I use Sonar and Cubase... I prefer Sonar for the creation process over Cubase... But I like Cubase for mixing, more than Sonar...
Another thing I like in SOnar is the fact that the native bridge system (32/64) works very well... 

In fact, the only thing that really gave me problems till know was the brand new Nomad Factory MAGMA (64 bits)...

I cannot tell the same for Cubase... Even with JBridge, there are things that never works...

Peace. 

As long as we're all getting sucked into the troll thread, I do have a few comparisons to note for select features too (though I'm comparing between Sonar X1 and Pro Tools 9).  Note that overall, I still prefer Sonar (even though I think X1 took a few steps backward in terms of usable interface for users like me).
 
Also note that I've submitted feature requests for the appropriate things below already (some of them multiple times, and some of them multiple times over multiple versions of Sonar: I'm not holding my breath on this one).
 
 
Pro Tools DOES have the following features which I think are better implemented than in Sonar...
 
(01) Grouping Options
 
This is one of those things that I don't think you realize how handy it can be until you use it for awhile and suddenly have to do without it.  Sonar's grouping is pretty good, but sometimes it's good to just switch a group off quickly to do a fast tweak on a single track and then go right back to turning it on.  Probably more-so for edit groups than mixing, but the toggle on/off is super-handy for both sometimes.  Also the ability to stack multiple groups (and give them a priority) in combination with the toggle can make things happen really quickly as well.  Yes Sonar has the Quickgroup option in editing: but if you want two quickgroups you have to constantly re-select everything, which isn't as useful as just toggling the groups on/off after setting them up once.  The same is kind of true with mix groupings.
 
 
(02) Automation modes
 
Sonar is the only "major-name" DAW I'm aware of that doesn't have multiple automation modes.  Normally not a huge deal, but if you add in touch-sensitive control surfaces additional modes like Overwrite, Latch and Touch suddenly become a lot more useful.  Even with just mouse and keyboard a Trim mode would be a welcome addition to Sonar's automation mode.  Currently, the "Write" in Sonar is context-sensitive: it's an "Overwrite" if no envelope exists and a "Touch" if there IS an envelope.  It's workable, but sometimes dedicated alternatives are still desired.
 
 
(03) Driver Aliases
 
Sonar's "Friendly Names" have always frustrated me.  They're just NOT that "friendly."  So far as I know, every other major DAW out there let's you have complete and discrete control of how to name the channel aliases, at both the mono and stereo-pair level.  Pro Tools is lets us do this, and so setting up a session file during recording can be MUCH less of a headache with a lot of channels going (10-24 channels of recording is not uncommon for my workflow).  Pro Tools also has a nice feature in that the Aliased names can be rearranged in whatever order you like, whereas Sonar is a slave to the order presented by the driver.  So for my MOTU 828mk3, Sonar puts the analog inputs on the front as channels 1-2, because that's how MOTU thinks of them.  But I think of them as channels 27-28.  That's kind of a pain, and even though I can rename the Friendly names to help navigate this, the implementation is just not as good.
 
 
(04) In-line Editing and Edit Modes
 
I do like how Pro Tools lets me do direct and discrte waveform editing internally, whereas with Sonar I would need to open the files up in a third-party editor and deal with them there.  I also find the way Pro Tools handles Edit Modes and Ripple edits a bit more intuitive.  However, each of these features isn't a high priority for me, as I don't often find myself needing to do this sort of low-level editing in a way that Sonar can't provide an option for.
 
 
There are of course, reasons I primarily use Sonar instead of Pro Tools, and they are...
 
(01) Plugin Implementation
 
This is the big one for me.  I started out working almost exlcusively with audio freeware, and that meant learning and using a LOT of freeware plugins, most of which are VST.  They're still the bulk of my arsenal, though I've been trying to get more comfortable with Pro Channel since upgrading to X1.  Pro Tools just plain isn't VST-compatible (and probably never will be), which is a serious drawback for somebody looking to work with legit software on a budget.  There's also the minor-in-theory but actually huge-in-practice fact that Sonar lets me have TWO WHOLE plugin windows open at the same time, so I can make use of those functions relatively simultaneously.
 
 
(02) Mackie MCU Implementation
 
I didn't realize how big a difference this was until recently, when I actually picked up an MCU/XT/C4 setup.  Within the context of the MCU alone, Pro Tools' implementation is a joke compared to Sonar.  Pro Tools still requires HUI-compatibility mode, and even with that engaged doesn't handle it very well.  In Sonar, not only do I get better access to more functions of the MCU, I also don't have to worry about managing corrupted preferences when I do it.  Sonar also lets me use the Mackie C4, which is an awesome tool for plugin control (though admittedly Sonar kind of biffed it with respect to Pro Channel functions): Pro Tools doesn't even support the C4 (though I've heard there are workarounds to get it to at least do SOMETHING).
 
 
(03) Stability
 
This one is simple and straightforward, but for me and my system: Sonar is more stable and less error-prone.  Maybe it's a tweak thing, but that's kind of irrelevant since I've got it working very consistently on at least one platform.
 
 
(04) Parameter-based Mix Groups
 
I also like how the Mix groups in Sonar are parameter-based, rather than channel based.  This let's me group volume faders independent of panning and other parameters very intuitively.  Though I don't use it, I do think the fact that Sonar let's you mix/match parameters is pretty cool too, and can see others getting some good creative uses out of it.
 
 
(05) Export Options
 
I don't use outboard gear, so having the faster-than-realtime export option is super-handy, particularly when making a quickmix to hand to an artist/client to listen to for editing decisions.  While it feels minor in the grand scheme (again, I couldn't do this if I used outboard), this is definitely one of those features that I always wished I had in Pro Tools before I initially switched to other DAW software, and definitely miss not having it in those rare times I DO use Pro Tools now.
 
 
Okay, I feel better having said my piece.  I also want to note that if I were to prioritize these features, they'd look like this:
 
Stability
Plugin Implementation
MCU Implementation
Automation Modes
Grouping Options
Parameter-based Grouping
Driver Aliases
Export Options
Editing Options/Modes
 
So in a nutshell, that's why I'm using Sonar as my primary DAW: it's winning on most of the features that are most important to me.

Thanks. I'm sure there's more, but that's the stuff I've come across in my usage (which even in Sonar tends to stop at the "intermediate" user level I think). Mostly I just read the posts and was compelled to share my thoughts, too (hurray for bandwagons!).

Hi Soens Yes the demo needs an ilok key, I know it's insane and totally anal, but I have one anyway for my samplers, so the license just added onto that. But if you don't have one then I'd wait before trying PT because there are some major things it doesn't do which Sonar does very well like Freeze, which PT10 doesn't have, you need to bounce all your tracks the slow way. That in my opinion is a huge minus, especially for people like me who use lots of synths. Also PT10 is still a 32 bit app as opposed to 64 bits for sonar X1 and previous versions. That's a big minus for PT if you have large track counts, done at 96khz, 32 bits.

PT does have smart tools and they work very well from what I can see. The lack of fast bounce is a big negative for me using in using PT. Recording and mixing down in Sonar is far faster than in PT yes I agree here but other things aren't as good, it's a trade off. If you look at elastic audio and beat detective in PT, and compare them to audio snap then I'll leave you to judge, but I found them easier to use than audio snap and got better sounding results mostly. But none of these tools are totally reliable in either daw, they have their limitations and both create audio artifacts if you're not careful with the way you use them.

Hi FastBikerBoy In reply to you post, about Sonar being easier because I already used it for years, that's not what I was getting at, maybe I phrased it wrong. Sonar is far more intuitive than PT, I didn't need to read the manual much for Sonar. PT was a totally different case, it needed a lot of reading to be able to do the things I could do in Sonar. Hope that makes more sense.

Hi John not sure where you got the quote "I/O is set up better in P10 in that there are mono inputs as well as stereo inputs. Keeps things tidy, IMHO" Hope you weren't quoting me, because nowhere did I say that, if you read my original posts. I'm fully aware that both PT and Sonar have mono and stereo input /output channels, that's really basic stuff.

Again I think post like this are useful if you are investigating choices as you decide what to use.

PT DOES have a name brand recognition that man y people want, but anyone who would not use a studio because they don't have PT probably doesn't know what they are talking about anyway.

I have had major producers sit in on a Sonar 8 session and comment that it sounds better than anything they have ever heard and why would anyone use anything else?

Its the converters and pre's that make the real difference the audio engine CANNOT be ignored if the code is bad or buggy, but at this stage in software development those issues should be moot by now.

And I kid you not, MAJOR label producers have sat stunned in the control room with me and said "Why would anyone ever use PT?...after listening to Sonar through Lynx converters...these are guys who have done albums you have probably heard in PT HD...

In defense of PT I have told them that gain staging, pre's and correctly clocked converters are the most important part of the process, beyond that, using good floating point code does make some difference.

It goes back to the same kind of argument people make over mp3's and VBR vs. higher bit rates...some people can hear it, some can't...

Both platforms have value, but personally I think the audio engine in Sonar IS slightly better, especially since the bakers have had to write code that includes a huge variety of audio interfaces vs. just one control set of a limited converter...

Lets not forget that "Jagged Little Pill" was recorded in 16 bit on really crappy converters and still was immensely popular with the listening public...in a very archaic pea-green screen on a standalone hardware unit...

Heck the "Lamb Lies down on Broadway" borders on not even being mixed, one of the WORST all time mixes you will listen to, but its still a classic and artistically worthy...

These debates are useful...but NOT for the purpose of creativity...

Technology is only as useful as it is transparent and non-distracting...

I'm not sure sound quality is the strong suit for PT when it is a 32 bit app that uses a 48 bit integer audio engine. Its very old technology.

I can't believe you guys are coming on a Cakewalk forum and trashing Sonar. I would never go to a Pro Tools forum and trash Pro Tools and plug Sonar, it's just not polite at all. It's just plain rude. Sonar works fine for me and sounds great in all the tests that I have done.

Pro Tools wouldn't work on my system. It crashed more than was acceptable to me. I gave it a fair trial and it just plain out wouldn't work as good as Sonar did. I really wanted it to work but it didn't pass the mustard.

I also found Sonar to be much more affordable. So you can take your Pro Tools and go someplace else. This is a Sonar forum and we should be talking about Sonar. I hope this whole thread gets deleted.

Middleman

John


I'm not sure sound quality is the strong suit for PT when it is a 32 bit app that uses a 48 bit integer audio engine. Its very old technology.

John, the numbers do confuse the picture but I have done the side by side tests and PT is more open on the high end and more defined in the lower midrange. Same file run through both programs using the same drivers. They definitely don't match with the reverse phase test.
 
I don't think aleef and I are the only ones either. There was that recent Sound on Sound article in which some new producer was talking about his transition from Sonar X1 to Protools in which he commented extensively on the differences between the two programs. Paraphrasing here, as I look at my stack of SOS magazines wondering if I want to find it but it should be up on their site, however he felt Sonar was more rounder sounding, darker and Protools was cleaner but also possibly more sterile sounding. He was challenged by the transition.
 
Djwayne, no one is trashing Sonar. I still use it extensively for midi work. But I think an honest assessment and feedback of user experience is a healthy. I have seen plenty of PT users on their forum trashing PT for its midi capabilities and memory model. Neither side is right or wrong. I can't blame a hammer for not working well as a screwdriver.
 
I am running both programs on my system using the midi and 64 bit capabilities of Sonar but moving over to PT for audio work. I import the midi files once things are done. Really not interested in trashing either package but they each have their forte.
 

To me all DAWs sound the same. The notion that one DAW sounds different baffles me. Its just 0 and 1 that are being dealt with. Its digital. If there is any coloring than its broken. Its not working right. If you don't use any FX you should not be able to tell one DAW from another.

PC does color the sound but take it away and I can't tell if I am using Cubase Reaper Logic or Sonar. PT even with its ancient audio engine shouldn't sound any different from any other DAW.

One thing that is disturbing about your statement is that the null test revealed a difference. I suggest you have a screwed up system if that is the case. Again digital is digital.

If PT does do that than it has a real issue. I wouldn't look at it as a positive but I would find what is broken in the system to cause artifacts to come into the sound.

Awhile back a poster made the claim that Cubase sounded 20 to 40% better.  It turned out that the pan law was causing a difference between the two DAWs. The poster didn't realize that he was hearing a louder version in Cubase with its pan law than that of Sonar. Otherwise there was no difference.

BTW that is where the 20 to 40% better joke came from.

Yeah, the system is not screwed up. In fact it's an i7 3930k with 8GB of ram on the new Sabertooth x79 mother board and I know how to do a null test. I'm running at 32 buffers and .72ms with 90 tracks of audio and midi. Lynx converters by the way running ASIO. Pan laws were both set at -6, checked that too. Ran the test 5 or 6 times to make sure things were accurate. So nothing is broken or not working right.
 
I'm going to bow out at this point because I don't want to get into an accusatory conversation. Like I said, at no point did anyone say one program was better than the other, just different and some perceive that as better for their purposes.

I'm not talking about your hardware. LOL

I respect your point of view Middleman. I think though if digital was subject to variation than we would be in a world of trouble.

If it sounds different and it shouldn't than something is wrong. At the very least something is causing the difference and that should not happen in a digital system. That is my position.

Jeff Evans


You are still forgetting a very controlled test I did a while back. I have got a multi track that is beautifully recorded of a great band playing live. (A Roland organised Australian live studio recording at 24 bit as well) The mic technique is so good with no processing on any track, with the right balance of faders a killer mix can be obtained.

I did a test where I set the faders at all the same levels and pan positions should be either hard L, Centre or hard R, not even any pan law. You won't get perfect nulls once you start involving pan laws. I did the mix on 4 systems. Sonar, Pro Tools, Logic and Studio One. With no plugins present the sound was identical and I mean identical from all 4 DAW engines being used to create the mix. I did get some artifacts when trying nulls but this signal was so far down in level it would be insignificant.

Once you start using the individual effects that are tied to any DAW then the sound of those becomes important and will influence the sound from the moment they are switched on. I can safely say that for just summing there is no real difference. I did quite a lot of blind testing and it was impossible really to tell any of them apart. They all sounded fantastic.

As I mentioned in a previous post Pro Tools is meant to be good for audio post for TV and it is except the time stretching is not great and falls apart quickly. Studio One can stretch way further and still sound great. This becomes an issue when you want to start stretching either music, dialogue or effects to make something fit that has been changed and by quite a lot.

How come you say it better than I do? Well said Jeff.

This thread should get entertaining now sound quality of one DAW v another has been mentioned....