themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 12:44:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: studio24
ORIGINAL: themidiroom
I think Sonar is a relatively good match for it's audience. It took Pro Tools many years before the mainstream engineering community would use it and Digidesign was really trying. I think if Cakewalk could somehow develop a turnkey platform, more pro facilities would seriously look at it. I'm not sure if Cakewalk is even interested in that market however.
I'm convinced they're not. They would be behaving differently if they wanted to. I don't know
their sales stats / demographic .. but maybe it would just cost too much to push up into the
pro market compared to the ROI.
You're probably right. Even though I have a Pro Tools rig, it's clear they aren't marketing to small studios like mine. It sad but true that the old "big" studio philosophy is that if it's not expensive, it must not be any good.
|
jb
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2020
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:45:25
- Location: heart of late capitalist darkness
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 12:48:39
(permalink)
You're probably right. Even though I have a Pro Tools rig, it's clear they aren't marketing to small studios like mine. It sad but true that the old "big" studio philosophy is that if it's not expensive, it must not be any good. Shhh! Don't say that too loudly around here! ):
Celeron 300A o/c 450, SBLive, Win98SE
|
jimack
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1814
- Joined: 2005/04/22 07:58:32
- Location: Where the sun shines through the pouring rain...
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 13:12:33
(permalink)
I think Sonar is a relatively good match for it's audience. It took Pro Tools many years before the mainstream engineering community would use it and Digidesign was really trying. I think if Cakewalk could somehow develop a turnkey platform, more pro facilities would seriously look at it. I'm not sure if Cakewalk is even interested in that market however. Or perhaps the line between "Pro Facilities" and "Project/Home Studios" is fading. 
-- Jim _____________________ Sonar 7 PE, P5 v2.5, 3.4Ghz P4, 2GB RAM, MAudio 2496PCI, Event TR6, PodXT, Yamaha S90, Hammond XK-C3, MAudio Axiom 61, Gibson Les Paul Custom, Gretsch 5296, Fender Strat, Larrivee D03R, Martin D12-28, Martin D16-R, etc
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 13:26:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jimack
I think Sonar is a relatively good match for it's audience. It took Pro Tools many years before the mainstream engineering community would use it and Digidesign was really trying. I think if Cakewalk could somehow develop a turnkey platform, more pro facilities would seriously look at it. I'm not sure if Cakewalk is even interested in that market however.
Or perhaps the line between "Pro Facilities" and "Project/Home Studios" is fading.
The gap between the two has significantly faded. Pro operations still have to contend with heavy deadlines, no downtime, etc. There was a time when I had time to troubleshoot various DAW issues and that isn't the case these days. Granted my studio is somewhat of a hybrid project/pro studio, but it is designed to generate a profit.
post edited by themidiroom - 2007/07/26 13:35:42
|
dappa1
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2949
- Joined: 2007/02/26 04:18:57
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 14:24:27
(permalink)
themidiroom.
All it is, is that, your business is run on a commercial standing; based upon standards, or what users would call the norm. If the product is similar to another persons product it makes business sense to work with that person instead of showcasing a product that people are not sure of. But as someone said, they're many project studios using Sonar and I am sure you use sonar too. (being a forum member) But I still think that it is early days and the hold that Cubase had on the UK is slipping as second choice to Pro Tools.
This has been noticed by cakewal themselves as many people are giving their reasons why they are switching over. I think that Sonar is a well respected platform by top artists too. Like me! lol
|
space_cowboy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9813
- Joined: 2007/07/20 14:49:31
- Location: Front and center behind these monitors
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 14:36:05
(permalink)
THe Original Post was lamenting the fact that there are so many controllers and plug ins and other things that do not come with Sonar drivers or are just not that compatible. I have a bunch of the Arturia plugs and they sound so good, but they work so bad in Sonar. The Jupiter 8V or whatever it is called is the creamiest dreamiest synth plug in a long time. It causes my quad core to hiccup too. That is with everything else frozen.
Some people call me Maurice SPLAT Pro lifetime, ADK 6 core 3.6Ghz with 32 GB RAM, SSD 1TB system drive, 3 3TB regular drives for samples, recordings and misc. Behringer X Touch, UAD Apollo Quad. 2 UAD2 Quads PCI (i think - inside the box whatever that is), Console 1. More guitars (40??) and synths (hard and soft) than talent. Zendrum!!!
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 14:52:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dappa1
themidiroom.
All it is, is that, your business is run on a commercial standing; based upon standards, or what users would call the norm. If the product is similar to another persons product it makes business sense to work with that person instead of showcasing a product that people are not sure of. But as someone said, they're many project studios using Sonar and I am sure you use sonar too. (being a forum member) But I still think that it is early days and the hold that Cubase had on the UK is slipping as second choice to Pro Tools.
This has been noticed by cakewal themselves as many people are giving their reasons why they are switching over. I think that Sonar is a well respected platform by top artists too. Like me! lol
Yes I do use Sonar in the studio. Mostly for midi work and I run it right along side Pro Tools. Many times, I'll have a midi sequence running on Sonar, and track vocals and maybe guitar in Pro Tools. It works. Sonar has done well by me over the years. I made the switch to Pro Tools for my tracking and mix work because my client base demanded it. There are quite a few things I love about Pro Tools and I'll continue to use it and Sonar for the long haul.
|
dappa1
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2949
- Joined: 2007/02/26 04:18:57
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 15:21:18
(permalink)
I cannot comment on Pro tools though I am sure it is good. It has had many a year to establish itself without any competition.
I have seen logic pro in action and I must admit I like it if I was MAC based I would probably use it. I used to use Cubase and I still so at times it is great to work with maybe because I am use to it. Maybe because Sonar is new to me I don't know; but I do like it if I had the opportunity to work in Logic then may be I could compare it but for now Sonar allows me to visualise what I want to do its a more open working experience. Cubase was like having a house with alot of rooms some rooms you just don't venture into. BUt some may be of another opinion.
I wish there was an open forum for all DAWs lol now that would be fun.
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 16:56:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dappa1
It has had many a year to establish itself without any competition.
I don't completely agree with that. Pro Tools had competition; just not from other computer based systems. There were plenty of tape based and disk based systems used in studios. They pretty much wrote off Pro Tools because it was very limited. A buddy of mine had one of the early systems and it couldn't do much. The only advantage it had was the editing capability. It wasn't until almost the mid 90's (when they increased the track count past 16) when studios started taking them seriously.
|
dappa1
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2949
- Joined: 2007/02/26 04:18:57
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 17:48:53
(permalink)
yep as I said not competition within its market. Now its been taken under the big studios wings and it has stayed there because not everyone can buy the full pro tools. So it has an aura about it. But aslong as everyone is happy with what they have that is the main thing.
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 18:55:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: themidiroom
ORIGINAL: Dappa1
It has had many a year to establish itself without any competition.
I don't completely agree with that. Pro Tools had competition; just not from other computer based systems. There were plenty of tape based and disk based systems used in studios. They pretty much wrote off Pro Tools because it was very limited. A buddy of mine had one of the early systems and it couldn't do much. The only advantage it had was the editing capability. It wasn't until almost the mid 90's (when they increased the track count past 16) when studios started taking them seriously.
Digi definitely had competition from other computer based systems .. it's just the TDM2/HD system was so much better than what Fairchild, Synclavier, Motu, Radar, etc. had. Plus, it ran on the Mac instead of its own weird system. 1999/2000 was when the tide turned for them.
|
lillloyd
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 43
- Joined: 2005/04/18 14:55:43
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 19:02:18
(permalink)
Interesting that MIX magazine chose Sonar to test Native-powered DAWs, as I consider MIX to be a bit more 'highbrow' than some of the other audio mags: http://mixonline.com/recording/tracking/audio_pushing_limits_native/index.html (July 07 issue) Personally I think we're at the cusp of something big with Native DAWS like Sonar. Pro Tools has had a tremendous advantage in that it can scale to whatever your audio needs are--just add more DSP cards (at a serious price of course!). Native systems haven't been able to compete with that because even the best PCs can choke before a fully-loaded P/T HD system will. But the power margin narrows every time PC processors reach a new performance level. It will be *very* interesting to see how things play out in the next few years. What will a fully-loaded audio PC be able to do circa 2012? (Bear in mind that under "Moore's law", computational power doubles every 18 months, which means we might reasonably expect PCs then to be over 8 times (!) as powerful as the most powerful PCs we can build today.) I don't think Sonar will replace Pro Tools in pro studios by 2012--after all, P/T has the dominant market share, and their own native product (LE) will continue to evolve as well. But at some point, I've got to believe that pro studios will begin to take native systems very seriously, because the price/performance ratio of a native system will be *so* much better than a hardware-based system. My $.02
|
Harvey Cedars
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1225
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:40:33
- Location: "Town Of" Surprise Arizona
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 19:48:53
(permalink)
I have a friend in LA, a producer/musician in the biz over there. I lost touch with him over the years until last year. When we got back in touch, I found out he was using a Pro Tools/Mac Rig. Of course that is the industry standard. He then asked what I was using (Sonar/Layla/Windows XP) and he never heard of it. Then later on he told me that his friend told him Sonar was a nice home studio software. I have listened to his mixes, and truthfully for the difference in price, I am not that impressed with his multi ten thousand dollar rig. I have only spent 3 or 4 grand on mine. Of course I am a musical hobbyist, and he is a pro, so I don't really care about the standard of the industry that Pro Tools has become.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 19:53:30
(permalink)
A different view on the MAC/PC argument.
Maybe Sonar is so good because they spend all their time working in one evironment. You hit the nail on the head, Dan. As a software developer, I can tell you that anytime you're writing code that really exploits the intrinsic capabilities of a given platform -- and SONAR certainly qualifies -- there are too many technical compromises that have to be made while developing cross-platform apps. You can pull it off if you have enough resources (e.g. Adobe, Microsoft) but that can only be justified if you have a broad market (e.g. MS Word). Small companies have to be very, very focused on their core competencies and their target market. I, for one, would not want CW to take on a Mac port. We users would suffer in the end.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
mumpcake
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1609
- Joined: 2004/06/16 16:27:42
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/26 23:55:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
A different view on the MAC/PC argument.
Maybe Sonar is so good because they spend all their time working in one evironment.
You hit the nail on the head, Dan. As a software developer, I can tell you that anytime you're writing code that really exploits the intrinsic capabilities of a given platform -- and SONAR certainly qualifies -- there are too many technical compromises that have to be made while developing cross-platform apps. You can pull it off if you have enough resources (e.g. Adobe, Microsoft) but that can only be justified if you have a broad market (e.g. MS Word). Small companies have to be very, very focused on their core competencies and their target market. I, for one, would not want CW to take on a Mac port. We users would suffer in the end.
Exactly. On the S6 Fast Forward Tour, someone asked when Sonar would be ported to the Mac. The rep answered something to the effect of never, and that they wouldn't be able to make Sonar as good as it is if they had to support multiple platforms. Not to mention, if Cakewalk did port to Mac, Jobs would decide that Macs needed to go back to Motorola chips with a new OS based on BEOS.
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 00:00:17
(permalink)
Well .. Reaper is being ported to the Mac .. and they don't seem to have any
problems delivering functionality while supporting multiple platforms, nor do
Steinberg, nor do Digidesign. IMHO, both Sony and Cakewalk are hindered by their
strict adherence to Windows. Conversely, I think Motu and Logic have been
hindered by their Mac only stance.
|
KevinD
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 491
- Joined: 2007/04/27 19:01:10
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 13:28:13
(permalink)
Many musicians are not that technical .. so they just go with a tried and true path even if
it's not the most beautiful path. Could not be more on point! I've used Acid Pro for many years before finally getting the courage to come over to Sonar. I'm more technical than a musician anyway. I've worked and devolelped software for some years also. By far, Sonar 6 is the best looking, easy to use, and very powerful compared to the others. I have tried Nuendo once or twice and it seems great also, but very $$$. Pro Tools: I can't tell you how many f***** times I hear , "Yo, Dog, I need Pro Tools on a new computer". They don't know there is anything else. I ask "you Ok with only 24 tracks and using proprietary hardware?" Ready to sit down and learn it for the next year. I'm very savy and can get away with using almost any software, but Pro Tools really struck an annoyance nerve with me.
Sonar 6.2.1 BFD Drums v1.5.45 Q Windows XP SP2 AMD 64 3400+ 2 GB DC RAM 2.0cas 2x 300 GB SATAIII Schecter Basses Cold Bud Lights
|
SleepTyght
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2004/04/12 03:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 14:54:49
(permalink)
Years ago I used to work as a sales associate for Verizon Wireless. Long story short...as a salesman I made countless sales by reminding customers that Verizon had the best coverage in the nation PERIOD. To "prove" it I'd hand a cell phone to a customer and tell him/her to make a call as my kiosk booth was located on the bottom floor of the mall. I wanted the customer to experience the clarity and dependability of Verizon's service. Then I'd tell the customer to visit any other cellular kiosk or store in the mall and try making a call on the bottom floor. Those stores on the top floor would never trust a customer with taking a phone downstairs because...they knew the phone wouldn't work. Cingular or Nextel booths on the bottom floor? Ya couldn't get a signal on those phones...so customers would usually come back to my booth to finalize their purchases. A few years later I worked in Marketing at V. Communications in Manhattan, and even then my mentor consistently rambled on about thoroughly explaining technical product knowledge to anyone holding a business account...and to continue writing ads/promo material for the average base customer who needed to know if voice mail was included, what's V-Cast, what are "mobisodes"..... And that's what brings me to Sonar Vs. Other Daws. Am I wrong in stating that Sonar has always just seemed like an ALTERNATIVE to Cubase? I used to use Sonar, but now I just keep it to open up old projects that I haven't yet tranferred over to Logic or Live. I've just never seen Sonar as a truly UNIQUE product...much like Tracktion or maybe Reaper...I mean what REALLY makes Sonar stand out on its own? Imagine you're trying to sell Sonar to a semi-ex user such as myself. What would be your selling point to bring me back to Cakewalk? I make hip hop/R&B, and some ambient/electronica for scoring to video. Here's my story.... I use Logic Pro on a Macbook Pro from work. Everyone else stopped using it in Studio B because they couldn't figure it out. Logic is pretty much considered the king of midi although I usually only compose in Logic when I'm using Sculpure or Ultrabeat. Even though I once saw someone post on either here or KVR that no one buys a DAW for the included instruments and effects...well if you believe that then you haven't tried Logic. I've used Digital Performer since my Cakewalk Pro Audio days. I sitll use Performer to score to video...no other Daw has matched its scoring tools so DP remains as the forefront DAW for scoring. Funny thing is I'm hoping to drop DP altogether if Apple gets Logic 8 straight. I use Live because no other DAW excels at elastic audio as well as Live. This is what makes it truly unique...and ummm.... I use it for DJ gigs...when I can get them. Composing in LIVE feels so much more like using an instrument than what traditional sequencers offer. It's a sampler/beat mangler, sequencer/DJ Tool, etc. etc. all rolled up in one. When I first figured Live out it brought back memories of how I felt when I first learned the MPC. So quick, so efficient...like using hardware but now with all the advantages of software.(Quick sample loading, 23" monitor, VSTis).... So what would Sonar really have to offer that I couldn't get from those other DAWS? I'm not putting down Cakewalk. I can say i've had a musch better experience with SOnar than I had with Cubase. I just think that as years have passed by, Sonar hasn't brought anything truly UNIQUE to the table...or maybe I should say it hasn't really evolved to the point where I'd say, "Yeah I can definitely see why you'd use Sonar over XXX". If I knew a student who was interested in broadcast engineering, news radio, etc...I'd tell that student to learn Pro Tools or Adobe Audition because I know they're used by so many radio stations for editing. If the student wished to work at a commerical studio...Pro Tools, Logic, or Performer( if composing to video). If it's a post production house then I'd tell 'em to learn either PT, Nuendo, or maybe Samplitude or Performer. I'm not saying that Sonar can't get the job done, but if you're planning to board op then why not learn the tools that have become the industry standard? Of course I'm only speaking of ENGINEERING HERE. I went to Five Towns College where PT and Logic were the standard. At Temple University it was and still is...Pro Tools, Performer, Ableton Live, and Reason(not really a DAW for those who want to nitpick). Art Institute of Philadelphia...Pro Tools/Live. SAE...Pro Tools/Live, and I believe they're still using Performer. I know Cubase is huge overseas and that's fine. They have that market on lock. Now here in the states I think Sonar has caught up a bit to Cubase...possibly due to Steinberg's ****ty customer service. I don't know, and I don't pretend to. Like I said I KNOW Sonar can get the job done, but there's not much particularly special about Sonar. Does it have Pro Tools TDM's expandability? Performer's scoring tools? Live gapless audio or treatment of audio? Logic's Environment and DAE support? I don't mind being proven wrong. If you feel up to it...prove what REALLY makes Sonar particularly deserving of the respect that other Daws have? Imagine that I'm your average base consumer, and I really don't want you to get technical on me. I'd like to know your opinion of why you don't feel that Sonar isn't just an alternative for other PC based DAWS. 
post edited by SleepTyght - 2007/07/27 15:08:23
|
lanstrad
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 313
- Joined: 2004/02/15 14:32:09
- Location: Montreal, Canada
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:06:24
(permalink)
The M-Audio - no driver specifically for Sonar. M-Audio in my mind is not the best exemple... I had a MIDI interface (c'mon, we're not talking here about the newest tech in space shuttles !), highly-priced, which could no longer work (even just *install*) by a new PC ! We're not talking about SONAR or any proram here, we're talking about changing PC- which most of us do from time to time without being forced to replace entire hardware around!. Had to switch for a MOTU interface. M-Audio drivers were changed in 2003 for the last time, and while I have received excellent assistance (even replacing the chips within the unit for free), the M-Audio device has never worked on my new PC (no, not broken : it was still working fine on my Pentium IV...)
|
cryophonik
Max Output Level: -28 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4724
- Joined: 2006/04/03 17:28:17
- Location: Elk Grove, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:24:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SleepTyght
I'd like to know your opinion of why you don't feel that Sonar isn't just an alternative for other PC based DAWS.
You raise many valid points, but your premise appears to be that a DAW has to operate differently to be a valid alternative. I also switched from Cubase to Sonar, not because I wanted something completely different, but because I liked the way Sonar handled certain things (e.g., hardware synths). I still go back to Cubase on occasion when I collaborate with a Cubase user. I still like some its features and hate others, but overall, I prefer Sonar's feature set and way of accomplishing most tasks. To me, it's analogous to buying an SUV - Lexus, Inifiniti, and Acura all make very nice SUVs that all do the same thing (drive down the road to pick up your kids from soccer practice, stop at Starbucks, and then off to the gas station for another fillup ) and offer many of the same features, but each one has its own distinctions that make it desirable to its buyers. I see nothing wrong with that business model. edit: hey, my 1000th post! 
post edited by cryophonik - 2007/07/27 15:33:32
|
Kev999
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3922
- Joined: 2007/05/01 14:22:54
- Location: Victoria, Australia
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:25:42
(permalink)
Sonar, although certainly a professional product, seems to have caught on better with serious amateurs than with working professionals. Whatever the reason, Cakewalk will benefit anyway, as it is a potentially bigger market.
SonarPlatinum∞(22.11.0.111)|Mixbus32C(4.3.19)|DigitalPerformer(9.5.1)|Reaper(5.77)FractalDesign:DefineR5|i7-6850k@4.1GHz|16GB@2666MHz-DDR4|MSI:GamingProCarbonX99a|Matrox:M9148(x2)|UAD2solo(6.5.2)|W7Ult-x64-SP1
Audient:iD22+ASP800|KRK:VXT6|+various-outboard-gear|+guitars&basses, etc.
Having fun at work lately
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:28:11
(permalink)
I mean what REALLY makes Sonar stand out on its own? Sonar has a few subtleties it is known for. 1. One of the first PC sequencing apps. Wouldn't impress too many Mac users. 2. CAL Sonar is actually one of the most powerful midi editors with CAL. Problem is though is it is too over the average midi users head. Something graphical like Logics environment was probably more successful because humans usually relate to graphics easier. So more people probably WANTED to learn the environment. Too bad though CAL isn't supported much. 3. Acidized Groove Clips. Sonar was the first big DAW program to do something like this. This was a feature that caught a lot of programs off guard. Sure they copied it from Acid, but most people considers Sonar's audio and midi way ahead of Acid. Most other hosts do this now though. 4. DXI softsynth capability. Problem is DXI softsynths didn't take off like VST. VST already had its grip so far on the plug-in market by being in earlier and cross platform. Audio Units got success by basically eliminating VSTs in Logic and also being created exclusively by Apple. I don't think Cake was in a position to do that with DXI. 5. 64 bit audio engine. This is something I think Sonar users can tout as unique (for right now). 64 bit audio engines are probably around the corner for all the other hosts as well. 6. No nonsense softsynth approach. One thing I like about Sonar, is that its way of inserting softsynths and freezing them just makes sense. Other hosts seem a little too different. Truth is though most other host users probably love their softsynth implementation as much as we do. I think though that in the 90's Cake evolved at a slower pace than Logic, and Cubase, and Performer and is still feeling the effect even though they got a lot more competitive this decade.
|
themidiroom
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1170
- Joined: 2004/01/21 11:41:56
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:45:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Kev999
Sonar, although certainly a professional product, seems to have caught on better with serious amateurs than with working professionals. Whatever the reason, Cakewalk will benefit anyway, as it is a potentially bigger market.
I agree with you Kev999. Two different user bases with somewhat different needs and expectations.
|
mcl
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 95
- Joined: 2007/05/31 05:37:15
- Location: UAE
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 15:55:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
You raise many valid points, but your premise appears to be that a DAW has to operate differently to be a valid alternative.
No I think he is asking what is Sonar's unique customer proposition. Not the same thing. And actually I do not have an immediate answer. I went for Sonar because it offers bloody good value for money. But that in and of itself would not have swung me. I had tried the demo and found the software to be approachable. Usable. Complete. I had read artists such as Velvet Acid Christ praising the sound quality of Sonar (but lamenting the MIDI side)... and others. In the end Sonar won out for me because it satisfied my requirement for a professional DAW at a reasonable price point. This in and of itself is not a big winning proposition I suspect. Sonar deserves a better reputation and market penetration - especially in Europe. All in good time perhaps. Certainly the way some of the competition is going Cakewalk have an opportunity. Live is getting too expensive (for what it is... Operator and Sampler are at cost extras (grr)). Cubase has a truly awful rep for bad customer service... SAW is waaay too expensive, SAM is quite expensive as well... From the keen hobbiest perspective Sonar is a very compelling proposition without there being anything specific about it... but I would be hard pressed to say Cubase has anything special either. From the pros perspective Sonar isn't an established 'standard' and I suspect it would be very difficult for Cakewalk to make inroads. Logic & Pro Tools seem immovable objects. My 2p worth
|
boseyman1
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 487
- Joined: 2004/10/15 10:18:45
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 16:34:31
(permalink)
This is an interesting discussion. First off, I started off as a Digital Performer User in grad school. Then moved to Logic for about 3 years doing small projects and commercials. Then a Sonar sponsored composer showed me how he used Sonar, so I switched. I just finished a big feature film using only Sonar and have done all my previous films in Sonar. I think that Sonar is a very professional program and you could make the argument that my writing and production improved greatly when I switched to Sonar. I found that also I spent much less time troubleshooting with Sonar than with Logic, DP or Cubase. Just my experience though.
I also use Pro Tools all the time but just for delivery, not composing or recording purposes. I don't find any creative need for PT.
I find Sonar's ease of use very adaptable and intuitive for all types of music. In addition to film music, I also write a fair amount of Hip Hop stuff, and in Sonar, I can move in whatever direction I need. I also don't think any of my colleagues would say Logic or Protools is more "professional" than Sonar. I think that a lot of people just get comfortable with whatever works easiest for them and stick with it. And if you are getting work using that system, why switch.
My 2 quid worth.
Intel Core i7 3.07Ghz, 12 Gigs RAM, 64 bit OS, Sonar Producer 8.52, RME Multiface II and PCIe interface, Maschine, Fractal Axe-FX, Sonic Implants Library, TC Fireworx, Voiceworks, BFD2, SD2, Stylus RMX, Trillian.
|
DonaldDuck
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 789
- Joined: 2007/03/14 16:46:29
- Location: Tha South baby!
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 17:19:41
(permalink)
I called a major U.S. Retailer of music stuff about getting a new mixer, and he tried to sell me protools like 5 times. I finally had to have my rant of why i will never use protools! He claimed that my Waves Platinum Bundle Native version would work with Protools, but I was thinking that I've always been told that Protools had to have its own fancysmancy software plugins. Anyway, i said i am VERY happy with Sonar, and I'll not switch to anything else. I do think that Sonar does limit itself by not making a MAC version of its software. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is a limitiation since most musicians who don't use protools insist that the MAC is much better than a PC (whatever...) bla bla bla I, for one, will never own a MAC, so I'm glad that Sonar makes it for my winders machine Digital Performer is MAC only, and it's what we used in my college computer recording class. It is VERY confusing and limited. Sonar blows it away, IMO. Sonar does a lot of advanced things, but I do have one bit of negativity about it. One of my friends hates Sonar for one reason... He claims that the basic idea of the software is good. His complaint is that CW will relase software claiming it has all these features, but it has sooo many bugs and other things, they have to have significant 'bug fixes' I do agree on some level. CW should test the software extensively before releasing it. All that aside, Sonar is a very useful piece of software. While it does have bugs, it usually is very stable and relatively easy on system resources!
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 17:25:20
(permalink)
I do think that Sonar does limit itself by not making a MAC version of its software. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is a limitiation since most musicians who don't use protools insist that the MAC is much better than a PC (whatever...) bla bla bla The Mac is such a tiny percentage of the market that the effort to support it is usually not worth it. The effort required to support multiple platforms is large, and it makes the product more complex, less likely to be fully integrated into either platform, and frankly more likely to be buggy because of the considerably greater complexity and testing burden. I do agree that this is a market where stability is important enough to once in a while warrant a pure bug fixes major release. However, beause of the nature of DAWs, and the fact that you load lots of third party code (plugins) into the DAW executable's process space, no amount of improvements in SONAR will necessarily make it less buggy, since plenty of the bugs are probably in the plugs as well. Though, that's no excuse not to get rid of the ones that they can get rid of.
|
SleepTyght
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2004/04/12 03:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 18:10:25
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mcl
ORIGINAL: cryophonik
You raise many valid points, but your premise appears to be that a DAW has to operate differently to be a valid alternative.
No I think he is asking what is Sonar's unique customer proposition. Not the same thing. Yup. I don't think a DAW has to operate differently. The point I'm making is most DAWS earn respect because they bring something a bit unique to the table, or they just have an attractive selling point that no other DAW can claim. I've never met anyone who enjoyed editing audio or mixing in LIVE, but I've met plenty who either love to use Live as a serious composition tool or as some sort of audio mangler. So even though many aren't using LIVE as a sequencer, it's still highly respected for its ability to manipulate, transform, mangle, and warp audio....though Live is seriously in need of track folders.
And actually I do not have an immediate answer. I went for Sonar because it offers bloody good value for money. But that in and of itself would not have swung me.
In the end Sonar won out for me because it satisfied my requirement for a professional DAW at a reasonable price point. This in and of itself is not a big winning proposition I suspect.
Sonar deserves a better reputation and market penetration - especially in Europe. All in good time perhaps. Certainly the way some of the competition is going Cakewalk have an opportunity. Live is getting too expensive (for what it is... Operator and Sampler are at cost extras (grr)). Cubase has a truly awful rep for bad customer service... SAW is waaay too expensive, SAM is quite expensive as well...
From the keen hobbiest perspective Sonar is a very compelling proposition without there being anything specific about it... but I would be hard pressed to say Cubase has anything special either.
From the pros perspective Sonar isn't an established 'standard' and I suspect it would be very difficult for Cakewalk to make inroads. Logic & Pro Tools seem immovable objects.
My 2p worth
EXACTLY! I wrote that post as a bit of an experiment to see if I could get two responses in particular. One response I anticipated was that Sonar was simply a cost effective and albeit much easier DAW to learn than let's say Logic or even it's PC alternative Cubase for that matter. There's nothing wrong with that response. I just think it answers why Sonar hasn't really earned the respect that some other Daws enjoy. Hell we're on Sonar 6, and the argument can still be made that Sonar's midi isn't on par with Cubase...yet it's cheaper, and ummmm no dongle and......yeah.... Actually the other response I anticipated? Well I really didn't expect to see much to another response because according to most music forums...DAWS off so many similar features that there isn't much to differentiate between let's say Sonar and Cubase. I think that's pretty true...so all that's really left to consider is price and ease of use? Or maybe Sonar doesn't work too well with UAD cards but Reaper does. I don't think there's much to Sonar that would really make anyone say it's ultimately BETTER than any other DAW. In fact I don't think that's true about ANY DAW...although one could say the midi in Logic far outweighs Sonar's...or setting up a controller in Sonar seems far easier to accomplish than in Logic. In fact I find Sonar's automation easy as hell to manage compared to Logic. It's not about necessarily about being the better DAW. Maybe it's more of "Been There. Done That" when considering Sonar. I also don't think Cubase has anything particularly special to offer...and that's why I see Sonar and Cubase as simple alternatives to one another. It really does seem THAT simple. I can't say the same for Live, PT, DP, or Logic. I don't think ANY SEQUENCER offers audio editing as easy and intuitive as PT. What sequencer offers midi editing and customization as in depth as Logic? I think a Logic Vs. PT debate will usually end up as Logic being better suited for midi and PT having the edge over audio. It's unrealistic to say, "Well just choose one or the other" if comping multiple takes is a primary feature you're looking into. Sorry if I come across as being a bit too judgmental of Sonar. I guess at some point the respect thing mattered to me as well, but obviously it doesn't matter that much or I'd use PT Le just for the name. If limiting myself to PT Le's crippled **** means earning more respect for my choice of DAW then I'll pass.
post edited by SleepTyght - 2007/07/27 18:43:23
|
SleepTyght
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 55
- Joined: 2004/04/12 03:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 18:31:22
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DonaldDuck
I called a major U.S. Retailer of music stuff about getting a new mixer, and he tried to sell me protools like 5 times. I finally had to have my rant of why i will never use protools!
He claimed that my Waves Platinum Bundle Native version would work with Protools, but I was thinking that I've always been told that Protools had to have its own fancysmancy software plugins. Anyway, i said i am VERY happy with Sonar, and I'll not switch to anything else.
I do think that Sonar does limit itself by not making a MAC version of its software. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is a limitiation since most musicians who don't use protools insist that the MAC is much better than a PC (whatever...) bla bla bla
I, for one, will never own a MAC, so I'm glad that Sonar makes it for my winders machine Digital Performer is MAC only, and it's what we used in my college computer recording class. It is VERY confusing and limited. Sonar blows it away, IMO.
Sonar does a lot of advanced things, but I do have one bit of negativity about it. One of my friends hates Sonar for one reason... He claims that the basic idea of the software is good. His complaint is that CW will relase software claiming it has all these features, but it has sooo many bugs and other things, they have to have significant 'bug fixes' I do agree on some level. CW should test the software extensively before releasing it.
All that aside, Sonar is a very useful piece of software. While it does have bugs, it usually is very stable and relatively easy on system resources!
No offense, but there is just something..... No wait...that something is just SOMETHING COMFORTING about purchasing a MAC, turning that **** on, and jumping straight into recording without worrying about what will happen if your MAC goes online or whether or not you could steal a bit more CPU or ram from that XP process that's being used for "whatever". I once thought about buying a DAW from Sweetwater, but I reconsidered and bought a G5 without any worry whatsoever. Forget all the Anti-Apple crap. One thing Apple tends to get right is developing software that's pretty easy to use right out of the box. I've used Avid for years, but when I attempted to use Final Cut it was...in a word or two...immediately familiar. I expect Logic 8 to be something extraordinary. I have DP on my G5 with Live. Trust me...in no specific show stopping form is DP any more limited than Sonar. You're imagining things. One of DP's selling points for the longest has been how easy it is to jump into. Compared to Logic, DP is like using MTV's Music Generator. I stopped using Sonar because I wanted to drive more focus towards DP and Live. I couldn't think of one reason to continue using Sonar, but I knew that using DP's flutters and Live's warping would make scoring a bit easier than using Sonar for the same tasks. By the way isn't it about time that Cakewalk includes Kinetic with the next Sonar upgrade? I mean wouldn't it be great for Sonar to have its own step sequencer? Maybe that could be a first step towards offering something particularly unique? Sorta..... Edit: Funny, but there's like a 10 page thread over on KVR about "Why is Sonar Better Than Cubase". Wait wait...that thread is a bit informative!
post edited by SleepTyght - 2007/07/27 18:53:25
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Why Does Sonar Not Get The Respect Of Other DAWS?
2007/07/27 18:42:45
(permalink)
This is address in response to SleepTyght
Judging by your comment you come to Sonar a little later then some of us. You do seem to have a good foundation in the area of sequencers in general.
I look at Sonar, Cubase and Logic as sequencers not as DAWs. All three come to us from their early days with MIDI as the reason for their ever being in the first place. PT is more of a DAW as such.
Cakewalk was the first DOS based pro sequencer while Logic was on the Atari as was Cubase.
Of the three only Cakewalk has stayed with MS through the years. The other two changed to Apple and then came to Windows. Logic has moved back to Apple. CW has had a strong relationship with MS. They helped in the development of DX for example.
That is a very short background on the history of these players in the sequencer market.
Now when Sonar first came out CW was attempting to provide the same level of manipulative power to audio that they had with MIDI. No other sequencer at that time combined the ability to integrate MIDI and audio in a project to the degree that Sonar did. As time has past CW has focused on improving this basic concept. Today the result is Sonar 6. So the main reason to use Sonar is that one has some very powerful audio manipulating tools that no other sequencer has in combination with MIDI. The other two have a lot of catching up to do in order to be in the same league as Sonar in this respect.
We on this forum have been hard at work to improve the MIDI side of Sonar and we have been promised by CW that much of our concerns will be addressed in the next version. It must be said that although we do need these improvements to MIDI, it is even at this time a very competent MIDI sequencer in general.
Best
John
|