Freddie H

* EQ, Pro Channel in SONAR X1. Light years ahead other else DAWs...

How is emulating 20 year old technology light years ahead? Seriously Freddie, this is non-sense.

* Audio engine. SONAR are the leader of all audio engines out there. Next after that Steinberg with there x32bit engine that are really great. Then the rest of all DAWs Pro Tools HD and LOGIC.

And this couldn't be further from the truth. The Sonar audio engine is not half as solid as Cubase's. There are a multitude of actions that in Sonar will make the audio engine glitch. Things that really shouldn't. (Like changing loop points or saving the project etc). Cubase's audio engine is rock solid compared to Sonar. You can just create music without constant glitching and gapping.

I have many examples of the Sonar audio engine getting desynced with itself where different instruments on different tracks will have different delays. Also, every time Sonar loops, the delays in tracks change! In my not so humble opinion, Sonar' s audio engine is severely broken.

Cubase might not have 64 bit audio but to this date no one has proven with a double blind test that they can hear the difference so for the moment and until proven otherwise, it is just marketing. (All the knowledge of human hearing and digital audio tells us that the differences will never be audible in any reasonable setup).

UnderTow

pcuser32

kubalibre

pcuser32


then I would broaden my choices for my primary DAW to include Pro Tools.

Now that is the reason we never get rid of PT.. it always gets recommended to newbies to be "pro", they therefore think owning the software will make them "pro" too. WRONG.

I lost my last bti of faith in Pro Tools with the release of 9, sorry - no x64, still awkward MIDI editing. Only thing ProTools is really cool is recording and mixing if you own 20.0000+ USD worth the HD interfaces plus an Icon or at least Control24 (hardware is the only reason we keep PT onboard.)

VSTi/MIDI/Sampler/Arranging work on PT9? unfortunately still crappy as ever.
Also forget the whole collaboration thing, export OMF or stems of your arrangement from pretty much ANY host (Even Sonar can do that), then go to your PT studio if you must - finito, enjoy your collaboration.  

@kubalibre

Please don't include me in your delusion, or pretend you know whats in my mind.
I never suggested that owning pro tools software makes you a "pro" you did that on your own.

For me a professional is anyone gets paid for there services PERIOD!
My inference was more about what's needed to be among the top earners in your industry.

If you want to place limits on your own skill sets
and then try to influence others to do the same thats your business.
but in future, please leave me out of it.

DAW software is just a tool for me not a religion,
so I do not have a need to defend any DAW.
IMO no DAW is prefect, all ahve limitations based on what you are able bring to it.
In my world its about user ability and the software functionality.
(does it work as expected, and is it stable in my enviorment)
My comment was also about Industry Standards, what are the tools of the trade.

"Forget the collaboration thing..."
I dont know what markets you work in, but when I'm called in to engineer a session.
I need to know more than how to export stems.
I am required to know the tools of the industry.
and here's a hint its not Sonar or Cubse.
Its mostly Pro tools & Nuendo, Reason rewired
and Ableton for live performances where backing & click tracks are used.

@OP
IMO to only consider Sonar or Cubase is to sell yourself way short.

Did you actually respond to me or someone else? Because your post does not really seem to fit to my response- sorry again, English is not my native language so if you put something in the wrong context its probably my fault.
I did not in any way include you in a "delusion"- I simply responded to your post. I am not psychic and I do not know "or pretend to know" what is on your mind.
 
My, my, "the tools of the industry".. whatever, I will not go into detail on that. I know Sonar isn´t. But mentioning Nuendo and telling "Cubase is not a tool of the industry" disqualifies you a little bit. You should know how close Cubase is to Nuendo, they share the same program core and project files can be opened in both programs. Its like having a basic PT9 and adding 1000$ worth of Tool Sets for Postproduction. But I am sure you knew that. Nuendo is indeed ahead, I happen to call it Cubendo and I use both C5.5 (mobile) and N5.1 (studio). Love the Nuendo clip packages, advanced mixer and ADR features. Also the N5 interface looks a little more organized to me altough they are about 90% percent identical.
 
Regarding collaboration, people work in all kinds of programs and take their stems or tracks to PT studios, where is the problem? There is one producer and world touring DJ I happened to work with in Hamburg lately who is very fond of Ableton Live for composing. Another one is into Reason/Rewire+Cubase. Both earn more than enough money to be called "pro" and they never got interested in Pro Tools, for them it is just the wrong tool for certain tasks. And dont forget the Logic crowd, getting more it seems.
 
Also I did not at all attack your precious PT, we use PTHD in three of five suites including the main room. It works and does what it is supposed to do, but as I said it makes sense if you build up on the Avid/Digi interfaces + available controls like the Icon and the C24.
 
Again, only my point of view. We might differ, if you say you are an engineer called in to sessions, I understand - I am a music producer working with engineers involved in the productions, so our perspectives may vary.

UnderTow

Freddie H

* EQ, Pro Channel in SONAR X1. Light years ahead other else DAWs...

How is emulating 20 year old technology light years ahead? Seriously Freddie, this is non-sense.

* Audio engine. SONAR are the leader of all audio engines out there. Next after that Steinberg with there x32bit engine that are really great. Then the rest of all DAWs Pro Tools HD and LOGIC.

And this couldn't be further from the truth. The Sonar audio engine is not half as solid as Cubase's. There are a multitude of actions that in Sonar will make the audio engine glitch. Things that really shouldn't. (Like changing loop points or saving the project etc). Cubase's audio engine is rock solid compared to Sonar. You can just create music without constant glitching and gapping.

I have many examples of the Sonar audio engine getting desynced with itself where different instruments on different tracks will have different delays. Also, every time Sonar loops, the delays in tracks change! In my not so humble opinion, Sonar' s audio engine is severely broken.

Cubase might not have 64 bit audio but to this date no one has proven with a double blind test that they can hear the difference so for the moment and until proven otherwise, it is just marketing. (All the knowledge of human hearing and digital audio tells us that the differences will never be audible in any reasonable setup).

UnderTow

Yes Alistair. :)

To make everything 100% clear what I mean.


Audio engine

I know what you mean when you say change LOOP points under playback glitch the Audio.
This has to do with "AUDIO-latency compensation" in real-time, has nothing to do with AUDIO Engine it self. The Audio engine is all about what you hear from the speakers, the actually SOUND that comes out from SONAR, even though "AUDIO-latency compensation"- technology are embedded inside the Audio engine. What I'm referring too in "AUDIO Engine" are the sound that comes out from the DAW. The sound of SONAR are better in my ears then sound of any other DAW "audio engine".


EQ:

The include EQ, ------> track EQ in all DAW:s. The SONAR X1 Pro Channel EQ "sounds" better then included EQ in Steinberg DAW:s or any other DAW:s included EQ out there that I know about. 

frankandfree

Freddie H

Audio engine

I know what you mean when you say change LOOP points under playback glitch the Audio.
This has to do with "AUDIO-latency compensation" in real-time, has nothing to do with AUDIO Engine it self. The Audio engine is all about what you hear from the speakers, the actually SOUND that comes out from SONAR, even though "AUDIO-latency compensation"- technology are embedded inside the Audio engine.

Huh? PDC is part of the audio engine, but it's not. Inferior engines don't glitch on loop point change (although they "embed AUDIO-latency compensation - technology" as well), but superior ones may. Aaalright.

What I'm referring too in "AUDIO Engine" are the sound that comes out from the DAW. The sound of SONAR are better in my ears then sound of any other DAW "audio engine".

Oh my... sure.... Sonar just creates the rounder "zeros", and the "ones" are more upright than anywhere else. Where is the popcorn?

Funny Frank, popcorn!
 
Its little bit more then one and zero's Frank. Frankly, if you perhaps not know you can measure it with help of Sinus wave and a audio spectra graph.
There are measure audio differences how they sound, all DAW audio engines.
There are some professional Audio sites on he Internet that have done all graphs over the audio engines.
I don't have the link on this computer in the studio I am on right now..
 
 
Best Regards
Freddie

I doubt that there would be any significant difference between DAW audio engines. The only way one could determine if that were true would be to set up a very controlled AB test. You would need two complete DAW setups with identical D to A converters and then go through the process of recording an indentical source into the two DAW's at once. Then very accurate playback of the two systems into excellent monitors in near ideal conditions. This is the sort of the test that many of us would not be able to do easily. So unless you have done that you cannot really make any assumptions that Sonar sounds better.

In fact I am coming slightly close to this in my testing and use of Presonus Studio One Pro. I have been switching back and forth regularly betwen Sonar and Presonus and although not instantly of course at least within reasonably short times. I am hearing no audible difference at all. They both sound great.

Presonus comes standard with all its plugins as 64 bit and it can do the 64 bit processing on the mix buss as well. But unlike Sonar, it can do amazing things regarding non glitching of the audio engine while it loops or plays through an arrangement. You can virtually do anything (including dragging out synths and selecting sounds) without it ever stopping and as I have mentioned in other threads for me this is a very cool feature. It does all this and handles all the latency issues at the same time so I see it as a superior engine in fact. Something others are not taking into account also is its superior external midi timing of external hardware instruments. It is really rock solid and tight in this regard.

Samplitude has some of the finest sounding plugins of any DAW apparently but it has other issues which is keeping me away from it. It is also incredibly expensive as well and support does not seem to be very good either. The EQ's (and other effects) in Presonus are as good as anything I have ever used in other DAW's including Sonar so they are all pretty good I think.

X1 --> why still no VST3..? 
 

from:
http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/News-Steinberg/2011/01/11/steinberg-releases-rupert-neve-designs-portico-eq-and-compressor-plug-ins
 
"""""" 
Legendary Rupert Neve sound now heard in VST 3 and AU plug-ins with Yamaha VCM technology ported from Portico 5033 five-band EQ and Portico 5043 compressor
 
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH today is delighted and honored to announce the release of two pro-audio VST/AU signal processing plug-ins that reflect the overarching alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs, Inc. and Steinberg. Both 5033 EQ and 5043 compressor plug-ins will soon be available.
 
"By announcing the release of two virtual pendants of the renowned Portico signal processors, the alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs and Steinberg is coming to fruition. I'm elated to count these two highly sophisticated effect plug-ins to our product range, as both meet Steinberg's exacting standards," comments Andreas Stelling, Steinberg's managing director.
 
Particularly known for designing all-analog signal processing equipment, Rupert Neve has been looking for the right technology to port his legendary designs to the digital domain. With Yamaha's Virtual Circuitry Modeling (VCM) technology, this coveted intention was able to be realized, evolving to an alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs and Steinberg. The very first plug-ins incorporating VCM technology emulating analog Portico hardware are now the RND Portico 5033 equalizer and RND Portico 5043 compressor.
 
"With the Yamaha VCM technology, we're able to pick up the amazing quality of musicality and accuracy that was inherent in the original Rupert Neve Designs Portico modules," states Rupert Neve.
 
The RND Portico 5033 five-band equalizer comes with three bands of fully parametric filters, each with dedicated gain, center-frequency, and Q controls as well as one band each of high and low-shelving filters. A global bypass switch and trim control are also available.
 
The RND Portico 5043 compressor features threshold, ratio, attack, release and gain controls for intricate signal compression. The feed-forward or feed-back compression mode allow users to switch between an aggressive and subtle compression response
"""""""

The Sonar audio engine is not half as solid as Cubase's.

 
The talk about "audio engine" is pretty wide open...  
 
To some folks, "audio engine" means summing fidelity
The difference may not be glaringly obvious, but 64Bit float summing makes any talk of rounding error a moot point.  Speaking for myself, all things being equal, I'll take the 64Bit float summing option and never worry about it.
 
To other folks, "audio engine" refers to general playback... as in the case you're describing (glitching when tweaking parameters/etc).  Having to stop the transport to make changes/etc...
This goes back many years...
Sonar could certainly be improved in this regard.
 
To yet other folks, a "solid audio engine" refers to how much of a load the app can sustain (glitch-free)... at a given ASIO buffer size.  Sonar (since version 8.5) fares very well in this regard.
 

As a long time Cubase user I am trying to switch to X1 as my main daw.

Still learning X1 so these are not final or even complaining type comments, just a status of where I'm at right now on the learning curve.

My first project in X1 is at 30 tracks so far with about another 20-30 orchestrated tracks to go before it's finished.

Things I like better so far in X1: Skylight and the windowing in general are better than Cubase.
Main Toolbar in X1 is a little better.
Step sequencer looks better in X1 though I have not used it yet.
VST bridge is better in X1 but since I switched to jBridge, Cubase behaves much better.
cannot comment on the Pro channel yet as i am not at the mixing/mastering stage yet. Normally I use various UAD/Waves/Izotope plugs but will use only X1 tools this project so I get a good feel for them.
The instrument rack has good potential, if I could truly "drag and Drop" anything then it would be great.  I like that it is in the main window as opposed to Cubase's Media Bay, but it's functions are limited in comparison.

Things I like better in Cubase:
Work flow is a definite problem for me in X1.
The inspector/Arranger functions are more limited than Cubase. audio FX inserts are right where they belong in Cubase (below the midi inserts)  - Not sure if Sonar has this function at all, can't find it yet
Transpose is right in front of me in the inspector in Cubase. Have to use a plugin in X1 to transpose a track.
Tempo, Marker and Signature tracks are easier to use in Cubase, this may change in X1 as I get use to it.
Key change is very simple in Cubase, click the key sig dropdown from C to D for example, and Cubase changes all midi and audio tracks and sounds pretty good. Many times I will do the initial vocal on a song then change to a key that fits the final vocalist(s). I have read about audiosnap but not sure how this is done in X1.

Audio editor seems more limited in X1.

If I import an old midi song from my Kurzweil 2500, X1 does not know how to assign proper Dimension Pro or dropzone or other? instruments. Cubase assigns Halion one instruments very nicely.

Sometimes I end up with a vsti that won't play as it has no audio track. In Cubase I never have to worry about that. Whether I am inserting a vsti from the instrument rack, creating an instrument track or inserting from the Inspector it always connects up properly. Also the vst audio tracks for Cubase are organized at the bottom (by default) under their own VST folder. In X1 they appear right after the vst thus cluttering up my window.
Snap to grid is not as magnetic in X1 as Cubase, in fact I'm not sure it works the same at all.
VST expression and other things were mentioned in other posts.

Cheers,

C

"http://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic.php?t=45272"

Nice readup but Im really surprised that pan laws were not addressed. Typically this is the audible different most certainly  notice between the DAWs. Sonar like to sit in the center more while Cubase and logic have a bit more separation.  When people convert between the DAWs that usually the first complaint noticed. Not so much about the quality, but how the mix sits.

I just want to throw my 2 cents in here and say that the ONLY DAW that never crashes is Propellerhead's Record. It was very smooth and took minimal set up to use. Outside of that I hated it because I still had to come back to Sonar for my VST plugs, and the whole reason I got into using computers was to avoid patch cables......

Sorry nathan but Presonus Studio One Pro will not crash either. And it can do lots of stuff that Record cannot do. Also it has got VST 3 which is good for plugins like the ones mentioned in post #102.

submarin


http://forum.image-line.com/viewtopic.php?t=45272

Take a minute and watch the video...

 
enjoyed that alot.. thanx for posting..
 
 

 

kubalibre


X1 --> why still no VST3..? 
 

from:
http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/News-Steinberg/2011/01/11/steinberg-releases-rupert-neve-designs-portico-eq-and-compressor-plug-ins
 
"""""" 
Legendary Rupert Neve sound now heard in VST 3 and AU plug-ins with Yamaha VCM technology ported from Portico 5033 five-band EQ and Portico 5043 compressor
 
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH today is delighted and honored to announce the release of two pro-audio VST/AU signal processing plug-ins that reflect the overarching alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs, Inc. and Steinberg. Both 5033 EQ and 5043 compressor plug-ins will soon be available.
 
"By announcing the release of two virtual pendants of the renowned Portico signal processors, the alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs and Steinberg is coming to fruition. I'm elated to count these two highly sophisticated effect plug-ins to our product range, as both meet Steinberg's exacting standards," comments Andreas Stelling, Steinberg's managing director.
 
Particularly known for designing all-analog signal processing equipment, Rupert Neve has been looking for the right technology to port his legendary designs to the digital domain. With Yamaha's Virtual Circuitry Modeling (VCM) technology, this coveted intention was able to be realized, evolving to an alliance between Yamaha, Rupert Neve Designs and Steinberg. The very first plug-ins incorporating VCM technology emulating analog Portico hardware are now the RND Portico 5033 equalizer and RND Portico 5043 compressor.
 
"With the Yamaha VCM technology, we're able to pick up the amazing quality of musicality and accuracy that was inherent in the original Rupert Neve Designs Portico modules," states Rupert Neve.
 
The RND Portico 5033 five-band equalizer comes with three bands of fully parametric filters, each with dedicated gain, center-frequency, and Q controls as well as one band each of high and low-shelving filters. A global bypass switch and trim control are also available.
 
The RND Portico 5043 compressor features threshold, ratio, attack, release and gain controls for intricate signal compression. The feed-forward or feed-back compression mode allow users to switch between an aggressive and subtle compression response
"""""""

That's it. 

I can officially announce that I've just reached the point where I finally no longer care. :) I for one am done being twisted into thinking that the next EQ and compressor will represent some sort of magical breakthrough.
The market is over-saturated with modeled compressor and EQ plug-ins that supposedly "FINALLY" deliver that sound and performance.


GUI design excluded, what's the only new feature in Sonar X1? Modeled compression and EQ. 


To me, this tells a lot. We already have all the tools we need to write, record and mix great songs, and the only way for companies to keep us buying is to cash in on something that's subjective, and to sell it as THE thing that was missing from the equation. Of course, each of them is the one-trick pony that you really needed...

So whether they are endorsed by Eddie Kramer, George Massenburg, Chris Lord Alge, Rupert Neve, Abbey Road engineers or Buddha himself... I'm done for a couple of years I guess.  Or unless someone comes up with a plug-in that finally nails all of those sounds in their essence. But maybe we have that thing already...

VST3 support  in SONAR X1 wouldn't hurt!

UnderTow

2) I doubt you could tell the difference between the Pro Channel EQ and the Cubase built in EQ in a blind test. Are you up for the challenge?

UnderTow

Now that is something I'd really like to see. :) Not arguing that EQs are different and that they react differently, but...