wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 09:44:36
(permalink)
My boxed copy of PT9 was put on a Fed Ex truck last night.
I'm very enthusiastic about it. My PT9 box copy is coming friday... I'll hold off on the X1 UI update for now. Sadly, a number of things that are important to me (eucon support, advanced automation, mac support) don't seem to be coming from Sonar. And at the price, PT9 is a cheap way to get ProTools session compatibility without having to buy expensive hardware.
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
Resonant Order
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 647
- Joined: 2003/12/02 13:45:33
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 10:08:12
(permalink)
You brought up 64-bit -- and I agree, its lack of 64-bit is also a big drawback for anyone who needs the extra RAM If your a composer, then not having the extra ram is a huge problem. Once you add in the extra CPU cost of RTAS, and the inability of of PT to properly balance the cores of a CPU, Sonar is definitely the right choice for composing. Why own eight cores if you have to keep the program scaled to six, or four cores to two? Although I was initially resistant to 64 bit because of compatability problems, so many manufacturers have jumped on board over the past year that I'm finally making the switch. I'll never go back to 32 bit, and PT isn't going to have 64 bit for another two years, and that's if they last two years. The guy currently in charge isn't known for simply building companies up, but building them up so they can be sold.
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." Music at Night, 1931- Aldous Huxley
|
Resonant Order
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 647
- Joined: 2003/12/02 13:45:33
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 10:15:04
(permalink)
Sadly, a number of things that are important to me (eucon support, advanced automation, mac support) don't seem to be coming from Sonar. And at the price, PT9 is a cheap way to get ProTools session compatibility without having to buy expensive hardware. Advanced automation and advanced audio editing are only in the CPTK2 upgrade, which is 1,995.00.
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." Music at Night, 1931- Aldous Huxley
|
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2856
- Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 10:48:16
(permalink)
Resonant Order
You brought up 64-bit -- and I agree, its lack of 64-bit is also a big drawback for anyone who needs the extra RAM
If your a composer, then not having the extra ram is a huge problem. Once you add in the extra CPU cost of RTAS, and the inability of of PT to properly balance the cores of a CPU, Sonar is definitely the right choice for composing. Why own eight cores if you have to keep the program scaled to six, or four cores to two? Although I was initially resistant to 64 bit because of compatability problems, so many manufacturers have jumped on board over the past year that I'm finally making the switch. I'll never go back to 32 bit, and PT isn't going to have 64 bit for another two years, and that's if they last two years. The guy currently in charge isn't known for simply building companies up, but building them up so they can be sold.
Right, I think we agree for the most part -- my full statement was "So for composers, or at least people who spend a lot of time in MIDI-land, PT9 is not an ideal platform, IMO. You brought up 64-bit -- and I agree, its lack of 64-bit is also a big drawback for anyone who needs the extra RAM for samples, etc... So I can't see a composer with a big Kontakt template getting anything extra out of this... it would be far better to use Sonar x64 or Cubase x64 for composing with tons of plugins and samples. " On the other hand, I'm just not seeing the scaling problems you're talking about, and Vin's (TAFKAT's) initial benchmarks aren't revealing a serious drawback to the RTAS/ASIO engine either, at least so far. PT9's engine, unfortunately or fortunately (depends on how you look at it), is not its Achilles heel. I think people will have to find other reasons as their vector for making a decision. With my current testing yesterday and today alone, I've dispelled the myth (at least for myself) that PT9 is a crapware toy. It's a serious tool that sits along side Sonar just fine. Again, I agree the 64-bit issue is indeed a big issue for people who need the RAM. So the answer is not to compose with it, as I mentioned before. But even then, there are possible workarounds to that as well, for example: VE Pro. However, out of the box, I agree a sample-heavy composer really needs 64 bit to fully take advantage of his system.
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 11:09:33
(permalink)
Resonant Order
Sadly, a number of things that are important to me (eucon support, advanced automation, mac support) don't seem to be coming from Sonar. And at the price, PT9 is a cheap way to get ProTools session compatibility without having to buy expensive hardware.
Advanced automation and advanced audio editing are only in the CPTK2 upgrade, which is 1,995.00.
Eucon and Mac are the biggies for me ... yes I know the CPTK2 is extra - was not referring to that. But 8.5 was a step backwards for Eucon - it lost functionality from 8.31. After being touted as a feature in 7.0 its been pretty much abandoned by Cake. But ... I'm not dumping Sonar - rather - this is an opportunity to run both on one machine with same hardware. I'll also (at first) be hot-swapping between two boot discs - Win7 x64 and XP-32 - in order to compare Sonar's performance between the two OS's on the same hardware. Should be interesting.
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 11:39:19
(permalink)
mike_mccue
"One technique they use, not unlike wartime techniques, is to pose a question in such a way that causes curiosity if not doubt about the competitors product. An example:
"Hey I heard such-and-such a product can't do [fill in the blanks] - is that true??"
So while I try not to automatically doubt anyone's sincerity around/in forums, I also don't accept every question (posting) as completely genuine unless it has all the ingredients of being genuine."
Full disclosure: I do this because I feel it is a powerful way to prompt people to think for themselves. I do not have any affiliations with any DAW manufacturers.
very best regards,
mike
So you think it's your job to manipulate people to think? LOL. J/K.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 12:01:49
(permalink)
more like a hobby.
:-)
BTW, Denise, my FedEx person, just dropped off some doggie treats for Go-Go our new Cattle Dog as well as a unexpected surprise from Sweetwater for me.
It showed up a day early, and I am mid way thru a wood work project so...
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 12:06:04
(permalink)
I think discussions comparing different DAWs/Hosts are productive, but I almost feel a little bad for CW that there are so many messages are talking about their competitor rather than their new / forthcoming release.
It might be time for them to release some more info on X1 to reclaim the PR battle ;)
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 12:36:26
(permalink)
but I almost feel a little bad for CW that there are so many messages are talking about their competitor True. But, their competitors' release seems a bit more "functional" than X1's UI rewrite. It's a bigger game-changer. Plus - being fluent in 8.5.3 - I'm not excited to learn a new interface just for X1. 8.5.3 works just fine for now and I haven't been held back by the GUI. Of all the things I've seen asked for on this forum ... a whole new UI on top of essentially the same engine definitely wasn't one of them.
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 12:57:27
(permalink)
The new GUI will be a pleasure to work with, at least from what we can see in the promo videos. But I too am hoping there is more than just a new GUI and the Pro Channel plugin. Cakewalk, give us more info please! :-)
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
Lanceindastudio
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4604
- Joined: 2004/01/22 02:28:30
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 13:03:07
(permalink)
More functional!??? Nah, that isnt going to be the majority vote I suspect.
For X1, It is a new workflow, not just a new layout. Pro channel in every channel is a game changer as well for me. The track filter is a huge game changer as well for me.
Pro Tools "game changing" claims were all simply things they are starting to catch up with other DAWS on, like ADC(automatic delay compensation) and more tracks available(surprise, need "expansion"), being able to use any interface... Seriously, the guy on the sweetwater video acted like this was big news in the DAW world. Sorry buddy, that is just big news for pro tools...
It is good to see Pro Tools starting to realize they have equals or better in the market these days and start becoming more flexible.
Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS Motherboard i7 3770k CPU 32 gigs RAM Presonus AudioBox iTwo Windows 10 64 bit, SONAR PLATINUM 64 bit Lots of plugins and softsynths and one shot samples, loops Gauge ECM-87, MCA SP-1, Alesis AM51 Presonus Eureka Mackie HR824's and matching subwoofer
|
Rain
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9736
- Joined: 2003/11/07 05:10:12
- Location: Las Vegas
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 13:11:54
(permalink)
If the new GUI works the way it seems designed to work, this could mean a HUGE step forward in terms of workflow/ergonomics. So this seems like improved functionality, imho. In terms of functions and features, pretty much all DAW softwares are more or less equivalent. What makes the real difference is HOW those functions are implemented/accessed. I just recently got back to working w/ Logic and my first impression was - hey, this GUI layout seems pretty similar to what Cakewalk just announced for X1 - tabs, browser, etc... I hadn't used Logic in years, and I have been using Cakewalk products as my main applications for over 10 years, but the speed at which I work in Logic, thanks to that GUI, is simply incomparable. I was up and running and had a new song arrangement well on its way in a matter of minutes after I first launched the software.
post edited by Rain - 2010/11/10 13:13:16
TCB - Tea, Cats, Books...
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 13:16:06
(permalink)
Lance,
Fast Bounce is not found in Pro Tools because of the DSP cards. Remember all the trouble UAD users were having with it in Sonar? Well, AVID just wants to avoid all of that and instead concentrated on providing a reliable system to their users. After all, that's what Pro Tools is about and why so many professionals use it. It's NOT just because it was the first in the game. This is wrong! Also, PDC is not new in PT9. It was just not included in the lower version (i.e. PTLE), but PTHD already had PDC in the previous version (if not before).
Just getting some facts straight :-)
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 13:41:22
(permalink)
Lanceindastudio
More functional!??? Nah, that isnt going to be the majority vote I suspect.
For X1, It is a new workflow, not just a new layout. Pro channel in every channel is a game changer as well for me. The track filter is a huge game changer as well for me.
Pro Tools "game changing" claims were all simply things they are starting to catch up with other DAWS on, like ADC(automatic delay compensation) and more tracks available(surprise, need "expansion"), being able to use any interface... Seriously, the guy on the sweetwater video acted like this was big news in the DAW world. Sorry buddy, that is just big news for pro tools...
It is good to see Pro Tools starting to realize they have equals or better in the market these days and start becoming more flexible.
Well said, Lance.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 14:09:54
(permalink)
Hi Jim, Not that I'm promoting PT9, but FYI for another perspective for what it's worth -- I just got it here too, installed and working very stably on a non-DAW Penryn quad-core Win 7 x64 system with a Focusrite Saffire. I don't intend to install it on my main i7 machine, but I did want to see how well it would work on a machine not optimized for DAW work. Was able to run a decent session at 128 sample latency, even got it down to 64 with clicks. 128 was smooth as butter. Sonar can't run on this machine with this driver at 64 either. The session had 40ish tracks with 60ish plugins at 30% CPU. Hi Eratu, FWIW, I figured I could get the issue straightened out... and ultimately did.  I had to uninstall/reinstall literally every RTAS plugin (post PT9 install). At that point, PT9 loaded as expected. Performance is pretty decent. I expected less in that regard... The demo session ran (with a 64-sample ASIO buffer size - using small buffers for lower RTL) at 15-17% on my 3GHz i7 machine. CPU core loading was pretty consistent. In some ways it's a major step forward... but then again... there are features I've used and now take for granted (offline bounce, per-clip realtime EFX/processing, 64Bit DAW to address >4GB RAM, VST support, etc) that just aren't there. In today's market, how can you release a Pro tool that doesn't support greater than 4GB of RAM? Imagine if Avid did that with Media Composer! Don't think it would sell many copies... I think PT9 is worth adding to the ToolBox. I guess that's Avid's goal. But as is always the case, you can find great strengths and weaknesses. Everyone talks about the efficiency of PT as an editor... IMO, For hard-core slice/dice editing, Samplitude blew all apps out of the water (including PT)... about 10 years ago. The "Object" (Clip in cake-speak) based editing was a major step forward. Especially for that point in time! You had an incredible amount of control... all available in realtime. Since then, both Sonar and Reaper have incorporated similar features/functions... which (for me) made Samplitude unnecessary. Destructive fades in 2010??? That wreaks of "vintage" DAW software. I like the idea of having PT9 But I guess I'm not overly excited about what (to me) is another good DAW application where there are both equally positive and negative facets. For me, it's mostly a "lateral" addition. For straight up song-writing/recording/mixing, I don't feel I was missing much. Having used numerous host DAWs over the years, I think my patience/tolerance for switching DAW apps is low. How many different means of accomplishing the same end goal do I need? I'll upgrade to X1... as I'm looking forward to the new GUI. I haven't been crazy about the Sonar GUI... well... since Sonar 1. Now that we're completely saturated with editing/processing features, it's a good time to focus on ease-of-use. It's been a long while since folks were this stirred up about new DAW software. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 14:12:26
(permalink)
In the 27+ years I have been using a personal computer, I cannot ever remember becoming "hugely" more productive due to a UI overhaul. Possibly the switch to GUI computing - but even that was more incremental.
I'm sure the workflow improvements in X1 will be an improvement - but I don't see the "killer feature" in this release. Pro-channel looks promising - but I've already got UAD and Waves channel strips I like.
I like and use Sonar everyday, but I see nothing wrong with seeing how the competition is doing. As someone else said, I'm hired for the work I do - not the tools I use.
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 14:23:17
(permalink)
Well, AVID just wants to avoid all of that and instead concentrated on providing a reliable system to their users. You know I respect you Jose... But this is sounding a bit like the old cliche' "ProTools on a Mac is the most stable DAW platform" You can provide a reliable off-line bounce-down for native based users. We've been using that feature (across many different hosts) for many years now. I suspect the reality is that it's easier (less expensive) for Avid not to implement an off-line bounce-down. And if/when they do, it would somewhat supersede their much more expensive HD version.
|
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14061
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:03:34
(permalink)
wintaper
In the 27+ years I have been using a personal computer, I cannot ever remember becoming "hugely" more productive due to a UI overhaul. Possibly the switch to GUI computing - but even that was more incremental.
I'm sure the workflow improvements in X1 will be an improvement - but I don't see the "killer feature" in this release. Pro-channel looks promising - but I've already got UAD and Waves channel strips I like.
I like and use Sonar everyday, but I see nothing wrong with seeing how the competition is doing. As someone else said, I'm hired for the work I do - not the tools I use.
I suspect this is more than "just" a GUI overhaul. Having a solid interactive GUI that allows for more/better/less cumbersome editing (hopefully that's what the smart tools are for) can make a difference. Overall I'd agree that a GUI for GUI's sake isn't much more than fashion. But if it's fashion connected to function (or function connected to fashion if one prefers), that's a different story. We'll see.
|
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2856
- Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:09:32
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
I suspect the reality is that it's easier (less expensive) for Avid not to implement an off-line bounce-down.
And if/when they do, it would somewhat supersede their much more expensive HD version.
Exactly. That's why I think they won't do it. As long as there are TDM plugins, there won't be offline bounce with RTAS PT versions... that would cause a lot of high-end customers to be insanely pissed off at Avid... just a guess. :) EDIT: BTW, As any hard core PT operator will tell you, you don't absolutely *need* offline bounce anyway. They have workarounds. Those workarounds are not the most user-friendly, but they do obviate the pressing need for offline bounce. If anything, I believe Avid will just make those workarounds more user-friendly, to try to diffuse the issue even more... For me, it's mostly a "lateral" addition.
I agree, this is one of the points I hoped I made clear in my post -- I see this as a complimentary tool for people, and I don't believe PT9 competes well enough in the compositional side. I think Cake will make it through this well enough. The one I think that will suffer the most will be post-oriented apps like Nuendo. As good as Nuendo is in some ways, even more and more post will be done in PT going forward, due to the PT9 release. I understand there are some markets in Europe that have already been migrating to PT as well -- this is the type of thing that could accelerate that trend. While Avid's Complete Production Toolkit 2 is $2000 (it is a direct shot at Nuendo in some ways), and then when you look at Pro Tools HD Native, the pressure increases even more on Nuendo... so I suspect the folks at Steinberg are looking at a possible price reduction on Nuendo as we speak. Wouldn't be surprised if Nuendo's price comes down $500 in a few months.
It's been a long while since folks were this stirred up about new DAW software. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Yeah, these are amazing times indeed! Totally agree, it's going to be an interesting ride.
post edited by eratu - 2010/11/10 15:15:12
|
tarsier
Max Output Level: -45 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3029
- Joined: 2003/11/07 11:51:35
- Location: 6 feet under
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:12:39
(permalink)
You can provide a reliable off-line bounce-down for native based users. We've been using that feature (across many different hosts) for many years now. I checked out PT9 at the AES show. Looked good except for the realtime bounce which is a dealbreaker for me. I asked about it and was told that they're waiting until they can guarantee that no bits are lost/dropped on a faster-than-realtime bounce. I mentioned that other DAWs don't seem to have a problem with it. PT guy said that they actually do. Oooookaaaay, I thought. This is interesting. I said that I've done actual bit accurate tests with my DAW (didn't mention names, since he refused to say which DAWs had issues) and it was bit accurate. He said I probably didn't test it right and he said he'd send me an app to test it out. I cheerfully gave him my contact info and told him I'm very interested in doing some tests. So I'm eagerly awaiting this test app so I can plumb the depths of Sonar's "fast bounce" capabilities. In the meantime, I did another quick test and there was zero difference between a fast audio export and playing the audio out of Sonar through a digital interface and into a recorder. Considering all the sturm und drang about DAW summing engines what do you do when a company rep is standing there saying something that is just blatantly untrue? Or, which DAW actually IS different between playback/realtime export and fast export? My guess is that if there is one, it's broken.
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:19:12
(permalink)
The one I think that will suffer the most will be post-oriented apps like Nuendo
I had been looking at Nuendo 5 also, but $1600+ is a lot to spend on software. Plus, I record live shows, and there are major issues with Nuendo 5 and memory usage ... http://www.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=22690 there is no perfect DAW 
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
Lanceindastudio
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4604
- Joined: 2004/01/22 02:28:30
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:41:16
(permalink)
I said nothing about fast bounce, but thanx for that! That si a pain in my work not to have fast bounce! But, as for delay compensation, I am referring to LE previously, not HD. They are advertising it as a new game changer, lol. Thanx!
Jose7822
Lance,
Fast Bounce is not found in Pro Tools because of the DSP cards. Remember all the trouble UAD users were having with it in Sonar? Well, AVID just wants to avoid all of that and instead concentrated on providing a reliable system to their users. After all, that's what Pro Tools is about and why so many professionals use it. It's NOT just because it was the first in the game. This is wrong! Also, PDC is not new in PT9. It was just not included in the lower version (i.e. PTLE), but PTHD already had PDC in the previous version (if not before).
Just getting some facts straight :-)
Asus P8Z77-V LE PLUS Motherboard i7 3770k CPU 32 gigs RAM Presonus AudioBox iTwo Windows 10 64 bit, SONAR PLATINUM 64 bit Lots of plugins and softsynths and one shot samples, loops Gauge ECM-87, MCA SP-1, Alesis AM51 Presonus Eureka Mackie HR824's and matching subwoofer
|
...wicked
Max Output Level: -1.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7360
- Joined: 2003/12/18 01:00:56
- Location: Seattle
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:42:10
(permalink)
tarsier
I mentioned that other DAWs don't seem to have a problem with it. PT guy said that they actually do.
That sounds like a load of malarkey to me. Sometimes when confronted with pressure a person's reaction is to keep talking. This sounds like a bad reaction.
=========== The Fog People =========== Intel i7-4790 16GB RAM ASUS Z97 Roland OctaCapture Win10/64 SONAR Platinum 64-bit billions VSTs, some of which work
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 15:47:38
(permalink)
Yeah, that's total rubbish. Some plug-ins and instruments have problems with Fast Bounce, but that's a different point entirely.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 2004/01/18 08:21:47
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:10:27
(permalink)
...wicked
tarsier
I mentioned that other DAWs don't seem to have a problem with it. PT guy said that they actually do.
That sounds like a load of malarkey to me. Sometimes when confronted with pressure a person's reaction is to keep talking. This sounds like a bad reaction. Indeed..it does seem like a knee jerk reaction. One would have to produce some pretty hard facts to back up a statement like that about other DAW's.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:11:09
(permalink)
Lanceindastudio
Pro Tools "game changing" claims were all simply things they are starting to catch up with other DAWS on, like ADC(automatic delay compensation) and more tracks available(surprise, need "expansion"), being able to use any interface... Seriously, the guy on the sweetwater video acted like this was big news in the DAW world. Sorry buddy, that is just big news for pro tools...
It is big news whether we like it or not. Gearslutz have setup a specific subforum for dealing with all the chatter about PT|Native and PT 9. Being the nerd I am I added up how many posts and views those two pages worth of threads have: 5673 posts and 448036 views. This isn't even the Avid Pro Tools forum. Just a generic audio forum that dicsusses all sorts of stuff. This is clearly BIG news. On the other hand there are two Sonar X1 threads totalling 176 posts and 7321 views. There is good reason for that but you won't get it by comparing feature lists. Alistair
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:12:55
(permalink)
there is no perfect DAW Truer words were never spoken...
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:13:23
(permalink)
Lanceindastudio
But, as for delay compensation, I am referring to LE previously, not HD.
They are advertising it as a new game changer, lol.
Well it is. Lack of ADC (or PDC) was a very valid reason not to use PT LE. That reason has been removed. Something for all DAW developers to worry about. UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:16:25
(permalink)
Jim Roseberry
Destructive fades in 2010??? That wreaks of "vintage" DAW software.
To be precise, the fades are not destructive but they are indeed not calculated in real time. Pro Tools creates a fade file for each fade you create (but leaves the original audio untouched). UnderTow
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 2004/01/18 08:21:47
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re:SONAR X1 vs Pro Tools 9?
2010/11/10 16:24:18
(permalink)
Yeah I think that is the big issue as such. Not ADC (been around elsewhere almost as long planet earth) but.. 1. The addition of ADC to every version of ProTools 9 2. PT9 at a lower price 3. A track count most people will not exceed (96 audio tracks) 4. The side effect of all of that on other products in that price range or close ...is a very a big deal IMO. I am certain Cakewalk, Steinberg e.t.c would very much have preferred if AVID did not add a few of the most oft requested features in PT9. It is what it is. While the mid market pie might be smaller for Cakewalk e.t.c the DAW market remains unpredictable but PT9 definitely is a problem most DAW devs could do without right about now.
|