Why not Sonar?

I know right?  I watched the superior drums video up on groove3's website. They had sections on integrations with other big name daws but not sonar.   

So it's their passive aggressive way of dissing sonar?

I went to the DMG web site and read the "Specifications" page for the new EQ. There is no specific mention of "supported host systems" there.

They do say that Windows system requirements include, "A host that supports VST or VST3, such as: Steinberg Cubase, Steinberg Nuendo" and others...and their Mac requirements include, "A host that supports VST, AU or VST3, such as: Apple Logic, Apple Garageband" and others.

Sonar is not on the list, but it is NOT a list of all supported systems. Key phrase, "such as". They simply listed the systems that are top-of-mind for THEM. Or, with sales in mind, maybe they listed only programs that come up light when compared to the array of plug-in's included with Sonar.
 
It is true that we live in such a Pro Tools/Logic/Garage Band world that Sonar users sometimes feel like second-class citizens. That has never kept me from making the music I want to make with Sonar, and in fact, the people who hear my recordings always comment on how great the audio quality is, whether it's a song, jingle or radio commercial. No one has ever said, "That sounds crappy, you must be using Sonar," or "What's wrong with you? You can't succeed with Sonar."

I've used Pro Tools and other programs, but Sonar gives me EVERYTHING I need for any recording I want to do. I don't care if others approve of Sonar, or if certain plug-in manufacturers seem to think of it as an also-ran.

Maybe some plug-in companies downplay Sonar because it comes with such a load of plug-ins that their outboard plug-ins are mostly unnecessary. It certainly seems to be a goal of Cakewalk's to load up Sonar with so many built-in features that you don't need anything else. That in itself could make plug-in manufacturers feel that Sonar users aren't a big market for them.

I have invested heavily in the UAD-2 effects system, but as Sonar delivers more-and-more great plug-in's, I find myself using the UAD-2 less-and-less. 

Since Sonar keeps coming out with great new plug-in's, like the CA-2A T-Type Leveling Amplifier that they released this past January for not only Sonar X2, but also VST and AU...maybe the plug-in companies see Cakewalk as competition...and they should.   

It's fairly simple, people don't take us seriously because we're on Windows. There is a huge bias against windows in the music industry. At my sound tech school in 2005, which was very good btw, we were basically told: just get a mac. I like fast computers and good looking video games so I ignored that advice. Good for me, as sonar is a whole load of fun, even more so since x2, and every other daw I know is a complete snore-fest. I would have switched trades long ago were I stuck in cubase, logic, or god forbid, pt.

let me speculate.
ok
roland cakewalk sonar usa
yamaha steinberg cubase.
two big companies of the 80's
two pioneers of electronic music with daw software.
steinberg did a good job with cubasis vst 32 many functions which were
simply unbelieveable for that time 90's
and cakewalk is a kinda local matadore
the reason why other companies
are much more known as sonar is
most of the computer music software comes out of europe
so its normal that they help and support each other in somekinda way.
and roland belong to usa.
yamaha was and is domanating here the market in europe
by accident i found one day Sonar and was suprised
about the functions and immediatly i fell in love with sonar
but it was not stable enough for real big studios
and data exchange was and is really important.
and most studios made their decision because of stability.

and another problem of the industry is that they were simply ignorant and did not listen to their customers
instead they attack customers with fanboys etc etc.
i have called some companies for support and they treated me the (paying customer) like s..t
all i can say is customer is king.

few weeks ago i have been banned from another forum for starting a simple discussion (topic) i did not use bad words
the oppsite was the case they c..t troll flamm etc etc and i could not conter
but that shows me that industry manupulates the market in somekinda way
they dont wanna hear criticizm
all tthey want is yeah boys and pay boys customers even if their products
b....l...t
since 2010 the market changed dramaticaly and now they get what they earned lol
when it comes to Sonar
sonar is doing it right
it seems to me there were somekinda technology exchange between other
soft companies.
and sonar with all the products inside makes some companies affraid of it.
they want the  prices high (cartell)
i am from germany and i know alotof other musicians and if they ask me what i use i told them Sonar and they said what
they did not know that sonars exists.
and thats really sad
sonar is fantastic but cakewalk has to stop all the fanboys from polutting threads
when a customer has an question which is maybe not nice for...
instead they should learn from the experiences of the customer.

so plz fanboys and fangirls plz plz plz dont attack me now for my opinion.
its only my opinion
take it as it is but when you kool users have good argument i ma willing to learn.

The SOS postings were being done by Craig Anderton, also a member of the Sonar Users Forum and who uses Sonar himself, who was promoted to a director of a large company.  I hope he has time for reviews, not only here, but in EM as well.

Time will tell.

I do agree with the Windows/Mac bias supporting Apple and Pro Tools.  When my daughter was in HS in 2004, her band teacher told me that PT gives major discounts to schools.  He used Sonar personally, but had to teach PT in class.  Apple also does the same thing in hopes of being so integrated that no other system need apply.

Latest issue of SOS does have Craig's Sonar column..

SOS looks good at first sight.
and pt is it really a standard ???
and whats the difference between sonar and pro tools???
i am asking because never used pt
and the most of my friends say logic,cubase
i dont wanna install a demo version
and i am a stay with sonar
spent too much time and i like the mixer and the routing possibilities of sonar.
but i am really curious
would like to hear your experiences with pt.
are there some special thinks that sonar cant do like pt???
sonar midi, wave and omf export for exchanging data between
other daws is good.

I've been saying this for a long time. I can't even speculate why other than what Spencer said...as that is my belief also. What we may need is more "real rockstar" people helping to push Sonar.
 
I've noticed that each time a company releases some sort of controller or something, Sonar was either at the end of the list of names or not included at all. What justifies getting your name on that list? That's what *I'd* be asking if I worked at the bakery. Why did UAD stop in house testing on Sonar? Are we too difficult to work with? Did it bother UAD that we needed a special "Sonar enhancement" button that they had to implement in order for their software to work well with us?
 
One good thing....which may be the first of great things to come. Waves and Sonar must be doing something together. We went from Waves not caring that the GUI was jacked and controls didn't work right to Sonar helping them sell products. So there must have been some sort of compromise somewhere. This is a good thing.
 
Back to UAD, they listed a fix for their latest software that mentioned a fix for Sonar users. This is another good sign that maybe things are changing. I hope we had something to do with that as I hounded UAD for 3 weeks talking to tech support begging for them to look into our issues. We have a great product. It's as good or better than anything out there getting acclaim. I still think not many take us seriously enough and we don't have enough big guns with a name to push us. Time will tell...but it appears someone is trying to make a difference for the better.
 
-Danny

http://kevincharlesbrandon.homestead.com/files/Professionals.html

If I knew what you were talking about I would comment. As far as I know that web post is 11 years old. I just thought it was interesting. 

I think it is just  that Steinberg OWN the intellectual rights to the VST format, and companies are simply reflecting that in specification/requirements listings. Hence the referral to Cubase most of the time...As for other DAW's perhaps there are some "placement" fees going on???

It is a pretty safe bet there will be a money trail there somewhere 

I seriously doubt there is ANY conspiracy by way of country of origin/ownership or against developers per se...

maybe it's because midi implementation in sonar isn't 100% reliable.  I've said it before - the glitches in sonar with midi, esp midi being sent from multiple soft synths, makes the whole program look amateurish.

joden


I think it is just  that Steinberg OWN the intellectual rights to the VST format, and companies are simply reflecting that in specification/requirements listings. Hence the referral to Cubase most of the time...As for other DAW's perhaps there are some "placement" fees going on???

It is a pretty safe bet there will be a money trail there somewhere 

I seriously doubt there is ANY conspiracy by way of country of origin/ownership or against developers per se...

I would not underestimate the DX vs VST strategy that ran its course. Companies compete with a finite number of consumers. I would expect some resentment even though it is probably not overt.

Yeah, true.

rabeach

joden


I think it is just  that Steinberg OWN the intellectual rights to the VST format, and companies are simply reflecting that in specification/requirements listings. Hence the referral to Cubase most of the time...As for other DAW's perhaps there are some "placement" fees going on???

It is a pretty safe bet there will be a money trail there somewhere 

I seriously doubt there is ANY conspiracy by way of country of origin/ownership or against developers per se...

I would not underestimate the DX vs VST strategy that ran its course. Companies compete with a finite number of consumers. I would expect some resentment even though it is probably not overt.