BluesMatt
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2007/12/26 12:36:39
- Status: offline
MC5 vs. Sonar
True or False: Everything I learn using MC5 is transferable when upgrading to Sonar.
I would guess "true" but then I thought I'd ask the experts. The intention is to start with MC5, try to get past the learning curve, and then in time (read, when more funds are available) upgrade to Sonar (the goal is the Producer version). The thinking is that once past the learning curve for MC5, getting started with Sonar will be easy. Granted, Sonar can do lots more so there will still be lots more to learn but at least getting up and running should be MUCH faster.
True or False????
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/06 15:38:03
(permalink)
hmm...SORT OF...LOL
MC5's GUI and workflow are restricted and Sonar's is not, so there will be a learning curve moving to the different interface. that wasn't true for MC4 and below because they were the same, but MC5 and SHS7 changed to a more "beginner's interface" while sonar is advanced.
basic functions will still be in the same menu places, softsynths and FX are still added the same way, so that much is transferable.
|
BluesMatt
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2007/12/26 12:36:39
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/06 15:45:45
(permalink)
So Beagle, with my eventual goal of upgrading to Sonar, should I start with MC5 or start with SHS (maybe)?
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/06 17:04:53
(permalink)
the only advantages that SHS7 has over MC5 are:
*INPUTS and OUTPUTS are only limited by the soundcard hardware in SHS, in MC you're limited to 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
*SHS7XL has more softsynths and FX available, but the ones that come with MC5 are not slackers, either, but there are more in SHS7XL and they're different
*there are a few functions available in SHS7 / SHS7XL that are not available in MC, but nothing major that I can think of.
personally, I would look at SHS7XL and compare what comes with it to MC5 and make my decision based on that. I wouldn't spend my money on the non-XL version of SHS7 at all.
and if you need more than 2 simultaneous inputs, then that would be the deciding factor right away - go with SHS7XL!
|
Wood67
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1348
- Joined: 2008/10/27 08:57:36
- Location: Brighton, UK
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/06 19:22:02
(permalink)
FWIW I started with MC4 and later upgraded to Sonar 6, and more recently Sonar 8.5. Beagle's quite right about the UI in MC5 which has changed to make it simpler. In my opinion it's worse, but they may be because I got used to MC4 which is more directly transferable to Sonar. For the money it's a great introduction.
Don't forget you can download the 30d trial version of Sonar before you make any final decision. That will give you a great flavour of what you can expect. It has everything in it with the exception of the additional VST synths/fx.
Wood Studio One 3 Pro, (Sonar Platinum), Intel i7, Win10 Pro, 32Gb ram, RME Babyface Pro, Behringer X-Touch, Presonus Faderport, Akai MPK49, Arturia KeyLab25, KRK Rokit 5 monitors, and other sonic surprises.
|
BluesMatt
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2007/12/26 12:36:39
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/07 12:22:51
(permalink)
Thanks all. I think I'll start with the boxed version of MC5 and check out the included soft synths.
Two more questions though; (1) it sounds like some of you prefer the "more difficult" interface in MC4 vs. the "simpler" interface in MC5. Why would "more difficult" be better than "simpler"? (2) If I start with MC5, will I be able to trade files with friends that use Sonar? Or I will I need to trade .wav or MIDI files?
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/07 12:50:30
(permalink)
1) it's limiting. the "more difficult" GUI in MC4 (Sonar 6 & SHS6) gives you more freedom to make changes. and it directly corresponds to Sonar's GUI. for example, the horizontal track size is not resizable in MC5.
2) cakewalk designs their CWP and CWB files to be forward AND backward compatible to all versions of cakewalk. sometimes that doesn't work, but in general it does. problems will come, however, if you have plugins or softsynths in your project that your friend doesn't have.
|
57Gregy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14404
- Joined: 2004/05/31 17:04:17
- Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/07 23:05:57
(permalink)
Why would "more difficult" be better than "simpler"? I think in this case "simpler" means fewer options, such as the afforementioned track sizing, and the inability to change the channel strip widths in 5, where you could do that in 4. I don't have MC 5, so I can't list all the differences, but I believe the simplifying didn't change the functionality.
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Re:MC5 vs. Sonar
2009/11/09 14:51:34
(permalink)
FWIW.......
I started with MC4 a few years ago. I have a version of MC5 as well.
I still use MC4 all the time and simply use the soundcenter in 5 since it is available to me in MC4.
MC4 does all I need it to do, it produces some fine sounding stuff, and so, I have no plans to move up.
To me, both 4 & 5 are very similar, I like the GUI in 4 so that's why I use 4 and not 5.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|