ORIGINAL: Al

I'll be totally honest in saying that I compared the performance of Cubase SL3 with Sonar 4 demo on the site in Windows XP and was stunned at how much more efficient Cubase was. I would get around a 40 % increase in speed on Cubase when using the same amount (and same type) of VST plugins in both hosts.

yep, neon, Blue and findjammer ... no comment on the above ?

..going to be a long thread

As i said above, i think cakewalk has a solid reputation for being extremely windows-friendly in terms of stability and performance, and my experience with cubase and Nuendo was definitely worse in those respects than with Sonar, but that was a version ago-- I haven't used steinberg products for about 18 months now.

It wouldn't be that surprising if some users on some sytems had better performance with Cubase than with Sonar. Steinberg developed ASIO and VST, cakewalk had a hand in DXi and WDM. Anyone who's been around the block a few times knows that some soundcards work better with one driver type or the other, some plugins are sketchy in VST or DXi but fine on the other, etc. Wouldn't suprise me in the least if some plugins or some soundcards got along better with some sequencers.

It is also entirely possible that the system in question was somehow better-optimized for Cubase, or that the user had latency settings adjusted differently on the two platforms or whatever, or just that he happened to be using plugins that got along better with Cubase.

These kinds of anecdotal experiences will always exist, and in my opinion are perfectly legit. i can rail and rant all I want and try to come up with ways to prove that Sonar is better, but if this guy is getting better results faster with Cubase then that's really all that matters, even if it's only because he knows Cubase better than Sonar.

i am one of many users who used to regard cakewalk products as consumer toys, but who have come to see them as the best stuff out there. I think cakewalk has been improving in leaps and bounds while some of the other DAW companies out there have grown lazy and haughty, believing that they know better than their customers.

You shouldn't have to be a computer guru to make good recordings with this stuff (even though you kind of do, to some degree, on any platform). If somebody loads up Sonar and loads up Cubase and likes one better or gets better results from one or the other, then that's really all he/she needs to know, in a sense.

Cheers.

Hmmm....I don't know how they can claim that. Either SX still makes the calls to the dongle, or it doesn't, and it seems that it does as they give you a "count" of the calls - unless the removed only some of the calls - doesn't seem logical. I suppose if the calls are all virtual, and only going to a dongle emulation, it may be faster, but even that I'm not convinced of.

Since they captured the call, so it is no longer accessing hardware...(in this case the dongle), it would make a difference in speed. Also, I would have to make the assumtion, that the original code would do comparison operations after reading, the dongle. all of this would be eliminated, which would also speed up code execution...

Sorry... not that I care... the programmer in me couldn't resist...

ORIGINAL: Al

I'll be totally honest in saying that I compared the performance of Cubase SL3 with Sonar 4 demo on the site in Windows XP and was stunned at how much more efficient Cubase was. I would get around a 40 % increase in speed on Cubase when using the same amount (and same type) of VST plugins in both hosts.

yep, neon, Blue and findjammer ... no comment on the above ?

..going to be a long thread

I beat it soon...