Why Sonar?

Hi there
 
New boy here, so please be gentle with me :)
 
I'm fairly new to computer-based DAWs. For quite a few years I'd been using standalone multitracks, but recently (on a recommendation) I downloaded the free version of PreSonus Studio One
 
It seems fine, but then I don't know any different. My question, therefore, is this: Why do you use Sonar? What does it have that elevates it above other DAWs?
 
Thanks in advance for any replies :)

i think there is a demo for SONAR give it a try...

If you're new to computer recording, trying demos may be a really steep learning curve, and trying to figure out what is best for YOU, may be difficult actually.

I jumped into Sonar because I use a PC, and wanted the best MIDI implementation at the time.  I was previously using Adobe Audition, which lacked MIDI back then.
 
I think if you describe WHAT you'd like to be able to do, will help in answering your question as well and you may find you'll need some audio interfaces, that you may not have considered.

BUT...Sonar is typically very stable, as a lot of DAW software likes to crash, has a lot of extra stuff, so you normally don't need MORE software to get started.  IOW it has drums, synths, FX... probably more than you'll ever use, but it is a complete package.  Also it is a company that seems to really care about its' customers.
 
However, Studio One will be similar in many ways and can be a fine program too.  I think Cake offers more in the long run.  Also, these forums are a GREAT source for help figuring out things.

Hi Markydesad,
I use several DAW's, but here are my big three main reasons for sticking with Sonar -
1. You can have multiple audio clips sounding at the same time on one track. Seems silly, but Cubase and some others don't allow this and it just drives me nuts when doing punch-ins.
2. Track templates. I can save multiple tracks with routing and FX intact for easy recall. Again, there are others that just don't do this.
3. VST3 and ARA. 'nuff said.

That said, there are certainly things that bug me about Sonar...the Audiosnap stuff leaves many things to be desired (especially when trying to edit multi mic drum setups), fully flexible routing and playlists would be nice as well. On balance though, the pros outweigh the cons, particularly when I can just export out to another DAW where I "don't fear" (*ahem*) multi-mic transient editing.
 
Good luck,
Dean

I use SONAR because I started with it in the 90s and I have upgraded all but one release (SONAR 2). 
 
I own Studio One Pro and Reaper. I find SONAR more intuitive. Others may not. I'm cool with that. There is no "one size fits all" DAW, but for me SONAR just feels like home.
 
I'm not a fanboy. I do see shortcomings in design that I wish were addressed but those are personal desires. They may not be what the masses want/need. And none of them stop me from making music.

MarkydeSad
 
I'm fairly new to computer-based DAWs. For quite a few years I'd been using standalone multitracks, 
 
My question, therefore, is this: Why do you use Sonar? What does it have that elevates it above other DAWs?
 
 

Welcome to the forums. Great bunch of people here as you can already see!
 
To answer your question, I would say "this forum" 
 
I came from recording on small two trk tape machines. Then the multi-trk cassettes. And when I was looking to get into computer recording, I found this forum (well newsgroup at first). And from this forum I found out everything I needed to know to record my music on my PC. And the common thread we had together was a desire to make music, and the same DAW. And let me tell you, I was green. I didn't even know what an "Audio Interface" was! But these people help steer me in the right direction every single time!
 
This place is alive everyday. All day long. All night long! Someone is almost always around that can help.
 
The posts before mine have stated some of the software differences, so I won't get into that.
 
But this forum alone sold me on CW and has helped keep me around.
 
BTW, I have Studio 1 and Reaper also. They haven't been used since X2. And I have visited their forums. I am a member of them. But I haven't posted there in a very long time.

Thanks for the welcomes and the advice, folks. You guys are really helpful - I appreciate that :)
 
I must say that since switching to laptop recording from standalone multitracks, editing is sooo much easier. It's another world!
 
I like the idea of doing everything 'in the box'. I'm not a great buyer of effects units etc. So hopefully the various plug-ins that are available will be helpful. It's good to know that Sonar is stable and Windows-friendly. Very important to me

Mark, welcome to the forums! FWIW Mark and I have collaborated on several bits of music, and he's one of the few songwriters whose music I cover.
 
As you can see, this is a remarkably helpful community. We've never discussed why I use SONAR, and I'll echo the previous comment that Studio One is a fine program. But here are what keep me coming back to SONAR, year after year.
 
I started with SONAR back in 2000 because at the time it was the only program that deep an equally good job of MIDI, hard disk recording, and looping. So its competition was...there was no competition.
 
The Cakewalk folks would always thank me at trade shows for my support, but my reply was always that I'd switch in a heartbeat if I found something better, just as I'd switched to SONAR originally. Obviously I'm still using SONAR...my top 10 reasons:
 
1. I've got it down to where I can create songs really, really fast. It took a while to figure out a workflow that was ideal for me, and I suppose I should write about it in more detail, but SONAR has been key to my surge in productivity.
2. It still handles audio, MIDI, and looping really well. It is the only program other than Sony Acid (which I believe will not be updated further) that can create, edit, and save Acidized loops. 
3. It can handle anything I throw at it, from narration to songwriting to developing loop and sample libraries. EVen though I use Ableton Live onstage, all the prep work creating the files to use in Live happens in SONAR.
4. And speaking of Live, SONAR's Matrix View is really cool although it seems to baffle a lot of people.
5. The look. I like the way it looks. Of course appearance is subjective, and the third-party plug-ins contribute to a "designed by committee" feel, but I find the core program visually inspiring.
6. The ProChannel. I believe SONAR is the only program that lets you create your own virtual mixer architecture, e.g., replicate different types of consoles on different channel strips.
7. It has lots of stuff included. That makes it very easy to collaborate with other SONAR users because you don't need to go to other companies as much. Many of the plug-ins in SONAR are underrated simply because they're old, but in reailty, a synth like Rapture got it right the first time. If it had never existed and appeared tomorrow, it would be hailed as an amazing VST. Dimension Pro...not so much, but it still has a lot of useful sounds. What's overlooked the most are synths like PSYNE II, with possibly the most ugly interface of all time, and Z3ta, which while not the second generation version does lots of cool things.
8. Some of SONAR's unique features are outstanding, like Mix Recall, VocalSync, the new control bar, Speed Comping (the best implementation of comping hands-down, IMHO), FX Chains, and what you can do with keyboard commands. Others are similar to other programs, but very well implemented (like Multidock).
9. MIDI FX. I don't know why the whole concept isn't more popular, and the roster hasn't changed much over the years, but they can be very handy.
10. My CA-X amps 
 
Now, here are what are downsides to me.
 
1. It's Windows-only, and Windows was never designed with real-time, low-latency audio streaming in mind. So you have to do certain things or pay the price - like disable drivers that aren't being used, laern what Task Manager is about, and keep your system up to date. I can't tell you how many "SONAR sucks donkey ballz, it crashes all the time!!" end up being some errant Windows driver or graphics card. (It doesn't occur to these people that if SONAR had some inherent flaw that caused it to crash every few minutes, the forum would be filled with users carrying pitchforks and torches.) The upside is once you get a Windows system running smoothly, SONAR is extremely stable. I haven't had a freeze, glitch, crash, or hiccup since upgrading to Platinum. That's pretty cool, given how hard I've been pushing it.
2. Quality transposition is available only in semitones and is not real-time. It's possible to tweak tunings, but I'd like it so much better if the iZotope transposition algorithm - which is really excellent - could do cents.
3. It can handle 32-bit plug-ins. This may seem like an advantage, and it usually is. However it opens the door to using plug-ins that can lead to instability.
4. There's no user-friendly sampler for creating your own instruments. You can create instruments for Rapture and Dimension Pro, but you have to script how the samples are mapped and such. It's not horribly difficult but it did make my brain explode at first. Some people ReWire Reason into SONAR to take advantage of their NN-XT sampler and other instruments, or just say "screw it" and get Kontakt with a ton of content.
5. Cakewalk isn't always clear about what functions are and are not supposed to do. For example AudioSnap is similar to Beat Detective, and works best with percussive material. So if someone applies it to a drum or bass track, generally it will work well. But then some people bring in an entire song and expect AudioSnap have it conform to a tempo, and it just can't do that effectively. The only algorithm I've seen that can do that is the super duper advanced algorithm in Ableton, for which they probably paid a pretty penny in licensing...
6. The same petty annoyances I find in all other programs.
 
It does have a learning curve if you want to take full advantage of it, but you can find your way around the essentials relatively easily.
 
DAWs are like people, they're all different and with some, you hit it off and with others, you don't. I hit it off with SONAR and it has performed extremely well for me on all levels. So I keep using it. And I must say, I think the membership thing is going to be huge.
 
 

Hi Craig! Thanks very much for the welcome and your very detailed post. A lot of good info there :)
 
Dave, I might just do that...
 

Sonar tends to be on the leading edge of things.
 
They went to 64 bit processing ahead of other DAWs.
 
They take risks, like re-designing the User Interface and integrating ARA (think Melodyne).
 
The added multi-point touch well in advance of others (but did it in a way that didn't interfere with existing functionality).
 
I like the new development model, but other DAWs are doing this too.
 
G

When I was researching for my first DAW I stumbled across this forum.
 
Judging that rading a selection of posts on other DAWs was probably a good idea to get real world examples of issues, I hastened back to Sonar and immediately placed my order.
 
I wouldn't shift from Sonar now, no matter what was on the market. The software isn't perfect - nothing is - but I haven't had any show stopping bugs for a very long time. 

I use Sonar because it is the best recording software I can find for the money!

bz2838
I use Sonar because it is the best recording software I can find for the money!

Can't argue with that!

The reasons why I use it are pretty much covered in the other answers. The reason why you should use it is that here on this forum we have scook, who is like your own personal reference guide - ask any question you like and he'll not only know the answer, but has usually answered it before you finished asking the question, lol !  That and the fact that it seems that you're already buddies with Anderton, who also seems to have some degree of knowledge ;)
 
 

For a beginner the question is tough. It takes such a long time to learn one DAW so well that you really can form an opinion about it, that joggling between several demos can be overwhelming.
And when you learn  the basics of your "first one" you easily take it's workflow as the fundamental method, and testing other DAWs may then cause a lot of confusion due to different features.
Cakewalk came to me with my first proper soundcard. I learned it little by little,  upgraded and spent litterally hundreds of hours reading the (then 900 pages, now 1800 pages) manual. I got some version of Cubase with some other soundcard  but after a day or two of testing I did not spend any energy on it simply because I had no need to.