bobguitkillerleft


Hi Danny!
Iv'e been wondering for a while now,since your a very accomplished musician,engineer,producer,what are your thoughts on Steinberg's Cubase,and if or what advantages/disadvantages,does it have compared to Sonar?

I apologize,if you don't/haven't used it,it's just I have some aquaintances,who are Cubase afflicted,and they're constantly on at me,that Sonar isn't anywhere the level that Cubase is,so as your a "High Energy" Guitar Player,I'm intrigued what your thoughts are?
Thanks
Bob

Hi Bob,
 
I'm hoping jwh was joking in his reply to you....I sort of took it that way. :) If not, my apologies jwh...but in a sense, Bob (though he directed a question to me) raises a question about another DAW possibility for you, as Cubase is quite good.
 
To be honest Bob, every DAW that I have tried has it's own strengths and weaknesses in different areas. They all do the same things, they just either present them differently or make you re-adjust your work-flow. Or, some are quite easy and make things easier for you but you may find other areas that make things harder on you. So it's really a catch 22.
 
I would say that ANYONE saying that ANYTHING about "not being at the level of <insert DAW name here> when compared to Sonar, may not have ever used Sonar long enough to make a statement like that. And in that being said, that should not include those that have not been able to make it work right on their system.
 
When I first started to use Cubase, I had to completely reconfigure my system to run it correctly. Down to the colors having to be set at 256 years ago. I hated it and had nothing but problems with it. But if I would have abandoned ship at that point just because I couldn't make it work right at the time, it wouldn't have been fair for me to say "Cubase sucks".
 
Having worked all of that out at the time, I found it to be a very good DAW with midi capability that Sonar didn't quite have at the time. I think we have caught up to them, but to this day, I have always felt that Cubase was the midi animal of the DAW world. The latest version has some nice goodies....but they all do the same things really. Look at Reaper...for $60.00, there's nothing remotely close to it in my opinion for that price. That's one powerful little DAW. But, like all the others...it has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
What it comes down to is this. There will be DAWS like Logic....that are extremely powerful, that also have a pretty intense learning curve. One would need to weigh that the options included in a DAW like that would be worth the time to learn where if you used Adobe Audition or even Audacity, one would be up and running creating music in seconds. The DAW you choose is like the guitar you buy that you consider a soul mate. That guitar can be $200 or it can be $2000. If it works for you, is easy to play, sounds great and gives you confidence, that is the guitar for you.
 
The same with a DAW. I have so much confidence in Sonar X1, that there was a time where I would not save often. For how *I* use it, my crashes were minimal to non-existent after the last patch. Now with X2 being new, my left hand is in a constant state of ctrl+s just in case....but it too has been great since the little patch. With Reaper...I have NEVER crashed the latest version no matter how hard I try. Studio 1, the same thing. Cubase...eh...it works well 90% of the time for me, but I barely use it these days. But as much as I can talk good about other DAWS, Sonar is that "Soul mate" for me. I can put out a tune using a Realtek on a stock Dell that sounds like a "better than demo quality" that will be consistent every time.
 
LOL @ "high energy guitarist"! Thanks for that....I needed it this morning. :) To me, it matters not if you can play or can't play nor does it matter what type of guitar player a person may be. These DAW's are going to give back what you put into them. I never once looked at another DAW and felt "hmm, this is much better for guitarists" or "this is better for me because I'm a guitarist" ya know what I mean? You either can get your ideas out, or you can't. If the DAW I'm trying is hindering me from doing so, it's obviously the wrong DAW for me or I need to learn more about it.
 
But Cubase is just another brand of DAW software with other options. Some people like Ford, some like Chevy. They both have great things about them or they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have the same as Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, PT etc. I just use what I prefer as well as what works for me consistently and is easy to navigate through while fitting my habits and work flow. Hope that answers your question.
 
Sorry jwh for hi-jacking with an answer.
 
-Danny

sonar is very capable to compose dance music in.....just ask cryotonic his stuff is fantastic!

However, Project M hits on a great point there are some strengths in other DAW's that Sonar does not have.......
For instance if you read that Computer Magazine at all they are very big on showing their tutorials in Abelton Live. They seem to focus very highly on it.....and some of the things that they show are very intresting and worth the checking out......

Also if you go to Yout tube and search for dance music especially like hip hop or dub step or just simpling making beats most of them guys are using FL Studio.......the biggest condoner of FL is "MJD Beats".......he actually shows you his work in FL........now mind you it is simply pattern based, and some of his stuff is quite good actually......and especially since I believe that he is not even 20 yet........he has his technique down.....

and finally there is always Reaper.......a lot of guys seem to like that DAW as well......
 
So Abelton or Fl Studio coupled with Sonar is a hard combo to beat.

So there would be my suggestions for you to look at....

Just my two cents
Clifford

Truckermusic


sonar is very capable to compose dance music in.....just ask cryotonic his stuff is fantastic!

However, Project M hits on a great point there are some strengths in other DAW's that Sonar does not have.......
For instance if you read that Computer Magazine at all they are very big on showing their tutorials in Abelton Live. They seem to focus very highly on it.....and some of the things that they show are very intresting and worth the checking out......

Also if you go to Yout tube and search for dance music especially like hip hop or dub step or just simpling making beats most of them guys are using FL Studio.......the biggest condoner of FL is "MJD Beats".......he actually shows you his work in FL........now mind you it is simply pattern based, and some of his stuff is quite good actually......and especially since I believe that he is not even 20 yet........he has his technique down.....

and finally there is always Reaper.......a lot of guys seem to like that DAW as well......
 
So Abelton or Fl Studio coupled with Sonar is a hard combo to beat.

So there would be my suggestions for you to look at....

Just my two cents
Clifford

I am also in the *electronic stuff* domain and no doubt a pattern mode in Sonar would be very desirable!

Danny Danzi

bobguitkillerleft


Hi Danny!
Iv'e been wondering for a while now,since your a very accomplished musician,engineer,producer,what are your thoughts on Steinberg's Cubase,and if or what advantages/disadvantages,does it have compared to Sonar?

I apologize,if you don't/haven't used it,it's just I have some aquaintances,who are Cubase afflicted,and they're constantly on at me,that Sonar isn't anywhere the level that Cubase is,so as your a "High Energy" Guitar Player,I'm intrigued what your thoughts are?
Thanks
Bob

Hi Bob,
 
I'm hoping jwh was joking in his reply to you....I sort of took it that way. :) If not, my apologies jwh...but in a sense, Bob (though he directed a question to me) raises a question about another DAW possibility for you, as Cubase is quite good.
 
To be honest Bob, every DAW that I have tried has it's own strengths and weaknesses in different areas. They all do the same things, they just either present them differently or make you re-adjust your work-flow. Or, some are quite easy and make things easier for you but you may find other areas that make things harder on you. So it's really a catch 22.
 
I would say that ANYONE saying that ANYTHING about "not being at the level of <insert DAW name here> when compared to Sonar, may not have ever used Sonar long enough to make a statement like that. And in that being said, that should not include those that have not been able to make it work right on their system.
 
When I first started to use Cubase, I had to completely reconfigure my system to run it correctly. Down to the colors having to be set at 256 years ago. I hated it and had nothing but problems with it. But if I would have abandoned ship at that point just because I couldn't make it work right at the time, it wouldn't have been fair for me to say "Cubase sucks".
 
Having worked all of that out at the time, I found it to be a very good DAW with midi capability that Sonar didn't quite have at the time. I think we have caught up to them, but to this day, I have always felt that Cubase was the midi animal of the DAW world. The latest version has some nice goodies....but they all do the same things really. Look at Reaper...for $60.00, there's nothing remotely close to it in my opinion for that price. That's one powerful little DAW. But, like all the others...it has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
What it comes down to is this. There will be DAWS like Logic....that are extremely powerful, that also have a pretty intense learning curve. One would need to weigh that the options included in a DAW like that would be worth the time to learn where if you used Adobe Audition or even Audacity, one would be up and running creating music in seconds. The DAW you choose is like the guitar you buy that you consider a soul mate. That guitar can be $200 or it can be $2000. If it works for you, is easy to play, sounds great and gives you confidence, that is the guitar for you.
 
The same with a DAW. I have so much confidence in Sonar X1, that there was a time where I would not save often. For how *I* use it, my crashes were minimal to non-existent after the last patch. Now with X2 being new, my left hand is in a constant state of ctrl+s just in case....but it too has been great since the little patch. With Reaper...I have NEVER crashed the latest version no matter how hard I try. Studio 1, the same thing. Cubase...eh...it works well 90% of the time for me, but I barely use it these days. But as much as I can talk good about other DAWS, Sonar is that "Soul mate" for me. I can put out a tune using a Realtek on a stock Dell that sounds like a "better than demo quality" that will be consistent every time.
 
LOL @ "high energy guitarist"! Thanks for that....I needed it this morning. :) To me, it matters not if you can play or can't play nor does it matter what type of guitar player a person may be. These DAW's are going to give back what you put into them. I never once looked at another DAW and felt "hmm, this is much better for guitarists" or "this is better for me because I'm a guitarist" ya know what I mean? You either can get your ideas out, or you can't. If the DAW I'm trying is hindering me from doing so, it's obviously the wrong DAW for me or I need to learn more about it.
 
But Cubase is just another brand of DAW software with other options. Some people like Ford, some like Chevy. They both have great things about them or they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have the same as Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, PT etc. I just use what I prefer as well as what works for me consistently and is easy to navigate through while fitting my habits and work flow. Hope that answers your question.
 
Sorry jwh for hi-jacking with an answer.
 
-Danny

           Sorry everyone, yes it was just tongue in cheek, didn't mean to offend :o)

Hi John,

I started on a cut-down version of Cubase way, way back; then moved on to Pro Audio 9 and then a couple of versions of Sonar, with Fruity Loops and Project5 along the way.  The learning curve always killed me, until I made a breakthrough with Project5 and finally started making music.  Eventually, along came X1 and I started finding all the free tutorials through Cakewalk and You Tube and made a breakthrough with X1 as well, which means I'm also happy with X2 and making music.

What I'm trying to say is that for me, it was the free videos that inspired and educated me.  Why don't you check out the offerings from FL Studio, Ableton and Reason and see how you feel about the learning curve then.

All the best!

I am not any kind of loops guy, nor am I particularly into electronic music, however I DO a lot of recording using the Step Sequencer, which I would compare to using patterns in FL studio.

Isn't the use of patterns pretty much the desirable trait in recording software for your genre? (In terms of which one you would use for this kind of recording)

If so, give the Step Sequencer a shot in Sonar.  It does all that I have ever asked of it.  Once a pattern is set up, just drag it out for however many iterations you want and begin adding other track layers.

I know the above is QUITE ignorant on my part - maybe someone could enlighten me on the whole thing? (He asks hopefully) - (also, please do not jump on me for any of this - I mean no dis-respect I just do not know what the requirements are for this kind of music, other than a requirement for being able to easily work with patterns).

Bob Bone

hey jwh!

Every tool imho is about how you use it. if you're going to be doing electronic live then go ableton, because the matrix view (even in x2) has problems with midi clips triggered on the fly on some systems. this can be helped by bouncing midi clips to audio first. 

check out the video with spitfire, paul oakenfold's engineer, and take a look at how he uses sonar...
http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/About.aspx/TC-

Sony Acid.

osd


Sony Acid.

           I've not heard a lot about Sony Acid, and don't know anyone who has that software
           I presume it's good having the Sony name, but as I said I'm a bit in the dark about it.

Danny Danzi

bobguitkillerleft


Hi Danny!
Iv'e been wondering for a while now,since your a very accomplished musician,engineer,producer,what are your thoughts on Steinberg's Cubase,and if or what advantages/disadvantages,does it have compared to Sonar?

I apologize,if you don't/haven't used it,it's just I have some aquaintances,who are Cubase afflicted,and they're constantly on at me,that Sonar isn't anywhere the level that Cubase is,so as your a "High Energy" Guitar Player,I'm intrigued what your thoughts are?
Thanks
Bob

Hi Bob,
 
I'm hoping jwh was joking in his reply to you....I sort of took it that way. :) If not, my apologies jwh...but in a sense, Bob (though he directed a question to me) raises a question about another DAW possibility for you, as Cubase is quite good.
 
To be honest Bob, every DAW that I have tried has it's own strengths and weaknesses in different areas. They all do the same things, they just either present them differently or make you re-adjust your work-flow. Or, some are quite easy and make things easier for you but you may find other areas that make things harder on you. So it's really a catch 22.
 
I would say that ANYONE saying that ANYTHING about "not being at the level of <insert DAW name here> when compared to Sonar, may not have ever used Sonar long enough to make a statement like that. And in that being said, that should not include those that have not been able to make it work right on their system.
 
When I first started to use Cubase, I had to completely reconfigure my system to run it correctly. Down to the colors having to be set at 256 years ago. I hated it and had nothing but problems with it. But if I would have abandoned ship at that point just because I couldn't make it work right at the time, it wouldn't have been fair for me to say "Cubase sucks".
 
Having worked all of that out at the time, I found it to be a very good DAW with midi capability that Sonar didn't quite have at the time. I think we have caught up to them, but to this day, I have always felt that Cubase was the midi animal of the DAW world. The latest version has some nice goodies....but they all do the same things really. Look at Reaper...for $60.00, there's nothing remotely close to it in my opinion for that price. That's one powerful little DAW. But, like all the others...it has its strengths and weaknesses.
 
What it comes down to is this. There will be DAWS like Logic....that are extremely powerful, that also have a pretty intense learning curve. One would need to weigh that the options included in a DAW like that would be worth the time to learn where if you used Adobe Audition or even Audacity, one would be up and running creating music in seconds. The DAW you choose is like the guitar you buy that you consider a soul mate. That guitar can be $200 or it can be $2000. If it works for you, is easy to play, sounds great and gives you confidence, that is the guitar for you.
 
The same with a DAW. I have so much confidence in Sonar X1, that there was a time where I would not save often. For how *I* use it, my crashes were minimal to non-existent after the last patch. Now with X2 being new, my left hand is in a constant state of ctrl+s just in case....but it too has been great since the little patch. With Reaper...I have NEVER crashed the latest version no matter how hard I try. Studio 1, the same thing. Cubase...eh...it works well 90% of the time for me, but I barely use it these days. But as much as I can talk good about other DAWS, Sonar is that "Soul mate" for me. I can put out a tune using a Realtek on a stock Dell that sounds like a "better than demo quality" that will be consistent every time.
 
LOL @ "high energy guitarist"! Thanks for that....I needed it this morning. :) To me, it matters not if you can play or can't play nor does it matter what type of guitar player a person may be. These DAW's are going to give back what you put into them. I never once looked at another DAW and felt "hmm, this is much better for guitarists" or "this is better for me because I'm a guitarist" ya know what I mean? You either can get your ideas out, or you can't. If the DAW I'm trying is hindering me from doing so, it's obviously the wrong DAW for me or I need to learn more about it.
 
But Cubase is just another brand of DAW software with other options. Some people like Ford, some like Chevy. They both have great things about them or they wouldn't have lasted as long as they have the same as Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, PT etc. I just use what I prefer as well as what works for me consistently and is easy to navigate through while fitting my habits and work flow. Hope that answers your question.
 
Sorry jwh for hi-jacking with an answer.
 
-Danny

Hey Danny,


I had a lucky guess,that you were familiar with Cubase,and man,what a thorough,and most pleasing reply!


This one guy,says he "used to use" Sonar,but went "all Cubase",after Sonar 7,and swears the audio is "cleaner",you know,that ole  debate,and swears by the fact,that because Steinberg invented "VST" that it's just a "no brainer",that plugins,and the audio in general is going to be better with it.

I'm muddling by in X2 just fine now[especially after the 308 patch],and am totally satisfied,but it's funny when people come along,and try to tell you your "all wrong",even when everything is going fine,but they just have to plant the seeds of suspicion,and I dread to think what I may have done,if I was having hassles,but I'm not,so everything is cool.

Thank You for yet another detailed,and informative reply,and I'm intrigued by your opinions about Reaper,as I'm also interested in your thoughts on that one too,however,I think I need more computer time,to deal with Reaper,it almost seems like it's mass customization[?] is where its at[with the very short time I spent with it.]

Cheers,and best Regards
Bob