Hi eratu,

Very nice work. Thanks very much for sharing that with us.

Regards,
Dave Clark

Thanks for sharing that, Eratu.

ORIGINAL: eratu

Thanks, gentlemen!

@John: Thanks for the info -- I just clarified a bit more on the list!

As for Reaper, I know that external MIDI files can be externally referenced, rather than embedded in the project, if you want to. That's kind of novel in a way. I haven't seen that in recent memory. So in that sense, it handles the native format.... quite literally. Thanks again!

ORIGINAL: John

One thing Sonar has real native MIDI file support both load and save. Cubaes does not. It can only import a MIDI file and export one. Sonar sees MIDI flies as a native format and handles them as such. I don't know about Reaper.

Also the Sysex Editor can load and save system exclusive data or dump it to or receive it from a hardware module.
Cubase can do much the same thing but without the ability to save and load independently from a project.

I was not saying anything as complected as that. What I was saying is Only Sonar loads GM MIDI files from the open menu. All other DAWs import them. It is not a native format to them. MIDI has always had the ability to reference external files. You can do that in Sonar.

To me the way Cubase handles sysex is OK. But if you want to save an entire performance (Roland speak) and setups on your hardware synth the way Sonar has it it is far more versatile. Plus it really is an editor. Hex mine you but an editor. What is so neat is you can say create a patch in the synth save i.e. (dump) as sysex and load it at any time. The whole synth can dump everything to sysex and load it back from within Sonar.

Sysex is a very powerful thing when used with hardware. Sonar has the most useful way of dealing with it.

Heck Sonar comes with sysex files to load for a GM reset and GS reset and an XG reset.
There are sysex files on the net for a lot of synths. Its is a way to program a synth.

It should not be taken for granted.

As for the native part. Yes, Cubase can only import a MIDI file. Thus it can't save it with its real name. This is a user input as to what name it may be. Sonar treats a MIDI file as a normal file loading it and saving it as if it were a native project keeping its name. One has the option of saving it as a MIDI file or a project file with Sonar. In Cubase it can only be saved as a MIDI file through export.

The implications of this are huge. In Sonar one can save any project with MIDI as a MIDI file without doing anything more then simply using save as. No selection, no export menu to deal with just save it as MIDI.

never used reaper, cubase shudnt be on the line really. it felt totally diffenent, not english.not the same class, unfailr comparison

Thanks for all the time you put into this!!
note:
Not exactly global but;
Sonar global transpose -
CTRL-A
from menu:
Process / Transpose ; pick your amount up of down.

Max Arwood

It occurs to me that comparison charts can be somewhat misleading and manipulated to some degree by the question being asked. I applaud the effort put in and yes it does have value but it does need to go much broader to be a definitive test.

Cries of Sonar rocks are obviously relative to what works best for you.

Sonar is not everyone’s preferred DAW and many users find the way they work is better accommodated with something else. I think that is respectable and to those who find that Pro-Tools, Logic, Cubase, Samplitude, Live 7 etc works better for them then I for one would not dream of saying to them that Sonar is better.

I am a Sonar user and it is indeed fantastic but it doesn’t give me the integration with my Yamaha Hardware that I can get with Cubase. Obvious as Yamaha owns Cubase it means if I want to get that full integration my choice becomes very limited. With Roland and Cake now in bed with each other I am sure we will see a similar relationship between Roland Hardware and Sonar which for Roland users will be great.

Bottom line use what is best for you and the way you work if it’s Sonar then brilliant if it’s anything else then also brilliant. I just wish that at times members were a little more open minded and objective. Competition is good for us all and certainly Sonar has gone forward by implementing many features that were first introduced by other manufacturers.

One of its major shortfalls is that it isn’t cross platform therefore the user has no choice but to stay with a PC and Windows. Possibly no big deal but it does mean that users who are considering changing platforms have to change their DAW.

The truth is that there is very little difference between the top professional DAW’s apart from the fact they tend to do things a little differently and in some areas are better than others its just a case of defining your area. Is Sonar best in all areas? I think this comparison test suggests not and in a way that is good because choice is good.

Not disagreeing with anyone but possibly saying that collective euphoria is sometimes a little dubious and seldom objective. If you say that something is the best in the World often enough and long enough you will believe it. Maybe I am an odd ball but I get extremely nervous about group hugs and telling Cakewalk how wonderful it is. I’m sure Cakewalk love hearing it and some of you love saying it because in part we all like to think what we have is the best. I have it and I love it but it doesn't entirely fulfill my requirements but I only have praise for it.

Gerry

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec06/articles/cubase4.htm

This review is dated 2006 and many of the short falls have now been rectified or implemented and yes it had a synth rack. Correct me if I am wrong Sonar didn’t introduce a synth rack until 2007 in Sonar 6. VST3 the beat goes on.

ORIGINAL: Gerry

It occurs to me that comparison charts can be somewhat misleading and manipulated to some degree by the question being asked. I applaud the effort put in and yes it does have value but it does need to go much broader to be a definitive test.

Cries of Sonar rocks are obviously relative to what works best for you.

I didn't see any bias in the comparison chart, and it looks like Eratu is updating it based on any factual information that anyone provides.

I'm a SONAR user, but I have a licensed copy of REAPER as well for times when SONAR can't open the audio device or has some other issue (External insert?). Once the bug is fixed I find myself going back to SONAR, but I use the tool that works best for me. I wish I could give all the DAWs a try, but that's not possible for me. So from that point of view the chart looks unbiased and useful.

Thanks, Eratu,

John

ORIGINAL: ChristopherM

Impressive magnum opus indeed.

For Sonar under Drum Editor you say "However, I don't think the PRV has fixed length event markers". I am not sure what you mean by that - can you expand, please?

Hi ChristopherM,

Both Cubase and Reaper have little fixed-length event markers when editing in drum mode.... i.e.: they look like little diamonds, which come in handy for drum editing since you generally don't care about the length of MIDI event when editing drums. In Sonar, the normal event markers still look like normal MIDI event bars. I couldn't find a feature in Sonar that allowed the PRV to represent the event bars as fixed-length entities. I hope that makes sense. If you know of a way, let me know. I'll clarify a little more the next time I update it.

ORIGINAL: eratu

ORIGINAL: Gerry

It occurs to me that comparison charts can be somewhat misleading and manipulated to some degree by the question being asked. I applaud the effort put in and yes it does have value but it does need to go much broader to be a definitive test.

Hi Gerry,

If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I didn't write this to be biased, and I'm planning on posting this in other forums too (actually, I had already started), getting their feedback as well. I've also emailed this to several of the related developers now and await any comments they might have -- literally from the horses' mouths themselves. I've already made multiple minor changes requested from the Reaper community as well. I agree that it could be much broader, and if I have the time, I'll be doing that. As I mention on the page itself, this is a work in progress, and anyone is more than welcome to help.

As for back-patting, I can't help it if Sonar people are happy with what they see. The should be. Sonar's an impressive DAW to say the least. But Cubase people are happy too (as they should be... it has some really unique, powerful features), and even Reaper people have commented how they are surprised how far Reaper has come in only a couple of years with regard to MIDI. So this is not a Sonar-only thing I'm trying to do here. I hope you can see that. I'm truly hoping that it will benefit the whole DAW user community -- yes, the WHOLE community. I would love to see all the apps get better, and if this helps, great. Plus, the pros I know don't just use one app... they use several in their studios. So this has nothing to do with real biases, only perceived ones. If you feel like you see a bias, please let me know and make a specific suggestion.

Best, Eratu

Eratu no nits or crits from me just pointing out that features alone do not make a DAW necessarily better or worse. Hey I love Sonar too just don't think it is the be all and end all and in some cases as you have shown it falls short and in some cases it excells. Looks like DAW's are like cars everyone likes to think the one they drive is better than anyone elses. I don't have a problem with that but its not fiable nor cast in stone you have to spend some time driving each one to get to know it really well and then make an informed opinion. I wouldn't buy a car on spec's and that is one of Cubase's major draw backs no demo available.

Don't mind me and you carry on doing a great informative job.

Gerry

Big props to you, Eratu. That's an impressive amount of work. Getting a cross-sectional view of apps like this is very useful, especially for those of us who are too time-challenged to experiment with every app out there. This way, you get a better idea of where the best (and not so best) places may be to explore.

And I especially appreciate that this is not just a bunch of one-liners, like you see on so many product-feature matrices. You've taken the time to summarize in some level of depth. Also very helpful.

It's also very nice to see all the helpful comments coming in. That's what I love about this forum... it's got a good spirit about it. I've sensed it since my first thread-starting post around here, so long, long ago. Speaking of that thread, it recently crossed the 100,000 hit mark. I wish for you that this one gets at least that far, if not farther. People should reference this stuff.

OK, did anyone mention FL Studio? I've heard that it has a great MIDI editor (relatively speaking, of course) . I'd love to see how it stacks up on this grid!

Thanks, how did I miss that? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... I just don't edit my drums that way, I guess, and it didn't stand out to me. I'll take a look at it and update the chart. See how useful this chart thing is? The things I've learned..... :)

Definitely. I make sure to point out that I don't know everything, and I'm looking for detailed updates/corrections from people. I do try to be as accurate as possible, but when I don't know something, or have not confirmed it, I try to say something like "I think" or "I don't think" or "need to verify...", etc...

It's been passing pretty good scrutiny though so far. Many Reaper people have had a good look at it now, for example, and I've made some adjustments when they've identified some undocumented feature or interesting workaround. One guy suggested a link to a thread with a workaround he came up with, which was quite clever, and I added it in there. So perhaps one day the chart will in fact be 100% accurate. But its usefulness is already growing for me. I would never have know some of the tiny tips I've been getting through this. Oh well.... :)

Excellent work by the way !

Under Global transpose you reported .....

"No, however, it may be possible to create a macro with an external macro recorder (need to verify), but it would be relatively simple.

I think that Global transpose is very easy in SONAR using Interpolate.

I for one am surprised to see how well REAPER actually stacks up.

From what little I knew of Reaper - a one man developer sells it so cheap it's nearly free, and the footprint so small - I would have guessed it wouldn't even be in the same galaxy much less the same solar system.

I researched it a bit more at their forums and I am impressed.

GERRY is right in his main point though - all the big DAWs are really pretty much the same except for details.
I work in SONAR, LOGIC and CUBASE and sometimes DIGITAL PERFORMER and for the vast majority of bread and butter functions I don't even have to think about which one I'm in. I guess that says good things about all of them.