Sonar vs. Pro Tools

I've been a Cakewalk user since Pro Audio 8. I've recently started getting into Pro Tools as a necessity. I'm not posting this as a competition between the two, but rather as a comparison and source of suggestions to improve Sonar. 
 
There are areas where Sonar is better than Pro Tools. I'll list the main ones from my perspective:
 
1. Implementation of 64-bit. The PT11 release is a disaster at this point, with few plug-ins available for use so it's impossible to say how it will work out. Sonar has been at the forefront, and 64-bit implementation is excellent.
 
2. MIDI editing. Pro Tools MIDI editor is not horrible compared to Sonar's piano roll, but Sonar's Step Sequencer by itself is a huge advantage. Drum Maps and many other MIDI features in Sonar do not exist in PT. Not surprising given the history of the two products, Cakewalk starting out as a MIDI sequencer.
 
3. Included plug-ins. In this area Sonar blows PT away. The instruments, Pro Chanel, etc are far beyond the few things included with PT, and probably any other DAW. The only drawback is that I feel they may have focused too much on that aspect and neglected some other areas.
 
4. Visual appearance. Superficial, but important when you're staring at something for hours on end. I really like the color scheme of Sonar X2, the way waveforms are represented, etc. Pro Tools is like a glaring rainbow of non-pleasing colors. The darker scheme of X2 is much more cool looking and "soothing" to work with. 
 
This is where my wish list/suggestions come in. Keep in mind that it is my opinion, but I think these are valid points.
 
If Pro Tools had the features above, or even just the first two, I would probably switch to it permanently. The reason is that the workflow of editing and mixing in PT is much more efficiently laid out than it is in Sonar. The way tracks are displayed and the way you can manipulate them is much better. The drop-down minimize/maximize of Sonar is inferior to the multiple sizing options in PT. The end result is that you can get more tracks on the screen and access more of their functions more efficiently than you can in Sonar. The Group function in PT vs Track Folders in Sonar is not a huge difference for organization, but the ability to manipulate the views and parameters of whole groups in PT is a big advantage. The Mix Window vs Console View is slightly better in Sonar, but once again PT makes it easier to view a larger number of tracks at once without losing access to their essential parameters. The Inserts layout in PT is better than the FX Bin in Sonar. The routing of tracks is more flexible. The addition of take lanes and automation lanes in Sonar makes it comparable to PT, but as far as I know, there is nothing in Sonar like the playlist function in PT, which makes things like comping vocals infinitely more efficient. The way the transport, playback and recording work in PT feels much simpler and more efficient. If you have looped playback turned on, you select part of the timeline and it automatically starts playing back in a loop. Small features like that make a big difference in workflow.
 
In general, the overall layout of Sonar feels bloated and overcrowded compared to PT. The sticky windows in Sonar are a constant source of frustration for me. Cakewalk seems to be more focused on adding features, which is good, but in comparison it feels like PT has put a lot of thought into the core editing functions of the software, and making the workflow as efficient as possible.
 
This is far from comprehensive, but I hope it spurs some thought. It may not be as attention-grabbing as adding a new plug-in, but a focus on basic layout and functions with an eye towards simplification, intuitiveness and ease of editing should really be the primary focus of any DAW. I guess the simplest way to put it is that it feels like any given operation in Sonar takes several more mouse clicks than it takes to do the same thing in Pro Tools. They share a lot of features in common at this point, but it wouldn't hurt Sonar to steal more from them.

I completely agree about fitting more tracks on screen, but some of your other suggestions make it seem like you aren't using some features that sonar DOES have. Proper use of screen sets saves tremendous time and mouse clicks.
I also use both pt10 and x2. I do not agree that the insert layout is better or that the routing is more flexible. I prefer the organization of sonars busses and the fx bin that "grows with you".
I will concede that I've spent much more time using sonar and that that could account for the ease of workflow when compared to pt.

What you can do in Pro Tools is loop record, then right click and send the takes to a playlist (which looks like Sonar's new Take Lanes). From there you can select individual phrases, audition the takes one by one in looped playback, and with the click of a button send them up to the main track. If Sonar has implemented that function, I've missed it.
 
In general, Pro Tools also seems more tightly coded and engineered. There is no bloat in the layout. It automatically found all of my plug-ins on install without directing it to a folder location, and it automatically organizes them by type (EQ, Dynamics, Modulation, etc). Plug-ins seem to run more smoothly (in RTAS, AAX is another matter) and the whole thing seems lighter on system resources.
 
Don't get me wrong, Sonar is a great DAW in many ways. For musicians, composers and anyone just starting out, it provides the most complete set of tools on the market. If you buy Sonar X2 Producer, you literally do not need to buy any other plug-ins or instruments (although Session Drummer is not too impressive) to do pretty much anything you want to do. You can make a complete, professional recording with what comes in the box. At times it seems it almost has too many options, making it hard to find what it is you want to do. Pro Tools is more streamlined.
 
Mainly, it's the audio recording and editing, layout and workflow where Pro Tools is better. Unfortunately, those are the core functions of a DAW.

Hej AJ! Great post. You easily pointed out some of the essentials like efficiency and workflow when head to head the two DAWs from a mixing engineer's perspective.
 
One thing I hear a lot positives about Pro-Tools but never could wrap my head around are the playlists. Could you elaborate some more on them please? What is it so great about them and in what are they better than Take Lanes in Sonar/Cakewalk?
 
Another great example of simplicity and efficiency is when you grab clip gain in Pro-Tools and see the waveform changes instantly.

Pro Fools is nothing more than an over-priced 1980s style digital mixer and recorder...it is not a tool for composition. Whereas Sonar is designed for composition. I despise Pro Fools because it was foisted upon the industry by blue collar audio engineers who were/are stuck in some backwater time warp - where kids still play in bands and recording studios were on every corner. For me, who uses upwards of a 100 virtual plugins of differing varieties and who uses proper notation to compose via Notion, of which I import into Sonar for for further manipulation...I'd never have evolved as an engineer, producer and composer if I'd be infected by the Pro Fools bug. I'd still be strumming my acoustic guitar singing crappy 12 year old pre-pubesant love songs. Sonar's mix screen behaves like a mixer of old...not a grey battleship 80s digital desk. I always hated take lanes and playlists. I paint sound. So like a painter - even though I have work flow issues...i will record lines over the top of one another and mix and scrub as I go.

Neb

I tried ProTools as that was most of what Nashville was using.  I had been using Sonar since V6.  I bought ProTools MP9 on a Sweetwater sale.  I had an MAudio interface so it was compatible with their closed system at the time.  I bought a suggested book to learn PT.  I just couldn't grasp or make sense of PT compared to Sonar.  If I would have really applied myself I could have learned it but since Sonar did everything I wanted, as a "digital tape recorder"  I didn't and dumped PT.

mettelus
Crap, I should have read the OP first... 5 year old thread here.

D'oh!
 
Though it didn't loose much weightiness over time...

Pro Tools may be the industry standard, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the best.  In my opinion, it's getting left in the dust by pretty much every other major DAW brand.  Cakewalk has been my DAW of choice for a long, long time, so I'm biased.  I think it's the best.  Every DAW has its strengths and weaknesses, but I think Cakewalk offers the most balanced set of features.  

I believe the new industry standard for studios is likely to be StudioOne.  I know a lot of engineers have switched, and only go back to ProTools when a client demands it.   It has several things going for it that make it excel in a studio environment.  I personally appreciate the slick project manager for mastering.  

Cubase still seems to be the most popular choice for composers.  I think that's due to its numerous MIDI features, excellent score editor, and of course sheer reputation.

But for me, Cakewalk still beats them all.  That's a pretty audacious claim, but I don't make it lightly.  While it may lack the project manager in Studio One, most people still do their mastering outside the DAW anyway.  And although the score editor isn't nearly as full-featured as Cubase, it's adequate, and I can still export/import to/from my choice of notation software.  In almost every way, I find Cakewalk to offer the best of both worlds.  It's got a great workflow, good console, easy-to-access tools, flexible workspace, and creative "vibe".  A lot of that may stem from familiarity.  But I think it's more than that.  

I don't understand the issue witrh more tracks on the screen.  Use "narrow all strips" and you get plenty.   Not sure how its [possible to fit any more on screen that that.   I've used and mixed on protools and SONAR CBB busses and routing is WAY MORE intuitive and efficient.   As far a comping being seamless, I don't get that either.   YOu open the track and see the lanes and highlight what you want to hear and there it is inthe main curent track.   YOu can even do groups at once like drum tracks as long as you have grouping set and the tracks in a folder..  Granted, there are some bugs like the splintering that occurs but that easy to overcome and to me editting is as quick in sonar as it is in protools and like the original post said, sonar was first to have many of the features other DAWs are finally catching up to.   I would like to see VCA faders in SOnar /CBB.  It still baffles me why SONAR/ CBB doesn't have the huge following PT has.  I wouldn't trade even if I had to... oh yea, a few months ago I though I DID have too and while I did purchase Cubase at the amazing 255$ crossgrade price (just in case), I now have no desire at all to go that route

@stxx I think the point in the original OP post was that he, like me, still likes Cakewalk, but when working on Pro-Tools he wished to have some of  the more seemlesly integrated features, like "loop points follow selection" here in Cakewalk. It's not about comparing the DAWs and pointing which one is better. And the point in my opinion concerns not only Pro-Tools vs Cakewalk, but other like SO1 or Live too. I think the reason why the other DAWs have better integration of some features, although Cakewalk/Sonar could have them first, is exactly this, they had more time for rethinking and implement them in an ultimate way. Why should that stop us from wishing we could have work done same great way here?
 
I used to say that I hate working in Cubase because of the "clickology". But we could have less clickology in Cakewalk also, enough to move some functions out of menus ("focus next/previous track" in prv, "modules" or "widen/narrow strips" in console) and place them, even in the menu bar, as one-click buttons.

mettelus
PT has also had a very long-standing push into education, and people will stay with what they are most familiar and adapt accordingly. Once enough time has been invested, it is very difficult to switch; similar to how Disney has marketed ("Get 'em while they are young, own 'em for life!"). I have spoken to students who have said "PT in class," so that paradigm still exists, and it will be a hard one to break since the instructors themselves would be unlikely to switch. Much more intelligent marketing than platform alone.

Ableton and Logic (and even Garageband) are getting a lot more classroom time now. Much easier to implement on schoolwide level than PT. I think for the future it bodes well for both.  

∞

dj squarewave

Daibhidh
 
Cakewalk can use automation on all track faders and on buses, how is VCA different?
Are VCA faders just a hardware controller moving its faders in real-time?

 
VCA faders were originally hardware controllers, but are now also a concept in the virtual world of digital summing.
 
Often, when this question is asked, the inquirer responds to the answers with typified rebutals such as "can't the groups or busses do that already?"
 
This link provides a lot of answers to what may seem to be a simple question:
 
https://groups.google.com....audio.pro/0RihZ32k0kU

Right, but all they are talking about there are hardware mixers. Cakewalk offers very flexible grouping http://www.cakewalk.com/D...mp;help=Mixing.44.html where for example each fader added to the group automatically becomes a kind of VCA fader, even when controlled with hardware controller, and more. What is the point of a virtual VCA in a DAW then, other than loosing some pc monitor real estate? It is possible that I'm still missing something.

Logic Pro has VCA track strips, apparently they were introduced because ex-Pro Tools people wanted them because they were familiar things from Pro Tools.
 
In reality, as you say, they're yet another way of organising track faders into groups.
 
Some people like them, others don't see the point. One thing I've found they can be useful for is controlling a group of faders from MIDI effects - e.g. an LFO or two that do something that's to be applied to a group of tracks.
 
While it can be done by setting up a fader group then controlling one fader while the rest of the group move along with it it can be simpler from a user-interface point of view to create a VCA which controls the group and is the target of the MIDI commands. It also makes it possible to alter the individual faders in the group more easily in terms of workflow. But that's at least in part a consequence of how Logic handles MIDI, which is somewhat different to Sonar.
 
Put it this way - if VCA track faders didn't exist in Logic I wouldn't really miss them that much. If at all. Though as with all things others would no doubt disagree with me.

When I read the OP was using X-2 I knew something must be up. Didn't read the date of the post..duh.
 
The "get em' while their young" comment deserves a second look. CbB is doing just that.
 
PT adopted by educational institutions is one I'll partially disagree with. In light of shrinking funding for music in schools PT might begin to look less attractive, especially when each student can go home, download CbB and show up in class with it the next day. I would further argue that CbB is a great way to get into the workings of a DAW and learn about not just recording, but composition. 
 
I'm not one to topple the giant just because he's there. I mean if PT is doing it for you or your studio there isn't reason to change. OTOH the big PT studio as we know it is and has been bypassed by the masses for a long time.