ORIGINAL: studio24
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.

Depends on your definition of "delivering functionality"... If you look at vendors that provide cross-plaform apps, and you look really hard at the problem incidents reported on user forums and such, I think you'll find that one of the platforms consistently lags behind the other. Kontakt and Kontakt2, for example... I would frequently see forum posts from members complaining about some basic functionality in the latest release not working properly on the Mac, and I would think to myself "glad I'm using the PC version!".

Justin's porting REAPER to the Mac? Will it be 100%, 1-for-1 functionally complete and stable compared to the PC version? I don't think so. It's just not possible. I think you'll find the Mac version consistently behind the PC version in terms of number of bugs, stability, new features, etc. -- at least until the point that the rate of major changes and functionality enhancements die down to where the Mac version can "catch up".

Steinberg has supported multi-platform for a long time, but how much of that waiting-for-the-SX3-patches business 18 months ago was due to intrinsic overhead due to supporting two platforms? And how much market did Cakewalk steal due to Steiny users waiting for updates and "getting lied to"? Or for that matter, how many months have Kontakt or Kontakt2 updates been held back by needing to deliver stable functionality on both platforms (another product historically lambasted for long-standing bugs)?

Multi-platform is non-trivial, and just saying "all ya gotta do is port it to the Mac like these other guys" doesn't make it easy to actually do it! There are very good business and logistical reasons for choosing to not support Mac (or Linux, for that matter), or vice versa in the case of DP or Logic, etc. As a business you're going to take a hit one way or the other... personally I think not being weighed down by the complex requirements and overhead of multi-platform is the lesser of the many evils.

That being said, perhaps Cake's recent release of Mac synth products is a sign that they're ramping up on the Mac expertise and resources... that would certainly make a lot of people happy to have that option.

W/o arguing over the actual products, just the business models of the big guys...


In the Multi Platform corner: Steinberg, bought and sold twice in less than 2 years, and having to deal w/ a lot of unsatisfied customers these days. Delayed updates, broken promises, questionnable ethics. Logic, bought by Apple, now Mac only.

In the Dedicated to a Single Platform from the beginning corner: Digital Performer and Sonar. Both consistent and exemplary in comparison.

ORIGINAL: keith

ORIGINAL: studio24
Justin's porting REAPER to the Mac? Will it be 100%, 1-for-1 functionally complete and stable compared to the PC version? I don't think so. It's just not possible. I think you'll find the Mac version consistently behind the PC version in terms of number of bugs, stability, new features, etc. -- at least until the point that the rate of major changes and functionality enhancements die down to where the Mac version can "catch up".

Well, with the exception of Dx and Dxi .. the port is 100% true-to-form. I think once you do the porting work and identify
the platform dependencies, the higher level functionality is (ideally) insulated from this stuff. I see no reason why a
well architected tool couldn't work equally well on both platforms. There may be some quirks or bugs that are only
exhibited on one of the platforms .. as a Protools user, I experience this phenomenon on occasion.

ORIGINAL: DonaldDuck

ORIGINAL: SleepTyght

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!

Digital Performer is better for MIDI, but that's about all. Who are you to try to discredit my opinion? It is ok to disagree, but that doens't mean you have to attack my views, which are as valid as yours.

Digital Performer was limited and confusing. The commands in the menus to do simular things were in totally different places. It made very little sense to me... even the instructor, which is a pro-MAC nut, said it could have been set up in a more logical format. Any of the major DAW software packages beats DP for pure audio in my opinion, including Sonar. None of them can compete with DP with respect to MIDI, but I don't use Midi much at all.

We've had numerous heated discussions about PC vs. Mac here, so I have no intention of opening that can of worms. There is a reason that 90% of people use windows based machines... and it sure isn't a love for Microsoft. Of course, people could spend $3000 for a MAC that is speedy as my 2-3 year old PC and crashes everytime you put a load on it. If you enjoy your precious macs, then rock on. I hope you enjoy them. I will never use them nor forget the 'anti apple crap.'

It is Anti-Apple crap. That's dumb **** that college freshmen on a scholarship still argue over in the post production room. Jesus how many times have I heard that "OH GOD I HATE MACS" exclamations coming from some kid who took a film editing class where Final Cut was the focus yet he'd rather edit on Avid? Come on...let's be adults about this. We both know both PCs and Macs are both extremely capable machines when used as DAWS, but what can't be argued against is the simplicity and immediacy of installing AND EFFECTIVELY USING let's say....


DP on OSX 10.4 Vs. Sonar on Windows XP with or without the additional service packs. Have you ever built a DAW? I'm sure someone will come through here boasting that they've never had to optimize their DAW....but think about how much CPU or RAM you could be dedicating towards your recording if you had. Sure you can be a PC already optimized for you, and it might be a better deal for a MAC since it would be easier and cheaper to upgrade.


'Cept neither Logic or DP is on PC so it wouldn't have made much sense for me to go that route. Besides...I like the idea of being able to go online with my MAC if necessary and not have to worry about one of 114,000 viruses infecting my PC.



Sure 90% of computer using folk are on Windows Based systems. MOST PEOPLE just want to browse the net, do their taxes, Powerpoint presentations, type a paper on Microsoft Word, build pc's for hard core gaming, or spend 94% of their free time creating viruses to **** with 90% of the world's users who have the common sense not to spend $3000 on simple tasks....not that writing code for viruses is simple or anything.


But think about what the other 10% are more than likely doing with their MACS?


Creating Music
Editing Video, Photos, Animation
Designing Graphics
Actually having the OSX disc on hand to install it on another computer if you CHOOSE TO....
Or just simply trying to look cool in the face of PC users...



The point is the only reason why MAC Vs. PC debates exist is because of money. You and I both know that if MACs cost as much as PCs there's a damn good chance that MANY Sonar users could have ended up recording on DP or Logic...especially LOGIC. For someone who cpmplains about DP's logical interface, I think you should know that DP 5's interface far exceeds the "limitations" of DP 4 or whatever version you used in school. Speaking of limitations, how many more months should we wait if Sonar FINALLY gets editing tool selection right with V7? Also for the record, I don't think Logic's handling of audio beats DP AT ALL. As far as Sonar Vs. DP....both have track folders/grouping, the ability to apply effects to an audio clip, beat detection...

what more does Sonar have that DP doesn't have in terms of audio editing? Seriously I'd like to know.

I think ANY DAW will seem confusing, limited, or extremely illogical to users who just don't get it. I've heard for years that Logic was extremely tough to learn...so far I seem to be getting along just fine.


Anywho...sorry if you feel that I attacked your opinions. But seriously as adults I think it's about time to just admit there really isn't a PC VS. MAC debate.


Just like there really isn't a hardware vs. software debate.
Or a software vs. Access Virus debate.
Or a Pro Tools Vs. Sonar Vs. Cubase Vs. DP Vs. Reaper debate

It's just my savings/checking account vs. your account...and that's really the only time where "limitations" really would matter. I'm not being a smartass....that's simply the truth.

ORIGINAL: John

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.

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

Nope. I was here since Pro Audio 9. I remember getting the email some years ago about Pro Audio being upgraded to Sonar in January of....'99 or 2000 I guess? I did upgrade...then I moved to Cubase SX on PC and Performer on Mac, stayed until SX2, and came back to Sonar at V3. I never left DP.


As far as catching up to Sonar is concerned....DP had beat detection/audiosnap features at version 4. Sonar had it at 6....despite the release numbers, Sonar still adopted beat detection later than DP...am I right about this?


I think all sequencers or "DAWS" are rather playing catch up to PT...or maybe even Nuendo. I'm not sure of who was offering surround sound capaiblity first, and I guess I should look this stuff up later. Gotta go torture myself on a treadmill for a bit.

ORIGINAL: mgh

It's just my savings/checking account vs. your account...and that's really the only time where "limitations" really would matter. I'm not being a smartass....that's simply the truth.

this is very true, but then some people will spend £2000 on a purpose-built DAW, plus another £1000 on a gaming pc, and another £500 on a net/wp pc. so money isn't always the issue. being able to avoid a 6 month learning curve on mac's OS, whilst also having a learning curve on ur software, is one great reason.
but mainly i think, i've always used a pc, my new pc is perfectly stable, it hasn't crashed yet, why change? 5 years ago when windows was ****e, there was an argument for the stability etc of macs, but now, no.
and in the end, who cares??? if we're happy using what we're using, does it matter?!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed 200%. I haven't changed up my Daws in years because I hate having to learn tools that overlap what I already have. The only reason why I started to use Logic was after seeing what could be done with Ultrabeat. I've heard so much about Logic over the years that I wanted to see what was so great about it. I didn't pay for it so I figured if anything it would be a waste of time if I decided it wasn't suited for my workflow.

If Logic 8 seriously improves on audio editing and adds a tool or two from DP's scoring selection then I'd probably drop DP for good. Yeah I just really enjoy Ultrabeat THAT MUCH.

Crtl-spacebar resets the now time. This has been discussed plenty of times!!!!!!
We want a true pause button option that does not reset the now time, please oh pretty please.

Ed

ORIGINAL: Ognis

ORIGINAL: F@KKER

yes, other than not having a pause button, Sonar is way ahead of the PC pack...

F@KKER

Whats wrong with ctrl + spacebar

OHH That is how it's done? Don't I feel like a goober for not knowing that after using Sonar for years!

Thanks! haha

ORIGINAL: jlgrimes

It is Anti-Apple crap. That's dumb **** that college freshmen on a scholarship still argue over in the post production room. Jesus how many times have I heard that "OH GOD I HATE MACS" exclamations coming from some kid who took a film editing class where Final Cut was the focus yet he'd rather edit on Avid? Come on...let's be adults about this. We both know both PCs and Macs are both extremely capable machines when used as DAWS, but what can't be argued against is the simplicity and immediacy of installing AND EFFECTIVELY USING let's say....


DP on OSX 10.4 Vs. Sonar on Windows XP with or without the additional service packs. Have you ever built a DAW? I'm sure someone will come through here boasting that they've never had to optimize their DAW....but think about how much CPU or RAM you could be dedicating towards your recording if you had. Sure you can be a PC already optimized for you, and it might be a better deal for a MAC since it would be easier and cheaper to upgrade.


'Cept neither Logic or DP is on PC so it wouldn't have made much sense for me to go that route. Besides...I like the idea of being able to go online with my MAC if necessary and not have to worry about one of 114,000 viruses infecting my PC.



Sure 90% of computer using folk are on Windows Based systems. MOST PEOPLE just want to browse the net, do their taxes, Powerpoint presentations, type a paper on Microsoft Word, build pc's for hard core gaming, or spend 94% of their free time creating viruses to **** with 90% of the world's users who have the common sense not to spend $3000 on simple tasks....not that writing code for viruses is simple or anything.


But think about what the other 10% are more than likely doing with their MACS?


Creating Vusic
Editing Video, Photos, Animation
Designing Graphics
Actually having the OSX disc on hand to install it on another computer if you CHOOSE TO....
Or just simply trying to look cool in the face of PC users...



The point is the only reason why MAC Vs. PC debates exist is because of money. You and I both know that if MACs cost as much as PCs there's a damn good chance that MANY Sonar users could have ended up recording on DP or Logic...especially LOGIC. For someone who cpmplains about DP's logical interface, I think you should know that DP 5's interface far exceeds the "limitations" of DP 4 or whatever version you used in school. Speaking of limitations, how many more months should we wait if Sonar FINALLY gets editing tool selection right with V7? Also for the record, I don't think Logic's handling of audio beats DP AT ALL. As far as Sonar Vs. DP....both have track folders/grouping, the ability to apply effects to an audio clip, beat detection...

what more does Sonar have that DP doesn't have in terms of audio editing? Seriously I'd like to know.

I think ANY DAW will seem confusing, limited, or extremely illogical to users who just don't get it. I've heard for years that Logic was extremely tough to learn...so far I seem to be getting along just fine.


Anywho...sorry if you feel that I attacked your opinions. But seriously as adults I think it's about time to just admit there really isn't a PC VS. MAC debate.


Just like there really isn't a hardware vs. software debate.
Or a software vs. Access Virus debate.
Or a Pro Tools Vs. Sonar Vs. Cubase Vs. DP Vs. Reaper debate

It's just my savings/checking account vs. your account...and that's really the only time where "limitations" really would matter. I'm not being a smartass....that's simply the truth.

To be fair, I've just built a new DAW. It really isn't as hard as you make it sound.

Also I didn't really have to optimize Windows after I installed XP and Sonar. The system performed great as is. I just optimized Windows just to make things a little more efficient. And optimizing Windows is just a one time deal, takes about an hour maybe shorter and after that you don't have to tweak anything.

I'm not making it sound hard. I'm making it sound like if you choose to go deep into optimizing then it's gonna take you a little more than "about an hour". Going into system services alone and realizing what service depends on the next could take a first time user about 30 minutes alone. Once again...that's if you CHOOSE to go that deep. I bought a Windows XP-Lite edition for my DAW, and I still found it pretty necessary to get pretty deep into optimizing for both Sonar and Live. That's just my experience though.

Don't even go there on performance. I heard how Macs have better performance out of the box than PCs. That might be true, but my friend installed Reason 3.0 on his Macbook pro and couldn't get any latency below 10ms. To me that is pathetic compared to the 3ms I get on my PC with no glitches. Granted that is a tweaked PC though.

1. That's just your friend's experience...

2. You're compairing a Macbook laptop to a PC tower...although even Logic can run smoothly on a Macbook right out of the box. Sonar on a Vaio out of the box???????

3. Wouldn't latency depend on the soundcard and its drivers...not the PC or Macbook themselves? What interface or face(s) was he using?

Also tweaking your PCs gives you more power, it allows your PC to become obsolete at a slower pace. Macs get obsolete faster because their processors can't be upgraded.

Doesn't matter if your Mac/PC is obsolete. What does matter is whether you can use it with your next software upgrades. I built my last PC in 2004...4 hard drives...2 gigs of ram...3.2 processor. Pc's have a shelf life of about 18 months right? Well it's three years later and my tower still works great with Live 6.

And I own both Live and Sonar 6 and I think Sonar's audiosnap is a more complete tool than Live's warping. Live just gets a nod because it is instantaneous, but if you loop old samples, you still have to get in there and adjust those markers, so I don't see the point.

Sonar's looping is almost instantaneous using Groove clips.

I haven't used Audiosnap much, but I should check it out. So you're saying that I could chop a sample in Sound Forge, load it in Sonar, apply Audiosnap, and it will automatically loop everything on time without any further "messin' around"?

But what if I want to slow down a piece of that audio in the middle . Say have it start off at 98BPM, slow down, and have the end of that clip play back at regular speed? Ah the beauty of warp markers. That's what I meant before by bringing something UNIQUE to the table. Having an audio region loop and playback without gaps while you edit it in real time(groove quantize, etc. etc) is truly why Live deserves the respect it has.


Edit: Maybe I'm just crazy, but it is possible to stretch a file with Audiosnap just as easily as using groove clips right? I'm toying around with Audiosnap right now, and umm....ok...I'll be back.


EDIT....

Nevermind, I'm too lazy to learn Audiosnap. I would just stick with inserting tempos if I had to. Second, I should have mentioned starting and slowing down audio in real time while using Audiosnap ....without crashes. Maybe it's just my system, but I'm on my 3rd try of slowing down and speeding up a drum break in Sonar, and it keeps crashing. Also of course when I slow down or speed up the file, it seems to just shorten the audio clip.

It's cool though.

Well, I believe the problem here is that Sonar simply does not have the file interchange credibility the "main" studio DAWs have. OMF, BWF and timecode lock have come rather late to Sonar and to be honest, I don't know how well Cakewalk have implemented either (not my realm). In fact, project interchange between DAWs from different vendors is appently still hit and miss with the current file standards - due to a lack of enforcement in the details - but you can bet that production professionals would rather deal with the devil they know. That is, even if Sonar can do it just as well or even better than Nuendo, when things go wrong, they would prefer to fix it in the DAW they and their collaborators already know.

The issue is that in the pro production world, multitracks - not just stereo or surround masters - get passed around between facilities quite a lot. The DAWS have to be capable of importing multiple files from projects created to either OMF, AES or EBU standards and putting them in the right tracks at the right time code. Extras such as mix settings, bussing eq etc aren't always catered for but as and when they are - you can bet it will be Avid (protools/omf), Apple, Steinberg, Sonic Solutions, Sadie et all that are the companies behind it, Even Magix (Samplitude, Sequoia), a relatively small player, are at the table. I've never seen Cakewalk mentioned in the list of standard setters. It would be interesting to know if they ever get invited to the table.

Actually, Microsoft of all people are behind a promising new file interchange format, AAF, that will carry more than just basic track and time code import although EBU and AES and AVID will have to accept this too. Given that Cakewalk do apparently talk to Microsoft, they could have an opportunity to get Sonar deeply embedded with this project - perhaps they already are? Currently, AAF appears to be in a hiatus - does the world really want Microsoft to control yet another standard?

Also new is Mpeg7 - another chance for Cakewalk to get in on the groundfloor if they're interested.

Here's an example on the web discussing file interchange - you'll notice who isn't mentioned.
http://www.seneschal.net/papers/bitstream/bstream017.htm

ORIGINAL: jim y
....

Also new is Mpeg7 - another chance for Cakewalk to get in on the groundfloor if they're interested.

Here's an example on the web discussing file interchange - you'll notice who isn't mentioned.
http://www.seneschal.net/papers/bitstream/bstream017.htm

I thought Cakewalk was involved with AAF for a while ... but they seemed to have
dropped out ...

http://www.aafassociation.org/index.html

I do believe Cakewalk would do much better being able to feed a bigger
fish (even if Digitranslator was involved). I believe AAF is a much stronger/comprehensive
format and they would be wise to take this route...

or EDL .. or read and write a PT 5 (ascii text) session file format. Then they'd get some
nibbles at least.

I think mpeg7's mission is a little different from what AMWA (yes, they pronounce
it "Amway" ;-) ) is trying to do.

yes, but again, not a true pause button- a substitution or a/b replacement of another function which you have to navigate to in order to activate- ctrl + spacebar is easier. still, there is no true pause button.

Just what characteristics are needed to be a true pause button? In my view pause is useful only when dealing with a real mechanical transport. With digital I really don't see the need. I am open to a good argument for it though.

BTW with a control surface pause is built in, just hit the play button. That will pause it. At least it will on my MC.

Best
John

I don't get it either (the pause button issue). I don't mean to be sarcastic or anything, I'd just like to know what would be the actual benefit. Cause to me pause and stop in the non-mechanical/virtual world are pretty much the same.

ORIGINAL: F@KKER

For something as basic as a pause button, I don't think us "pause buttoners" are being picky.

I think that's exactly it; it niggles because it's so basic and obvious, yes still we don't have it. It's like having a kettle that switches off just before boiling.

I mean, pause shmause. What we actually need is jog wheel functionality (in which pause is a given, more or less), not that crappy slider. I can think of a dozen improvements you could make to the transport functionality, pause is real page one stuff. Audio scrub tool needs an update, too. Cakewalk should be looking at the latest versions of Sound Forge and Acid for pointers on this.