I only have Cubase LE which came with my Tascam interface. 
I had a MIDI only version on my Atari so I go further back with Steinberg than Calkwalk. I bought Wave Lab 4? and Guitar Studio with my first PC. 
in 2000, but continued using my Atari for MIDI because it worked perfectly every time. 
I would try to make Guitar Studio work but because I was an idiot and was using a Sound Blaster Audigy of course it was always out of sync. 
Wave Lab worked perfectly fine on that PC. 
Of all the DAW software on the market somehow these two have been around a long time and are both more or less aimed at the home studio market. I think of them as Brother and Sister's. I like them both, both are as solid as can be expected for any software. Hey, MS Word has friggin glitches. 

I am still using 8.5 because like many have said, why upgrade if what you have does everything you need. 

But when the day does come that I am forced to purchase a new DAW I will find it hard to pick between the two products. 
One of the deal breakers for me is that Cubase has wave editing built right in, no tool copy needed. 
I have now invested 1,000's of hours in Sonar and only a few day's in Cubase. I still haven't come close to mastering it. But if changing to X2 ( X4)  requires re-learning my DAW then this is another thing to consider.  

Now I don`t like Cubase 5. Sonar X2a is nice DAW. I like his interesting idea like SmartTool, Skylight, ProChannel. But I need more... And first what I need is VST Expression Map for Sonar X2b (Sonar X3) like in Cubase 7. And more...







And Fast and functional Reaper browser!

I don't want to say: "Goodbye Sonar X2" and I don't want to say: "Hello Cubase 7". All I need is modern DAW with modern features.  I'm waiting for you,  CakeWalk & Roland.

Steinberg, MOTU, AVID, PreSonus, Cockos, Image-Line  have already done their turn. Your move, CakeWalk!

Don't disappoint Us.

dorism


I've got mixed emotions about moving from Sonar to Cubase. I've been so locked in to Sonar for the past 12-13 years in some ways it will be nice to have a change of scenery, but I do feel sad about it. I think both products have got strengths and weaknesses and it will be interesting to see how they compare. I will post back on my findings once I get into it - I'm not writing Sonar off. I've made too much of an investment in and I think with some TLC it could be amazing. The basics are there but the execution needs some work. The lack of any bug fixes for 6 months is the main reason. Most of the tickets I've raised with Cakewalk are either classed as 'not a bug' or 'intended' - unfortunately X2 is not working well for me, in places, and I don't see any sign of Cakewalk changing. By contrast Cubase have released 4 major patches in the same timeframe - fixing and adding things as they go. It's as if the tables have turned. Cakewalk were always the responsive ones. The fact that touch was even considered for X2A shows me that they are not focusing on the important stuff. I suspect there will be a X2b and it will come out around the same time as W8.1. We'll see :)

I'll still need to use Sonar for old files and will have to deal with this Cubase paradigm and learning curve but for me it's about tools.  Cubase is decades ahead of Sonar in notation and several other things.  Cakewalk has no interest in notation or video or VST3 or user customization.  Also look what Roland did with the $4K VS700.  It's basically orphaned.  Also they had a promising VSTi instrument designer but he's gone and Instrument design in Sonar is dead.  I like the user interface changes but I don't need Pro Channel modules.  They are convenient and are really great for someone who only has Sonar but most professionals already have plenty of FX.  It makes me sad really.  I started with Cakewalk for Windows 3.1.

Bristol_Jonesey

There is absolutely zero risk by installing X2 alongside X1. It's a completely separate installation. 

Many may have empirical evidence that supports this claim, but I think we need to be careful with making such a claim if taken absolutely literally (with the literal meaning of literally).  

I might be inclined to side with this claim if each installation was limited to its own separate folder, but with common items such as the Registry, .NET, etc., affected by each installation there is a risk that something could go wrong.  I must admit I am often concerned when I see Visual C++ libs and .NET updates occurring mid-stream during the installation.

I have upgraded Cakewalk/Sonar from every single version since the old Windows 3.1 and most of those have not caused an impact to the previous installation.  Except one, which occurred during the X1 installation and impacted the running of some of my 8.5 projects.  When I restored my PC before this update, those projects were fine; but when I ran the update then the issue returned.  I think a later patch fixed the problem, or I ran some other Windows update.

I would exercise caution if anyone was in the middle of a mission critical project and didn't have time to troubleshoot if something went wrong, however unlikely.  Since there's been plenty of X2 installations it's reasonable to assume that it's pretty safe, but it's best to be aware that there is always a slight risk given the common areas shared by X1 and X2

Peter there is nothing wrong with being careful. I think that the point was being made in light of past experience. As well as actual doing it with X1 and X2. 

I do see that you have a very good point though. Heck when I moved to Win 8 I decided I would not install X1 not because I was concerned but because you never know. LOL.

I know John, and I also know that Bristol_jonesy's advice is probably reasonable too.  I would not have posted my caution, even though I would think it, had it not been for my own experience that caught me out that one time.  I think it had something to do with one of the "add-on" libraries (like .NET or Visual C++) that required a follow-up patch.

I do wish software would simply go into its own folder only, with no registry and no other common libs involved (a bit like some applications do, particularly on Linux or some of the older DOS style programs).  I have written software for over 20+ years and you try to avoid taking risks with common libraries because the regression testing required becomes huge, particularly if you are trying to test for multiple versions running concurrently.

As usual we are in total agreement, Peter.  

Never liked Cubase and I agree with the OP. The interface is ugly. Sonar X2a Pro is solid for me and is my main DAW. With that said I use Reaper once in awhile too and find it to be excellent. The only feature I don't like about Reaper is its "clean project folder" but that's about the only negative thing I can say about it. If Cakewalk ever goes belly-up (hope that never happens) Reaper would suit me just fine.

to the op.

I simply don't understand where your coming from or where your going.
sorry.

best of luck.

VariousArtist


I know John, and I also know that Bristol_jonesy's advice is probably reasonable too.  I would not have posted my caution, even though I would think it, had it not been for my own experience that caught me out that one time.  I think it had something to do with one of the "add-on" libraries (like .NET or Visual C++) that required a follow-up patch.

I do wish software would simply go into its own folder only, with no registry and no other common libs involved (a bit like some applications do, particularly on Linux or some of the older DOS style programs).  I have written software for over 20+ years and you try to avoid taking risks with common libraries because the regression testing required becomes huge, particularly if you are trying to test for multiple versions running concurrently.

One way to test it would be if you had a spare computer lying around with X1 installed and install X2 side by side and test it thoroughly.

I have Sonar installed on 3 machines so any upgrades I always install on one of my non-DAW machines and give it a good workout.

If it works ok there then I'll install it on my main rig