he is ON IT, and he fixes it, his unbelievable level of support has gotten to the point where many SS users are starting to demand that he do a paid update, (every once in a while he charges a 100 dollar update cost for users to stay on the current version), I would say that's a good indicator of how SAWStudio "measures up", the customers feel that they have gotten more than their money's worth and WANT to pay more.

SAWStudio by itself doesn't record/edit/playback midi, you can however insert a VSTi in a channel of the virtual console and play it in realtime while recording the audio to the Multi-Track, syncing Sonar or another sync capable midi sequencer to SS should be possible, but this is something I've never done, and I would think that the MidiWorkShop add on is most likely the most stable option for midi playback.

SAWStudio doesn't do DXi's, it will do DX plugins, VST plugins, it's own native plugins, and VSTi's

Some control surfaces are supported, but this is not an area where Bob devotes much of his time, his vision of SS is one of working "in the box" with a mouse and keyboard, which brings us back to this, SAWStudio is the creation of an audio engineer who ran with his ideas and vision of what a virtual studio should be, and while he will implement certain user suggestions into SS, he will only do so if it fits into his vision of SS, this is a big difference from the "let's make a program that can be all things to all people" board room development style that shoots for the absolute widest possible user base, and can create bloated, overcomplicated software that looks good on paper, but too many unnecessary features and options usually come at the expense of product usablility and stability, SS is more of a personal, streamlined, custom made audio recording/editing/mixing platform that also happens to be available for purchase, it's not for everyone, which is why there are demos available for all three levels of it, the only way to know if you'll like it, is to try it, and listen.

"I'd love see the app gain some momentum."

Then you'll want to head over to the SAW forums and see what's been going on. I think you'll be amazed. The amount of new users in the last 6 months has been outstanding. Between word-of-mouth and the internet SAW has really taken off.

I did a search for sidechaining, and I found this thread. Sonitus Gate I looked at my sonitus gate in Sonar3, and I didn't see any sidechain option. but either way, I think it would be a matter of finding a pluging that accepts a sidechain.

dcastle was pretty good about telling us why he uses both Sonar and SAWstudio, what about you other bronze members with 300+posts, why are yall using both.

It's too bad that so many get caught up in this attitude.

?

jb

Was I missing something?

Just the boat, my friend.

Even the pros who can't stand SAWStudio will grudgingly admit that the SAWStudio Levelizer is one of the the best-sounding master compressors in the business.

Nuendo just raised their list price to $2,500. Is it the best in every respect?

I upgraded to Nuendo 3, and it is very good, but certainly not the best in every area--for example, I'd take the Sonitus EQ and other Sonar effects to those in Nuendo any day. I like the freeze function in Sonar better. I like the dithering algorithm better. I could go on. And, of course, I could take the opposite viewpoint. For instance, I learned in this forum that Nuendo sounds better--as much as 20-40%.

So, everyone's got choices. And Sonar is a damn good one. So is Nuendo. And so is SAWStudio. Depends upon what you do, your budget, your way of working. etc.

As for SAWStudio, you really have to read experiences of users, and really explore it to "get" what Bob Lentini has done. And, it just isn't everyone's cup of tea. But for those who do take to it, it can be a musical life-changing experience.

As rascalmanny said, go to their forum if you wish. I've got no horse in this race.

If that's Yura's "Ensensor" shade, that's the one I use, too.

Actually I upgraded to Nuendo 3 to protect my investment, when I heard about the price increase. I think the street price for new users is around $2K.

For the demo, I really wish Bob could be persuaded to use one of the other shades (i.e., bitmaps or skins, for non-SAW users).

Wow a thread I can relate to..................

For what it's worth ....

I've evaluated the demo, more than once.

Its greatest positive is its awesome processing capabilityt - as others have said, this comes from being coded in assembly language.

I thought the interface really daggy, more like a video game, though I could live with that. The show stopper for me was that ijust couldn't get my head around its workflow, bussing, etc. I'll cheerfully admit that this probably says more about the limitations of my brain than the limitations of the software, but either way, I couldn't figure it out, even with the Help.

Jsut my 2 cents here ...

Geoff

Hi KP:
We got a power shortage here in California, since it is so hot. Did not see your post until now.
OK. You might be right. So please explain your theory.
I just want to bring up the point that, if it is PT, LE or HD, then everyone would jump in with NULL tests, saying there is absolutely no difference, but with SAW, the jury is out.
I don't feel bad at all by your reply, but if you understand why, and it sounds like you understand why, then please enlighten us all.
Cheers,
Dan Le
p.s.: I was told by Apogee and M-Audio that latency is key in getting a good sound structure. Since I am no hardware engineer, I go by their saying. But I did program just a little bit in Assembly back in the the 70's. Just to let you know.

ORIGINAL: dcastle

I've used SAW, SAW 32 and SAW Pro (but not the studio version) for over 10 years to engineer a weekly radio program.

I hate the SAW interface, which is very different than normal windows programs. The developer is very extremely (dare I say obsesive/compulsive) devoted to his own particularly peculiar style of work, which he created specifically for on-stage theater sound effects and background music. This interface has spawned many love/hate diatribes over the years, but it is what it is, and it's not going to change. So, before you plunk down any money, make sure you try the demo first.

I love the SONAR interface, and even though I have used SONAR 2 XL, SONAR 3 PE, and now SONAR 4 PE for all my recording and mastering needs (including about 6 private-label CDs per year) I still have to use SAW once a week to create a radio program because of 3 features that I haven't been able to duplicate in SONAR. If anyone can tell me how to do these 3 things, I'll dump SAW in a heartbeat and never look back.

1. Duck --- basically a compressor with a different signal patched into the side chain --- which I use to "duck" the music under the intro and outros.
   
   
2. Time/pitch stretch --- a very simple plugin that interactively changes the length of a clip. This is very important because the radio program has to be exactly 26:30 minutes regardless of whether the speaker takes 25 minutes or 25:30 minutes. I just raise or lower the pitch by a couple of percent and nobody notices. This makes it much simpler for me because I don't have to move anything else. They did notice once when I had to raise it 6% and it sounded like the chipmunks. So now, I'm pretty conservative bout the pitch change.
   
   
3. Multi-bit-rate engine --- the SAW engine will play back sound files recorded at any bit rate. This is important to me because I used to record the voice-only program at 32k to conserve disk space (which was pretty important to me when CD-Rs on special sale with a rebate coupon were $3.00 each) and I still use those files occasionally.
   

I could live without the last 2, but I really like the ducking compressor, so I would love to find out how to do that in SONAR.

Wow, it's been over a year since I wrote that and so much has changed. I now use SONAR 5 with its incredible gap-free audio engine.

All of my gripes have been fixed and I now use SONAR exclusively for the weekly radio program. It's faster, simpler, better than it ever was with SAW.

• I use db audioware's db-D dymanics processor with ducking — works perfectly for me.
  
• I use Sound Forge 8.0 time stretch to fix the source file length before importing to SONAR.
  
• I used the Batch Converter in Sound Forge 8.0 to easily and conveniently change all my archived files to 44.1/16 so I don't need the multi-bit rate engine any more

And, to top it all off, I found a way to make multiple buses and export them with a preset so all my radio station outputs are generated automatically with the press of a single button — it's awesome!

I hated the SAW interface and workflow for years, but I had to use it because there was no other game in town, and I am so grateful that my current setup has freed me from the tyranny.

Regards,
David