PDA

View Full Version : Cubase SX3 or Sonar 5?



aLfR3dd
01-06-2006, 04:09 AM
Which one???

Lunatique
01-06-2006, 07:47 AM
You really should give more information about what kind of music you do, what your current setup is like, and what kind of features you must have in a host sequencer. Without telling us the details, you'll only get subjective personal tastes, which may have nothing in common with your own preferences.

I personally use Sonar because I prefer the workflow/interface, and the included audio effects plugins are far superior to the ones in Cubase SX--for the same price. Sonar 5 is IMO head above shoulders a better deal than Cubase SX 3 in terms of what's included in the package--just look at the listed new features/tools at cakewalk's site, then compare those to what's offered in Cubase SX 3--no comparison at all IMO.

I've also always preferred the vibe of Cakewalk as a company a lot more than Steinberg. Steinberg has always been a bit of an odd company, from their website layout to marketing department to even their UI design of products. For example, try to find out about Cubase SX 3 on their website, and you'll see how terrible their marketing department is compared to Cakewalk's. Cakewalk's website has loads of information that's easy to navigate, while Steinberg's website has always been lacking in navigation and content.

RiffWraith
01-06-2006, 08:29 AM
You really should give more information about what kind of music you do, what your current setup is like, and what kind of features you must have in a host sequencer. Without telling us the details, you'll only get subjective personal tastes, which may have nothing in common with your own preferences...

Agreed there. Personally, I am partial to Cubase because of the workflow. I find it much easier to work with, and coming from Vision, there was almost no learning curve. Basically, they both do the same thing, and in the end what you put in is what you'll get out. Best suggestion anyone can give you is make a trip to your local music retailer(s) and try them both out for yourself.

Cheers.

Tomke
01-06-2006, 09:15 AM
Today, most working softwares of this kind provides you with pretty much everything you need - wether you go cubase, Logic, Sonar, DP or any other in roughly the same ballpark. The question of workflow and feeling of intuitiveness really is one of the top things to decide from. Try to get yourself demos, check them out at friends or collegues.

aLfR3dd
01-06-2006, 09:20 AM
tnx guys ;)

mbmb
01-06-2006, 04:21 PM
i migrated from cakewalk to sx3 and are very happy

used sonar 3 and 4

kramusica
02-03-2006, 07:54 PM
I really can't make up my mind. I've searched the forum and they're both excellent products. I'd like to make up my mind in a few days time.

Which one works best for midi-composing? Which one is more CPU friendly? And which one has the better audio engine?

Thanks for sharing,

Mark

c.k
02-03-2006, 08:18 PM
Hello there,

I'd suggest to look down the road. One day you may decide to give a try to Mac OSX, especially with dual-boot MacIntel. Cubase will run on it for sure. Sonar?..

Cheers,

ck

Houston Haynes
02-03-2006, 08:19 PM
http://www.tweakheadz.com/sx3_vs_sonar4.htm

The results are in and Cubase SX3 takes the number one honors. In a recent independent test conducted by Digital Music Doctor Steinberg's latest offering of Cubase has scored number one in all categories. Over 130 individual functions where tested and then broken up into 4 main categories and overall in the end Cubase SX3 nudged them all out. The test results are rated 0-5 (5 being the highest)

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/shootout.htm

wja
02-03-2006, 08:31 PM
Give them both a thorough look. I'm a cubaser, but sonar is a great product also.

And, sorry lunatique, I don't think website design should have much influence on your descision.

Good luck.

c.k
02-03-2006, 08:41 PM
One more thing about Cubase:

You could start with ultra-cheap SE - and go up to Nuendo. Your .cpr projects could be opened by SE, LE, SL, SX, and Nuendo - on Windows and on OS X machines. This is a huge plus if you decide to collaborate with others.

Cheers,

ck

kramusica
02-03-2006, 09:16 PM
Thanks ck, Houston and wja to chime in. I've been reading for hours and both are excellent products.

This is how I work. I complete a composition in midi. Some samples will be used on the final song, other parts such as piano, cello, classical guitar and drums will be played over in a recording studio (this is the fun part of producing a CD). So at home I need perfect midi-composing conditions. Suggestions?

Mark

Houston Haynes
02-03-2006, 09:23 PM
Does Sonar have a score editor? Is that something you care about? Cubase has a good score editor/layout tool - although it's not engraver-quality, it's certainly good enough to take into the studio.

kramusica
02-03-2006, 09:36 PM
Does Sonar have a score editor?

Yes, although I use Finale for my scores. It's a close race. Sonar is Cakewalk's top product and may well equal Nuendo when it hits number 8. Then again, Cubase seems to be the way to go for midi-composing. I think I'll draw a straw...

Houston Haynes
02-03-2006, 09:38 PM
Sonar is Cakewalk's top product and may well equal Nuendo when it hits number 8.

Some people might try to say that, but none of them are Nuendo users - or Sonar users that have learned Nuendo... if you catch my drift.

clonewar
02-04-2006, 08:53 PM
The results are in and Cubase SX3 takes the number one honors. In a recent independent test conducted by Digital Music Doctor Steinberg's latest offering of Cubase has scored number one in all categories. Over 130 individual functions where tested and then broken up into 4 main categories and overall in the end Cubase SX3 nudged them all out. The test results are rated 0-5 (5 being the highest)

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/shootout.htm

Wow.. Cubase won a head to head comparo on the Steinberg website! IMAGINE THAT!! :)

They're both excellent programs, and you really need to demo both to get a feel for their gui's and workflow. Really anything you'll want to do or could imagine doing can be done in both programs. In fact, I'd bet that both programs are packed with features that 90% of their users will never use.

That said.. :)

The point about Sonar 5's included effects is a valid one, the convolution reverb and Roland vocal processor are great.

And no one has mentioned the Steinberg dongle that's been shown to slow the program down. To me that's not an issue of Cubase vs Sonar.. if I was a Cubase user and knew that the program could actually perform better without the dongle I'd be really upset. And it's not like the dongle wasn't cracked anyway, so all Steinberg is doing is inconveniencing their paying customers at the expense of the performance of their software.

Houston Haynes
02-04-2006, 08:57 PM
Wow.. Cubase won a head to head comparo on the Steinberg website! IMAGINE THAT!! :)

Nice paper tiger you set up there.

:rolleyes:

The data is taken from Digital Music Doctor - an independent analysis:

http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/shootout/shootout_summary.htm

clonewar
02-04-2006, 10:59 PM
Nice paper tiger you set up there.

:rolleyes:

The data is taken from Digital Music Doctor - an independent analysis:

http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/shootout/shootout_summary.htm

Hey you posted the Steinberg link. :)

I looked at the shootout at the digitalmusicdoctor link.. honestly the 'shootout' looks a little suspicious. The first thing that caught my eye was that they gave Sonar 5 a 4.4 score and Cubase SX3 a 5.0 score for Recording. The reason is that both programs got a 5 score in each of the Recording subcategories except that Sonar got a 0 for Apply Input FX. I guess someone needs to tell the Doctor that Sonar does have input monitoring which FX can be applied to, so Sonar should have also gotten a 5 there. They have an OS category which Sonar lost points on for lack of Mac support. Ok, that's important if you are a Mac user, but since anyone who would be looking at that shootout would be a pc user then it really doesn't apply. So either the shootout isn't as independant as they say.. or they just don't have all of the info (and maybe they got some things wrong with Cubase also..)

Hey, at least the shootout finally gives us proof that Pro Tools really does suck! :)

I still say that you should try both out for yourself and go with whatever feels better for you. They're both extremely powerful programs and lots of great music is produced with both.

Houston Haynes
02-04-2006, 11:03 PM
Hey, at least the shootout finally gives us proof that Pro Tools really does suck! :)

I still say that you should try both out for yourself and go with whatever feels better for you. They're both extremely powerful programs and lots of great music is produced with both.

I agree 100% on those counts... ;)

Hardy Heern
02-05-2006, 05:15 AM
Which one???

It might pay you to wait until the end of March as the premiere music festival (Messe) in Frankfurt is on then. I wouldn't be surprised if Cubase 4 isn't announced and I gather that there will be so many features that it may even help your car to start on a cold winter's morning.

Seriously, I have used Cubase for years but I'm becoming more tempted by Sonar as Cakewalk have made up a lot of ground and I love the Roland stuff they have now...like the vocal processor......MIDI editing seems very good too.

Perhaps Steinberg, now Yamaha have a say, might come up with some interesting developments......perhaps they've struck a deal with Celemony to counter Rolands processor? It's got to be worth waiting for before you decide.:)

Frank

David Abraham
02-05-2006, 04:49 PM
I use them both as well as PT, all are excellent in their own way. I just feel a little more liberated with SONAR being dongle free. I'm on my 3rd Cubase dongle now. ACID 6 looks like it could be a real contender now.

Really it's hard to go wrong.

kstevege
04-16-2006, 02:32 PM
In a recent independent test conducted by Digital Music Doctor...

]

I laugh when I read that. Have any of you ever tried one of the Digital Music Doctor tutorial videos? Oh boy. After seeing one of their videos you'll come to the conclusion that they have no credibility. I call them Digital Hack Doctor. Here is my review of one of their tutorials if you haven't come a across it before:

http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41795



.

karmacomposer
04-16-2006, 02:51 PM
Sonar 5 Producer edition - I swear by it.

Mike

kbaccki
04-16-2006, 08:09 PM
I looked at the shootout at the digitalmusicdoctor link.. honestly the 'shootout' looks a little suspicious. The first thing that caught my eye was that they gave Sonar 5 a 4.4 score and Cubase SX3 a 5.0 score for Recording. The reason is that both programs got a 5 score in each of the Recording subcategories except that Sonar got a 0 for Apply Input FX.

Here's what the good doctor seems to have missed:

1.) REX file recognition -- not native, but V5 includes the RXP REX file player; but who cares anyway?

2.) Time/Pitch algorithm selection -- somebody didn't read the manual; as of V4 support for MPEX and "Normal" algorithms; V5 adds V-Vocal processor

3.) Audio groove detection/editing -- SONAR supports it's own audio "groove clips" in addition to ACID files and MIDI groove clips; any audio clip can be converted to a groove clip with beat detection, slice editing, etc. etc. There's a whole "Loop Construction View" for this.

4.) The aforementioned input monitoring with FX... check; or maybe "apply input FX" means you want to print the FX to the recorded audio track as it's being recorded? But why would you want to do that? Defeats the purpose...

All scored a big fat 0. I'm glad they don't do my taxes. Maybe I just don't trust a website that uses a green-to-black repeating gradient as its background. I mean, where the flaming logo and the blinking text?

In any event the aggregate difference between SONAR and Cubase SX is apparently... 0.3.

kstevege
04-17-2006, 12:57 AM
Digital Music Doctor (Digital Hack Doctor) provides the absolute worst video tutorials the world has seen. I mean, they are absolutely horrible!! Trust me, Digital Hack Doctor has no authentic credibility and are definately not worthy of providing any stats for any DAW product. There is no way in hell their study is accurate. It is a hack study.

Houston Haynes
04-17-2006, 01:34 AM
OK guys - you win - let's all switch to Sonar... on 3... you go first... 1, 2...

:cool:

Hermitage59
04-17-2006, 01:41 AM
OK guys - you win - let's all switch to Sonar... on 3... you go first... 1, 2...

:cool:

Lol.

You been eating those irony beans again H?

:)

Brian2112
04-17-2006, 03:05 AM
You know, whenever the old Sonar Vs. Cubase Vs. Yadda debate comes up, I always think back to the old days. Most every sequencer today includes a piano roll, a track layout screen, and other common elements that were originally done for the old Atari ST computers in the 80's. More specifically one program: Dr. T's KCS "Omega", and their piano roll program called "Tiger". To this day, in terms of manipulating Midi, nothing comes even close to that old dog. "Logic" was around back then under the name "Notator", as I recall and was the only real solution for printing a score back then (at least on the Atari and later Amiga.
This was before Audio was part of the system. It was all just midi (And I sure threaded a lot of 1/2 inch 8 track tape to record it all:p ;) ).
When I moved to the Mac platform, I searched for the closest thing, and went for Cubase (Cakewalk was a toy a that stage). When I went to the PC, I wanted to buy Logic, but it was a new product, and it was hard to find because retailers where afraid to carry it because they thought it would never sell. I called and tried to purchase it from the company directly, but they said they couldn't undercut the retailers - but there weren't any...:confused:
Next...:p
Today, I use Sonar 5.1 Producer (not a toy now...not even close) and could not be happier, but I still miss a lot of what the old Dr. T's stuff had regarding midi.

...2112:)

Hardy Heern
04-17-2006, 04:58 AM
You know, whenever the old Sonar Vs. Cubase Vs. Yadda debate comes up, I always think back to the old days. Most every sequencer today includes a piano roll, a track layout screen, and other common elements that were originally done for the old Atari ST computers in the 80's. More specifically one program: Dr. T's KCS "Omega", and their piano roll program called "Tiger". To this day, in terms of manipulating Midi, nothing comes even close to that old dog. "Logic" was around back then under the name "Notator", as I recall and was the only real solution for printing a score back then (at least on the Atari and later Amiga.
This was before Audio was part of the system. It was all just midi (And I sure threaded a lot of 1/2 inch 8 track tape to record it all:p ;) ).
When I moved to the Mac platform, I searched for the closest thing, and went for Cubase (Cakewalk was a toy a that stage). When I went to the PC, I wanted to buy Logic, but it was a new product, and it was hard to find because retailers where afraid to carry it because they thought it would never sell. I called and tried to purchase it from the company directly, but they said they couldn't undercut the retailers - but there weren't any...:confused:
Next...:p
Today, I use Sonar 5.1 Producer (not a toy now...not even close) and could not be happier, but I still miss a lot of what the old Dr. T's stuff had regarding midi.

...2112:)

Good points Brian.

Years ago, when I was more active, I used to write to Steinberg asking for MIDI features. Nothing was ever done. The Cubase MIDI editor hasn't been improved much since the Atari days. There is so much which could be have been done. I'm almost totally MIDI based and don't have that much use for Audio.....except for the odd (and I mean odd) vocal....yes, and OK, I need to have some effects and mastering facilities.

I think Cakewalk is serving the MIDI side of their customer base rather better than Steinberg these days. I do understand Steinberg's play........the more features they add the more they believe they'll sell. They can already say they have a MIDI editor in the blurb so why put more work into it? Keep adding new features. That's the (shallow?) thinking of their marketing folk; and sadly they're probably correct as the great majority of new users will swallow it. Very frustrating.

I don't, necessarily want, or need, an entire studio; mostly I want to manipulate MIDI and Samples quickly and easily. I've even been looking at PG Music's Powertracker. That sequencer is coming along in leaps and bounds.:)............the trouble is it costs $49! (Good stuff doesn't come cheap?):eek:

Frank

I notice that the latest Band in a Box has TC-Helicon Audio Harmony stuff.....pretty good at that price......

JonP
04-17-2006, 05:09 AM
More specifically one program: Dr. T's KCS "Omega", and their piano roll program called "Tiger". To this day, in terms of manipulating Midi, nothing comes even close to that old dog.

...2112:)

Interesting. In what way/s has it never been bettered.?.

Brian2112
04-17-2006, 01:55 PM
Interesting. In what way/s has it never been bettered.?.
http://tamw.atari-users.net/omega.htm

It's shareware now if you happen to have an old ST computer lying around. No other program allowed you to mangle midi the way this stuff did. In fact, I had a program called T-Basic, which was the programming language that had midi functions. If Omega didn't have a feature you wanted - you could add it. If there was a bug, you could fix it. Complete access to Midi data in the sequencer.
You could remove the C#5 on every 9th measure if it had a velocity of 77 and was followed by a C4, for example. Endless possibilities for editing and algorithmic composition.

Houston Haynes
04-17-2006, 02:38 PM
I think Cakewalk is serving the MIDI side of their customer base rather better than Steinberg these days.


OMG - I couldn't disagree with you more... I mean - it's like we're not even in the same constellation on this one, let alone the same ballpark...


:eek:

It goes to show you - different strokes for different folks make the universe go 'round.

David Abraham
04-17-2006, 03:37 PM
OMG - I couldn't disagree with you more... I mean - it's like we're not even in the same constellation on this one, let alone the same ballpark...


..I use SONAR extensively but would agree here, SX3's MIDI implementation seems more mature to me.

Olivier
04-17-2006, 07:09 PM
http://www.tweakheadz.com/sx3_vs_sonar4.htm

The results are in and Cubase SX3 takes the number one honors. In a recent independent test conducted by Digital Music Doctor Steinberg's latest offering of Cubase has scored number one in all categories. Over 130 individual functions where tested and then broken up into 4 main categories and overall in the end Cubase SX3 nudged them all out. The test results are rated 0-5 (5 being the highest)

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/shootout.htm

http://www.tweakheadz.com/sx3_vs_sonar4.htm

and ...sx3 vs Sonar 5 ?

kitekrazy
04-17-2006, 07:41 PM
I always find these threads interesting since this is often a rehashed thread.
What's next Mac vs. PC?

Just tell the person to try demos of each.

Hardy Heern
04-18-2006, 04:10 PM
OMG - I couldn't disagree with you more... I mean - it's like we're not even in the same constellation on this one, let alone the same ballpark...


:eek:

It goes to show you - different strokes for different folks make the universe go 'round.

Thanks for your observation Houston. I don't think that you can 'disagree' on this though. Either one or the other is serving MIDI the best and you can merely point out which is best and why. I'm a long time Cubase user and my comment was based on a fairly cursory look around this area of Sonar which impressed me.

If you have a more deep experience of both I would be grateful to hear why and where you think Cubase is superior in its handling of MIDI.

Your 'different Constellation' posture indicates that there are ENORMOUS differences so this should be easy for you to clarify!:)

Thank you

Frank

Houston Haynes
04-18-2006, 09:02 PM
My main point was that *our*opinions* were constellations apart - *not* that the quality of the MIDI implementations were constellations apart...

While we're here, if you want to consider Cubase's advancement of their MIDI implementation - let me count the ways:

sample-accurate MIDI timing over VST System Link MIDI-to-audio delay compensation for external synths and effects Instrument/effect interfacing through MIDI Device Manager VST Module Architecture that allows developers to roll their own MIDI effects A wide variety of provided MIDI effects plus MFX plugin support MIDI data to track automation lanes Independent MIDI part/track looping MIDI inserts and sends on channel tracks that can transform data and send output to other tracks/instruments in the project MIDI track parameters that allow an impressive array of MIDI transforms without having to learn a MIDI processing language Numerous pre-set MIDI transforms available from context menus or key commands Input Transformer Logical Editor user-defined Logical Editor presets as key commands/macros user-definable/context-sensitive editor views multi-channel-multi-port drum instrument mapping Project browser that enables list editing at the project/track/part/event levels

Some of these overlap with functions in Sonar, but the "primitive" operations they've really gotten right, and the high-level user funtions are very mature and give a lot of room for immediacy and creativity. Add to that the fact that they've gotten some very highly advanced hardware integration and machine-to-machine networking with sample-accurate sync, and I have a hard time imagining Cubase's MIDI implementation playing second fiddle to anyone.

David Abraham
04-18-2006, 09:59 PM
Some of these overlap with functions in Sonar, but the "primitive" operations they've really gotten right, and the high-level user funtions are very mature and give a lot of room for immediacy and creativity.

the big one for me is the lack of MIDI event mute in SONAR, if someone can talk Cakewalk into adding this in my lifetime I'll buy you a pizza.

Hardy Heern
04-19-2006, 01:13 PM
My main point was that *our*opinions* were constellations apart - *not* that the quality of the MIDI implementations were constellations apart...

While we're here, if you want to consider Cubase's advancement of their MIDI implementation - let me count the ways:

sample-accurate MIDI timing over VST System Link
MIDI-to-audio delay compensation for external synths and effects
Instrument/effect interfacing through MIDI Device Manager
VST Module Architecture that allows developers to roll their own MIDI effects
A wide variety of provided MIDI effects plus MFX plugin support
MIDI data to track automation lanes
Independent MIDI part/track looping
MIDI inserts and sends on channel tracks that can transform data and send output to other tracks/instruments in the project
MIDI track parameters that allow an impressive array of MIDI transforms without having to learn a MIDI processing language
Numerous pre-set MIDI transforms available from context menus or key commands
Input Transformer
Logical Editor
user-defined Logical Editor presets as key commands/macros
user-definable/context-sensitive editor views
multi-channel-multi-port drum instrument mapping
Project browser that enables list editing at the project/track/part/event levelsSome of these overlap with functions in Sonar, but the "primitive" operations they've really gotten right, and the high-level user funtions are very mature and give a lot of room for immediacy and creativity. Add to that the fact that they've gotten some very highly advanced hardware integration and machine-to-machine networking with sample-accurate sync, and I have a hard time imagining Cubase's MIDI implementation playing second fiddle to anyone.

My main point was that *our*opinions* were constellations apart

Thank goodness for that....I'm quite relieved!:D

Houston, Thanks for taking the time to relate what you feel are some of the advantages of the Cubase implementation. Some interesting points although somewhat of track from the areas I had in mind.

I think one thing is true and that is that Cubase is more populaire in Europe and Sonar is more popular in the USA.

regards

Frank

Houston Haynes
04-19-2006, 03:21 PM
Music-making isn't a popularity contest...

...sorry - couldn't resist. :p

rabdaddy
04-19-2006, 04:51 PM
Do any PC programs feature Midi Scrubbing as implemented in Opcode's StudioVision?
Well, I use SX3 and that, of coarse doesn't.

For those who don't know, this is how it worked: In the Key Editor - press a modifier key - this turns the cursor into a speaker icon, allowing you to hear midi as you wide across the notes. This makes easy to, for example, quickly find and change voicing and re-harmonize much more intuitively. SX's "edit-in-place" is completely useless.
I'm a lone voice on the SB forum, requesting this feature. I'm amazed that nobody there is interested in midi scrubbing.

Wishin' & hopin',
Rabdaddy

Brian2112
04-19-2006, 05:02 PM
Don't know how it was implemented in OSV, but Sonar5 has a midi scrub tool in the piano roll - speaker icon to activate (or press "b") - drag it back and forth through the track to hear.

jsp2
04-19-2006, 05:48 PM
I would love to see a midi scrub feature implemented in Cubase!!!! And I too
am baffled that nobody else feels there's a need for it.

Incredibly useful! Used it all the time back in my Notator days.

~jeff

howardv
04-20-2006, 10:57 AM
Houston's comment about the sample-accurate midi got me thinking about when I tried using the version of Cubase that came bundled with one of my Tascam audio interfaces. The FW1884, I think, but maybe the US122 I picked up later. I realize it can't be the same SX3 version being compared here but I got a complaint from the performer (my wife) when I used it once on the same laptop running GS3 to record her live performance. I tried it because the app seems smaller than Sonar which I normally use on my workstation.

It didn't affect the live performance but afterwards when I used the recorded midi to recreate it, she said the feel and timing was off. We compared the sound to a video someone in the audience shot and it definitely didn't have the same energy to it. Might be just an issue with that bundled version but I was wondering if they quantize the midi somehow which I should have disabled or something.

Howard

JimD
04-21-2006, 02:00 AM
Houston's comment about the sample-accurate midi got me thinking about when I tried using the version of Cubase that came bundled with one of my Tascam audio interfaces. The FW1884, I think, but maybe the US122 I picked up later. I realize it can't be the same SX3 version being compared here but I got a complaint from the performer (my wife) when I used it once on the same laptop running GS3 to record her live performance. I tried it because the app seems smaller than Sonar which I normally use on my workstation.

It didn't affect the live performance but afterwards when I used the recorded midi to recreate it, she said the feel and timing was off. We compared the sound to a video someone in the audience shot and it definitely didn't have the same energy to it. Might be just an issue with that bundled version but I was wondering if they quantize the midi somehow which I should have disabled or something.

Howard

Not sure how many of you here are familiar with BT (Brian Transeau) but he time-corrects all of his audio (not midi) by hand in order to make it truly sample accurate (his famous stutter edits are even nano corrected to unreal note values - above 64th notes :eek: ) But yeah, midi is an old protocol and is known to have some drift. Midi is serial, meaning one message at a time. However, I believe that with most modern software sequencers you can come close to being truly sample accurate since you are dealing with virtual midi cables.. but software is not perfect either and most everything has "jitter" meaning even if the first downbeat is perfectly lined up with sample 0, the 2nd quarter note might be 20 samples off. The Society of Composers and Lyricists has put out two fantastic seminar DVDs. One of the seminar DVDs is led by BT and he goes into detail about his time-correction process. It's very interesting if you like to get your hands dirty. :) http://www.thescl.com/site/scl/content.php?type=9&id=62

howardv
04-21-2006, 08:23 AM
I checked to see what product it was I tried and it was Cubasis which was bundled with the Tascam US122. I'm sure the issue is probably a difference in default settings from Sonar which I'm more familiar with. Many sequencers have quantization options intended to facilitate entry for notation. But there's no quicker way to piss off a ragtimer than to "fix" their syncopation.

Howard

kstevege
04-21-2006, 11:42 AM
OMG - I couldn't disagree with you more... I mean - it's like we're not even in the same constellation on this one, let alone the same ballpark...


:eek:

It goes to show you - different strokes for different folks make the universe go 'round.


Not after Sonar's new 5.2 update!! He He :)

.

kstevege
04-21-2006, 11:46 AM
[QUOTE=Houston Haynes]My main point was that *our*opinions* were constellations apart - *not* that the quality of the MIDI implementations were constellations apart...

QUOTE]

A little back peddling maybe? Your opinion and midi implementation were one and the same idea. Your opinion = midi implementation. So if your opinion was constellations apart then so is your idea about midi impelementation.

Besides, you may want to reconsider your opinion as Sonar has released 5.2 with some new midi implentations. By the way, when is Cubase's next update/patch? (Ouch!)..

I know that is a sensitive area. I take it back. That is too cruel.
.

enharmonic
04-21-2006, 06:55 PM
I don't know if this will matter, but Steinberg is owned by Yamaha, and they are working on perfecting seamless integration with Yamaha recording consoles. It's already pretty good...so much in fact that I have been thinking about picking up a DM1000 as a control surface. Not too shabby when you factor in that you pick up extra processing power in the form of eq's, compressors, and reverbs with the DM1000, and the pre's are respectable, though they can't really mess with my Great River MP2NV's IMHO.

Dongles suck, but it's a small price to pay IMHO. My VST's are happy in SX3 too :).

Houston Haynes
04-21-2006, 08:47 PM
I don't know if this will matter, but Steinberg is owned by Yamaha, and they are working on perfecting seamless integration with Yamaha recording consoles. It's already pretty good...so much in fact that I have been thinking about picking up a DM1000 as a control surface. Not too shabby when you factor in that you pick up extra processing power in the form of eq's, compressors, and reverbs with the DM1000, and the pre's are respectable, though they can't really mess with my Great River MP2NV's IMHO.

Dongles suck, but it's a small price to pay IMHO. My VST's are happy in SX3 too :).


There was just a recent release for Nuendo 3 that allows tighter integration with Yamaha user-defined functions with the 02R96... so I think Steinberg is actively working on making tighter integration happen.

On the dongle issue - it most certainly *doesn't* suck when you're upgrading your system and have to jump through numerous hoops for C/R "protected" content. With the dongle-protected assets, it's load and go... no hassle, no fuss, no muss. It's all relative.

folk prophet
04-26-2006, 08:42 PM
I have used both and really you cannot go wrong either way. They are both great programs. Cubase might have a bit more of a learning curve. But in the long run (even the semi-short run) that probably isn't a major issue. Sonar might have better effects that come with it too.

Hermitage59
04-27-2006, 04:30 AM
I don't know if this will matter, but Steinberg is owned by Yamaha, and they are working on perfecting seamless integration with Yamaha recording consoles. It's already pretty good...so much in fact that I have been thinking about picking up a DM1000 as a control surface. Not too shabby when you factor in that you pick up extra processing power in the form of eq's, compressors, and reverbs with the DM1000, and the pre's are respectable, though they can't really mess with my Great River MP2NV's IMHO.

Dongles suck, but it's a small price to pay IMHO. My VST's are happy in SX3 too :).

It's worth knowing that with the Eucon spec, that seamless integration you're talking about is already available with Nuendo and Euphonics in the MC controller. (Very nice bit of kit. Thanks again for the heads up, H!)

Interesting to note in addition, that Apple has the Eucon spec on the boards for integration into pro audio/vid products. (If they haven't done it already)

I don't like dongles, but they're a better option (IMHO) than C/R. It's one of the reasons Kontakt won't ever grace my screen, and i've developed a working process that excludes them. (Naturally excluding from the purchasing process libraries built for NI instruments. Such is life)

But then, when Cubase came with the 'redbrick' dongle, i had a good run with relatively few issues, (Cubase 3.5, cutdown version of win98 meaning no explorer, and a regular stream of trouble free days) so maybe my 'pleasant' experience biased me towards the 'plastic policeman', versus reporting in to the police state. :D

Alex.

kstevege
05-06-2006, 05:35 PM
Nice paper tiger you set up there.

:rolleyes:

The data is taken from Digital Music Doctor - an independent analysis:

http://www.digitalmusicdoctor.com/shootout/shootout_summary.htm


I can't believe you fell for the Digital music doctor stuff! C'mon Houston you're smarter than that? Digitial Music Doctor (a/k/a Digital "Hack" Doctor") is a horrible website and they make the worst tutorials for any DAW. I subitted reviews about video tutorials on other forums and they had the lowest score. They have absolutely "0" credibility. To base your opinion on what the best DAW is by using their website/ "hack" test, then all I can say is you are surely misead.

To the rest of thw world, stay far away from the Digital "Hack" Doctor website, it is a bunch of garbage. And unless you have a serious desire to torture yourself, stay FAR AWAY from their joke tutorials!!!

Houston Haynes
05-06-2006, 05:46 PM
Whether or not you care for Digital Music Doctor - the point was that the person insinuated that because the data was posted on the Steinberg Canada site that it must be *their* data, a priori. That was my point - not that the data had an heft relative to the folks that posted the data. Agree or disagree - I could care less. For tutorials, I use www.auxbuss.com - they're the best in the biz as far as I'm concerned.

geronimo001
05-06-2006, 06:33 PM
the big one for me is the lack of MIDI event mute in SONAR, if someone can talk Cakewalk into adding this in my lifetime I'll buy you a pizza.

Well i don't think i could work without that one, when dealing with lots of articulation that fonction is a must for me, i mean i would go:eek: without this, + it's hard enought as it is... Did i get this right, you cant mute single not in the midi editor?

But i admit that the effect mentioned earlyer makes Sonar attractive, + it looks really good, not that it should matter:D .

Anyone use Samplitude or Sequoie, for audio i mean, it's said to be really good.

karmacomposer
05-06-2006, 07:19 PM
Umm, to mute a single midi note just right click on the note in the piano roll, choose properties and set velocity to "0" Now it's muted. I will look in the manual and on the forums there to see where that function is.

I am sure there are ways to do what you are talking about (MIDI event Mute). Cakewalk has been creating sequencers since MIDI was nearly invented and accepted as a music measurement standard.

Mike

karmacomposer
05-06-2006, 07:44 PM
From the Sonar forums (I'm leaving the spelling errors in so you know I did not touch up any of this) I found pros and cons - it seems midi EVENT mute does not exist, but you can mute tracks, clips and midi notes - so I don't really understand fully why you need to mute an event when you can mute or envelope just about everything:

Question: "2/ I hear there is now a mute tool, what a joke that was! is it a good , user friendly mute tool? can you mute instantly a glip on one track without muting the entire track?

Can you assing the mute tool to the right click of your mouse by any chanvce?"

Answers from various individuals:

"You can mute parts you don't want in a track by splitting the part out, selecting it and pressing Q on your keyboard."

----------------------

"Yes (click to select clip, press Q); no, because right click correctly brings up a menu rather than does an action (but the option to mute is on right click menu)"

----------------------

Yes, you can right click a clip and select ClipMute/Unmute, or select the clip and hit Q on the keyboard. It will not mute the entire track

----------------------

Yes, you can do that in Sonar, but for some strange - only to Cakewalk known reasons - you are still not able to mute individual midi events/notes.

----------------------

If you hit the 'k' key, your mouse becomes the mute tool for audio, left clicking and dragging below the zero crossing in a clip mutes the audio (changing its waveform to an outline), left clicking and dragging above the zero crossing brings the audio back. I love this feature for comping vox.

----------------------

Jared Hudson
05-06-2006, 07:47 PM
Sonar's notator (like DP's quickscribe, only DP's sucks) is probably the most superior way to write for midi, if you hate piano roll like I do. It's extremely fast, efficient, clean, etc. The plugins are decent too, and has good CPU use and performance.

Sonar 5 is the champ. It's a heavy hitter against Cubase SX3, DP, and Logic.

geronimo001
05-06-2006, 08:58 PM
Umm, to mute a single midi note just right click on the note in the piano roll, choose properties and set velocity to "0" Now it's muted. I will look in the manual and on the forums there to see where that function is.

Mike

I could not work like that, not after i've used cubase. In Cubase you have this tool where your mouse pointer becomes a X that can mute/unmute notes and it's very efficient to try different combination of articulations ect...


From the Sonar forums (I'm leaving the spelling errors in so you know I did not touch up any of this)

Thats great, it's good to see I'm not the only one.:D


but for some strange - only to Cakewalk known reasons - you are still not able to mute individual midi events/notes.


Thanks for your research Mike.


Jared Hudson Sonar's notator (like DP's quickscribe, only DP's sucks) is probably the most superior way to write for midi, if you hate piano roll like I do. It's extremely fast, efficient, clean, etc. The plugins are decent too, and has good CPU use and performance.

Sonar 5 is the champ. It's a heavy hitter against Cubase SX3, DP, and Logic.

I'm sure it's a good software but until they implement that function it's not an option for me. The mute midi event/note is the fontion i use the most in Cubase...I abusse it...when i actualy make music witch hasn't been for a while now:rolleyes: .

P.S. I try to give myself a good kick in the but and try the demo to see what it has to offer.

kstevege
05-07-2006, 01:58 AM
Whether or not you care for Digital Music Doctor - the point was that the person insinuated that because the data was posted on the Steinberg Canada site that it must be *their* data, a priori. That was my point - not that the data had an heft relative to the folks that posted the data.

Back peddling again Houston?...




The results are in and Cubase SX3 takes the number one honors. In a recent independent test conducted by Digital Music Doctor Steinberg's latest offering of Cubase has scored number one in all categories. Over 130 individual functions where tested and then broken up into 4 main categories and overall in the end Cubase SX3 nudged them all out. The test results are rated 0-5 (5 being the highest)

clonewar
05-07-2006, 04:39 PM
On the dongle issue - it most certainly *doesn't* suck when you're upgrading your system and have to jump through numerous hoops for C/R "protected" content. With the dongle-protected assets, it's load and go... no hassle, no fuss, no muss. It's all relative.

I agree that the like everything else the dongle issue is relative to your situation, but..

Based on opinions expressed in threads related to dongles and copy protection here and on other forums you are in a very very small minority that actually prefers dongles to C/R. I'm curious if your opinion would change if Cubase dropped the dongle and went to C/R?

Daryl
05-07-2006, 05:45 PM
I agree that the like everything else the dongle issue is relative to your situation, but..

Based on opinions expressed in threads related to dongles and copy protection here and on other forums you are in a very very small minority that actually prefers dongles to C/R. I'm curious if your opinion would change if Cubase dropped the dongle and went to C/R?
I'm afraid that I'm a bit of a dongle slag. Mine has been in and out of so many PCs that I'm starting wonder whether or not the protection device should wear some protection! C/R would be a disaster for me.

D

TomcatII
05-08-2006, 10:10 AM
Here is the answer I posted over at the SOL forum when kstevege asked this same question back in february...

02-25-2006, 10:13 AM
Tomcat Tomcat is online now
Member

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lincoln City, Oregon
Posts: 31
Default
I have switched from Sonar (I have 2, 4PE & 5PE) to Cubase SX-3 because of the better editing ease in the Piano Roll view in Cubase, specifically:

1) In Sonar when you edit in PRV you have to use the draw or draw line tool which is also the insert midi data tool. So, if you are doing note start time, note end time (note length), note position along the timeline or pitch changing, if you miss the proper place on the note block you then insert a new note and have to stop and go back and erase it

In Cubase the editing and inserting new data are separate functions. You edit with the arrow cursor and cannot make a mistake and enter new data. To enter new notes, etc. you have to use the draw tool specifically.

2) In Cubase when you put the arrow cursor over a note block the corresponding note on the keyboard at the left hand side changes (white notes get a darker grey and black notes get a lighter grey) so you can instantly see what note you're on without any hassle. In Sonar 4 there is a small data display rectangle over the piano keyboard at the left side that tells you what note you are on when the cursor is over a note but if the monitor isn't at the correct angle it is really hard to see that info.

3) In Cubase the vertical zoom is smooth and continuously variable and when you zoom in far enough for the note block to get big enough to hold it, the note name appears on the note block itself, so you don't have to even move your eyes away to see it. In Sonar the zoom function is stepped (at least I've never been able to find anyway to make it smoothly variable) and no note names appear. One caveat about the note names is that they are always in sharps, ie, if you are in a flat key the note name will always be A# instead of Bb.

4) In Cubase when you bring up the controller window (at the bottom of the track window) and enter a value for any CC#, it will put that value all the way until the end of the song or until the next value change and will put a color (same as the track color) from zero to the value so that anywhere along the song you can look and immediately see what the controller value is. In Sonar if you use the controller pane it puts a single value (ie, a spike) which is valid until the next value change but if you are far enough along in the song to be past where that spike is and can no longer see it, then you don't know what that controller value is unless you go back and look or have a good enough memory to remember what it was.

5) In Cubase if you go into preferences and go to midi and put a check mark by "follow notes" then when you are playing back during editing in PRV it will pick up playing in the middle of a note block. In Sonar it will not play back until it comes to a new note, so if you have some long held notes it won't play back as long as the cursor is still on that note block.

6) In Cubase on the Transport panel there are fast forward and rewind buttons, which along with using "stationary cursor" in preferences, causes the cursor to go to the center of the view and then the piano roll scrolls by underneath, just like a real piano roll and you can use the ff and rew buttons to move back and forth while editing. Also on the Transport bar is a shuttle/jog wheel with a small circle in the middle with a + on the right side and a - on the left side which will move the cursor in one frame steps forward or backward for video work.

7) In Sonar the grid is marked with a blue line on the first beat of every measure and a red line on the other beats in a measure; they are fairly faint and, to my eyes anyway, kind of hard to see. In Cubase the first beat has a heavier line, the other beats have a somewhat lighter line (but still easily seen) and the beat subdivisions are the lightest but still easily visible. That means that it is easier for me to look at a measure and immediately know where I am in that measure than it is in Sonar.

There are other reasons having to do with the ease of setup and use of VSTi's; let me just say that it is a lot easier in Cubase to get it all to work together.

Now, having said all that, I CAN do the same things in Sonar that I can in Cubase but it takes a LOT more work and time. I just personally consider Cubase SX-3 to be more oriented to the way I want to work than Sonar is.

Originally I got a copy of Cubase LE with a Tascam US-122 and out of curiosity got to fooling around with it and liked it so much that I decided to go looking for a cross-grade copy of Cubase SX-3 and when I found one for $356 I took it and have become very much into Cubase SX-3.

Tom
Edit/Delete Message

Then last month kstevege posted over on the Sonar forum a request that the bakers incorporate all those things into Sonar...LMAO :rolleyes:

In all fairness, in Sonar 5.2 they have changed the way they display data when you cursor over a note in PRV; now it displays the note name on the keyboard at the left side and the position data in the info line at the top of the PRV and it is MUCH improved over the old way. I also found out I can see the grid a LOT better by going to the "Titanium" skin found under options menu under color.

Tom

geronimo001
05-08-2006, 10:45 AM
Very interesting post Tom.

Thanks! :)

TomcatII
05-08-2006, 11:22 AM
You are most welcome!

I guess that I should add the caveat that at least 98% of what I do is midi sequencing rather than audio multitracking. If what I did was 98% audio multitracking I would most likely use Sonar because there is no dongle so it is much safer/easier to go out into the "real" world without worrying about breaking/losing/having the dongle stolen. In addition, for audio work, Sonar comes with a lot better suite of plugins than Cubase does. However, that is not a problem for me since both the plugins from Sound Forge and from Sonar work from inside Cubase and that is one of the reasons I stay up to date on all my apps.

Tom

Hardy Heern
05-08-2006, 12:51 PM
Here is the answer I posted over at the SOL forum when kstevege asked this same question back in february...

02-25-2006, 10:13 AM
Tomcat Tomcat is online now
Member

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lincoln City, Oregon
Posts: 31
Default
I have switched from Sonar (I have 2, 4PE & 5PE) to Cubase SX-3 because of the better editing e..................................I can see the grid a LOT better by going to the "Titanium" skin found under options menu under color.

Tom

Tom,

It's very kind of you to go to such trouble to clarify some of the ins and outs of the PRV in Cubase versus Sonar. Very interesting. Thanks.:)

David Abraham
05-08-2006, 02:04 PM
Umm, to mute a single midi note just right click on the note in the piano roll, choose properties and set velocity to "0" Now it's muted. I will look in the manual and on the forums there to see where that function is.

I am sure there are ways to do what you are talking about (MIDI event Mute). Cakewalk has been creating sequencers since MIDI was nearly invented and accepted as a music measurement standard.

Mike

...that is not event muting. Check the SX mute tool for event muting.

With the approach you listed here user would have to remember the value of the velocity to "unmute"

David Abraham
05-08-2006, 02:11 PM
From the Sonar forums (I'm leaving the spelling errors in so you know I did not touch up any of this) I found pros and cons - it seems midi EVENT mute does not exist, but you can mute tracks, clips and midi notes - so I don't really understand fully why you need to mute an event when you can mute or envelope just about everything:


except events that's the point.

particularly in drum programming where you may want to mute a snare here, or a kick there to evaluate the effect on the transition. Perhaps more useful in urban genres. but I miss this functionaly whenever I use SONAR...and I used to spit fire when people defended this lack of a feature...but whatever...that's why there's SX. :)