Hi Craig,
 Thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed and thoughtful answer.

 Perhaps it is the fact that I agree with you on most, if not all that you have written that makes me think it is such a good post. It seems like an excellent synopsis of how to appreciate Sonar's strengths by putting the choices into perspective.


 I'd say that this statement:


"Sonar was the ONLY program at the time that could handle looping, hard disk recording, and MIDI equally well. Any limitations it had compared to Acid or Cubase were totally outweighed by my being able to do everything I needed to do in a single host program. As I've stuck with Sonar over the years, I've become really proficient at my "instrument," and that also counts for a lot." 




resonates strongly with my memory and my impression of SONAR and this idea is the very reason that I have become so attached to the application myself.


I think the only thing we seem to disagree on is that I do not draw the same conclusion as you seem to from the analysis you have shared. I hope that Cakewalk will someday transcend the current limitations of SONAR as I think that any single DAW can be made to offer a complete tool set to end users.



I'd rather ask, or rather pester, Cakewalk to sell me the other 15% of the functionality than to follow your advice and collect several thousand dollars of other DAW licenses and accumulate 100s of extra hours of learning other apps just to augment that %15 gap.

I actually have gone out and bought several other licenses... all in response to my disappointment at the SONAR Xgen stuff... so I guess I am actually taking your advice. SONAR/Cakewalk Pro Audio was my first full time DAW but I think you are correct so I've diversified even if I begrudge the idea.

I maintain that Cakewalk's primary competition is itself. I personally feel that Cakewalk would do well to analyze it's own product and ask itself "what can we do better" but I have the time worn impression that a lot of Cakewalk's current focus is on haphazardly copying ideas found in other DAWs in an vain effort to keep up with some other DAWs'  <85% capability.





Thanks again for sharing such thoughtful insights.


best regards,
mike

If features such as screensets, the smart tool, auto zoom, pro channel etc are the result of copying other DAWs then long may it continue, that's what I say.

I'm afraid that if you can't track 24 tracks at once you've got far bigger problems than your choice of software.

Exactly...
And those core issues will follow *any* DAW.
Crackle and dropouts are the result of lack of performance.
The hardware can't keep up with the load... to maintain the data stream (thus pops/ticks/glitches/dropouts)

Well this has turned into an interesting post with all this DAW comparison, I've only used Sonar, Cubase, and Reaper. so nice to get some insight into the rest.
     Didn't see any more posts from Anniedog so I guess he really did leave but thanks to him for creating this thread. (got a lot of good people together with interesting remarks).



Roy

I think the only thing we seem to disagree on is that I do not draw the same conclusion as you seem to from the analysis you have shared. I hope that Cakewalk will someday transcend the current limitations of SONAR as I think that any single DAW can be made to offer a complete tool set to end users. I'd rather ask, or rather pester, Cakewalk to sell me the other 15% of the functionality than to follow your advice and collect several thousand dollars of other DAW licenses and accumulate 100s of extra hours of learning other apps just to augment that %15 gap. I actually have gone out and bought several other licenses... all in response to my disappointment at the SONAR Xgen stuff... so I guess I am actually taking your advice. SONAR/Cakewalk Pro Audio was my first full time DAW but I think you are correct so I've diversified even if I begrudge the idea.

Hi Mike,


Not to speak for Craig, but I think his attitude is, "If you can't beat em, join em."
IOW, The DAW software situation is what it is (at any one point in time).  An app may be imperfect or "feature incomplete" for a particular use/user... and rather than spending time/energy fighting it, he chooses to work with and around the limitations.  In this case, using what's available (other software) to "fill the gaps".

This is pretty much my attitude toward DAW applications.
X2 is my main DAW, but I have numerous other tools for specific purposes (Vegas Pro 12, Sound Forge, Reaper, Cubase, etc).

X2 definitely has room for improvement...
But if I had to weigh all variables... and choose another (single) DAW app to replace X2, that would be a tough choice.  I'd be making some concessions/compromises no matter which app I chose.

BTW, I agree with another previous post.  I love it when another DAW app comes up with a great "revolutionary" new feature.  That kind of innovation fuels/sparks development across all apps.

[quoteBTW, I agree with another previous post.  I love it when another DAW app comes up with a great "revolutionary" new feature.  That kind of innovation fuels/sparks development across all apps. ]


Exactly Jim, competition between DAW's is a good thing.  That hold's true for most products.  Innovation comes out of competition.  Prices are lower to the consumer when there is competition.  Quality is better.

Crackle and dropouts can also (and mainly is with what I've seen with other peoples setups) be caused by lack of optimization and configuration. Intel speed step should be disabled for instance via BIOS or through reg hack. In my situation I had more crackle than rice crispies with it enabled. Using the right chip set drivers can also be important etc etc.

CakeAlexS


Crackle and dropouts can also (and mainly is with what I've seen with other peoples setups) be caused by lack of optimization and configuration. Intel speed step should be disabled for instance via BIOS or through reg hack. In my situation I had more crackle than rice crispies with it enabled. Using the right chip set drivers can also be important etc etc.

Can you elaborate on this "speed step" thing?

mike_mccue


I'd rather ask, or rather pester, Cakewalk to sell me the other 15% of the functionality than to follow your advice and collect several thousand dollars of other DAW licenses and accumulate 100s of extra hours of learning other apps just to augment that %15 gap.


best regards,
mike

My advice is not to collect several thousand dollars of other DAW licenses, just to fill in the really important gaps based on your needs. I just happen to have a lot of needs , and to expect any one program to cover all of them brings up my analogy of not hauling hay in a Miata. Going through the list again...
 
Ableton Live: It's a completely different philosophy compared to Sonar and for that matter, any other program; its paradigm is a musical instrument, not a multitrack studio. The fact that it can do DAW-like functions is sort of like lumping guitars and pianos together because they both have strings.

Traktor: Sonar will never be a DJ program. Like Live, the paradigm is completely different, starting with the need to be wedded to a controller.

Reason: Sonar will never include all the possible soft synths made by all the 3rd party companies in the world. If you want Reason's soft synths, or Arturias, or Ilios, or whatever, then you need to buy their products. Otherwise, you can pass on them.

Pro Tools: If you don't need to collaborate with people who use Pro Tools, you don't really need it. It doesn't have any significant features that Sonar can't replicate.
Cubase: Cubase has tools Sonar doesn't have...Sonar has tools Cubase doesn't have. Whether Sonar's tools are crucial enough to a Cubase user to also run Sonar or vice-versa is up to the user.

Studio One Pro: As I said, no matter which DAW I used, I'd have SOP installed for the mastering page to take advantage of features like DDP and disc image export. Given that no other DAW really has that kind of feature, I can't fault Sonar for not having it...although it would be cool if it had features like DDP export and such. But, with SOP, the mastering/multitrack page integration aspect (again, unique to Studio One) is in such a low level part of the way the program is constructed I don't see any program being able to add that particular functionality unless it's rewritten from scratch.

Sony Acid: Sonar can do pretty much anything Acid can do except load old Acid projects from over a decade ago .

Mixcraft Acoustica: Aside from the video capabilities, Mixcraft has many limitations compared to Sonar. It's fantastic in accomplishing what it sets out to do, but it doesn't have features that Sonar desperately needs to add.
MOTU Digital Performer: It's the king for hardcore audio for video. If you're scoring Steven Spielberg's latest movie, you can afford the license!

Reaper: Don't know it that well to comment as to whether it has mind-boggling features that Sonar needs to have.

Samplitude: As I said, if Sonar didn't exist, I'd probably use Samplitude or SOP. But that's because they've very similar in many ways, not because they're so different.

 Thanks for your take on those DAWS Craig. I'm content with Sonar X2 although you have me tempted to try SOP again lol.( I did try an earlier version)  

 I think the remote control capability that is now going to be something offered to Cubase users is cool. I'm not really sure I need it though. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I thought I needed something and didn't use it. Not a new thing any more either as many software tools are implimenting something similar.We went from something tactile moving something on a computer screen to something on a computer screen moving something on a computer screen :)

   I view Cakewalk as having probably one of the most developed working relationships with the engineers at Windows. I can  see this in a lot of the developments with regard to core handling and stability among other things.These kinds of developments don't just happen .