Helpful Reply[Posted Dec 2003] Why is Pro-tools the choice of most studio professionals not Sonar?

I have never used any other DAW/Software since I started using Sonar but I am just curious as to why "almost" every hit record/Album you look at today will give credit to Pro-tools as the DAW/Software used to record the abulm.

1. Is it because Sonar is exclusively PC based?
2. Is it because Cakewalk does not have hardware interface exclusively designed for Sonar?
3. Is it because Cakewalk products does not cost $200.000.00?
4. Is it because Cakewalk as a company is not giving/shoving free products down the throats of pro/engineers/producers?

What's your thought or reasons? Like I said I have not used Pro-tools exclusively but would like to understand.


Lets discuss people.

Patrick...Minnesota

This is an old thread from 2003.

I know of a few people who call any DAW "protools", it's kinda like people calling a vacum cleaner a "hoover"

anyway, a few reasons to answer your question...
Protools was the first to market as a professional solution, and it has grown in popularity (notoriety?) ever since
Protools offers insane expandability through DSP farms, large format integrated consoles like the Icon, or Venue.
It has become so prevalent that it is pretty much an industry standard
and when protools goes wrong, you phone one guy, not a load of companies who's products are assembled to build a DAW rig.
Protools can guarantee a particlar number of audio tracks for a given set-up.
Protools also have very low latency (VERY VERY low) monitoring, advanced synchronisation options, etc etc etc.

It has nothing to do with PCs Vs macs. Most big PT rigs I know of are PC-based. indeed, they're going to have to be now, because the new macs don't support PCI cards, which makes them completely and totally incompatable with current protools hardware!

However, I personally find the editing in it to be far inferior to sonar, which is why I mainly use a Sonar set up to edit our multitracks - however, we usually work with 12 to 48 tracks, not the hundreds and hundreds that can be accomodated on a PT system.

But - protools doesn't have delay compensation.

all that $$$$$ and you need to use sampleslide-type plugs ;)

:D

Kind regards

Dave Rich

anyway, a few reasons to answer your question...

I think you nailed it, ooble.

But - protools doesn't have delay compensation.

Protools LE does not have delay compensation but PT TDM does have that feature.

Because people are sheep!

Rico

Well, I wasn't making a statement with my post, I was asking questions. One thing I do agree with is the fact that when something goes wrong with your Pro-tools setup, you don't have to call bunch of companies, just Digidesign.

I heard that Pro-tools has a better sounding engine and better audio editing features, true?

Just about every hit record today, say most give credit to Pro-tools.

Sonar is okay but not as popular.


Is Pro-tools not a DAW? What is it "ooblecaboodle" please educate me.

Patrick....Minnesota

Is Pro-tools not a DAW? What is it "ooblecaboodle" please educate me.

I suspect that what ooblecaboodle may have meant by that was that Pro Tools have succeeded within a large sector of the market in identifying their brand name with the generic product - that many people see the terms "Pro Tools" and "DAW" as synonymous, like Hoover and vacuume Cleaner, or Biro and ballpoint pen or (cover your ears if offended!) Durex and condom (well here down under anyway).

Of course Pro Tools is a DAW, but not the only one. It's about hype, successful marketing in a largely uneducated market place. I still get some potential clients who ask me if I have a Pro Tools Studio, though not nearly as many as a few years ago. For years I have had a prehistoric PC with Win 98 and Pro Tools Free sitting on it that is kept purely so that I could truthfully answer "Yes" to that question and not lose the business at the first hurdle. Of course I don't use it ... and I've never had one that's eventually walked out the door dissatisfied with what we've produced with Sonar.

Best
Geoff

Dunno if it helps answer your question or not but the only times I've come close to jumping to PT (and there have been a few) have been due to hardware issues (not exactly CW's fault). The hunt for a fully functioning controller in Sonar is a struggle and we have to typically settle for emulation modes. Go to PT and you have a range of impressive and dedicated hardware solutions.

The strength of Sonar as an audio package over PT LE is I think now well established so it's time to get on with it and get a Mackie Control which I believe is certainly the most viable controller interface available with a view towards full functionality... but I can bet there will be 'some' limitations.

If there is a shortcoming from CW's side of the fence in this regard, it would be lack of support of the various controllers that we would all like to use (Radikal as an example). Maybe they are dreaming something up with Roland? Time will tell because it is an area they need to address I believe. The amount of Sonar users that spend time coding is staggering... a crazy diversion of creative time (even if it is enjoyable sometimes).

Cheers!

yeah, hand me a KLEENEX (tissue) to clean up the COKE (could be orange soda!) and dont getcher JOCKEYS (er..FruitoftheLooms) in a bunch. I agree w OODLE - they pulled off a great marketing techinique by naming their product the generic name of any Professional Tools. Years ago, Dbase a database system ,did a similar trick (sorry if there is any allusion to any other "profession"), and when they released their version 1.00 they simply called it dBase II. RESULT: MAD RUSH for all the clueless corporate executives to make sure THEIR company had the newest toys! Not to mention, they immediately had the largest installed/established customer base. Not to fear. IBM once stuck up their noses at the "personal computer". Is Bill Gates laughing all the way to the bank? SONAR has POWER/PRICE ratio that will keep it on the leading edge

I plan on using Pro-tools M Power since I already have the 1814FW from M-Audio.
For now my FW1814 is picking up dust until I can get Pro-tools M-Power.
Maybe if I get cash coming out of my nose then I'll buy Digi 002 Rack but for now it's all Sonar. Like I said I have been using Sonar4.4 and have never looked back. I installed Cubase SX 3 But quickly uninstalled it, the controls are like a croweded train.

The only reason I'm getting Pro-tools is for the sake of having it and knowing it, nothing else.
I was once coming out my Studio when I met a guy standing outside the building, he asked me for a lift, I was scared but felt a little comfortable when he spoke with an African accent, he was from the Republic of Kenya.

He got in the car and I was playing a song I had just finished recording on Sonar4.4, he asked me whose the artist, and where he could get the CD and that he loved the song, he had no idea I was a musician, nor I had a Studio in the building.

I told him I was the artist and he was very suprised. He told me the sound was very professional and asked how long have I been doing music. My point is this, the average listener will not know/care what platform you use as long as they like the overall material.
I doubt people will go to music store buying albums because they were made with Pro-tools/Sonar.

Patrick...Minnesota.

Sonar will never compete with Pro-Tools.......does that mean you can't do the same work in Sonar??

no.....

PT, is hardware......the software was an after thought. It's pretty much the same as the PC vs. Apple thing. Apple is a hardware company, competing with hardware manufacturers........ Microsoft is the smart one. Microsoft figured out that the money is in Software........

PT, is still dirt cheap, and the bang for the buck champ, when you look at it from a hardware P.O.V.
Pro Tools|HD 2 Accel
US List Price: $10,995
Pro Tools|HD 2 Accel includes the HD Core card and an HD Accel card, offering more than four times the mixing and processing power of HD 1 systems, support for 64 channels of I/O*, plus guaranteed support for up to 192 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer. Expanding the system's dedicated processing power and I/O capacity is as easy as adding additional HD Accel cards**.

A Yamaha O2R, lists for $10,200.........Only has 56 channels, I don't think you can get 64Inputs into it, and you only get 4 stereo processors, that run a finite number of effects. The software that comes with the O2R, doesn't come close to the free stuff you get with the PT stuff.

It's about hype, successful marketing in a largely uneducated market place

Dammmmmmmm.....You just insulted about 90% of the pro engineers

Err... agreed with all of that.

The aspect that most pro-tools evangelists mention and that helps their dominance in the professional market is that tight integration with their own hardware. While there are contrary theories out there now, the prevailing sense is that pro-tools is stable and widely accepted because of it. Since other DAW software sits on top of a regular system, or a setup that can be variable and unstable, protools has dedicated hardware and a "rock solid" stability.

I don't know enough about it to deny the claim, but I'd suspect it to be relatively true. Digidesign has had time and support to make sure their stuff is solid, and have been able to rely on their own architecture for improvements and enhancements. Plus, it's widespread usage allows portability and acceptance.

Most people that knock protools these days point directly at it's lackluster MIDI tools, it's functionality more geared towards post-production than creation. This is why they've had to work extra hard after arriving late to the pro-sumer market with the Mbox. I think this is accurate. Plus, it's catch-22 about the dedicated hardware means it's price point and proprietary plugin architecture is a cost barrier to the younger, project studio-type. I think this part is great, because it does allow companies like Cakewalk to bring products like Pro-Audio/Sonar up to pro-level features along with a generation of WRITER/producer/engineers who can now achieve protools like quality with their own goodie-bags of sonic wizardry.

I dont' mind that protools is the big kid in the pro market, I think more and more sound people are willing to be blown away by something made entirely on some "esoteric" system. The emphasis now is on light and fast creation and release, and really every DAW platform has enough users and power-users to support anybody who's making a pro-level release or production capacity.

I think the next big tech barrier will be allowing plugins to get "debriefed" by one another. In this way I could bring my Sonar session with a Sonitus compressor into a protools session and the protools compressor will be able to say "Oh, I see you're using a ratio of 5:1 with a -18dB threshold and makeup gain, okay I'll do that too." I think as we approach the ability for software to more accurately listen and "replicate" sound, the difference with a result like the one I just mentioned will be so slight that people won't care when contrasted against being able to carry a disc of an entire album to any studio in the world.

This is another topic we need as a sticky thread, up along with one about why Sonar is not on Mac, so that we don't have to have this conversation over and over.

Not flaming Guyunique, but a quick search of this forum would have found this topic covered many times over... call me an old cranky ****.

1. Is it because Sonar is exclusively PC based?

Perhaps a little. Most studios in my area are G5-hosted. To switch to a PC
platform, one would have to wait for the two or three year cycles in which
studios retool. I don't believe the studios much care what they're running
as long as it works. The Mac G5 and PT is a relatively risk-free solution
for a studio owner or manager. It's important to note that these guys
are not often the most technically savvy .. they just want something that
works.

2. Is it because Cakewalk does not have hardware interface exclusively designed for Sonar?

The freedom in which we revel to pick whatever hardware and software configuration we
choose means we assume the chore of making it all work and the risk if it doesn't. For a large
studio, being down even a day can make the difference between being profitable that
month or not. If Cakewalk had hardware/software studio bundles which were proven and
had the same degree of support provided by Digi .. then perhaps some studios
would consider it. However, this high support and bundling model is expensive for a
company to provide .. hence the increased cost of a platform like ProTools. Digi makes
it up in volume and support contracts.

3. Is it because Cakewalk products does not cost $200.000.00?

Well, let's remember the systems which PT replaced .. they were far more expensive to buy,
operate and maintain. For engineers, the time savings by being able to edit "in the box" and
not have to cut tape, bounce down, etc. was huge ... not that any of this savings ever made
it to the consumer ;-) While we may balk at the cost of a PT system, studios still have the
mindset that they're saving money by being all digital.

4. Is it because Cakewalk as a company is not giving/shoving free products down the throats of pro/engineers/producers?

Digi doesn't make a habit of giving away stuff ... they make a habit of financing and hardware upgrades.

And then there's the way it sounds ... I think ProTools with Digi hardware sounds really good. I've heard
other systems that sound as good... (like the Apogee's, Lynx's and RME Fireface) .. but when you talk in
this range .. the prices are pretty similar. There's also the plug-ins which you can't get on any other platform
(like McDSP) that are just great.

My point is not to belittle or diminish competitive products like Sonar. I love Sonar .. I love the GUI .. it's
a wonderfully productive and liberating environment to work in. But, I also want to say that it's not fair
to call the people who use ProTools stupid or sheep or anything like that .... because they've made
their choices based on business decisions ... and often these decisions are not rooted in
technical "bestness."

jeff

ONE WORD....


Marketing.

"ONE WORD....


Marketing."

Thats true and i agree with everyone in this thread.

I think one of the reasons is to convince the Producers/clients. Most dont believe a complete Album can be done in your small room. Today`s generation is MIDI and PT is not popular for that. These Musician guys build the stuff in Cubase/Sonar/Logic and transfer the Audio renderings into the big PT thingy in a bigger studio. I feel its only to give an indication to the markets, producers etc who only believe 'Quality' and 'Genuinity' is PT and nothing else. Not a bad idea.

One Answer:

E.) All of the Above

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

Because people are sheep!

Rico

Exactly.

I hate digidesign.

I recently did a raw sum comparison with Sonar 5 and Pt 6.9.
15 tracks all at unity gain and the results were much in the favour of Sonar5 with 64 bit selected.

I recently did a raw sum comparison with Sonar 5 and Pt 6.9.
15 tracks all at unity gain and the results were much in the favour of Sonar5 with 64 bit selected.

Hello,
I'm just currious,
how can a "raw sum comparison" favor one DAW over another.

I'm assuming that means you did you an A/B of the final mixdowns?
Would you mind providing more details about your method?

Thanks,
Tom.

ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

I recently did a raw sum comparison with Sonar 5 and Pt 6.9.
15 tracks all at unity gain and the results were much in the favour of Sonar5 with 64 bit selected.

in all fairness, summing 15 tracks at unity gain is the equivalent of driving a bus
at 80 miles an hour into a concrete embankment and seeing who survives. this is not
a realistic scenario which any trained audio engineer would even consider. while the double
precision pipeline of Sonar can handle this particular scenario .. it's preposterous
(imho).

jeff

Is that right.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

I cant wait to hear the responses from all the computer scientists listening through Alesis Mk2's.

Placebo = no way.

Can i post results = to a select few.

As a user of both ProTools and Sonar, I'm really sick of this topic :)

Robustness, interface options for video and hardware support are definetely Protools Strengths

However anyone suggesting that paying $10,000 for processing power that amounts to last years celeron chip
and software that in features and functionality is not only inferior to Sonar but Logic Nuendo and Cubase must put a very high priority
on the above mentioned strengths.

How many big label pop records over the past 20 years were mixed on SSL Consoles, So what? I betcha there is more than a few studio owners that wish they had that Neve A series console back that they traded in for tan E or G series SSL.


Unless your opening a for hire studio where compatibilty becomes a major issue, this whole topic is pretty inane.

They are both good. Make hits, make good music. Either DAW will do fine. I like the price of sonar and I like the way it works. Guys, im working on a record with a known artist on Sonar, and big thing are happening for us. His last album was done in Sonar and I got to travel all over Europe because of it through Warner Bros... Both of the programs are at the point where its all about if ya got the skillz or not to make hits, and the connections in the biz to reap the benefits. Dont wanna make hits, just goo dmusic? Well, same goes for that, both DAWS are fine!!! If i had pro tools to start I probably would have stuck with it because I honestly dont have time to play with programs as Im busy making hits :)... Sonar has a good price tag on it, and I was greatful to know it has the juice to make hits, and I really am not sacrificing by not having pro tools. Sound quality? You can get the sound out of sonar that you can from pro tools no problem, period...

I've only once been asked if I have protools at the studio and that was from someone who wanted me to edit some midi files.

heh.

That's the kinda thing we're dealing with here ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich

Alot of PT's dominance comes from the fact that it is used in Post Production.

ProTools is not very popular with composers, but it is the (current) tool of choice with recording engineers and post production houses....why? Well for a number of the reasons mentioned above...
- reliability (due to intergrated hardware and software), 24 hour support
- I hate to say it....but easy of use...two screens...that is all edit and mix....just like a tape machine.
- Accredited training courses (also helps with the marketing!)
- the tie in with parent company AVID who have a large part of the video market sown up. For example the whole of ITV News (those who have gone digital) are running AVID's newscutter system, why...reliabity, easy of use and training
- Compatability with other post houses

What is Sonar missing for Post work...well so much basically, such as
- Locking clips/tracks (that is the most basic of all) - CW promised for an up coming version
- A real transport with fast forward and rewind (not by bars!) - CW promised for an up coming version
- instant and unlimited fades and X-fades,
- Real-time Editing, the ability to edit whilst still recording on the same track
- Source/Destination Editing
-EDL import/export
- plus much more

I would say that most Sonar users are either composers or project to medium scale studios, also I see Sonar users as very loyal to their software.

If you look at what the top league composers are using, for example film composers, you will see a strong mix of Logic and Digital Performer, with Nuendo and Cubase (goe knows why!!) following up the rear. Also bear in mind that many, many composers (traditional) use notation packages such as Sibelius and Finale. Most of the articles I have read by film composers tend to suggest that they use Logic or DP as a front end for Protools, composing in Logic and then the post production work, including Foley, dubbing, SFX etc being done in PT (or more recently Pyramix or Sadie or sequioa (for classical work)). This maybe come more common given the new tie in with Euphionix System 5 http://www.euphonix.com/post/products/system_5-mc/system_5-mc.htm

It would seem from the Pro Sonar users list, that there are more dance based acts using Sonar, probably because it rocks at doing looped based work. But give it time (and a few extra features) and we maybe hearing of a few major composers using Sonar (me...fingers crossed) but then again, I do use Sibelius for all notation work, and Samplitude for my audio work...and Sonar for everything else. I just wish it had some of the scoring features which I really miss from Digital Performer (especially the wonderful tempo finder)....but hell would freeze over before I go back to Apple!!!

Please note...I use Sonar! I like Sonar, but it is not (currently) an application for Post work....get over it...I have to!

Go out there, make some music and dazzle the world....guess what most people will be saying...that is an awesome guitar line...not hmmm is that Sonar or Protools!

Peace

Neil

Although I would never consider using Pro Tools, one reason for its major market mentality not yet mentioned is that its work flow is strongly aligned with the recommendations of professional organizations such as the Producers and Engineers Wing at Grammy.com.

The more professional relationships a place of business must maintain, the more it prefers to follow a workflow based on industry standards. Pro Tools works well for those who must produce a project where formats, backups and other inter-business proceedures are standardized. Even though many decide on Pro Tools to be "Standardized" they often are unaware of what the standards actually are and often do not follow them. They simply assume they are following standard proceedures simply because they use Pro Tools.

One can follow these same workflow standards in Sonar as well, but the work flow would not be as intuitive in Sonar. Sonar is designed to get the job done by a person doing it without concern or care about if standards are followed. There is more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

By standards I am not talking about the quality of the product, but rather the archiving and workflow habits that become an industry standard for purposes of communication and portability of both personel and projects.

Nonetheless, a person well familiar with those standards can follow them using Sonar and produce Pro Tools compatible transfers and backups in an industry recommended manner.

ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

Is that right.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

I cant wait to hear the responses from all the computer scientists listening through Alesis Mk2's.

Placebo = no way.

Can i post results = to a select few.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

When you do a test like this, there's always a few important things that people tend to overlook, which can make the test biased towards one app over the other. One major difference is in pan laws used between the 2 apps. These pan laws will also be different depending on if you're using MONO tracks or Stereo tracks. You did not mention that you made sure Sonar and Protools where using the same Pan laws or if you where using Stereo or Mono tracks. From that point perspective your test is already flawwed and does not hold any credibility. I don't mean any offense by that statement, but I suspect it's something that you overlooked.

Another factor is what driver of your sound card did you use for each app. It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware. The Kmixer can dither bits and resample the audio without you knowing it. Remember Windows on the most part has been developed for non DAW users, this means the general Windows user does not care about sample rates, and bit depth incompatibilities, they just care that if they click on and play an audio file then they hear sound. Thus the reason for the Kmixer performing it's resampling and bit debt conversions without you knowing it. You have not mentioned what driver was used for each app, thus another concern for biasing one app over the other.

Yet another factor is "dither" types and "noise shapping" used between the 2 apps. Both Sonar and Protools have different dither types you can choose. You have not stated that you made sure that you used "non-dithering" on both apps. Thus, another factor that can bias one app over the other.

Placebo = no way.

Sorry, but you where joking right when you made that statement? I'm hoping you weren't serious, because that would show you really don't understand what is meant by "Placebo". The fact that you conducted the test yourself and KNEW which mix was ProTools and which mix was Sonar, you have definately Placeboed yourself, thus introducing yet another factor that could bias your opinion.

There are still viable reasons to buy Pro Tools HD.

I think Pro Tools is popular because it is pretty much guaranteed to work (tried and true system). Not to say it does not have its share of bugs and crashes (Even adats would crash). But if I had the money, I probably would invest in a TDM system.

External controller support. This is a big one. Old school studio owners come from a world of knobs and faders. I think if they were told to replace their $200,000 analog studio with a computer and a mouse for all of the interaction. (Yeah right.). There are strides being made in this market Mackie, Tascam, and such but there is yet nothing out that competes with an Icon or Pro Control.

User Interface. While Pro Tools isn't known for its stellar midi editing, I found its audio editing interface great still above Sonar. What I liked:

Wide variety of editing tools (the region tool is one that comes to mind). Sonar default tool is for "moving" clips not "highlighting" them. This isn't normally a problem if your project is synched to tempo and aligns perfectly with the bar grid.

Sonar's method of highlighting clips works (the alt drag command), but thats the only good thing I can say about it. I'm not talking about highlighting clips with the snap set to musical time, Sonar does that well but if you are trying to determine tempo of a region, edit audio at a fine resolution, the Pro tools method (and Sound forge method) is a lot smoother. I find I can think a little better and audition a little better just having to use one hand to do something than both.

I am known to make a big deal over small things but IMO small things are the big things that really count.

Pro Tools also has very customizable gridlines. Sonar's grids just default to quarter notes. The Grid helps out also for editing audio, With it on you can easily see where something is getting off time. Fruityloops even go an extra step with gridlines and allow you to display swing. Sonar's grid method is a bit behind in times right now.

Another thing Pro tools allows you to display mutiple rulers in the arrange pane. Also handy.

Another thing is Pro tools method of auditioning regions for offline plug in processing is very logical. Sonar don't play what you highlight for offline processing. It instead just plays the beginning of the clip. This makes offline processing a bit useless.

A lot of things too aren't neccesarily things Sonar can't do and Pro Tools can but the problems is usually one program might have easier ways of doing something. Pro tools repeat command comes to mind. Just select a region click the repeat command and enter the number of repeats and voila. To do this in Sonar I'm am taken back to my days in Calc II (no it is not that bad). In sonar you first must copy the region to the clip board, choose paste, enter the time where you want to start, enter the number of repetitions, enter the track where you want to start, and choose the proper interval length. Pro tools way of doing this task is extremely easy, where Sonar's method is extremely easy to do something wrong. Things like this are things Sonar needs to seriously consider. Most programs have dedicated repeat, duplicate commands as well as copy and paste commands.

On a good note since I started using Sonar back on 2.2, Cakewalk has made significant progress. Back in the 2.2 days when Sonar was compared to Pro Tools as far as audio was concerned, I felt Pro Tools was definitely better. Since then Sonar has rewritten their audio engine (less gaps, better mixbus), added clip muting, clip based effects, a better mixer, nudge commands, and a lot of these features Sonar benefited a lot on implemented them. Clip muting comes to mind. I used to drudge having to silence clips to arrange parts but now clip muting makes this ridiculously easy.


I think Sonar will catch up with Pro Tools interface in due time. Currently Pro Tools is still a little better on the audio side (to me for editing), but I get by with Sonar now as most of my problems have definite workarounds. But too many workarounds usually mean there could be a more direct way to get something done.

It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware.

I believe Pure Wave or something uses the kernel mixer but WDM's implementation in Sonar bypasses it. That is Sonar is able to get below 30ms of latency using WDM.

I'll agree with you though for a listening test it would be better to choose the same drivers for comparing sound though. Also making sure pan law are the same, turning off dithering and such.

ORIGINAL: Guyunique
I have never used any other DAW/Software since I started using Sonar but I am just curious as to why "almost" every hit record/Album you look at today will give credit to Pro-tools as the DAW/Software used to record the abulm.

Why not ask why other crappy products have the vastmarket share in their industry: microsoft, harley, gibson les paul - to name a few. They all suck, there's far far better and cheaper alternates, and yet they maintain dominance. WHY? Monopoly practices. They shut out the competition, use fear - uncertainty - doubt (FUD) to slam the competition, advertise the crap out of them to build mystique, etc, and if all else fails - they buy the competition.

There's no free market in the USA; the barriers to entry are phenominal. Ever notice every local pizza joint has a coke refrigerator and that it sells nothing but coke products? To get that fridge they have to sell their soul and they do. The same with recording studios, music stores and has any indie music artist tried recently to get their CD sold at some national record store chain? Don't bother, they'll laugh in your face - or even more likely: you'll never even get to speak to someone about it.

Protools is total utter garbage: crashes, doesn't have 1/100th the features of sonar or cubase and is uber expensive.

Now how'bout you save the world and free us from our overlords? Oh wait, george bush has already passed their monopolies into unchallengeable protection under the law. Tough shi t, get back to picking cotton all you wiggers, chiggers and ****s.

ORIGINAL: Rumpled Foreskin

ORIGINAL: Guyunique
I have never used any other DAW/Software since I started using Sonar but I am just curious as to why "almost" every hit record/Album you look at today will give credit to Pro-tools as the DAW/Software used to record the abulm.

Why not ask why other crappy products have the vastmarket share in their industry: microsoft, harley, gibson les paul - to name a few. They all suck, there's far far better and cheaper alternates, and yet they maintain dominance. WHY? Monopoly practices. They shut out the competition, use fear - uncertainty - doubt (FUD) to slam the competition, advertise the crap out of them to build mystique, etc, and if all else fails - they buy the competition.

There's no free market in the USA; the barriers to entry are phenominal. Ever notice every local pizza joint has a coke refrigerator and that it sells nothing but coke products? To get that fridge they have to sell their soul and they do. The same with recording studios, music stores and has any indie music artist tried recently to get their CD sold at some national record store chain? Don't bother, they'll laugh in your face - or even more likely: you'll never even get to speak to someone about it.

Protools is total utter garbage: crashes, doesn't have 1/100th the features of sonar or cubase and is uber expensive.

Now how'bout you save the world and free us from our overlords? Oh wait, george bush has already passed their monopolies into unchallengeable protection under the law. Tough shi t, get back to picking cotton all you wiggers, chiggers and ****s.

here at livid we usually just ask for money rather than mortal souls - it pays the bills ;)

I must say your point about getting music into shops is something i would've agreed with you about until we actually went ahead and did it ourselves. The shops are definately into getting music in their stores - you just need to get a decent distribution company and really, I have to say if your stuff is good enough - that's just a matter of picking up the phone and calling around some folks who've already got their stuff in shops - or even send some emails to radio djs to see who they get stuff through.

I do think alot of people just moan about something they've actually never got off their butts and tried to do ;)


EDIT - sorry for going way off topic there ;) - pro-tools is an anagram of rot pools ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

There's no free market in the USA;

Are you considering Pro Tools a monopoly? I don't think that is the case (maybe right now if you only consider the professional market). I think there are some companies that are monopolies like you mentioned (coke, microsoft), but Pro Tools has a good amount of competition, Logic, DP, Cubase, Nuendo, Samplitude, Sonar, Live, Fruityloops (well maybe not Fruityloops).

But the music industry right now is not making money like they used to back in the 80's and early-mid nineties. Studios go bankrupt left and right. Most people who buy $200000 worth of equipment do that on a loan, and I hear cases of people who just had to end up selling everything because money would not come in.

I don't really read magazines like mix, and such they are kind of dedicated to the elite bunch who owns every piece of gear over $5000. But looking a magazines like Keyboard, EQ, and Scratch I'm starting to see Logic mentioned a whole lot. I see Performer get mentioned a great deal (esp in Keyboard mag). I don't hear Cubase or Sonar being mentioned as much as the former programs, but that alone shows you people are choosing other pieces of gear than Pro Tools. Pro Tools does have a nice chunk of the market but I think people are starting to realize there are other things out there.

I think a huge reason Sonar don't get too much attention is being PC based. Based on Misconception or not , people still shy away from PC's when it comes to music but then PC's have the dominance in about every other app.


I also think there will be a trend more into native programs like Sonar, and a sturdy PC (or Mac system).

The cost of owning a studio is expensive (building, construction, microphones, interfaces, outboard gear, and a Pc or mac based recording system(this includes plug-ins and control surfaces)). With a HD system, you still spend a great chunk of change on your recording system ($3000 computer + $15000 and up Pro Tools system). Pro tools systems often come into the $40000 price range. With Sonar or other native daw you should be able to get everything significantly less most likely under $10000 including plug-ins and such.

I think when people start seeing this, a lot of studios will start converting to native systems.

One thing that will keep professionals studios from converting to a native system is it's support plan. I hear with Pro Tools it is easy to get someone on the phone concerning your system. Most other systems are email based, Sonar's response time is around a day (which is known as the best support for a native system). I think software companies would definitely have to improve on this though. Maybe have an option where if you pay estra $$$ for the software you can have 24 hour phone support, if you don't pay the fee you will be limited to email support. I think a lot of people will consider paying this extra money for phone support. I don't know what effect this will have on Cakewalk being considered a nice or mean company but I understand 24 hour support cost money. Just an idea.

For years I have had a prehistoric PC with Win 98 and Pro Tools Free sitting on it that is kept purely so that I could truthfully answer "Yes" to that question and not lose the business at the first hurdle. Of course I don't use it ... and I've never had one that's eventually walked out the door dissatisfied with what we've produced with Sonar.

Good for you!

THE SOUND IS MUCH BETTER

ORIGINAL: bvds

THE SOUND IS MUCH BETTER

Why?

sonar is higher fidelity, the converters depend on your choice of gear and even the effects are running at a higher fidelity (64bit float)

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

ORIGINAL: Rednroll

ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

Is that right.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

I cant wait to hear the responses from all the computer scientists listening through Alesis Mk2's.

Placebo = no way.

Can i post results = to a select few.

Well the results were significant enough for me to comment.

There was actually quite a big difference.

When you do a test like this, there's always a few important things that people tend to overlook, which can make the test biased towards one app over the other. One major difference is in pan laws used between the 2 apps. These pan laws will also be different depending on if you're using MONO tracks or Stereo tracks. You did not mention that you made sure Sonar and Protools where using the same Pan laws or if you where using Stereo or Mono tracks. From that point perspective your test is already flawwed and does not hold any credibility. I don't mean any offense by that statement, but I suspect it's something that you overlooked.

Another factor is what driver of your sound card did you use for each app. It is best to use ASIO for both apps, since ASIO allows a direct connection between the data being streamed from the app and your sound card hardware. When using a Windows Wave driver windows inserts the Kmixer inbetween the apps streamed data and your hardware. The Kmixer can dither bits and resample the audio without you knowing it. Remember Windows on the most part has been developed for non DAW users, this means the general Windows user does not care about sample rates, and bit depth incompatibilities, they just care that if they click on and play an audio file then they hear sound. Thus the reason for the Kmixer performing it's resampling and bit debt conversions without you knowing it. You have not mentioned what driver was used for each app, thus another concern for biasing one app over the other.

Yet another factor is "dither" types and "noise shapping" used between the 2 apps. Both Sonar and Protools have different dither types you can choose. You have not stated that you made sure that you used "non-dithering" on both apps. Thus, another factor that can bias one app over the other.

Placebo = no way.

Sorry, but you where joking right when you made that statement? I'm hoping you weren't serious, because that would show you really don't understand what is meant by "Placebo". The fact that you conducted the test yourself and KNEW which mix was ProTools and which mix was Sonar, you have definately Placeboed yourself, thus introducing yet another factor that could bias your opinion.

I love ****s like you who presume ive done the test in a completely biased manner and spend an hour tying to convince others of it.

I'm not sure why anyone wants to compare the two extensively.... I've just spent an evening tracking with Sonar 4PE and it met every need and was an absolute dream to use, couldn't be happier- unless I actually got to spend more time using it. Great platform and the best thing is, I've got two more nights ahead of me to use it some more!!

Sonar actually was transparent in the recording process and the audio quality was great. Very happy user here.

Big rah rah for Dave Rich here too... he's spot on about the distribution thing. Well said mate.

Cheers!

Another + for the ProTools guys(not the LE guys, which isn't "real" ProTools) is that the workload is shuffled off to hardware DSP.........

I know, I know......... native processing is.....blah, blah, blah......... It's very rare nowadays, that you'll find a true supporter of Native Processing, that isn't jumping on the UAD-1, TC Powercore bandwagon.

......... It's very rare nowadays, that you'll find a true supporter of Native Processing, that isn't jumping on the UAD-1, TC Powercore bandwagon.

That is because the UAD and PoCo sound awesome. I have yet to find any native plugins that sound equal to the UAD and PoCo plugs at the same price point. Plus you get the additional value of a dedicated DSP card to off load your plugs and free up your CPU. Most of the "Big Players" in audio are useing DSP cards....be it ProTools, UAD, PoCo, or CreamWare. I have 3 UAD-1 cards and they are essential to the way I work, my Waves plugs for the most part go unused, and they can just keep their upgrade "scam".....screw 'em !!

ORIGINAL: thunderkyss

Another + for the ProTools guys(not the LE guys, which isn't "real" ProTools) is that the workload is shuffled off to hardware DSP.........

I know, I know......... native processing is.....blah, blah, blah......... It's very rare nowadays, that you'll find a true supporter of Native Processing, that isn't jumping on the UAD-1, TC Powercore bandwagon.

I use a comination of external dsp (Lexicon 'verb), a UAD1 and also TDM plug ins. The only time I'll use a 'host' based plug in is when I don't own the dsp based version.

:)

Here's a thought...

For the sake of film/TV post production editing and most importantly, file transferring and compatability. Is there any logic in getting an M-Powered PT 7 setup to mix Sonar .wav files? In other words... compose using Sonar, mix using PT LE.

ORIGINAL: thunderkyss

Another + for the ProTools guys(not the LE guys, which isn't "real" ProTools) is that the workload is shuffled off to hardware DSP.........

I know, I know......... native processing is.....blah, blah, blah......... It's very rare nowadays, that you'll find a true supporter of Native Processing, that isn't jumping on the UAD-1, TC Powercore bandwagon.

If Sonar would come out with a proprietary, omni accessible, integrated studio console, with a couple of firewire options, they would attract some of the loyal pro-tool heads as well...I certainly would like to see a SONAR Control in the not too distant future...People love BIG consoles and studio gadgets, ans wouldn't be as scared to play with iot on a studio level...After all, Arent they dealing with edirol?...

I love ****s like you who presume ive done the test in a completely biased manner and spend an hour tying to convince others of it.

I didn't presume anything, I pointed out a few things that might have made one app shine over the other.

Here's exactly what you said:

I recently did a raw sum comparison with Sonar 5 and Pt 6.9.
15 tracks all at unity gain and the results were much in the favour of Sonar5 with 64 bit selected.

Thus, I was working with the information YOU gave us. You mentioned nothing about Calibration techniques, you mention nothing about if you used stereo or mono tracks. Then you go on to say "Placebo= no way", and further mention that you "HATE" Digidesign. You pretty much lost any credibility of having a non biased opinion at this point even if you did go thru the pains to make sure everything was equal. Obviously, you're too much of a ***b F*** to realize that, Mr. I hate Digidesign yet have a non biased opinion.

ORIGINAL: Jonny Mumra

ORIGINAL: eikelbijter

Because people are sheep!

Rico

Exactly.


I hate digidesign.

ORIGINAL: JWB

Here's a thought...

For the sake of film/TV post production editing and most importantly, file transferring and compatability. Is there any logic in getting an M-Powered PT 7 setup to mix Sonar .wav files? In other words... compose using Sonar, mix using PT LE.

actually, unless you're planning on also buying the DV kit as well, i don't believe the M-powered
version makes a lot of sense for film/tv production. you'll also likely run out of tracks... especially
for film .. they usually have *a lot* of audio tracks. as long as you're not sync'ing to external gear,
Sonar 4 and 5 do a good job in this regard.

if you also plan on doing video editing along with it, take a good look at Sony's Vegas. most people
suck the stuff back into their host system at the end .. so as long as you can give them either the
.wavs or the .ac3 .. they're usually fine with it.

jeff

ORIGINAL: thunderkyss

Another + for the ProTools guys(not the LE guys, which isn't "real" ProTools) is that the workload is shuffled off to hardware DSP.........

I know, I know......... native processing is.....blah, blah, blah......... It's very rare nowadays, that you'll find a true supporter of Native Processing, that isn't jumping on the UAD-1, TC Powercore bandwagon.

Just wondering... if the UAD or PowerCore effects were available in a native version, would you buy them that way, or continue to pay extra for the DSP card? Something tells me that with the ever-increasing power of DAW processors the PCI cards are actually functioning as glorified dongles nowadays.

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

Just wondering... if the UAD or PowerCore effects were available in a native version, would you buy them that way, or continue to pay extra for the DSP card? Something tells me that with the ever-increasing power of DAW processors the PCI cards are actually functioning as glorified dongles nowadays.

I actually outfitted my new system with Powercore because of the external DSP processing engine. TC is known for making great effects, so that's a plus, but I purchased without ever hearing their plug-ins to specifically get the load off the CPU. And I'm running a dual core Pentium. While I think eventually processors might be able to take the full load of a heavy session with lots of plugs, I still don't think they're there yet. With higher sample rates and bit depths now days, CPU processing takes a bigger hit. I wanted my new system to be able to do a decent sized session with at times heavy plug-in use, with latency as low as possible.

And I'm coming from a Pro Tools system to Sonar. Mainly switching because there's a lot more power and quality available at a much lower cost than a Pro Tools system (and a plus is I'm much better with PCs than Macs). And one of the things that really turned me off to Pro Tools... a few months after I bought their system, they switched their entire product to new hardware... new main board, new DSP cards, new converters, new Mac needed to run the new version, plug-in packages to update. Sure, I could have paid an upgrade price, but after just forking out so much for their system, I wasn't about to pay several more thousand a couple of months later to upgrade. So, to me, having the freedom with Sonar to replace pieces of the system as I see fit to stay up to date is much more comforting than knowing Digidesign can drop their current hardware at any given time, and you're forced to pay their usually enormous upgrade price to stay current.

Especially since the release of S5, its competitive with any platform there is.
Probably better!

ORIGINAL: bvds

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

No comment required, I suspect!

S

ORIGINAL: LixiSoft

That is because the UAD and PoCo sound awesome. I have yet to find any native plugins that sound equal to the UAD and PoCo plugs at the same price point. Plus you get the additional value of a dedicated DSP card to off load your plugs and free up your CPU. Most of the "Big Players" in audio are useing DSP cards....be it ProTools, UAD, PoCo, or CreamWare. I have 3 UAD-1 cards and they are essential to the way I work, my Waves plugs for the most part go unused, and they can just keep their upgrade "scam".....screw 'em !!

Thankyou for agreeing with me. Native Processing(Sonar) can't compete with Dedicated DSP(ProTools) which can be added on, depending on your needs.

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

this is silly. the mbox is aimed strictly at the home user .. its 2 inputs,
2 outputs and 48kHz sample rate limit place it squarely there .. along
with the limit I/O bandwidth of its USB-1 connection.

it does sound pretty good ( like the Focusrite pres on the mbox1 ). but ...
it's no where near as capable as the RME fireface .. which sounds
really really good. i think the fireface is on-par with the digi boxes
... the RME is in the same ballpark (price wise) as the digi 96 I/O.
so, imho, it's aimed at the studio market .. or "prosumer"..

jeff

ps: wouldn't this thread be considered "Off-topic" round about now?

Thankyou for agreeing with me. Native Processing(Sonar) can't compete with Dedicated DSP(ProTools) which can be added on, depending on your needs.

Your welcome , but it's not only ProTools, any of the dedicated DSP's will work. I prefer UAD-1's with Sonar or Nuendo

ORIGINAL: bvds

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

Someone better notify all the studios in Nashville that use RME setups to track all those hits they keep turning out. Better get rid of those RME Madi cards and buy the "real thing" an Mbox !! Catch a clue

ORIGINAL: DAYDAY

If Sonar would come out with a proprietary, omni accessible, integrated studio console, with a couple of firewire options, they would attract some of the loyal pro-tool heads as well...I certainly would like to see a SONAR Control in the not too distant future...People love BIG consoles and studio gadgets, ans wouldn't be as scared to play with iot on a studio level...After all, Arent they dealing with edirol?...

I've been saying that for years...

ORIGINAL: LixiSoft

ORIGINAL: bvds

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

Someone better notify all the studios in Nashville that use RME setups to track all those hits they keep turning out. Better get rid of those RME Madi cards and buy the "real thing" an Mbox !! Catch a clue

I'm calling them all right now. Anybody have a quater?
Come on guys, this has gotten totally stupid.

Let's get one thing straight: Nobody takes PTLE seriously. What's more- what we've all been doing here is comparing Sonar to Protools TDM. Now lets think about that: Protools TDM is a HARDWARE solution. Sonar is not. Is that a fair comparison?

ORIGINAL: davidchristopher

ORIGINAL: LixiSoft

ORIGINAL: bvds

I'd love to know which bit of protools sounds better than say, my RME fireface rig?

even a mbox
rme is made for homestudios and protools is the real thing

Someone better notify all the studios in Nashville that use RME setups to track all those hits they keep turning out. Better get rid of those RME Madi cards and buy the "real thing" an Mbox !! Catch a clue

I'm calling them all right now. Anybody have a quater?
Come on guys, this has gotten totally stupid.

Let's get one thing straight: Nobody takes PTLE seriously. What's more- what we've all been doing here is comparing Sonar to Protools TDM. Now lets think about that: Protools TDM is a HARDWARE solution. Sonar is not. Is that a fair comparison?

With the technology we have now I think it's a fairer comparison than it's ever been.

Kind regards

Dave Rich