Addix Metzatricity Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 Which one's better? Why? What else is there? I'm beginning to be in the market for a sequencer... What should I look for? "Bass isn't just for breakfast anymore..." http://www.mp3.com/Addix_Metzatricity
Alndln Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 Theyr'e both good and slightly different.The main advantage to Cubase SX is audio editing and surround.Sonars advantage's are midi(slightly)the ability to import acidized files,live input of effects not only in sends(Cubase),but inserts as well.They both support virtual instruments well(Cubase VST/Sonar DXi and VST via an adapter),and automation,although Sonar may be a bit ahead in automating effects.Stability?I'd have to say Sonar wins over Cubase in that one.Low latencey?Depends on wether your card has better Asio or WDM drivers,Cubase supports Asio and Sonar now supports both,although Motu users report problems with Sonar/Asio.If audio is your main thing you may want to check out Samplitude or Nuendo. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Uh Clem Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 The current version of CubaseSX is a little ahead of Nuendo (that will change with Nu2, but NU2 will be a good deal more expensive, a few months out, and who knows how many infant tantrums it will throw) - there are demos of both CubaseSX and Sonar available. I have used all 3 of these applications extensively for audio. I have actually had more stabiltiy issues with Sonar, but for the most part, they are worked out in the current updates and we have pushed it pretty hard. I'd say in terms of final product, you can get the same result with either CubaseSX or Sonar (aside from Surround). There are a few major things that bug me about Sonar so much so that I don't use it for current projects: 1) No true Master Bus. Any Groups (Virtual Mains) are not routed thru the master fader for output. The Virtual Mains are also system-wide rather than project specific and you have to shut down to change how many you use. I really don't like that design at all. I want my sub-mix groups to go thru the same master fader as the rest of my tracks. 2) Lack of VST support - I really like the UAD-1 and TC Powercore plugs. They blow away almost anything Native. While UAD is trying to get DirX to work, TC PC will most likely not do it since they just dropped DirX support on their Native Bundle 3.0. I really like using those plugs - once you try them, you can't go back. And the VST Wrappers I have tried did not do insert delay compensation correctly or at all, so to use them in Sonar, you have to do a bunch of track sliding / delaying. Maybe Fxpansion will sort this out. The ASIO thing is no big deal unless you have existing ProTools audio hardware - that is what they are doing it for: the potential of new Sonar users in the huge ProTools on PC market? :rolleyes: Maybe there's more PT on PC than I thought. Cubase and Nuendo use the copy protection Dongle - that is enough to drive some people away - the fear of being shut down due to a dongle failure. Apparently, getting a timely replacement from a German company is not so straight forward. If they's sell a backup to registered users, I'd probably get one. Get the demos and check the UI out - that is really the make or break it thing. Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com
Alndln Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by = stevepow =: [b]1) No true Master Bus. Any Groups (Virtual Mains) are not routed thru the master fader for output. The Virtual Mains are also system-wide rather than project specific and you have to shut down to change how many you use. I really don't like that design at all. I want my sub-mix groups to go thru the same master fader as the rest of my tracks. [/b][/quote]If you mix internally,you now have the option to mix all mains to 1 as of 2.2 [quote][b]And the VST Wrappers I have tried did not do insert delay compensation correctly or at all, so to use them in Sonar, you have to do a bunch of track sliding / delaying. Maybe Fxpansion will sort this out. [/b][/quote]They pretty much have in v.4.2b,I don't have the UAD/TC cards and never had to track-shift so I'd say that's confined to those cards,other than that VST is pretty seamless to me.According to other users,the UAD/TC cards are not exactly without problems in Cubase either. [quote][b]The ASIO thing is no big deal unless you have existing ProTools audio hardware [/b][/quote]Not exactly true,my brother's Frontier Wavecenter with ASIO now gets latencey figures almost as good as my M-Audio WDM Drivers,RME users are reporting similar so I guess it's driver/card specific,and recently Ron Kuper has expressed interest in better overall support for ASIO,so expect updates. [quote][b]Get the demos and check the UI out - that is really the make or break it thing.[/quote][/b]Ditto Deluxe! ;) "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Wewus432 Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 I think one of the most interesting features of Cubase SX is VST System Link. This allows you to link and sync computers with just a digital cable and use them in your session to run soft synths, effects, or extra tracks. I'm not sure how well this works in actual practice or how many people actually use it but it is a great idea.
Alndln Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]I think one of the most interesting features of Cubase SX is VST System Link. I'm not sure how well this works in actual practice or how many people actually use it but it is a great idea.[/b][/quote]It is a good idea,but you either need to spend money on another copy of the program,or get the V-Stack which is a lot cheaper,but full of bugs.Personally I think the new "freeze CPU" function in Logic 6 is the way to go.It temporarily renders your track with effects or VSTi(freeing up CPU),and if you want to tweek it for mix down you just unfreeze it,tweak it,then re-freeze if you wish. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Chaz Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 Sonar gets my vote over Cubase. :thu: :cool: Haven Music Productions Tampa, FL www DOT havenmp DOT com
jlahib.no Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 sonar makes most sense to me (doing mostly composing with midi to video)
Dylan Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 I haven't used Cubase much since 3.7, so I can't comment comment on how it stacks up to Sonar. However, I have been using Sonar extensively since it's release and have found it to be very stable. I like the interface and find it easy to work with. My advice is to download demo's of both and see which one you prefer.
Uh Clem Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 [quote] If you mix internally,you now have the option to mix all mains to 1 as of 2.2 [/quote]I do mix internally - but why would that matter? I monitor externally - I'd like to hear what I'm gonna mixdown before I actually do it ;) Please 'splain this to me - I looked at it and I can't see how to get all my VMains "connected" to a master bus fader/output. I can have all the mains go to the same hardware output(I don't think that is new), but I still end up with several "master faders" and no place for FX on the master bus that will affect all v-mains. What is new in 2.2 and where do you set it up/enable it? Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com
vintagevibe Posted February 10, 2003 Posted February 10, 2003 Sonar has NO COPY PROTECTION! I refuse to pay for appps that don't let me reinstall when I build a new system or make me pull out a CD when I want to use it or make me hang dongles of my ports. If I had several apps with these limitations it would be a nightmare! I won't pay for copyprotection any more and the 2 apps I have bought that are copy protected I've got the cracks for.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.