The way Sonar plays back midi sequences

I have worked with sonar more than anything else in the last 10 years, mostly internally with virtual instruments.
 
Lately I have been messing around with Logic and Reason, and the ONLY thing I can say I love about those programs compared to Sonar, is the
way they play back midi. It just sounds more ''alive'', less rigid, even when everything is hard quantized, and this is very very desirable
in the context of music composition.
 
So my question is : Why? what is it that makes a drum pattern programmed in sonar (triggering NI's Battery for example) groove better
In Logic, after importing the very same midi data and kit created within sonar?
 
Why does a hard quantized 16th note hihat pattern sounds so rigid in sonar, and not as rigid in Logic or Reason?
 
Such a Sample Accurate midi rendition makes something like programming 808 hats rolls (like in Trap music) a real
challenge in Sonar...
 
Any input from anyone technical at Cakewalk more than welcome... needless to say if the bakers could figure that one out, I'm convinced
more people would view Sonar as a music writting beast, instead of just a great Protools competitor -
 
 
 

Kewl Hendagang
 
Why does a hard quantized 16th note hihat pattern sounds so rigid in sonar, and not as rigid in Logic or Reason?
 

Because it should.
 
And if it doesn't, then I suggest you are favouring the wrong program. What you want from a midi sequencer is it to do exactly as it should, not what it thinks it should or what it is only capable of.

I would check too, to see that the clock setting, the pulses per quarter note are set the same. Such as 960
 
Still, with hard quantized parts that shouldn't matter.
 
Yes please do some tests, and don't forget to wear a science coat, perhaps a pocket protecter too when you do them.

@ Kewl Hendagang - Please could you explain your definition of "Hard Quantised"?
 
Thanks.

berlymahn
Hey, do us a favor.... let's do a blind sound test.... do a 20 sec sample in Sonar and 20 sec sample in your other software.  Same VST, same output parameters, no extra effects or processing added.  THE SAME.  I'm curious to know what you are hearing.  Like I said, make it blind (Sample 1, 2, 3)....then reveal in a later post.

 
+1
 
Timing resolution is expressed as ticks per quarter note, or TPQN. TPQN defines the minimum duration or interval for anything MIDI. The higher the TPQN, the more accurate the timing is and the better you can capture subtle timing inflections in a performance. By default, SONAR uses a TPQN value of 960 ticks per quarter note, but lets you choose a lower value if you want. Lower values can force a kind of quantization, especially if you're importing a MIDI file from elsewhere.
 
Check what the TPQN value is in your Logic project, which might explain differences in timing accuracy. Also, make sure you're quantizing in Logic rather than just importing a MIDI file that's already been quantized in another DAW. It's the only way to compare Apples and, um, non-Apples.
 
Regardless of the TPQN value, though, hard-quantized is just that: each note starts on a precise multiple of the TPQN value, whether it's 960 or 96. If a hard-quantized track sounds rigid and machine-like, then the DAW is merely doing exactly what you told it to do.
 

ok so a little history then.

before the DAW takeover, sample accurate midi timing was non-existent.

When you were hard quantizing on a machine sequencer (any machine sequencer, or any software sequencer triggering external modules, like Logic on Atari shooting midi data trough cables & interfaces to a Roland JV1080 for example), the feel was super super super tight but remained musical and usable. I won't go into details but back then the technical limitations gave sequences some life, and the midi data was distributed through cables, in a serial way, one event by one event, no 2 events landing at the same time, ever. It just added that magic feel to an event list that, if you were going through it by sight, would look pretty robotic.

In DAW's like Sonar (or Cubase for instance!) when you're shooting hard quantized midi data  to VSTi's, the feel is rigid and non musical.

In Daw's like Logic, or Reason, when you'Re doind the same, the feel is pretty musical, and even if the result is much tighter than ''the good old days'', it remains musical, and usable.
 
so, why!
 
why.
 
Anyone?
 
 
 
 

quantizing is just mathematics, correct or incorrect, there are no "shades of grey". I would suggest the reason you are hearing what you are hearing is you have slightly different settings happening in the two DAW's. As was mentioned above, ensure ALL settings in both are 100% identical right down to the TPQN, and then quantize the same raw midi data in each DAW, not transfer midi data already quantized. 
 
Then if you still feel you have a grievance against Sonars' operation, then by all means let us know.

If I record myself, a guitarist by trade, not a keyboardist, playing the keyboard, I will have to quantize the midi data.  :) It might not sound "musical". But it will not annoy people like my un-edited version would. 
 
But If I record a professional keyboard player, I dare not quantize. It is not required and might trash his performance, no matter which settings you use.
If a hi quality digital piano ( or ??)  was used as a controller you can also record the analog output in a parallel track. The midi track if  sent back to the piano will sound exactly like the audio track. There is no perceivable change in the "musical" performance. It was the original performance that made the "musical' component.  
The same can be said possibly of digital drums. 
 
Quantizising was invented to repair the damage done by people like me who only play a keyboard or drums as a means to make music with a computer on hand. If you desire a "musical" performance in your recording, then input music. or learn to cheat like hell...

Seems to me that if certain DAW manufacturers were coding a "vintage feel" into their MIDI timing then they would be advertising the fact.

I'll try to keep this short:
 
I have done endless simultaneous Audio/MIDI re-record tests with various versions of SONAR over the years. Based on this experience, I can tell you a hard-quantized MIDI track rendered by a soft synth that does not itself introduce timing/sample/amplitude variations will play back with sample accurate timing and consistency from one playback to the next. As others have said, this is what most of us want. If any "magic feel" needs to be added to a part, I'll take care of it. I don't want my DAW or my synths doing anything but what I tell them as far as MIDI timing goes. If the synth is randomizing samples or otherwise adding dynamic or timbral variation, that's different. I'll also make a special exception for layered sounds where some random phase variation between layers can help enhance the "liveliness" of a sound without being detectable as a timing variation.
 
In my experience, the natural variation of note velocity and duration you get from recording a live performance is way more important to the musical feel of a MIDI part than variation in start times. Although I don't, usually, I can hard-quantize anything I've recorded live from a keyboard/controller, and it won't make the part sound nearly as stiff as you might imagine. So long as the synth has a smooth response to velocity with both dynamic and timbre variation, and the durations are not quantized, it will continue to sound quite natural. Conversely, quantizing durations and/o or flattening velocity variation will instantly squash the life out of almost any MIDI track, regardles of how "groovy" the timing is. Of course, the duration element does not apply to one-shot drum samples, but the dynamic and timbral responses to velocity are crucial.
 
Only a blind test with as many possible variables eliminated as possible  - like the ones suggested - can rule out subjective factors in what you're hearing, and identify real differences. This isn't "making it about the person"; this is just how it has to be done when you're trying to answer questions about how "musical" a performance "feels".
 
And just for the record, at least three of the contributors to this thread don't need any MIDI history lessons; we were more or less present for the birth, as it were. 

Cactus Music
That's right, we  I still think the Atari had  a better MIDI "feel" . ha! Good post  ++1 
 

 
Yeah, but not as good as my 48-PPQ Roland PMA-5.
 

We struggled for years in the studio trying to get people to play perfectly in time.  We used click tracks, we punched in, we re-did recordings, etc.
 
Then when we had digital samples in a drum machine, people* started complaining that it sounded too mechanical.
 
Just saying.
 
*Music people—not the people buying the CDs.

I think there is something else going on here and it has not been mentioned. It is not about timing resolution or quantising etc. And this is one of the more subtle aspects of DAW software but it still has the potential to effect some people. It is how well the DAW handles midi timing over the whole period and in relation to the audio side of the program and remember the audio side can include the metronome too.
 
I am a drummer of over 40 years and also have come from a large external midi system and being a drummer I am a bit sensitive to groove and feel of how parts play. And that is parts that are either live and not altered and quantised.  I still produce a lot of sound externally at times and much of it can be very fast and percussive in nature so I like everything to groove and sit well naturally. Firstly I find that it all can be done.
 
I am running a Unitor 8 midi interface on the serial port and I am convinced it is one of the reasons I experience such tight and relentless midi timing on my system. I only have 8 serious hardware sound generators which means they have their own midi port. All 8 can sound a note at exactly at the same time if needed with none of them having to shift timing wise due to the midi serial nature of the signal. I often only ask one midi port to handle 1 to 2 midi channels which means very fast timing on each port still to hear 16 devices all playing back at once. (my new Kurzweil PC3K is the fastest thing I have ever owned for how quickly something can make sound after receiving a note, it is ridiculous. All hardware synths vary with this and it needs to be tested and tracks adjusted accordingly)
 
I also like tweaking the track settings for advancing or delaying some midi tracks in relation to others and the metronome too. How well does everything sit in relation to the metronome. And which metronome are we talking about too, Audio or Midi. They won't agree and one will need to be adjusted in relation to the other.
 
I believe different DAW's handle all this in different ways and I think there is truth in what the OP originally had to say. There is something else I am convinced of and that is how well a DAW handles all the midi timing over a long period in relation to the audio side of what is going on eg how well are those two things kept in sync? Yes they all feel a little different and I have been using Logic for many years and I can tell you that all the midi works nicely in that. Midi Audio relationship is good in Logic as well. Sonar is not high up on the list for me as to how it handles these things. I have found with 8.5 anyway that midi (even quantised) can get effected during heavy audio operations. Sonar was better for me when it was working with midi data only.
 
I am using Studio One now and it has relentless midi timing and feel and it all seems to rock on without being influenced by how hard the audio side is working. Somehow they keep everything in sync and over a long period too. There is even mention of its ability to record and playback midi very accurately something that is played in. If you can really groove with a live keyboard part I have found Studio One records all this and plays it back rather musically and never changes what was played in. Its gapless engine also allows perfect relentless looping without any glitches. I believe there may be something deeply embedded in the audio engine code that refers to timing and timing priority of audio and midi. It won't be possible to suddenly fix a non gapless engine either that I am sure of. It would have done by now.
 
It is one of the main reasons I use it because of the way it handles this and how it feels under pressure as well. Lot of things going on audio and midi all at the same time and how well everything relates to either the audio or the midi metronome. All tight and fast and feels good.  It also has the ability to capture live loop recording while jumping midi tracks and adding in new material. You can go in and edit all the midi data all while the music plays without a hitch too which is fast and intuitive and bloody great!

@Jeff
 
at last, this is adressing my issue -
 
but it's not good news then... since it seems completely related to the core of the engine from what you
seem to be explaining
 
 
 

@brando
 
exactly the kind of childish attitude I'll never understand.
 
I don't feel like changing software, I love Sonar for production/editing/mixing
 
But for straight creation with softsynths only, sorry it's just not ''there''. The
way it reacts to your input doesn't keep you in the creative brain, you go
technical too soon to fix timing issues and other oddities.
 
so if something in the engine needs to be fixed, then, it should be fixed.