Jim Roseberry


Unless you've encountered a specific bug/problem, I wouldn't say that Sonar sounds blanketly muddy/inarticulate/etc.
 
This is a commercial release that was mixed in Sonar (Dino Alden).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1e0-fcg_zQ
Music may not be your cup of tea, but the mix certainly doesn't sound bad. 
 
 
 

Sylvan

Scott Lee


Hi all,

My theory about this topic? Straight digital audio from sonar is no different then any other daw. Their I said it! Null til you heart is content or your HDs fill up.

Now a few of my personal concerns. The VST / sonar bridge? Possibly. Vsts were never native to sonar, DXi was the standard. VST support was purchased and added late in the plugin game. I suspect this is one reason why we don't see true VST3 support yet. While it has been integrated and streamlined into sonar x1, its not native code ron or noel wrote.. I cannot say how much has changed I have no idea of the inner workings but then again cakewalk use to talk a bit more freely about bugs and programming years ago.

Other possiblies? We can agree straight digital audio is well, null perfect. How it mixed, bussed, routed, phased, is another factor all together.. Pan laws? There was a bug a few years back that the singals on -3 were doubling. After the usual cakewalk forum "fun" debate, it turned out to be true which Ron corrected. Bugs can and do exist even ones from years back..

News flash! Noel is the chief programmer, the número uno. Note: also a fine jazz guy.  Pro audio was pre sonar by twelve tones ( ah the days ) late 90s and was coded by Ron Kuper. Sonar boasted a new engine with Acid type audio control, but really was an overhauled pro audio. How much code was changed? That's a question for Ron k, as we don't know what's under the hood. What we do know is we are still building off a quite an older audio engine, one revamped  and reworked for many years.. Old code bad? Not saying that. Could x break backwards compatibility? Every daw on the market has gap less elastic audio, some better then others. Why not Sonar? 

The cakewalk team has some fine programmers. In no way am I'm knocking anyone. I suspect, it's a huge market risk to rewrite the engine esepecially when folks say "the color is great!" :-) just always and still bothers me about the mud around 70-200 hz.. 

Not trying to win over the hearts for my campaign here. I truly want sonar to improve its weaker points, risk or otherwise. Don't take my word for it, dig a bit deeper in these forums and you'll find some very old interesting reads..

Best,

Scott,
 
I am curious about something. You say that everyone can null until their HD's fill up, but later in the same post you refer to color in the engine again. If there was indeed some color, would that not make nulling impossible? Just an observation. I have read very carefully everything written in this thread and this stuck out to me.

John T


Ah yes, but that's only guitar music, if you're making electronic music it's magical and special in some way and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

timidi

And anyone using "Windows Media Player" to try and judge anything is making a big mistake. It's rubbish. You can play the same file twice in WMP, and find it sounds different each time. That one can also be easily proven.  

So, a "1" or a "0" is not necessarily a "1" or a "0"..?

cliffr
Hey Charles, 
 
you have to laugh at some of these posts, don't ya.
 
You've done the test, Middleman too, and many others.
It is 100% repeatable and conclusive.
 
All this jibing by some about Sonar's audio engine "Coloring the sound" is nonsense, that's
why there's all this jibing around by those who continue to postulate that the "Sonar Audio Engine"
is "muddy" or whatever.
 
They have to postulate because the factual scientific evidence (eg: proven by proper controlled testing)
absolutely says they are wrong.
 
It's obvious from reading through this thread, that some people think they know everything, yet consistently
prove the opposite with their continuous drivel.
It's entertaining, if nothing more.
 
Anyone who can really hear a difference, can only do so because there is some difference in the DAW set ups.
NOT because the Audio Engine colors the sound ... it doesn't !.
 
Then there's those who believe they hear a difference, because they've convinced themselves they can.
 
And anyone using "Windows Media Player" to try and judge anything is making a big mistake.
It's rubbish. You can play the same file twice in WMP, and find it sounds different each time.
That one can also be easily proven.
 
 
So, now I have to go dig out my copy of "Demons and Wizards", and maybe the old Magicians Birthday ...
and see how they sound in Sonar ... just in case it sound different (ha ha LOL)
 
Should be fun :-)
 
 
Oh, and I'll check back with interest to see what other laughable posts get added to this thread - you can
bet this one will go on for a while yet.
 
 
Cheers - Cliff

thebiglongy

Then once you have checked all settings are matching (pan law's and such) insert the Amplitube VST create a guitar patch, save it, then open same saved patch in the other daws and test via bounce down and null?

LJB


In the DAW I still think PT is kinda more "bouncy" and tight, but I did a crude shootout of a 16 track file that was not recorded in either, and I could not hear the difference on the mixdown.. AT ALL.