Sequoia.. thoughts?

I have never quite been able to wrap my head around what the difference between Samplitude and Sequoia really is, that justifies the enormous price difference (I am not a Samplitude user but I have a few colleagues who are and I know many people swear it's the bee's knees). A visit to the website, honestly, does little to clear up the issue.

I did like this little quote: "One of the most important functions in the Sequoia cutting system is the so-called "Source-Destination Edit". Originally, this function was adopted from video editing tables or the corresponding audio cutting tables, which save data on video tape. The introduction of the hard disk editing system has refined this basic functionality further and is today used in classical music production and mastering in particular, which places the highest demands on cutting and precision."

... Ohhhh Kaayyyy.... Is it just me or is this a lot of obfuscation-speak for sample-accurate non-destructive editing? And doesn't, well, every DAW worthy of the name, including a number that can be had for well under a tenth of what Sequoia goes for, offer it as kind of the basic concept?

It also makes me chuckle because the one time I have been in a Serious Classical Studio, accompanying a singer on some Wagner, and seeing as how I'm not really a top-drawer classical player, we ran into a situation which required a routine edit. Like, one edit between the perfect take of the first half with the perfect take of the ending. This was a German studio with a Steinway D, vintage Neumann tube mics, boutique pres, custom acoustics, the whole bit. Not cheap. And the producer and I had to talk the engineer through this edit like it was the first time he'd heard of such a thing. It took about half an hour to get it right, and this was an edit either the producer or I could have done in about 20 seconds, maybe a minute at the outside, allowing for a few passes to make sure it was Just Right.

So frankly, I'm not so sure that the classical guys are necessarily working to a higher standard of editing accuracy than the rest of us are able to appreciate...

OK, I read through the pages you linked there, and I STILL DON'T GET IT. What, specifically, does Sequoia do that Samplitude doesn't? Or Sonar or Cubase or Logic or Digital Performer or Live or, pretty soon, Reaper or Podium or EnergyXT? OK, i admit I like the idea of burning CDs directly from the arrangement, though I'm not sure that the intermediary step going through Sound Forge / CD Architect doesn't allow me some headroom to catch a few things I didn't catch in the mix. But what can't we do with Sonar/Sound Forge/CD Architect that makes you dream of spending $3000 on Sequoia?

Hey, maybe it's the 'Unique Object-Oriented Editing'... but what exactly in this paragraph can't I do with Sonar?: "As an enhancement to the traditional concept of mixer-supported editing of complete tracks, all versions offer countless possibilities for direct real-time sample editing. Recorded audio tracks can thus be cut into as many objects as you wish. Every object can be edited with individual fades and effects, such as Equalizer, Timestretching, Pitchshifting or plugins. Sequoia also offers Aux-Sends on the object level, the well-known linearphase mastering effects, and a widely variable signal flow." ... as far as I can see, nothing at all, except for maybe the mastering effects, though I must say I'm getting by with what ships in PE6... heck, the dithering is even the same!

How about these killer features not found in any DAW except... well... pretty much all of them at this point:

- Low-Latency-Audio-Engine,
- VST*- and DirectX-Plugins
- automatic latency compensation in the complete signal flow,
- external remote control
- realtime room simulator with convolution

... I just don't know. I remain kind of intrigued with Samplitude but I don't see anything to make me want to jump horses. I occasionally look wistfully at SawStudio too, but all in all I think I'm better off trying to get some work done with what I have.

ORIGINAL: kennywtelejazz

Yeah I saw that article, and I wish it went into greater detail ...but I have used it and been around it and have seen all I need to see and know.
Sequoia is my dream software and at $3000.00 a pop it looks like the Jones got me beat for today

A couple of years ago I had acess to a computer with V 5... and there is no doubt in my mind that when I can afford to own Sequoia V 9 thats gonna be on my machine,

Unfortunatly Sequoia and Samp... dont have the open forums like we do here ,
only registerd owners at the forums, so most people don't have the opportunity to find out to much about Sequoia unless they know a studio or someone who has it ,and that person is willing to let you check under the hood and explain and show what it can do

I took a little detour from Pro Audio 9 to Samplitude instead of SONAR 1. I really loved the way it worked with audio, but coming from Cakewalk, I missed the MIDI functionality that Pro Audio 9 had. I spent a couple years with Samplitude and decideed to end my relationship with SEK-D after they started pricing upgrades in the stratosphere. Then came Sequoia even more rediculous pricing. I came back to Cake with SONAR 3 and I am very happy I did.

Sonar and Samp (and PT) user here. I wish I could answer the Sequoia question as well. The guys that instruct in the Recording Tech program love Sequioa. I respect those guys and their credentials so I can't wait to here the outcome of this.... here's something I learned a long time ago from a very smart audio guy in the 70's...

A certain loudspeaker was selling for about $3000 and he was selling the large Advent at the time - even though he had great respect for the $3k speaker he said anything that cost $3000 should sound great - he was a lot more interested in speakers that sounded great for a lot less.

-D

Here's a link to a page which lists the differences between all the different "flavors" of Samplitude and Sequoia. Biggest differences seem to revolve around 12.0 surround, video editing, the convolution creater thing, and the networking support.

Samplitude Version Differences (link)


Seems like a lot of the folks that post at PSW, GS, and other sites and work in the biz swear by the high-end Magix stuff.

-mr moon

Mark me down as someone who doesn't get it, either. I downloaded the Samplitude demo and played around for about a half hour. It's nice, but it seems pretty limited. I didn't see anything there that blew me away. I noticed a lot of things that are "missing" after working with Sonar. The MIDI editing seems extremely limited. Maybe if you're just doing straight audio in a studio, it's really great, but I would miss all the MIDI editing, as I compose with my DAW, not just record. It also seems like it would be a HORRIBLE choice for loop-based projects.

So really, I don't get what it does that Sonar doesn't. I'm not insulting anyone at all, and I'm not asking you to try and convince me. As the other user posted, I would be interested in hearing why you think it's better. Not because I want to be convinced, just to know if there is something I'm missing about it.

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

Samp's strength has always been its Object (clip) based editing abilities. Realtime gain, phase, pan, EQ, fades, and processing have been available literally for years. Add to this that you can burn CDs/DVDs straight from the multi-track project.

Sonar's strength has been its integration of audio/MIDI and its relative ease of use. Sonar is particularly well suited toward creation/composition.

I think that Sonar and Samp make an excellent pair of apps. Sonar is great for composition/creating... and Samp is great for audio editing and CD/DVD creation.

I agree with this view point ..
and have learned to lurk over a Gear Sluts... seems a few people with credentals don't seem to have a problem using S...for mastering and audio editing.
and thanks for jumping in ..

subtlearts, I realise that you were not looking to flame me and I appoligize for the reference....
I was thinking more along the lines of some other forum members that might not like me waving a diferent set of Colors.
As to what the main difference between the 2 programs ....
try here
http://www.samplitude.com/eng/seq/4punkt_schnitt.html
http://www.samplitude.com/eng/sam/hybrid.html
I run a SE version of Samp...currently as my audio editor
and I am impressed with what it can do and how it sounds

when I bought SONAR 6 PE I thought I was buying the Holly Grail ......
and to be honest it rocks.
I thought that would be all I would ever need as a one man self contained semi crap*y musician who is trying to stay in the DAW game on a budjet that would starve a Parakeet.

True that Cake bundled a sweet package for the money ...plugs/ synths...the whole 9 yards , to some extent..
but if it was the end all be all I wouldn't have to export a 64 bit file into Samp to bring it into the ball park sonicly.
I don't care that the S..6 PE plugs V Ch..64 ..Lexicon ...wont run in S....
the on board EQ is exellent and all I've ever needed when I use Sa...for editing is the MPL-1 Pro and a PL Par EQ 3 to get what I'm looking for in the music I have been doing so far at my level of incomptence.

I'm not Eric Johnson ..where I can be blind folded and be able to tell you how old a batterry is in a stomp box ....
for some reason I can hear a difference sonicly ..expecialy when using acoustic instruments once I switch camps ......and thats all I need to know.

Regarding some other things that have been brought up here in the thread , loops ?
Samp/ Seq... can precisley edit microscopicly ...I have tried to zoom Sonar to that point ...no cigar there..my machine is useless zoomed that far...not the case with the other ....for creating samples that have seamless edits .....
also why would I need to use Samp... for loop style songwriting when I have P 5 V2 , which I happen to love and know my way around enough to get what I'm looking to do in that realm.

Sorry for the rant folks as the 64 thousand dollar question still remains un answered ...
I wish they could get Craig Anderton to do a pro review on Samp/ Sequoia .
Kenny

thanks for the heads up
yeah I can see how it's easy to learn a program and then develope a set of blinders to what else is available out there .

hhmmm I'm starting to think that music software is kinda like music it self...
a few years after the British Invasion ...I got to hear Willy Dixon ..Muddy Waters ..Albert King .......to name a few National Treasures....
and started connecting the dots as to where some of these cats copped their Influences from.

spectral cleaning is something I haven't learned yet ....I do have it though ....in something else I have from Mag..x

For most of us here, Samplitude and Seqioua are not going to offer anything you really need above and beyond what Sonar or Cubase already offers. Save your $$

I haven't checked back on this thread for a few days, sorry been busy... In my brief scan of the posts I didn't see what is probably the biggest difference between Sequoia and most other DAW's including Samplitude. That is DSD support. I myself haven't used DSD with Sequoia but that would certainly quantify the price difference. Whether or not it is worth the price is a different story I'll look at the postings above and see if they confirm the DSD support.

-D

I’ve used Samplitude for about 4 years and have been with every version of Cakewalk, with the exception of skipping over Sonar 4, since it was a midi only app that shipped on a 3 1/2 inch floppy. Samplitude at this point is not an ideal tool for composition. I hope it never becomes one. That is Sonar's domain. It's true the two apps mirror each other in many features with Sonar being an app that seems to want to be everything to everyone. I think it’s a rather strange approach to build an application that is intended to work for everyone from an absolute beginner to the seasoned pro, but that is a topic in and of itself. In my opinion Samplitude Pro is the Lexus of recording, editing, mastering and CD authoring. It’s built in VST plugins are on par with UAD and Powercore. It is also a true VST compliant app and doesn’t have the wrapping issues that have been the Achilles heal for Sonar. Sonar to me is a very good but not a great quality Swiss army knife. Being that it tries to be so many things it is only logical that it must sacrifice the integrity of some functions to be in the DAW market at it’s price point. I generally compose in Sonar because it excels at that and then edit, mix and master in Samplitude. The introduction of audio snap may change that routine if they can get it to work right. Both of these apps have their strengths but Samplitude to me acts, feels and sounds like a very high-end application. It is not without it’s shortcomings but generally is a very stable and well-polished product. Its sort of like comparing the Makie DB8, which is very good, to an SSL which outstanding. Both have a legitimate purpose but cater to a slightly different market segment.

The biggest differences between Samplitude and Sequoia are the high-end video engine, DSD support (not to familiar with that), very advanced editing and the networking abilities. Look at it this way. The next Disney sound track that requires 250 tracks with 6 or more people doing simultaneous editing and dubbing will most likely not be attempted in Sonar. Sequoia will handle it without breaking a sweat. It does this daily around the world in some very high-end studios.

I would not encourage anyone to dump Sonar and move to Samplitude or Sequoia. That would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water. But Samplitude is an excellent parallel app for audio editing, final mixdown and Mastering/CD burning. Sometimes I view it as being a multitrack Sound Forge on steroids.

ORIGINAL: krizrox

Excellent overview tomhan - thanks for the review. I share some of your viewpoints about Sonar. I've been eyeballing other apps recently to see if the grass is greener on the other side. I had kind of forgotten about Samplitude until this came up. Again, I'm glad to see it has survived all these years. That's a testament to Magix and a well-written application that seems to have a loyal following. The price point for SamPro isn't bad either. I would consider $1K about the right place for a Lexus type app like that.

I'm just curious, what would you say are some of the program's weaknesses? I'm not doing any composition really - I just need a robust multi-track recording program that works right. I don't even care about MIDI functionality. I'm getting a little tired of the constant "fix some things, break a bunch of other things" mentality. Sonar is at V6 - in my mind there is no good reason for the rickety look and feel of this program anymore.

How is tech support? I have a strange feeling it's not as good as Cake but that's based on my experiences with other German audio companies.

Thanks Larry. I agree about the price point. The cross grade price from Sonar is $600.00.

As far as weaknesses I think the biggest one is the documentation. Samplitude is a very deep program and many of the powerful functions are either not addressed clearly or not at all in the manual. Most users request improvements routinely on the forum. There were improvements made with V9 but still; there is ways to go. Being that it is a niche market you won’t find third party videos or books equivalent to the SG “Power Sonar” series.

Another downside is that since V8 Samplitude has used a dongle for its copy protection scheme. It’s not an issue but in general the user group has not been too thrilled about it.

The upside is that both developers and a dedicated group of beta testers frequent the forum and jump in with suggestions often. Just as on this forum, there are a lot of extremely knowledgeable users on the Samplitude forum. What I do appreciate about the samp forum is that it is filled with professional users. There are the occasional disagreements but you generally don’t see the kind of outright hate posts and the “mines bigger than yours” negativity that you see on this and other product forums that cater to a very large market.

As far as tech support goes I haven’t used them yet but they do often get high praises by various posters. Samplitude maintains a behind the scene crash log so if there is a problem you would normally send the log to the support team and they can determine what went wrong

ORIGINAL: tomhan

Thanks Larry. I agree about the price point. The cross grade price from Sonar is $600.00.

As far as weaknesses I think the biggest one is the documentation. Samplitude is a very deep program and many of the powerful functions are either not addressed clearly or not at all in the manual.

That's even better - I forgot they offered a cross-grade price. The weak manual and the dongle thing bears consideration. But if that's the worst of it, I'd say "no problema". I think I'm going to take a really close look at SamPro and see what happens with the next Sonar update. If the existing bugs and annoyances aren't properly resolved to my satisfaction I might just be compelled to make the leap. If nothing else it would be a nice addition to Sonar for a while to test the waters. I could keep running my business with Sonar until such time I feel confident enough to switch over. I'm even considering Cubase.

I'm a Samplitude user also, but I've been trying to figure out the networking features of Sequoia by going through it's manual. As far as I can tell, it has a multi-user mode that can be administered to create separate user accounts. If Sequioa is run from one networked location, this user list would be in a central location. The system would store each user's preferences on that central machine, and logging on to any networked machine would load that person's prefs. Also, the dongle can be networked (this is the same in Samplitude also). So you can install the dongle on one central server and load up multiple licenses on it. You could then log on to as many machines as you have licenses.

JP

JoePaz, love the avatar!

CROW!