timboe


Sonething I have  always been quite jealous of with my  Live  [ and now S1 ]  colleagues is their Gapless Audio Engine - it feels incredibly liberating to just keep the engine / song playing whilst you do [ virtually ]  anything to it
 
Sonar 8.5.3 - and now X1 - has come a long way in this respect, but equally, in this respect  [ gapless audio engine ]  8.5.3 / X1 is a *long* way behind.
 
I recall very well - I think it was Sonar 3 or Sonar 4 - that CW advertised its main feature as " gapless audio "  - but it [ barely ]  worked at all - I remeber CW felt quite  "burned" by that episode and retracted the "gapless audio" claim very soon after release.
 
However ..... to their credit, with each versiion, they have worked on this, but it still remains a long way behind   LIVE / S1.
 
Anyway ......... long-way-short .........  with all that is on the current X1b  "plate",   may we also see some further steps in this direction.
 
Thx,
Tim

I don't know SONAR still sounds good, better then most other DAWs but hey my friend... I'm with you!
 
I'm PRO on any developing regarding AUDIO engine in SONAR. Things can always be better!!
example address the LOOP bug... 
 
WHY are default PAN LAW 0db and not -3DB? or -4.5db?

Yes it would. We have collectively come to just kind of live with the fact that you can't do stuff like that while Sonar is running, unless of course you like that gapping and stuttering sound. I like the Matrix concept but you pretty much have to create stuff separately, drag it all in and then go, rather than fluidly doing it all on the fly the way I gather you can in Live. This topic comes around at some point in every release cycle and it's one of the few that rarely generates any disagreement at all - pretty much everyone agrees we'd like to see more solid, imperturbably audio performance in Sonar, but it never seems to happen. Things have improved a little over the years, but it's kind of hard when so many other platforms seem to have it together on a fundamental level. 

The question is, if all bugs/crashing would be excluded from X1 would it be the best?

There are many defects of usability in sonar(I sort of converted from Cubase).
these issues are not part of a "learning curve" for someone moved to sonar from another daw but actuall issues.
1)Folders -> you can't put folders inside other folders, IT IS important for dealing with massive synths projects
2)Tracks in general: you have to click the specific part beside the track number in order to "catch" it and move it and the whole track selected/track checked thing the mixes things up.
3)no tempo nodes. a serious flaw.

there are more things that are similar plus the feeling that although the new interface and features(which are great IMO) haven't taken over 100% of sonar and some parts of it are outdated and not all "parts of sonar" fit perfectly with each other sort of speak. sonar is just not intuitive IMHO, but it's still the best option for someone with a relatively low budget and a PC.

Studio one is not quite there yet IMO.
it's extremely comfortable and intuitive but lacks some important features.

I tried it a few months ago, I remember that's what I figured back then, though I don't remember the specific things I missed in it ATM.

How can a first year DAW jump into the waters and kick our beloved Sonar in the #@$ on so many levels. --gapless audio --vst3 --extremely easy midi mapping

Because they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

no, it's because it's a new codebase, built specifically to do the job, rather than an old codebase that's been altered and adapted over 20+ years...

That's essentially what I meant.  All of their R-n-D was already done by all the other DAW developers. They just had to take all the best ideas and code them from the bottom up. They're doing so well because the other DAWs showed them how.

Yes Steve you are so wrong. The guys that are writing Studio One were the some of the original writers of Cubase so I think they know a thing or two and they have been around for a long time. They are giants themselves.

In fact there was a good article in Audio Technology about them a while back. They wanted to rewrite the audio engine which is already great for Cubase but Steinberg would not let them so they left and did it anyway. Makes you wonder how good it will be in future Studio One versions. The framework they have created so far is rock solid and will be perfect for adding things onto now. But it is not just a frame either. It is complete house up to lockup stage with plenty of furniture inside too!

I have switched over to it and the program is awesome. I know feature wise it is not as great as others but if you don't need all the features then it does not matter too much anyway. (no one around here has been using it for any length of time either so they are quick to fault it) Many (not obvious) features are actually there or they are automatic.

Seeing what has being going on here re X1 I would say it is better because the audio engine is superior and it never crashes once and much works gets done with no time fiddling around trying to make it work. In that regard it is probably the one of the best DAW's on the planet right now for stablity and reliability. And it works that way on most computers not some.

A very serious program and I am sure with following updates it will only become better. They are taking their time with updates too as I am sure they are thoroughly testing the next version so when it does come out every single thing they put into it will work.

But I still like working with Sonar too and the two of them for me make a great combination. Many people here work with another DAW and Studio One is certainly a great contender for that role. For me Studio One is the main DAW and Sonar is the auxillary DAW. I have been asked to teach a Fruity Loops FL Studio course and I am teaching myself FL Studio 10 right now and I must say it is a very cool (different) program. Not so much for straighter audio guys wanting to produce a lot of music with musicians but more so music that features patterns a lot. Although it does feature a lot of straight audio recording now. I think I am going to work with all three from now on.

Yeah this comes up all the time and is a somewhat stilted debate. Anybody who makes a DAW now is benefitting from all the DAWs prior. Since we're talkin' "gapless audio engine" what's the other DAW that has a killer gapless audio engine? Live. Which is the next-most-recent DAW to come to market. 

Sure, the S1 guys worked at Steinberg, and the Kristal Audio Engine etc... but getting to start a project fresh has advantages in that some problems have already been solved. Sheesh it's less than ten years ago that there wasn't even a plugin standard. DAWs were supporting Sonic Foundry, DX, VST, SAW had their own... ASIO hadn't standardized yet...you think getting DAWs to work NOW is hard? Not by a long shot, we used to have to match IRQs in the software with jumpers on a card.

Now you can also argue that software that has been around for longer benefits from having gone through this evolutionary process. I generally don't put much stock in this claim but I suppose it's valid in that there's experiential benefit for the developers, but I would be more concerned about it leaving legacy code that gets hauled forward. One thing about an older program tho, is that it means people have been using it longer. Sure, S1 might have a smoother audio engine because it's the new kid on the block, but while the S1 dudez were hating their employers and making a dream in a teacup I was zipping along with Cake Pro Audio getting projects done...which I'm still doing. 

Cubase is extremely solid? Could've fooled me... and  a lot of my friends on the forum in Steinberg land as well.

The screenshots of C6 still looks like the gui of my copy of C4LE, lol.

Hehehe. Settle down now, I was only having a bit of fun. I knew what you were getting at. I like Cubase a lot, though the company, and the mods on the forum at times have infuriated me. Talk about a stubborn bunch of guys. With the exception of Tank! Now there was a good old soul for a mod... though sadly I don't think he's on the forum there anymore... or he's still out on tour.
 
Edit: To be on topic it's actually the Nuendo engine. And it will be another 20 years before Steiny even thinks about updating or changing anything about it :)

I was working in a project in Cubase (6) over the weekend - 15 instances of kontakt (mainly orchestral libraries) plus a couple of other VSTi's such as Zebra. Adding/removing instruments/tracks/effects etc did not stop the audio engine in anyway, software didn't crash once in 15-20 hours of project time.

ymmv of course, but I have never had Sonar act with that level of reliability. Being able to alter sounds and things like loop points without having issues should be obvious functionality I would have thought. Cubase does have its set of bugs, but the devs are more transparent about them (well some of the time!). They have a thread in the forums for known bugs confirmed by development that are to be fixed.

A 100% total glitch free AUDIO ENGINE example in "LOOP-Mode" in SONAR X1 would be more then welcome, thank you!

Sorry, i haven't read the whole thread.

I am searching for a new DAW which i am going to run side by side with X1.

Is there a list with all DAWs with gapless audio engine? So far I am interested in FL Studio, Studio One, Samplitude..

they are all gapless? really?

cyphersuit


Sorry, i haven't read the whole thread.

I am searching for a new DAW which i am going to run side by side with X1.

Is there a list with all DAWs with gapless audio engine? So far I am interested in FL Studio, Studio One, Samplitude..

Hi "cyphersuit"....

...Samplitude and FL Studio user here.....  Both gapless audio engine, both wonderful DAWs.....

...anyway, if "side by side with X1" is the point, you have to consider that SAMPLITUDE is near to SONAR's concept, a full DAW with deep linear AUDIO/MIDI editing, but with the addition of huge AUDIO Editor features an (real) Audio CD/DVD Authoring that SONAR simply can't even approach, as those features are not provided at all...    
In fact, it's the choice of many Professional Audio Engineers...
...indeed, SAMPLITUDE means something like a combination of SONAR + SONY Sound Forge, or CUBASE + Wavelab.........    
A curiosity... last Depeche Mode live tour was entirely recorded on SAMPLITUDE (in its major "Sequoia" version)... guess it must have a stable audio engine.......   


...on the other hand, FL Studio is great for fast composing tracks with patterns/loops/Synths and it's full of creative tools, not to mention that it even works as both Master and Slave ReWire application, and also within any other DAW as multi-outs VSTi plugin itself....!!!


...again, DEFINITELY both gapless, thus make your choice........     



p.s: it's interesting to see that there are some monsters DAW applications for Windows ONLY... out there............