SONAR X1 System Requirements

On Nov. 12th, I sent two separate messages thru the Cakewalk Customer Service contact page, one on correctly reinstalling decade-old Cakewalk projects and one on the concern of the posted system requirements when I'm considering an upgrade to SONAR X1.  I got a response within 2 days on the old project reinstallation question, in fact it was very detailed and helpful.
 
I didn't receive a response to the inquiry I sent in on Nov. 12th regarding the posted system requirements for SONAR X1, so I sent the same message on Nov. 18th, with a little preamble stating I hadn't gotten a response yet to the message sent in on the 12th.  So now here it is Nov. 23rd, and I've yet to receive a response to either the Nov. 12th or 23rd messages sent into Cakewalk Customer Support on what I believe is an important question to know the answer to before making the upgrade purchase.
 
Cakewalk Customer Support has done very well by me since the early 90's when I began using Cakewalk and then Sonar.  They've always been helpful and quick to answer, but it seems that there might be a little avoidance going on here, which I really hope isn't the case.  So here's the message I've sent in twice (with the addition of the posted system requirements info), and maybe someone from Cakewalk Customer Service will help me by answering my questions on SONAR X1 system requirements, so that I can determine whether to move forward with the upgrade purchase or whether or not I need to start thinking about a computer upgrade first.  I look forward to a response.
 
Nov. 18, 2010 - CWCS-16593
 
Hi,
 
So you got me... I received the SONAR 8.5 to X1 upgrade flyer in the mail and I've been checking it out and I'm very interested.  The main issue is, I'm getting the impression from the system requirements listed on your site, that neither my desktop or laptop would meet the requirements.
 
My desktop has: Intel Core Duo - E6550 @ 2.33Ghz 2.00 GB 32-bit Vista (2-year old Dell)
 
My Laptop has: Intel Core Duo - T4500 @ 2.30Ghz 2.00 GB 64-bit Windows 7 (6-month old Dell)
 
Your site lists - Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz
 
So, will either of these machines work with SONAR 8.5 or X1???  I look forward to your response.
 
Thanx,
 
JIM

Its Sonar. Sonor is a drum manufacturer. 

Hi Jim,
System requirements for X1 can be found here:
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/X1-System-Requirements.aspx

Yes, that is really the point of my question.  So, Moderator Mike, if you wish to let me know whether or not either of my machines will meet the requirements or not, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Mike,
 
I'm really planning on doing demos that'll include recorded audio, samples and some midi.  These tracks wouldn't probably include too much if any virtual instruments or fx.  Would using the resident drum kits/sounds in SONAR X1 cause me any overload or lower latency?   I appreciate your response and look forward to this tidbit of clarification. 
 
Thanx,
 
JIM

 I noticed this qoute on the system requirement page. Is this correct?
    
" SONAR X1 Essential is a 32-bit application only but can run on 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7. "

Living Room Rocker

Mike Trujillo [Cakewalk
]

I would say that using one instance of Session Drummer 3 should be ok for you. I would advise in your situation though freezing the Session Drummer 3 track after you've gotten your sequences down as this will free up your resources for the rest of the tracks.
I was actually running 8.5 on a dual core2 with 4GB of ram and it did ok for the most part, it's just when you start having alot of  midi tracks and fx running you'll experience higher latency and then lockups. Audio tracks in themselves are not really resource "hogs" so as long as you keep the instruments (midi tracks) to a minimum or freeze said tracks after you are done writing them and if you're using fx and you find the system lagging freeze these also then you should be able to work. I do want to stress that even though these machines will run, it would be in your best interest to look into a newer machine with more than a dual core. I would also bump up the ram in the dual core you are going to use as this will help out alot!
I hope this helps and have a great holiday!

Please excuse any belligerent tone, but many of us were under the impression that the new system requirements were due to the use of the ProChannel effects.  However, from what you are advising Jim, the PC doesn't even come into play, rather it's the number of FXs and VIs.  This is totally disappointing!  SONAR has become an inefficient resource hog.  Just considering Jim's and my situation, I am at a loss.  Just recently buying a rig that has been instantly rendered under powered for X1 puts many potential user at an impasse.  All the while CW has been telling us how they have been working to make SONAR's audio "engine" run leaner and more efficient with each new version, including X1.  I guess all that work has just gone down the drain.

Now what can I do?  I guess I can only put off my annual upgrade for quite some time until I can invest in a new, more "powerful" system.  Either that or consider other programs at the loss of my time spent using SONAR and the investments I have made over the years toward improving my DAW.  And with the additional time any money to get back to where I was with SONAR (that being knowledge and the cost of purchasing a new program at the full price as opposed to an upgrade rate).  I can't help feel jilted by Cakewalk.

What a flat liner.

Kind regards,


Living Room Rocker

living in a van down by the river

Why are you so much more eager to embrace this slightly pessimistic view from Mike, rather than this optimistic one from Robin Kelly, which seems the more likely scenario based on past experience?
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2120483
 
I have not found any new version of SONAR to be significantly more "resource-hogging" than any other, even across several generations. I get exactly the same load vs. latency relationship with S8.5 on a given machine as I did with S7 or S6.
 
As I see it, the resource requirements have increased over time to support all the new resource-hogging synths and FX that people are using in ever greater numbers. But as far as I can tell, the efficiency of the core program has not changed significantly, one way or the other.

Mike Trujillo [Cakewalk
]

Living Room Rocker

Please excuse any belligerent tone, but many of us were under the impression that the new system requirements were due to the use of the ProChannel effects.  However, from what you are advising Jim, the PC doesn't even come into play, rather it's the number of FXs and VIs.  This is totally disappointing!  SONAR has become an inefficient resource hog.  Just considering Jim's and my situation, I am at a loss.  Just recently buying a rig that has been instantly rendered under powered for X1 puts many potential user at an impasse.  All the while CW has been telling us how they have been working to make SONAR's audio "engine" run leaner and more efficient with each new version, including X1.  I guess all that work has just gone down the drain.

Now what can I do?  I guess I can only put off my annual upgrade for quite some time until I can invest in a new, more "powerful" system.  Either that or consider other programs at the loss of my time spent using SONAR and the investments I have made over the years toward improving my DAW.  And with the additional time any money to get back to where I was with SONAR (that being knowledge and the cost of purchasing a new program at the full price as opposed to an upgrade rate).  I can't help feel jilted by Cakewalk.

What a flat liner.

Kind regards,


Living Room Rocker

living in a van down by the river

Ok, this is what I was worried about. Do not take my response as definitive, I am merely saying that yes his systems will run X1. What I don't want to do is say "yes, with a dual core running 2GB of ram you'll run just fine" then when the user tries to load twenty VI's and a ton of fx plugs and has problems "he said it would work, they are liars". You have to understand that this is all relative to what you are doing, more plugs and VI's require more system resources. That's just how things work in any DAW. I don't think there have been any "smoke and mirrors" here. And yes, as we move along in versions we have become more efficient on the system resources. I'm only trying to give a truthful, practical response to the question of "will my machine work?". As a user you know that VI's and fx like the linear phase mastering and convolution reverbs take more resources than basic plugs. Therefore anyone can benefit from more power in their machine. Does this mean that you have to throw away your current machine and buy a super computer? No, it simply means that while yes the dual core will run you will obviously be able to stack on more VI's and processor hungry fx with more cores and ram.

Mike, I think I understand what you are saying, but the issue is still a little confusing. The answer you gave above is equally applicable to 8.5.3 and so on, so doesn't really shed any light on X1. The problem is you have upped the system requirements for X1, but we still don't know whether this was done because X1 actually uses more resources than 8.5.3, and if so, is the extra resource usage in proportion to the difference between the old 8.5.3 system requirements and the new X1 ones?
 
Perhaps it would be simpler just to answer the following question:
 
Will X1 run at pretty much the same speed as 8.5.3 does on the same PC under the same load?

Mike Trujillo [Cakewalk
]

Mike, I think I understand what you are saying, but the issue is still a little confusing. The answer you gave above is equally applicable to 8.5.3 and so on, so doesn't really shed any light on X1. The problem is you have upped the system requirements for X1, but we still don't know whether this was done because X1 actually uses more resources than 8.5.3, and if so, is the extra resource usage in proportion to the difference between the old 8.5.3 system requirements and the new X1 ones?

Perhaps it would be simpler just to answer the following question:

Will X1 run at pretty much the same speed as 8.5.3 does on the same PC under the same load?

In a simple nutshell, yes.

That's the second time I've heard that now. I've already taken the 8.5 upgrade to get the free X1 so I'm hoping it's true. If not I'll just have to upgrade my PC.

riojazz


As I sit here with my Core 2 Duo reading these questions, even Mike's first answer was very helpful, and his clarifications enhanced that.  I am a composer using very few tracks and even fewer effects as I make demos, and I am more sure now that X1 will work for me.  Thank you for your comments, Mike.

I'm grateful to Mike as well. He's cleared up any doubts I had, but I felt it needed further clarification for those of us who use LOTS of VST plugins simultaneously. Now we know that we can continue to use lots of plugins, at least to (more or less) the same extent as we could before.

Actually, this raises the question why have the system requirements changed at all then? My guess is to lower the impact on Cake Support. Now they can respond to a lot more queries with the stock answer 'Sorry, your PC does not meet the minimum system requirements'!

We already went through all of this in the thread I linked.

Again, I am not convinced.  X1 does not have any new plug-ins (FX or VI).  So, if the ProChannel isn't changing the load demand (that is, when it's disengaged), then I don't see why a project which operates fine in 8.5.x would not in X1.  I don't recall an instance in which an earlier version project would not run in the most current version.  But here again, there is no convincing evidence to that effect.  Robin's response has not been all that convincing either.

Just consider what's at stake here, time and money.  Now all I can do is wait to see how X1 actually plays out for other users whom take the chance.   And if it doesn't work out for those unfortunate fellow SONARites, then all I can do is look for the alternative(s).

Kind regards,


Living Room Rocker

edit - P.S.  I'm being a flat-liner, but I am excited to see the new SONAR.  Now I am nervous about throwing in my ante for X1.

The CPU hit from the CS is big ....like the sound it deliver ...
I found the X1 interface more cpu deemanding than the S8.5 ...on the console view and switching from snapshot to snapshots ...you feel some ..

The test was done on a laptop where X1 AND S8.5 was installed .
FX1600M quadro ...T7700 ....full perf power scheme ...dpc latency cooling ....
I just open the task manager and checked (this weekend at the french namm)...
I ask to try my stress test ..and then played around it ...

As i'm not in the beta team i can not fallow what i found out ...small bug and annoyance ...under than that it's simply awesome

Ok - I have read all the posts here. I believe someone here can help me.  I have not upgraded since 2005 (Sonar 6 Producer) and am looking to got to Sonar x1 and purchase a laptop rather than a desktop.  My computer I had for recording, well, blew up. This one I am on is a backup for email an is a junkpile but never breaks. My problem is, this time around, my funds are so limited I only get one chance to get it right.  I can purchase a used Roland 2480 and keep this old computer OR I can upgrade to Sonar x1 but it will leave me only around $550 and I cant seem to find something that will work.  I am looking to refurbished and used also.  Anyone out there got not just specs, but certain models they might consider if they were in my shoes? All comments I will appreciate and research for myself, just give me a direction to steer.  Thanks. Will