NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED

Hi folks
I hope you people out there don't think that I'm being ****y here. I am a Sonar and Cakewalk lover now for a long time. I got my hands on Nuendo 2 and did an exact project comparison in Nuendo and Sonar and I could not believe the difference in quality between the two audio engines. Nuendo is away ahead of Sonar even if it is only the audio engine.

Since our main priority is quality first, we are led to believe that we are using the best in Sonar but I don't believe that now after testing the same project in Nuendo and I think it begs the question of Cakewalk: Are we really up there with the best or is there still something seriously lacking in the audio engine? Is there anybody out there that has done a similar test that would agree or disagree with me? Again I don't mean to be ****y but since we pay our money we honestly believe it to be the best or is it?

What do you think????

Shea

This has been gone over millions of times. The "audio" is the same. Sometimes there are "presets" in Cubase various templates that are set in strange or pleasant ways. Take for instance the XG instrument definition in Cubase. I was wondering why the XG sounded so good in Cubase. Duh, they defaulted the "cutoff" to max, ie. the "briliance". My Aux program, XG Edit didn't.

What do you think????

i don't think you read the instruction manual.

Hi kylen
im not comparing features or difference in use
I would start a war if i started that
Im only talking about the audio engine in particular
I have a lot of pro people in my studio at the moment and believe me
they could not believe the difference
To say that the audio engines are the same is an understatement.
Dont get me wrong no one praised sonar as much as i did and at the moment
im confused and dissapointed

check it out for yourselves honestally and tell me if im right or wrong
Surely cakewalk know this
Hopefully it will be different om four and if not i will be going to nuendo
not that i have any love afair with steinberg but at the end i do want the best i can get


shea

it will be different om four

Hi Shea? what does that mean?

edit-I get it-you mean in Sonar 4. Sorry.

I haven't been able to spend $1,200 on a DAW program because I have no means to justify it so my reasoning is probably different then yours. From a few Neundo users I do know it seems there system runs a little more smoother on the driver side of things. Probably few more power tools for editing Audio compared to Sonar. But as far as it delivering a better quality of audio I had not noticed and can understand why it would. Usually that kind of quality depends on their a/d d/a converters, pre-amps, efxs, mics., and instruments being used.

Could you explain a little more for me. I'm not a loyalist to any software and like you I am ultimately searching for whats an overall more stable and easier enviroment, but i'm paced a little slower because of budget.



John

It is my understanding that Nuendo and Cubase SX share the same core audio engine. Doesn't it stand to reason then that Cubase SX (by your assessment) would also sound better than Sonar? If that were obviously true, it would most certainly be common knowledge by now. (And Steinberg would be lording it in their advertising), but that isn't the case, is it?

Shea, are you really looking at the comparison with both eyes (and ears) open? You still haven't provided us with any details...

JD

I ditched Nuendo about a year and a half ago for many reasons and the audio engine being one of them.it seems the biggest problem with Nuendo is it's internal pan law which rears it's ugly head during internal mixdown,coupled with other math error's,mixing internally never produced good results for me,ever.Also the problem with clicking in crossfades has never beem fixed amongst never ending new problems that seem to appear with every update.After ditching Nuendo for good,Iv'e never been happier.I'm more interested in getting work done rather than constantly screwing with software problems,and that's what Iv'e been enjoying with Sonar for the last couple of years.

ORIGINAL: michael japan

it will be different om four

Hi Shea? what does that mean?

edit-I get it-you mean in Sonar 4. Sorry.

This garden universe vibrates complete,
Some, we get a sound so sweet.
Vibrations, reach on up to become light,
And then through gamma, out of sight.
Between the eyes and ears there lie,
The sounds of color and the light of a sigh.
And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe,
But it's all around if we could but perceive.
To know ultra-violet, infra-red, and x-rays,
Beauty to find in so may ways.
Two notes of the chord, that's our full scope,
And to reach the chord is our life's hope.
And to name the chord is important to some,
So they give it a word, and the word is OM

- Moody Blues, In Search of the Lost Chord

Hi guys
First of all this is not a criticism, just an observation. I didn't post this to test my credentials or my musical ability. I do not listen with my eyes (I'm not stupid!) and I don't work for Steinberg. As a matter of fact, I used to be a Cubase user a long time ago and then changed to Cakewalk and never looked back. Yes there area lot of things in Sonar better than Nuendo and visa versa,
but that doesn't change the fact that I find the audio engine to be 20-40% better in Nuendo. I'm just saying that if Sonar is going to be our long term sequencer, surely we want it to be the best and the only way to get the best is to insist on it!

There is no point in people coming back with bickering comments, this is definately a fact, so be brave to own up to it and perhaps we might get it changed.

The test file is a song called The Rose. Two huge machines, P4 3.2 and AMD 3200 64 bit. The tests were run on both machines with identical sound cards (same result). 18 tracks consisting of:
9 audio tracks and 9 midi tracks
Same plug ins (waves and master reverb)
Midi tracks using Kontakt Reason 2 and Hallion

By the way I have also noticed that when you open contact in Nuendo during playback, there is no cracks and pops but try that in Sonar, with 3 or 4 big samples, and you will see what I mean. I have also noticed that the quality of the samples in Reason, really stand out in Nuendo. I will admit that, the audio tracks are not as apparent. Icould go on but i wont.
To Cakewalk i dont mean to be critical here just definette about what im talking about.

So my conclusion would be that the audio engines are different, period.
P.S. 24 Bit Recording and surely if i were using 16 bit in nuendo the quality would be less.

Shea

Hi Paul

Since you have 4 stars bless you i would love to know what an instruction manual has got to do with a comparison between two audio engines


shea

ORIGINAL: shea

What do you think????

Shea

I think you should put on some virtual Kevlar. :-)

Seriously, use the search engine. You will find some heated discussions that run from the fascinating to the absurd--and everything in between. You might even find some of my opinions in there. :-)

It is The Can of Worms From Hell, and to quote Sargent Schultz: "I say nothing...."

I honestly don't know how people who are legitimate small studio folks (let alone hobbyists) can afford to engage in speculative wastes of money

My whole music career is a speculative waste of money.

This has been brought up many, many times...

Here's the daddy of 'em...

http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=82511&mpage=1&key=audio+engine

ORIGINAL: shea

I find the audio engine to be 20-40% better in Nuendo

I may have missed it, but I can't find where you explain what you mean by "better"

I wonder, if Shea cannot even give more precise details about this issue, above and beyond "the audio engine is 20-40% better," can we really expect him to upload the proper WAV files, and if he does, can we trust that they are truly equivalent?

Maybe I'm wrong and Shea has uncovered a huge bug in the Sonar audio engine, but somehow I don't think so...