Sonar Platinum - Sound Quality - My 1st impressions - Pls tell me it's not my imagination

Hello Cakewalk users.
 
My impressions of Platinum.
 
I was caught up in the incredible announcement - Sonar Platinum for free.

My default DAW for about 10 years has been Reaper - and I love it, think very highly of it, fast, resource efficient, inexpensive.
 
Installed Sonar Platinum today, and fumbled around to get it to do some of the key things I do in Reaper - most of the time I listen to streaming audio, from Spotify/Deezer/Youtube and pass this through some analysis plugins, so I can "learn" a lot more from things like frequency analysis, stereo spread, etc visually as well as from my listening.
 
I also listen to tracks from some of my CD's which have been extracted to wav files.
 
Right from the 1st track I listened to - via one of my wav files, I could not believe what I was hearing, - using exactly the same file, same sampling rate, etc - ensuring that all the plugins such as the pro-channel were turned off, I got this distinct impression that there was an upfront clarity and truth to what I was hearing in Sonar Platinum - on the same sound card/interface and speakers.
 
At 1st I used the 32 bit Audio bit depth setting - yet the sound in Sonar was just richer in the mids and highs, - sharper, more upfront than Reaper.
 
To make things even more equal, I enabled the 64 bit Audio bit depth mixing engine, in both Reaper and Sonar Platinum.
 
It should not be possible but these DAW's do not sound the same, In my wildest imagination, I never thought such a distinct audible difference between DAW's was possible, but I am not imagining this - I can hear it. The bottom end is tighter in Sonar Platinum. Dare I say - the audio, no matter what  play is simply more dynamic in Sonar - things like drums are just that much punchier - that was my most argument free initial observation - drums - were simply punchier and more - in your face in Sonar.
 
Long was still to go - have to learn the whole of Sonar - never thought I would ever bother, but this difference in audio "clarity", if it turns out to be the truth, is a good enough reason to change DAW's, it's almost like getting a new pair of speakers.
 
It should not be so - in this age of digital audio - where bits are supposed to be bits. I am struggling to discern which version of the truth is the more true one - the Sonar or the Reaper version of the truth.
 
Strange but true.
 
Please chime in and let me know I am not hearing things - I hope. 
 
The music in so many tracks I have listened to just feels that bit more "alive" - like I am listening to a more accurate version of the truth in Sonar - synths, live voices, keyboards, - the comforting bottom end blanket of slight bloom in bass (in comparison) Reaper is gone - bass is definitely tighter - in Sonar. Words/diction is easier to hear in Sonar - this is impossible...! I am shocked.
 
Hey Sonar - could you do a live mixing product - using this your fabulous sounding engine?

I heard a difference from 8.5, but that's probably not a surprise. But a pleasant non-surprise. It sounds smoother, more connected than 8.5. I was a fool for not upgrading years ago. sure, I saved money, but I worked for years with an inferior program. you get what you pay for, despite the rantings of some that are currently going on here.

There really is no difference in how each DAW sounds, when you account for things like any channel processing enabled, pan laws etc. 
 
I have heard hundreds of people swear on their lives that they hear all kinds of differences between the basic summing engines of DAW'S (and even just playing a stereo file through the master bus). Typical differences include "more clarity," "wider soundstage," "more upfront," "deeper," "more 3 dimensional" etc. It's all poppycock. 
 
If it wasn't, then someone would have demonstrated these differences scientifically by now. And it's perfectly doable to compare two audio files, to the point of single 0's and 1's if necessary. No such demonstration has ever been made. 
 
Not only would someone have demonstrated it beyond doubt, but DAW manufacturers would have pounced upon this marketing angle. Observe however, that no DAW companies make such claims. They might use vague marketing terms like "pristine 64-bit sound engine," but these are just absolute statements which make no attempt to distinguish themselves from the sound of other DAW's. They know that should they make such a claim, they'd be a laughing stock, and rightly so. 
 
I've compared Reaper and Sonar quite intensely, from recreating Sonar projects side by side in Reaper from scratch (same tracks, same settings, same plugins), and I can absolutely say that the only thing which makes them sound different is the pan laws. 

msmcleod
I've got to agree with the OP here - I've been going through my old Sonar projects and upgrading them to SPLAT. Almost all of them failed to load in SPLAT due to some issue with sysex banks, so I've been using Sonar X1 / X3 to do the initial upgrade and changing any old hardware based tracks to use sampled versions of the same sounds.
 
Before loading the new projects in SPLAT, I make sure everything is playing as expected in X1 or X3.
 
I then load it in SPLAT and quite often, it sounds very different... in a good way.
 
I don't know if it's to do with panning law differences, or the 64 bit engine, but there is a definite difference in sound with everything sounding much clearer.
 
M.

michael diemer
I heard a difference from 8.5, but that's probably not a surprise. But a pleasant non-surprise. It sounds smoother, more connected than 8.5. I was a fool for not upgrading years ago. sure, I saved money, but I worked for years with an inferior program. you get what you pay for, despite the rantings of some that are currently going on here.

I am relieved, partly because I am thankfully not the only one hearing a difference, but because all audio - ALL - simply sounds easier to hear - - At this time most of my use of the DAW is for listening to audio produced by others : diction, distinguishing effects on mixes including commercial music, I can listen at a slightly lower volume, and the audio sounds more even as I move my head around the sweet spot of the monitors/speakers, and the electronic signature of synthetic sources, is so transparently apparent, reverb trails are tighter, drum kicks have a less bloom in the sustain portion, I hear the start and stop of sounds much easier, acoustic guitar transients - almost too real, and in general it just sounds like the audio is coming from a point in space - more pinpoint.
 
I did spot several possible causes of the difference, especially as the source material, - typically a stereo stream or a stereo file - of identical bit length, sample frequency, etc, to both SPLAT and Reaper and here are my thoughts explaining what I think is the difference. We are all human and we are all learning, I make no claim to know it all. I may be right or wrong. 
 
My Reaper version is 32 bit, SPLAT is 64 bit, however Reaper 32 bit claims to process all audio in 64 bit. When I played back just one audio  WAV file of a commercial track extracted from the CD (16 bit - 44Khz - converted to 16 bit 96Khz by SPLAT - and also imported - same upsample into Reaper  - so source audio is 100% identical). With absolutely no plugins - and same audio level - difference was clear. Sometime later I will find the time to check if the 64 bit version of Reaper makes any difference to the end result. In theory it should not, but the only reason I started this thread is cos the theory of identical digital summing seems to have a bit of a curve ball (see below).
 
I did no mixing, no rendering, just listening to the same single stereo file and SPLAT was tighter, more transient, with the edges of all I was hearing, more distinct - I describe it like being able to better see the shape of what you are listening to, in SPLAT.
 
Further investigation on the input side of things - using a Bit depth measurement plugin indicated that :

1. SPLAT - provides ASIO input(e.g. microphone or line inputs) as a full 64 bit stream to the 1st plugin in the effects rack, and keeps it at 64 bit thereafter, you can check this by moving the Bit depth plugin, to various points in the chain. The audio interface provides no more than 24 bits so there's some conversion taking place before the 1st plugin, to a 64 bit audio stream.

2. Reaper - provides no more than a 24 bit input stream, to the 1st plugin, and then up to 64 bit thereafter, beyond the 1st plugin in the chain.
 
In theory, this should not be the cause of any audio difference, since the bits beyond 24 are padded with 0's.
 

Jeff Evans
I am afraid you may be imagining it.  I have done the test with a super high quality multitrack session summed in 4 DAW's. (the session was also recorded independently of this test.) Just pan positions (and pan laws) and fader levels all set the same. The 4 DAW's in question were Sonar, ProTools, Logic and Studio One.  I was able to get perfect nulls with any 2 exports. Playing them back to some engineers in a controlled A/B blind test also revealed no one could pick anything at all.  (you would not have a hope in hell with a controlled A/B test where not even the switching of DAW's would be known either)
 
This was with no plugins or effects being on any DAW just the summing engine.  As mentioned before once you start using bundled plugins then things could and do change.  Third party plugins all sound the same in any DAW as well.  Although I did not test Reaper at the time I would assume it would also produce an identical sound too.
 
Some have said that Studio One actually sounds superior to Sonar as well but I still don't buy it either.  It may be what they call the placebo effect.  You are just biased.  I bet one was a little louder than the other as well.  Did you match levels within 0.1 dB which is also what you are supposed to do.
 
Sonar's audio engine on some levels is actually inferior to some other DAW's in fact. 
 
 
 

So what could be the cause of the difference - Pls note - I have no reason to doubt the equivalence of DAW summing, where using identical pan laws, levels, and sources yield absolutely no difference between DAW's. That is not in contention. The final summing may be identical, i,e the DAW's produce the same result - all things being equal.
 
What piqued my interest was the "not sounding the same" using identical inputs.
 
I have no proof or way of testing this with my limited equipment, but I suspect that in the same way that I have observed a difference in the way SPLAT and Reaper address the ASIO inputs, which is measurable and plugin tools easily demonstrated this difference (however innocuous - padded bits of zero beyond 24 bits), there could be a difference in how each DAW - addresses the outgoing audio on its way to the audio interface - i.e ASIO out.
 
While digitally they may render identical results, unless you have more tools than I have, in my case just ears, it is difficult to compare digitally, the output from the DAW to the ASIO out - ie the real time audio out. This is where I consider that DAW's may be doing something different Unfortunately I have no hint of how each DAW converts the 64 bit floating point audio stream to the 24 bit output, which it send to the Audio interface. This has got to be where the difference may be coming from, amongst other potential differences.
 
There are no settings in either DAW to make any changes to this crucial aspect - which is what we hear after all. Theory would indicate that they do this identically, but this may be the secret - they do not make any unique changes to the rendered file, but have a proprietary or distinct method for "truncating" to 24 bit audio interfaces, while the summing engine which may produce a final mix down file as accurate as up to 64 bit floating point, would yield an identical result in either case and when digitally compared - the rendered file is 100% identical with a total null.
 
I restate - the issue is not with the exactness of DAW summing - that's been thoroughly thrashed in web anecdotes as no longer an issue. I wish I had the tools and time to investigate the cause of this difference I am hearing - even on a single identical file, with absolutely no plugins whatsoever engaged, between the DAW's. Note on playback of the file, the bit depth plugin shows that both DAW's send a 16 bit audio stream to the 1st plugin (in this case an analysis plugin), which makes the audible difference I hear - the more puzzling.!!
 
That's about as far as I can go or devote to this comparison, unfortunately. I've switched almost all my listening to SPLAT and enjoying it. Definite improvement. User interface and workflow will take a while to get used to., Or I do a preliminary mix in Reaper where I am much faster an I prefer its user interface - less cluttered, and application response to user input is much faster than SPLAT (things like scanning for plugins is really slow in SPLAT). Guess this is a price to pay - for authentic, in my opinion, audio quality in SPLAT - change !.
 
Thanks everyone who has chimed in here.

Even in my test after creating bounces from all four DAW's I then tested the same stereo mix in all 4 DAW's in order to check on the fact that they all played the same from each one and they did! (I had multiple computers at the time and I arranged to have the same interface attached to both so I could at least compare instantly between any two)
 
I suspect something is switched on that you don't know about.  Which is bad in my opinion because if that is the case it means that Sonar can have something hidden and activated.  This cannot happen in Studio One for example.  There is simply nothing inserted anywhere when you create a blank slate.   Dig much deeper and check things out carefully.  Are you using the same audio interface for your comparisons? I just don't believe it.  The same stereo mix should sound the same everywhere in any DAW.  
 
Really the only way to compare is to have two computers setup with different DAW's on each and exactly the same interface attached to both and switch from the audio outs that way.  Something I doubt you will be able to do.
 
If when you are making comparisons for example time elapses between one and the other then your test is not valid at all.  The time between one DAW and the other needs to instant.  If there is time involved e.g. you are comparing something that you are hearing in the present to something you heard in the past then that is also not valid either.  The brain can play tricks and make you think something is different. 

dappa1

Soundwise
I also prefer Cakewalk's audio engine to the rest.
Don't be surprised, though, that majority of DAW users don't hear any difference and will come up with scientific facts proving that nobody is able to hear any difference at all.

They will always come with I have tested it theory. I can hear differences in DAWs it is very noticeable. Maybe those who use gadgets to prove theory should just close their eyes and listen. it's obvious. Anyway, Bandlab are playing games with me and making this simple DAW difficult to download. Good job I have Studio One 3 to go to

This is just pure hocus pocus. You are seriously suggesting that scientific tests - i.e. a mathematical comparison of 0's and 1's - are less reliable than your ears? If two audio files are identical and they null then that's the end of the story - there is NO difference. None. Any difference you claim you hear is an auditory illusion, a figment of self delusion. 
 
Please tell me that you understand the basic concept that if two signals sound different then their underlying 0's and 1's are quantifiably different as well. Because I seriously suspect that some people here don't understand that basic fact. 

The only differences you are hearing between DAW's is the use of their bundled plug-ins and things and settings with some plugs e.g. upsampling and a range of other issues for sure.  I agree. Logic has a certain sound when you are using all of their built in stuff for sure. And it is different to Studio One etc.
 
But not playing back a stereo mix though assuming there are no processes being applied anywhere. 
 

Not in quality I was meaning.  I was thinking more true gapless performance which is something Sonar cannot fully do as well as other DAW's such as Studio One.

Jeff Evans
Even in my test after creating bounces from all four DAW's I then tested the same stereo mix in all 4 DAW's in order to check on the fact that they all played the same from each one and they did! (I had multiple computers at the time and I arranged to have the same interface attached to both so I could at least compare instantly between any two)
 
I suspect something is switched on that you don't know about.  Which is bad in my opinion because if that is the case it means that Sonar can have something hidden and activated.  This cannot happen in Studio One for example.  There is simply nothing inserted anywhere when you create a blank slate.   Dig much deeper and check things out carefully.  Are you using the same audio interface for your comparisons? I just don't believe it.  The same stereo mix should sound the same everywhere in any DAW.  
 
Really the only way to compare is to have two computers setup with different DAW's on each and exactly the same interface attached to both and switch from the audio outs that way.  Something I doubt you will be able to do.
 
If when you are making comparisons for example time elapses between one and the other then your test is not valid at all.  The time between one DAW and the other needs to instant.  If there is time involved e.g. you are comparing something that you are hearing in the present to something you heard in the past then that is also not valid either.  The brain can play tricks and make you think something is different. 

Same computer, same audio interface, speakers, cables, only difference is the DAW - takes only a few seconds for me to switch from one DAW to the other.
 
I admit in theory it should sound the same, but it doesn't.
 
I notice that CbB has certain options for dithering(or not) on playback, as well as similar options for the export of the rendered audio.
 
This, I think is where the difference may be coming from. In Reaper there are only dithering options on render, - any live playback defaults to whatever method Reaper uses to communicate with the Audio driver (ASIO), and there does not seem to be any way to change this in Reaper.
 
So for example you could decide in CbB to dither on render(export) while on playback you do not dither as audio is transferred to the audio interface.
 
I have no clue what dithering algorithm Reaper uses to dither to the audio interface in real time, during playback - as this is not stated anywhere to my current knowledge.
 
 
 

sharke

dappa1

Soundwise
I also prefer Cakewalk's audio engine to the rest.
Don't be surprised, though, that majority of DAW users don't hear any difference and will come up with scientific facts proving that nobody is able to hear any difference at all.

They will always come with I have tested it theory. I can hear differences in DAWs it is very noticeable. Maybe those who use gadgets to prove theory should just close their eyes and listen. it's obvious. Anyway, Bandlab are playing games with me and making this simple DAW difficult to download. Good job I have Studio One 3 to go to

This is just pure hocus pocus. You are seriously suggesting that scientific tests - i.e. a mathematical comparison of 0's and 1's - are less reliable than your ears? If two audio files are identical and they null then that's the end of the story - there is NO difference. None. Any difference you claim you hear is an auditory illusion, a figment of self delusion. 
 
Please tell me that you understand the basic concept that if two signals sound different then their underlying 0's and 1's are quantifiably different as well. Because I seriously suspect that some people here don't understand that basic fact. 

Please take a moment and with some patience, to read the original post. There are two separate processes where mixing and transfer of final audio is involved 
 
1. Playback of Audio (typically real time) to the computer's audio interface
 
2. Mixdown of the Audio to an audio file.
 
There is no dispute that under ideal identical conditions - mixdown to an audio file should be identical - that is not contested, if you read previous posts, especially the original post. Comparing these files is somewhat trivial - and has been done by many - and they do null - no contest there.
 
The difference alluded to is in the real time playback of audio, and it would take a bit more than what most end users have installed, to compare the digital output sent directly to the audio interface, by two different DAW's. I certainly do not have this level of kit, to capture digitally the audio stream sent to the audio interface and compare.
 
Well I thought I did not, but I just thought of a way to do this, send the audio out via a digital interface - such as SPDIF and record into the digital input of the same or another audio interface card.
 
When I have the time, I will do this - just need to buy a digital cable to do the routing out and back in to the digital SPDIF or ADAT ports. The results should be most interesting. 
 
This should put all the contention on the subject to rest, as this would be an objective test - measured ideally by software that can compare the original file, and the result of the recorded audio from the output of both DAW's. - All ideally done by software tools, no human intervention involved in the comparison.
 
Will come back here with the results, as soon as I've done this.
 
 

Before I got Sonar Platinum, I tried Reaper for a long while, and have several master tracks still from that Daw that I have since moved to use in Sonar. 
 
Thing is, at the time I tried Reaper, I was using Music Creator 7, and in the end by comparison I found that I could tell a difference in how the sound and clarity was better with Music Creator 7 compared to reaper using 24/48 settings. 
 
Not being a Homer at all with that statement. But in my own personal experience, as I said MC7 recording for me at the time sounded better than Reaper. It's almost like the settings I was reading in Reaper weren't correct, NOTE : THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT, THAT IS MY OPINION. 
 
As for the here and now : Using Sonar Platinum, or the new Cakewalk by Bandlab, the clarity in recording is outstanding compared to Reaper. And I was a Reaper homer there for a while. Not now. I can hear the differences. Sonar/Cakewalk by Banlab has a better sound IN MY OPINION. 
 
And for those of you who want to talk specs, there's not much more to say beyond 24/48 except how the audio is processed, and for my Money I'd bank it on Cakewalk by Bandlab and or Sonar Platinum which I am a owner of both software as of now. 
 
Honestly, I don't see the point in comparing anything, you either like what you have or you don't, and who's to say you weren't listening to heavy loud music in between your test, and if you were doing scientific test then who's to say your testing software isn't flawed. 
 
My advice would be, Don't complain and go with what you feel is best for you. 
 
For me it is Cakewalk by Bandlab, LOL : The Artist formerly known as Sonar Platinum!
 
Best of luck!
 
Bobby
 

Jeff Evans
Even in my test after creating bounces from all four DAW's I then tested the same stereo mix in all 4 DAW's in order to check on the fact that they all played the same from each one and they did! (I had multiple computers at the time and I arranged to have the same interface attached to both so I could at least compare instantly between any two)
 
I suspect something is switched on that you don't know about.  Which is bad in my opinion because if that is the case it means that Sonar can have something hidden and activated.  This cannot happen in Studio One for example.  There is simply nothing inserted anywhere when you create a blank slate.   Dig much deeper and check things out carefully.  Are you using the same audio interface for your comparisons? I just don't believe it.  The same stereo mix should sound the same everywhere in any DAW.  
 
Really the only way to compare is to have two computers setup with different DAW's on each and exactly the same interface attached to both and switch from the audio outs that way.  Something I doubt you will be able to do.
 
If when you are making comparisons for example time elapses between one and the other then your test is not valid at all.  The time between one DAW and the other needs to instant.  If there is time involved e.g. you are comparing something that you are hearing in the present to something you heard in the past then that is also not valid either.  The brain can play tricks and make you think something is different. 

Actually Jeff, think about it...of course each DAW will sound different. If you add in all the variables, like different plugs (quality, analogue emulation), upsampleing, oversampling and on top of that different converters - even though there are only a handful of different manufacturers of digital converter chips - each chip though would sound different because of dynamic range and jitter or distortion...which would be odd harmonic distortion because transistor not valve, but you can see how each DAW could produce different sonic results can't you?

What the OP is perhaps hearing on saying all that is, if the OP has switched on 64 bit FP - this is the mix engine and 64 bit FP audio files and oversampling...the difference is night and day between only a 32 bit mix engine and 32 bit fp audio files. When I first heard the difference - I was like what the ****? Again night and day...the 32bit fp mixes were fine, but lacked definition in the bottom end, and in fact the bottom end where all the analouge emulation goodness (2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion) was distorting. It is hard to hear, unless you have very...very good headphones. I was using AKG 712s at the time...so AKGs 2nd vest headphones.

I've been meaning to do some tests, by say using Reaper for a whole piece...but when you discover HD audio using nothing more than software...its hard to be bothered to use perhaps an inferior product and waste time. This is even though I use Reaper for digital varispeed tricks. In fact thinking about mixes put through digital varispeed at the start of the mastering process - it's harder to get a particular sheen that you get when you don't use Reaper and digital varispeed. I wouldn't say this is proof though, because the process of varispeed maybe the issue.

:)

I have seen so many posts here and elsewhere on DAW sound comparisons. The tests are always flawed - this is evident if the author claims that one sounds "better" than the other. If a DAW did change the sound without me asking it to I wouldn't want to use that DAW. Any good DAW will give you the same sound out as what you put in. The sound should only be altered if you alter it!

I did some tests between the last version of Sonar Platinum and the Cakewalk by BandLab. I exported some songs with both version, same processing (only third party plugins, dithering of Fabfilter Pro-L) and same exporting options, and a drum only mix, with a lot of processing.
The result was that the the new version of Cakewalk is more clear and focused. The last version of Sonar seems to have some uncontrolled low end, and sounds a little sluggish. The differences aren't that big, but exist. I think that is because the Cakewalk by BandLab has a cleaner code. I wish they continue this path, and focus on the audio engine and processing.
 
Before this test, I did the same drum mix exporting and compared between the last version of Sonar, and the Studio One 3.5.4, and now repeated with the newer Cakewalk, and, of couse, putting the pan law on -3dB sin/cos taper, on Sonar and Cakewalk. The processing and mastering in Studio One, was the exactly the same, in every details. The result was that, for me, Studio One has a better sound: Cleaner, more balanced, more controlled and prettier. I think that maybe this happens because Studio One is a more recent program, designed from scratch, and has a cleaner, more modern code.
 
I prefer the workflow and the interface of Cakewalk/Sonar, it feels like home to me, and now that BandLab gave it a new home, and Meng said that they have an agressive vision about the product, I have great hopes about the future of Cakewalk/Sonar. I was about to make the jump to Studio One, but now, I'm staying! Certainly now, the program will get to the next level!
 
PS.: Should I put this on its own thread for debate?