Well, let me be clear... I don't think they thought it was funny... I thought it was funny that the grape vine had spread the word so quickly. That is all.

As I said, my PT friends have always been very gracious and accepting... we share so much mutual interest in sound, music, playing, and production that something like a DAW brand does not distract us.

But now, we have more in common.

I'm glad to think they are happy about that.

very best,
mike

<sigh> I'll take the bait. For the benefit of all... I've got a fresh coffee to help me churn through this real quick...

Freddie H

Mooch4056


too many pages to read in this thread 


anyone got the conclusion or the cliff notes?

The last 10 pages in this thread is about being a Pro Tools fan-boy.

Baloney with a side of cheese, thank you. The only fan-boy around here is you Freddie, and we all love you for it. However, it's doesn't really help Cakewalk's case, to be honest, and it makes Sonar users look less well-informed than they really are.

Nothing about VS SONAR X1.

Make that extra cheese, please.

Its much easier to talk about how good PRO TOOLS are instead of talking about versus features and implantation. Perhaps they know already they have lost before it all begins. 

Not sure what you mean by "implantation," but it kind of goes with the whole endearingly ludicrous statement. I suppose you mean "implementation" -- oh well, I'll move on...

Here you have some VS questions.

The answers should be fairly obvious, but I'll do it quickly:

1. Limits of RAM on project?

You are probably referring to your pet issue, x64. Sonar is a mature x64 platform and Pro Tools 9 is still x86 (32-bit). Therefore Sonar x64 has oodles of access to RAM and Pro Tools does not.

For a composer/songwriter/producer that uses a lot of sample libraries (i.e. Kontakt, etc.) then this is a very big issue and Sonar obviously trumps Pro Tools by a mile. The workaround with Pro Tools is that you use something like VE Pro, or you don't use a lot of sample libraries. :)

However, it must be stated that both apps install and run and are supported on Windows 7 x64. Sonar just gets to access all the RAM, Pro Tools does not.

Verdict: Sonar hands-down for sample-heavy people.

2. VST-support?

Sonar: Yes. Pro Tools: No. (EDIT: Well, I guess I have to mention that there is a VST/RTAS wrapper, but many people consider it less than ideal.)

In practice, this may or may not affect you. Pro Tools uses RTAS instead of VST. Many plugins do not come as RTAS plugins, and never will (especially old legacy VST plugins that have been abandoned by their developers). However, to be fair, there are plenty of great RTAS plugins, including RTAS-only plugins.

Verdict: If you have an existing collection of plugins that don't have RTAS versions, then Sonar hands-down. If you are new to the game, personally I think it's a wash, but some people may legitimately make a case that having access to the larger VST community/market/library is worth it, and that is a very reasonable point of view... so the verdict is slight favor to Sonar, depends on your preferences though.

3. Direct x support?

I'm assuming you mean DX plugin support. If you have old cherished DX plugins then this is an obvious win for Sonar. However, this is 2010, not 2003, and the prevailing plugin standards are VST and RTAS for Windows (plus TDM for PT HD rigs). DX no longer enjoys industry-wide support. Once Steinberg dropped it back with Cubase 4, it has been fading in importance, and we all know that.

Verdict: If you have old DX plugins you need to use, Sonar wins. Otherwise, this is irrelevant.

4. 64bit support?

See #1 regarding x64 instructions and RAM access.

As for the mixing engine, Sonar has the option to mix with a 64-bit double-precision engine (audio resolution, regardless of whether or not you are running the x64 or x86 version of Sonar). 

My understanding is that Pro Tools HD uses a 48-bit fixed integer engine by default, but Pro Tools HD Native uses a 64-bit floating point engine. However, Pro Tools 9 (the version we're actually talking about here) uses a 32-bit floating point engine. I could be wrong on all that.

Verdict: If you want or need a 64-bit double-precision engine, then Sonar obviously wins. This is a big discussion, with many opinions, and not worth it to get into here. Personally, for me, it's irrelevant... 32-bit float is perfectly adequate for the most demanding mixes. It's good enough for Cubase and Nuendo and others as well, and far beyond the limits of what my human ear can discern in the real world. I've tried to convince myself that 64-float is audibly better, but I was just fooling myself. It's far more important to know how to mix something than worry about whether or not you have a 64-bit engine. If you can't mix worth crap, 64-bit sure isn't going to save you. In my opinion, 64-bit float is more about marketing than about real-world results. But, then again, this one does technically go to Sonar. :)

5. Maximum audio tracks in HD version VS SONAR X1

Obvious win for Sonar. Which can technically support unlimited tracks.

The standard Pro Tools 9 supports 96 mono or stereo tracks, 64 instruments, 512 MIDI tracks, 160 Aux tracks and 256 busses.

PT 9 w/ CPT2 and PT 9 HD ups some of the numbers, but still have limits. (i.e.: 192 voices/tracks)

Verdict: technically, Sonar. In the real world: depends on your needs. I've had projects go over 100 tracks, but to be honest, that type of project becomes very uncomfortable in Sonar in my experience. Pro Tools manages large numbers of tracks much better, IMO... and frankly, if we talk about this issue, we should talk about Cubase/Nuendo too... but let's not.

6. Audio engine

Not sure what you mean by this one -- both have good audio engines. If you are referring to 64-bit mix engine, see #4. If you are referring to performance -- i.e.: low-latency performance -- the initial numbers are actually coming out quite strong for PT9. Vin (TAFKAT, the benchmark guy) has recently run some tests with the universal benchmark that put PT9's engine in surprisingly good light with low-latency performance... putting it roughly in the same ballpark as Cubase/Nuendo and Reaper.

Verdict: A wash, really. Up to you what matters the most. But to play it safe, I'd suggest Sonar users not go there... the initial numbers are looking rather good for PT9. ALSO, we don't know what types of improvements might be coming in Sonar X1.

7. Midi functions and features. (How tight are MIDI VS SONAR)

I think we've covered this a few times in this thread, but in my usage, I'd clearly give the win to Sonar for MIDI features. I listed several features in another post in this thread, no need to duplicate that. There are many more. Sonar's MIDI-sequencing roots are clearly present, and Sonar is a serious MIDI tool. Having said that, Pro Tools' more simplistic MIDI features are well-thought-out and executed well. They are clean, effective and work very well for what they do. As for how tight the timing is, I have not found major issues with either of them.

Verdict: For a serious MIDI users, Sonar hands-down. If your MIDI needs are lighter, Pro Tools wins based on simplicity and polish, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

8. VST/ RTAS Instruments function.

Not sure what you mean. See #2 and #7. In the real-world, both support virtual instruments, with the edge to Sonar for its more comprehensive MIDI editing and instrument tools (i.e. the synth rack, etc.).

Verdict: Sonar

9. Icons or color skin?

A purely subjective issue with regard to its value, and we don't know what will be available with the new Sonar X1 interface. Sonar supports icons and various color customizations. Pro Tools does not have icons like Sonar's but it does have color customizations. This is such a lame specific thing to focus in on compared to the big picture of some of the other issues -- the big question should be which has the better interface? Or better workflow? And that is a big discussion that is very subjective. Put it this way, you can customize both applications to varying degrees, but its usefulness will boil down to what is more important to you and YOUR workflow. PLUS, we don't know the extent of customization that you can do to the new X1 interface. I suspect it will be very good for Sonar. But PT9 is nothing to sneeze at in this department.

Verdict for interface: My guess is that Sonar X1 will do well in that department, but this is highly subjective and each person has to decide for themselves. Pro Tools 9 is by no means a clumsy, archaic, unwieldy interface. Sonar X1 also does not appear to be a clumsy, archaic, unwieldy interface from what they have said/shown so far.

10. Streaming & stretching algorithm of AUDIO?

This is a very valid question, one I can't comment on very well except from a subjective perspective. Personally, I think it's a wash for the most part, and ultimately depends on what you need/want to do. There is some material that I think Sonar sounds better time compressing/expanding, and some material I think Pro Tools is better at. Personally, I think it's a matter of actual features and your workflow... what can each DAW app do with regard to things like time compression/expansion, elastic audio, beat detective, audiosnap, etc.? That is just too big to cover here, and you'll have your advocates for anything. Plus, in all fairness, other apps should be drawn into the discussion -- neither Pro Tools or Sonar have built-in sample editors, for example. So you'll have to break down the features carefully and analyze where they might fit into your projects.

Verdict: I think they're complimentary, and I'd rather have both their toolsets than assume one is better than the other... because they are completely different beasts.

11. Clip base automation? Destructive faders?

Sonar has clip-based automation, which is a great tool. Not totally sure what you are referring to with destructive faders, though... maybe you're referring to Pro Tools destructive cross-fades? Anyway, if that's what you mean, it's irrelevant since it's totally undoable and does not modify the source audio in Pro Tools. It just prints the crossfades instead of rendering them in real-time, probably a throw-back to TDM roots of PT. Whoopdedoo, irrelevant. If you're referring to something else, please clarify.

Verdict: Sonar takes one home with clip-based automation, and I'll add that its clip-based effects are a great feature. Pro Tools does not do either of those things. However, in all fairness to Pro Tools, it does manage automation very well -- much better than Sonar IMO -- such that clip-based automation is frankly not a big deal, or even irrelevant in day-to-day work. But your mileage may vary. The real win for Sonar comes with clip-based FX, which is a very powerful feature that does not have a comparable feature in Pro Tools. Also, we don't know the extent of Sonar X1's new features... so this could also change the comparison.

12. there are more... VIDEO PRO TOOLS HD VS NUENDO..

Indeed, there are more, and your list shows your own bias and lack of understanding of Pro Tools. I'm not defending it, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but your list above is so narrow it's missing out on many, many other important areas that could have a huge impact on someone's work. Let me add a few more areas.... and I don't mean this as a criticism (or biased endorsement) of Sonar, but it shows that this is a bigger comparison than we can really make in this thread. Here are a few more...

13. More comprehensive plugin collection out of the box.

Verdict: Sonar -- I'll give that one to Sonar since there are some gems in there... it does come with more essential/useful plugins IN THEORY, but with questionable implementation in some cases... i.e.: it comes with a linear multiband but we all know it can't be used/edited well in real-time -- hope that's fixed with Sonar X1. Pro Tools, on the other hand doesn't come with a multiband at all, to my recollection (maybe I missed it). And so forth....

14. Better customer support.

Verdict: Don't know for sure, but my guess is Cakewalk... I haven't had to deal with Avid customer support, and I do like this forum and the Cakewalk folks. They're good guys. Guess is, Cakewalk and Cakewalk community might have an edge here.

15. Offline non-real-time bounce.

Verdict: Technically, Sonar. However, there are workarounds that render this irrelevant to experienced Pro Tools operators.

16. Excellent multi-lane automation and editing tools

Verdict: Pro Tools. Automation in Pro Tools just works the way it should (more or less). I'll leave it at that. Then, when/if you upgrade to Pro Tools CPT2 or HD/HD Native, it comes with vastly superior automation tools. But that costs a lot more. :)

17. Strong video support and compatibility with current frame rates

Verdict: Pro Tools. For post folks, there's no question here, hate to say.

18. Strong post-oriented workflow and editing features

Verdict: Pro Tools

19. We could break down #18 into many sub-issues such as ripple/shuffle/slip and other advanced editing features

Verdict: Pro Tools -- with combination of regions and shuffle editing, Pro Tools can effectively emulate ripple editing and many other editing techniques (actually, Reaper takes the cake on ripple for speed of use, but that's another discussion). Pro Tools is very deep in this area.

20. Strong track, region and group management and filtering

Verdict: Pro Tools by a mile.

21. Routing a channel to a bus or track that can then be recorded?

Verdict: This has been requested in Sonar, but Pro Tools does this important feature, built in. Other people in this thread have shown workarounds for Sonar... but your audio device needs to support it.

22. To be fair, I should add Track freezing...

Verdict: Sonar hands down.

23. Advanced Project management?

Verdict: Pro Tools by far, but in all fairness, we don't know what Sonar X1 will bring. But as of Sonar 8.5 it's a big gap. No, not a big gap, a huge gap. Cakewalk has hopefully paid attention to project management in other apps for Sonar X1.

And we could go on and on and on... how about this one...

24. Session interchange with largest group of studios (i.e.: industry standard, like it or not)?

Verdict: Well, we know that one. That may or may not be important to someone.


In the end it will be about what works best for you. I believe that Sonar is very strong in the compositional area, and we all know the shortcomings in the post and film/video area -- and Sonar does not really claim to be a post-oriented application. (Although some of their recent marketing hints at stronger post features... it's possible that X1 or X1.1 or X2 resolves some of this). Anyway. that's why I believe Sonar and Pro Tools are rather complimentary.

In either case, both are impressive, powerful programs and it should be obvious to anyone that very pro results can be had from both of them. And no matter what features they have (or lack) it comes down to the operator's skill and talent. :)

EDIT: For spelling and a tiny bit of clarification. :)

wintaper


Got PT9 up and running on same machine as Sonar (specs in sig)

First thoughts and comparisons:

1. PT9 is only 1 DVD - installs a lot quicker than Sonar. Less choices along the way.
2. PT9 is a 32bit app (this was mentioned before). Sonar is native x64 all the way.
3. The PT interface doesn't seem as intuitive as Sonar. Also not as many toolbars and menu options. Reminds me of early Photoshop versions.
4. PT9 Seems to use a bit less CPU but A LOT more memory (on audio only projects) than Sonar
5. Sonar loads really fast, PT takes forever.
6. The RTAS wrappers for UAD plugins is a joke. I've since read they will have real RTAS versions.
7. Routing capabilities seem more robust in PT9 - at the expense of additional complexity and setup time.
8. Setting up your audio interface is easier in Sonar. PT9 grabbed my HDSP9652 ASIO drivers properly, but everything else was manual.

Overall first thoughts:
Pro Tools 9 shows a lot of promise. It seems to be working well. I feel like there's a lot of power under the hood. That being said, Sonar is *far* more polished and snappy. I've already had freeze-ups with PT which I *never* get with Sonar. I do like the audio-centric feel to PT since I do mostly audio (no midi). If I were a big-time midi/sample user, Sonar would be a no-brainer (or Logic).

Support for Eucon in PT is a big plus - Sonar Eucon plugin will *not* install on x64. Sonar has been going backwards with Eucon support. My MC Mix works perfectly with PT.

I'll be doing more comparisons today, I'll post anything interesting I find.

Wintaper,
 
    An interesting review.  Thanks.   The only thing is that you are comparing PT9 to Sonar 8.x I assume?   Not X1 yet of course.  So it'll be interesting to see how you (and/or other PT9+Sonar users) feel when you've had the same "go" at X1 as well.
 
    But again - thanks for sharing the info.  That goes to others here who also are multi-DAW users as well.
 

Resonant Order

cult [kuhlt]–noun

And PT on a mac... phew... I mean your family can just forget about you taking their calls... black turtlenecks all the way...

First thoughts and comparisons:

 
You've pretty well summized how I feel about PT9 vs. Sonar... 
So make that a +1  

No, the OS doesn't have a place in this thread. Sonar isn't cross platform. We are dealing with Sonar & Pro tools on the windows platform.

There are so many posts, let me see if I got this right;

Sonar is native x64, thereby it can handle more plugins... great for working with midi (larger sample libraries), ideal for getting all your parts together. Good for composers, especially those who like to work with midi. Get all that and more from just: $99 /  $399 for X1 Producer edition.

.vs...

PT9 is not native x64, but it's strengths are easier 'audio' editing and is suited to post production... the optional 'Producers Toolkit' costs about; $1,995, will add more advanced features. Bringing the total costs to about; $2,500

And according to what I've read (see post #335); PT9 occasionally 'freezes up' and 'uses a lot more memory' for audio projects.

-

Edit Post:
Added: 'Larger sample libraries' ~ to clear up any misinterpretations :)

Thought I also mention:
Costs are based on absolute maximum amount, obviously there are discounts and upgrades options to consider.

-

rhythminmind


Thats pretty far off actually.
x64 capability has nothing to do with plugin count, it has more to do with RAM allocation. That really only come to play with large sample/romplers.

That's exactly what I meant.

rhythminmind


No, the OS doesn't have a place in this thread. Sonar isn't cross platform. We are dealing with Sonar & Pro tools on the windows platform.

Mmmmmm short answer. I don't get it. Where the does it belong? 

rhythminmind

The production tool kit is also irrelevant for most stereo projects under 96 audio tracks. It has some editing flare as well. But nothing to cry home about.

Nothing to cry home about? 

Crikey  then how do they justify the huge price tag (($1,995)) on the Production Tool kit?

I'm sticking with Sonar, it's the best value for features and it gets the job done.  Jumping ship hoping the grass is greener on the other side when in fact from what I've read... PT9 comes with a much heavier price tag and it's own set of issues.

Listen up, no DAW is perfect but Sonar comes very close.  It seems a lot of users take things for granted nowadays, or blame their tools (no offense intended at you rhythminmind).  I come from old school (1970's) 24.trk tape, mixers and hardware effect racks are bloody expensive, now fast forward to 2010 and oh yeah baby times are great :)

-

pcuser32

Sure I understand the point your making, you have found a way to make Sonar work for you in spite of its flaws I salute you. I think your also part of the problem, you defend what is not dependable Sonar cant perform what is Post Production 101 the simple copy and paste of zone envelopes.
If more users complained, maybe sonar would address the issue and provide a fix.
Every time I have raised this issue in rushes folks like you to cloud and minimizes the importance of fixing this.

Again I like sonar and I sincerly hope they fix the problem with zone envelopes in this new version

Totally spot on!
 
If more people were made aware of the current basic issues Sonar has, instead of providing work-arounds as permanent solutions and being complacent with them, then Sonar might not be so behind compared to the other offerings (even to the fairly recent "R" and S1 products) when it comes to these basic DAW features.  Hopefully, X1 will improve on these areas and, if not, I hope Cakewalk will improve them in the VERY near future.  But as long as people keep ignoring the real issues, as small as they may seem, then nothing will get done with more features (and more bugs) being added.  And, no, going back to how things were back 10 years ago is no excuse for things not to improve (no offense SongCraft).
 
 

yorolpal


Just curious CJ, ol pal...and since I make my living making "commercials" on PCs running either Sonar or Audition...how come Macs are better at that?

HI Y'all... finally getting back online here in the forum after almost a year layout.
I think CJ is referring to the direction and ideas behind the MAC commercials...
 
I too earn my living producing commeecials on SONAR and Audition!!!
I also use ACID PRO 7.
All on PC and in a very stable environment!
 
YAY!

SongCraft,

Don't forget that I too want Sonar to be the very best DAW there is.  Remember I was also part of a big feature request effort that took place just last year, and I'm grateful that Cakewalk has implemented a lot of those features into X1.  Also, I'm not persuading anyone to move to Pro Tools, nor do I think others who've chimed in so far are doing that either.  But, my point is that Sonar already has enough features to please just about everyone working in the audio industry.  The problem I see is that a lot of these features feel unfinished and, in a few cases, are even unusable (and, yes, there are some who choose to ignore these things or don't feel these are important - not you of course).  I won't bore you with examples or list them since I, and others, have already done so this in this thread (and other threads for that matter).  It just gets a bit frustrating after a while.  At least I do feel Cakewalk is moving in the right direction, and that eases my frustration with its short-comings a little bit.  I hope Cakewalk keeps improving Sonar's workflow for more than just a few versions, since that's what it's lacking.  I also hope that the rest of X1's feature set is as good (or better) than what has already been announced (particularly, how much did they fix).

Take care Song!

Sigh - the more I read this thread - the more I say to myself.... who gives a Crap.  I can make music all day - every day... (for better or worse lol)
And at the end of the day - it's about ME - not the software.  Yes, the software makes a difference....but I can do almost anything I can think of in Sonar (if I can think of it) ....  does it sometimes take more effort than I wish... Sure!

But I guess I am one who says.... "do it.  Learn, grow, make yourself better."  It's not the tools... We have some GREAT tools - whether it be PT9, Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Live, Logic - it really doesn't matter. 

THey ALL can do great stuff.  Make music.  Stop comparing.  Just get busy doing what we do.....  Period.
PS - I reserver the right to wish I didn't post this after a night out at a great NYC club, drinking, dancing, interacting :P

mike_mccue


Billy, the reason I give a crap is because so many years ago I remember demo'ing Pro Audio 6 and thinking... this is on a PC? I can afford to do this at my house right now? Wow.

Then I was amazed to see native real time effects become a reality.

Then I was amazed to see VSTi actually work and in some ways surpass dedicated hardware.

But I have been consistently disappointed with several things:

1) Cakewalk seems unfocused... they certainly haven't focused on stream lining the core features of a DAW... the work arounds are barely tolerable.

2) A lot of Cakewalk users seem offended by criticism of Cakewalk's products and they defend the multi step work arounds and near misses as they validate their disgust at those of us who dare to point out the obvious.

3) Cakewalk has morphed the image of their top tier package from an ambitious full featured Digital Audio Workstation into a discount bulk pack quantity over quality commodity grade home entertainment consumer package.

The reason I complain is because 17 years ago I had faith that someday a IBM PC platform product could place pro music production into the hands of anyone interested... with out compromise... at the least possible cost.

I personally think that Cakewalk has been distracted with all kinds of smoke and mirror features and the all you can eat mentality. I am dismayed at their track record of releasing buggy features that are left unfixed for years, and in some instances a decade. I feel it suggests that the internal culture at Cakewalk does not feel a sense of responsibility to their existing customers. e.g. If I owned a company that rolled out the LP 64 efx debacle... I'd make it right... because that's the right thing to do. When I managed other peoples companies... I did just that sort of thing... and the owners learned to like it. ;-)

I recognize that SONAR excells at many things that you will not enjoy elsewhere... which is another reason that I complain.... SONAR definitely has the potential to be the very best DAW. But the road map doesn't seem pointed in a particular direction... and there is certainly no indication that Cakewalk has an agenda which prioritizes fixing up what they already have sold us.

Anyways, That's why I give a crap. :-)

all the best,
mike

Mike,
 
I give a crap too ....   I think that's why many of us are here "discussing/expressing" ourselves.
 
I have complaints too - don't get me wrong on that.  I can be a harsh critic along with the best of 'em lol.
 
But I have to say - when I sit down to do some serious work .... whether that's for fun or profit --  I get stuff done!   There are many areas I'd like more "help" from Sonar...  but let's not kid ourselve.  It's just because we live with it and are, generally, demanding (if not outright critical).
 
But it's hard for me to read some of the things I see on this forum which, if I was a newbie and didn't know better, could make it sound like Sonar can't do "it."   Bull - and you know it (or you wouldn't use it and be here either).
 
We just want better.   I agree CW has some corporate culture thing on occassion, like most companies, that make us all go ... "WTF???" ....  but having used a myriad of other "hosts", they all have their sh*t LOL.
 
Sure, let's keep up the pressure.... but maybe do so in a way that encourages them to listen more, rather than take a defensive posture.
 
They are human too, ya know ;)
 
And, I think the debates we have (when done with sensibility and civility) are incredibly useful.   SO many other forums I participate or persue are so narrow focused and overly-controlled.   We are blessed that this forum, for the most part, is exceedinly liberal to tolerate SOME of the things any one of us have said (mostly in regret) LOL