Sonar vs. Pro Tools

Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Author
Champion
New Member
  • Total Posts : 16
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/10/07 04:35:25
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:17:20 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Sonar71

Sonar is probably better than ProTools if not worse, but I wonder, which one is the best?

Obviously, ProTools has less users and is a relatively new package and quite frankly, I can't see this taking off.

Why would a Quebase user go to ProTools without any functionality? How do you justify this?
In an ideal world, the choice would all be down to the fact that one is better than the other but this is not an ideal world. One of them is actually WORSE than the other but I don't know which.
The final decision has to be made the people who decide what they actually want from a computer.

At the end of the day its up to you. If it's not up to you it is probably up to someone else.


It's quite obvious that you are a bedroom amateur or a successful professional. When/if you ever manage to drag yourself or be propelled out of your studio or bedroom into the real or imaginary world then perhaps you might begin to have an idea about what it takes to be a person who uses whatever we are talking about.

Alright.
post edited by Champion - 2007/01/25 11:38:12
#31
Jim Roseberry
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 7905
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:18:47 (permalink)
Sonar is a very scalable DAW solution.
The young folks... who may be brilliant musicians... can afford to get started with lower end hardware.
And the pro can interface with the likes of Apogee/Benchmark/Mytek/etc.

As much as I love gear...
It's all to easy to start overthinking and overinflating its importance.
I know one particular "rock guitar hero" who was using a Digi 001 to record guitar overdubs.
Couldn't believe it... but he made it work. Had no affect on his record sales... ;-)

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
#32
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:22:05 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: John

If all that matters to you is prosumer Roland/Edirol, YOU are missing out.



How would that be so?

I am not understanding you here.

Best
John


Well John, it's as simple as this: There is better gear than Edirol.
#33
John
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 25519
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:26:40 (permalink)
Understand that Sonar comes from and includes MIDI sequencing ability. It is a sequencer. PT is not. That is the why many of us use Sonar and not PT.

Pt will not support outboard MIDI hardware such as sound modules for example. PT would be a useless multi tracker on my comp because the things it can do are done very nicely in Sonar already.

Talk about Cubase or Logic and we will have a debate. PT is not in that group.

Do you get it now?

Best
John

post edited by John - 2007/01/25 13:44:40
#34
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:34:04 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

Sonar is a very scalable DAW solution.
The young folks... who may be brilliant musicians... can afford to get started with lower end hardware.
And the pro can interface with the likes of Apogee/Benchmark/Mytek/etc.

As much as I love gear...
It's all to easy to start overthinking and overinflating its importance.
I know one particular "rock guitar hero" who was using a Digi 001 to record guitar overdubs.
Couldn't believe it... but he made it work. Had no affect on his record sales... ;-)


Hi Jim, the scalability you mention is SONAR's saving grace as far as I'm concerned. I agree with this wholeheartedly. From soundblaster to Apogee, people can use SONAR in thir DAWs.

Although I have PT M-Powered, I bought it only becasue I had a FW410 gathering dust, so what the heck? Could help with studio transfers. Otherwise I wouldn't be comfortable purchasing SW that locked me in to a certain mgrs. product line.

As far as gear's importance, in my experience there has been a direct relationship to the amount of money I've spent on gear and the ease of use and sound quality. And, I haven't made a significant ($$) purchase in a couple of years. I have what I need and any defect in audio quality in my product is all ME, rather than the gear.
#35
syrath
Gold Member
  • Total Posts : 4078
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/08/11 05:40:08
  • Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:44:15 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Sonar71

Sonar is probably better than ProTools if not worse, but I wonder, which one is the best?

Obviously, ProTools has less users and is a relatively new package and quite frankly, I can't see this taking off.

Protools is older than Sonar, Protools comes from about the 1990s, Sonar was released almost 10 years later.


Why would a Quebase user go to ProTools without any functionality? How do you justify this?
In an ideal world, the choice would all be down to the fact that one is better than the other but this is not an ideal world. One of them is actually WORSE than the other but I don't know which.
The final decision has to be made the people who decide what they actually want from a computer.

At the end of the day its up to you. If it's not up to you it is probably up to someone else.

There are a great deal of things to consider. Some people just prefer a different piece of DAW software because it works for me. Me personally I love working in Project5, because it fits, yet the majority of people in this forum and especially in others will look upon it as a toy application. Some people love Ableton Live because of what it offers.

Best way of finding out , is to try the Demos of each for a few days and see what you prefer.
#36
John
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 25519
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:49:35 (permalink)
Well John, it's as simple as this: There is better gear than Edirol.


Really, I didn't know that. My my where have I been all these many years. It is funny that I only own one semi Edirol thing yet I own a few Roland things along with Tascam Boss Mackie DBX Hafler and on and on. Gosh, things seem to just pass me by.

I do not worry about what others may think about my gear. It works for me and it took me time and effort to put it all together.
I don't care what brand name is on a piece of gear if it works as I wish it to work.

Also I am not sure I accept your premise. First some gear may be competing with other makers feature set. But they market a lot of stuff that there is really no other comparable alternatives to.

Further what is meant by "better"?


Best
John

#37
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 11:58:30 (permalink)
Also I am not sure I accept your premise. First some gear may be competing with other makers feature set. But they market a lot of stuff that there is really no other comparable alternatives to.

Further what is meant by "better"?


Nope. Not gonna go there. Nice try, you rascal.
#38
hv
Bronze Member
  • Total Posts : 255
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/19 21:45:18
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 12:53:28 (permalink)
I've never used PT, but is it true that you can set up recording pools? Like specify more than one drive or directory for the recording cache so you can spread them across multiple drives without using raid? Somebody told me that, and the idea sounds so cool.

Howard
#39
themidiroom
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1170
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 12:58:24 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: hv

I've never used PT, but is it true that you can set up recording pools? Like specify more than one drive or directory for the recording cache so you can spread them across multiple drives without using raid? Somebody told me that, and the idea sounds so cool.



Yes Howard, it's true. They call it disc allocation. There's a way to "trick" Sonar to do that as well if you have a lot of tracks and one drive can't keep up.

The MIDI Room
We Make You Sound Great!
http://www.themidiroom.com

Pro Tools HD
Sonar Producer Edition
Wavelab
#40
D.Triny
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 870
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 13:15:34 (permalink)
Understand that Sonar comes from and includes MIDI sequence ring ability. It is a sequencer. PT is not. That is the why many of us use Sonar and not PT.


actually MIDI in PT 7.3.1. is not bad. As a matter of fact, for me personally SONAR handles audio better than PT and PT handles MIDI better than SONAR. It comes down to the way you want to work.


-------------
David Abraham 
My Awesome Movie

#41
Guest
Gold Member
  • Total Posts : 4985
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/08/03 10:50:51
  • Status: online
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 13:19:01 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

Understand that Sonar comes from and includes MIDI sequence ring ability. It is a sequencer. PT is not. That is the why many of us use Sonar and not PT.


actually MIDI in PT 7.3.1. is not bad. As a matter of fact, for me personally SONAR handles audio better than PT and PT handles MIDI better than SONAR. It comes down to the way you want to work.


my experience is entirely the opposite ;-)

jeff
#42
John
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 25519
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 13:23:07 (permalink)
actually MIDI in PT 7.3.1. is not bad. As a matter of fact, for me personally SONAR handles audio better than PT and PT handles MIDI better than SONAR. It comes down to the way you want to work.


I know that PT has MIDI. It dose not support hardware synths and modules though and that is a problem for me.
When it will do that I may take another look at it.

Best
John
#43
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 13:23:54 (permalink)
Jeff, glad you're back. do you think that PT HD would sound better than SONAR, even if SONAR was able to use the HD 192 front end?

In other words, everything else being equal, conversion, pres, clocks, etc., PT HD sounds better?
post edited by stratton - 2007/01/25 13:44:37
#44
Jim Roseberry
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 7905
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 13:35:46 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: stratton
As far as gear's importance, in my experience there has been a direct relationship to the amount of money I've spent on gear and the ease of use and sound quality. And, I haven't made a significant ($$) purchase in a couple of years. I have what I need and any defect in audio quality in my product is all ME, rather than the gear.


You do (usually) get what you pay for...
And I'm not promoting the idea of using subpar stuff. (I too have M-powered sitting dormant)
I like fine instruments/processors/converters as much as anyone... <g>
But (as you mention above) at some point, the gear's good enough. It may not be the absolute best... but we all have to live within some means (however great or small). A great tune/hook is SO much more important...

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
#45
D.Triny
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 870
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:34:34 (permalink)
It dose not support hardware synths and modules though and that is a problem for me


are you sure about this? in the MIDI outs on the tracks I surely do see my MIDI out ports enumerated. Haven't tried them though since I use only virtual synths.


-------------
David Abraham 
My Awesome Movie

#46
Mod Bod
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 10667
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
  • Location: Brandon, Florida
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:38:59 (permalink)
A great tune/hook is SO much more important...
True. Ever noticed how amateur cover song recordings sound better than most amateur original recordings? Good song + good arrangement.

Dave Modisette ... rocks a Purrrfect Audio Studio Pro rig.

http://www.gatortraks.com 
My music.
... And of course, the Facebook page. 
#47
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:39:52 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

ORIGINAL: stratton
As far as gear's importance, in my experience there has been a direct relationship to the amount of money I've spent on gear and the ease of use and sound quality. And, I haven't made a significant ($$) purchase in a couple of years. I have what I need and any defect in audio quality in my product is all ME, rather than the gear.


You do (usually) get what you pay for...
And I'm not promoting the idea of using subpar stuff. (I too have M-powered sitting dormant)
I like fine instruments/processors/converters as much as anyone... <g>
But (as you mention above) at some point, the gear's good enough. It may not be the absolute best... but we all have to live within some means (however great or small). A great tune/hook is SO much more important...



Yeah, finally I'm not distracted by the gear at all, and not too distracted by SONAR 6 to get work done so I can write and capture those hooks.

Come on 6.2.
#48
LionSound
Gold Member
  • Total Posts : 3616
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/12/04 08:07:03
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:50:15 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: John

actually MIDI in PT 7.3.1. is not bad. As a matter of fact, for me personally SONAR handles audio better than PT and PT handles MIDI better than SONAR. It comes down to the way you want to work.


I know that PT has MIDI. It dose not support hardware synths and modules though and that is a problem for me.
When it will do that I may take another look at it.

Best
John


I believe you are wrong here, John. I learned Pro Tools when it was in version 5.3 on an Audio Media III card. All we used it with were hardware synths ... back then PT didn't even support soft synths. PT handles hardware synths as well as any other app. And PT is a sequencer, just like Cubase, Sonar, Samplitude, etc. Have you ever used Pro Tools before?

www.soundclick.com/lionsound

FirstStrike 1.2 IS RELEASED! www.fsmod.com
#49
John
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 25519
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:51:25 (permalink)
are you sure about this? in the MIDI outs on the tracks I surely do see my MIDI out ports enumerated. Haven't tried them though since I use only virtual synths.

I have to remember that many here now do not know what I refer to when I say MIDI hardware support. Think instrument definition files for example.

Yes you can hook up all the hardware synths you want to protools and you will get a sound out of them. But do you really want to deal with MSB LSB data and Control 0 to change a patch? What if you are using a synth that has performance's how do deal with that?

This is only just the beginning. Do not forget that CW has been doing this for a very long time. It made one of the very first DOS MIDI sequencers called Cakewalk. The company was Twelve Tone Systems. We now call it Cakewalk.

Best
John
post edited by John - 2007/01/25 15:27:43
#50
John
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 25519
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 14:53:18 (permalink)
I believe you are wrong here, John. I learned Pro Tools when it was in version 5.3 on an Audio Media III card. All we used it with were hardware synths ... back then PT didn't even support soft synths. PT handles hardware synths as well as any other app. And PT is a sequencer, just like Cubase, Sonar, Samplitude, etc. Have you ever used Pro Tools before?


Please see my post above.

Best
John

#51
Jim Roseberry
Platinum Member
  • Total Posts : 7905
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 15:34:15 (permalink)
Good point
Listening to local bands doing original tunes is also an eye/ear opener.
Hmmm... maybe that's why we never play original tunes.

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
#52
TaoMannaDon
Bronze Member
  • Total Posts : 120
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/14 17:43:58
  • Location: Southern USA
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 15:44:04 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: syrath
Protools is older than Sonar, Protools comes from about the 1990s, Sonar was released almost 10 years later.


That sounds a little misleading. Sonar was the offspring of another piece of software that was around for quite a long time. I had Cakewalk Pro Audio version 9, I believe. The company was created in the 1980's.

Not that any of this make a bit of difference; I just wanted to boost my post count.
post edited by TaoManna Don - 2007/01/25 19:23:26
#53
sani
Bronze Member
  • Total Posts : 300
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:25:54
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 16:05:55 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: John

are you sure about this? in the MIDI outs on the tracks I surely do see my MIDI out ports enumerated. Haven't tried them though since I use only virtual synths.

I have to remember that many here now do not know what I refer to when I say MIDI hardware support. Think instrument definition files for example.

Yes you can hook up all the hardware synths you want to protools and you will get a sound out of them. But do you really want to deal with MSB LSB data and Control 0 to change a patch? What if you are using a synth that has performance's how do deal with that?

This is only just the beginning. Do not forget that CW has been doing this for a very long time. It made one of the very first DOS MIDI sequencers called Cakewalk. The company was Twelve Tone Systems. We now call it Cakewalk.

Best
John


Not trying to defend Protools LE here, but I really don't understand what you want to say.
Protools comes with patchlists for a large number of hardware synths. You simply click on a patchname and it will be selected. If your synth is not on the list, then you have to make your own patchlist (dealing with MSB and LSB). I don't see the difference to Sonar (or anything else) here.
Sonar has really a lot of cool things which are missing in Protools LE (PDC, unlimited tracks, freeze, etc), but regarding midi, to be honest I don't see a big difference compared to sonar. The only missing thing in Protools - compared to Sonar - is a dedicated drumeditor. Everything else is there. Some midifeatures were in Protools implemented even before sonar had it (input quantise, editing multiple midievents at once for example).

Feel free to discuss.
#54
studiofreak
Bronze Member
  • Total Posts : 357
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/12/26 15:07:42
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 16:50:51 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry

A great tune/hook is SO much more important...



Amen! Although the recording quality and production values of my demos have increased over the years for me, I still love my original 4 track cassette demos from years past. There was something pure about plugging a mic and my guitar into the tape deck and hitting record. Writing a good song and getting it down on tape was the goal.

Don't get me wrong, I think DAWs and the computer evolution have done wonders. But, I think we're all too guilty of spending too much time on discussion of what DAW is better or what Sonar can't do or what this plug does... But at the end of the day, does the listener really care if something was recorded in Sonar or Cubase or PT? If it's a good song and has feeling and true emotion, it can sound good with a mackie and a 57 on a cassette deck from 1987...

Let it be and go make some music...


#55
Guest
Gold Member
  • Total Posts : 4985
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/08/03 10:50:51
  • Status: online
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 16:54:27 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: D.Triny

It dose not support hardware synths and modules though and that is a problem for me


are you sure about this? in the MIDI outs on the tracks I surely do see my MIDI out ports enumerated. Haven't tried them though since I use only virtual synths.


i ran PT midi out to my voyager yesterday and recorded the audio .. worked like a charm ;-)

jeff
#56
Guest
Gold Member
  • Total Posts : 4985
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/08/03 10:50:51
  • Status: online
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 17:00:37 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: stratton

Jeff, glad you're back. do you think that PT HD would sound better than SONAR, even if SONAR was able to use the HD 192 front end?

In other words, everything else being equal, conversion, pres, clocks, etc., PT HD sounds better?


i like the way the TDM pipeline sounds. the fixed point mixer means you never have to
worry about the floating point rounding weirdness that can cloud up a mix as happens if you're doing
bitdepth expansion and reduction. the TDM mixer is not available through the ASIO driver to the hardware.
also, the bummer with the Digi ASIO driver is that only see the first audio interface .. if you have
more than one, it can't access them from Sonar...

i realize this is highly subjective and there have been some hilarious arguments prior in this
forum. i won't say Sonar sounds bad, particularly in 64bit engine mode. i keep wondering if
PT's use of dual-mono stereo doesn't help to keep the spatial imaging a little more distinct. i really
wish sonar supported dual mono because i just don't like interleaved stereo.

jeff


#57
pharohoknaughty
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1074
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/07/08 17:29:16
  • Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 17:10:34 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: stratton


ORIGINAL: Big Boss Man


ORIGINAL: sscannon
With that said, why doesn't Cakewalk bundle it's software with high-end custom hardware? That would be exceptional.


That is one of the top things I would like to see out of Cakewalk. Apple is teaming up with Apogee to deliver an interface with extremely low latency when used with Logic. Low latency is of the last remaining advantages of PTHD. If more of these software and hardware designers got together, they could crush PT.



Abso-frickinlutely.

I'm embarassed at the Cakewalk/Edirol joint effort. Yuck. I've got Neve, API, Lynx and Neumann and Eventide in my studio, and Cakewalk teams up with Edirol??

Why not Cakewalk and Lynx? SSL? Or Rupert Neve?


Or Creamware Scope. The most obvious and easy fit.
#58
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 18:09:21 (permalink)
i really
wish sonar supported dual mono because i just don't like interleaved stereo.


Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate your insight.

Regarding interleave, I saw that in another post. Is dual mono in PT diffrent than two mono tracks armed and recording at the same time in SONAR?

Ken
#59
stratton
Silver Member
  • Total Posts : 1446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 16:49:24
  • Location: San Diego
  • Status: offline
RE: Sonar vs. Pro Tools 2007/01/25 18:10:38 (permalink)
Or Creamware Scope. The most obvious and easy fit.


I've been meaning to look into them. Thanks for the reminder.
Or Creamware Scope. The most obvious and easy fit.
#60
Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Jump to:
© 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1