Cubase 4 or SONAR 6? And what audio interface?

[MoreDynamics]

Hi,

I'm new here. I've taken a few years off from recording music. Life got in the way if you know what I mean. I'm just now getting back into it. I have a few questions and a friend of mine suggested that this was one of the best forums on the web to get re-acquainted with music technology.

I've bought a new PC and I am trying to decide what host to buy.

When I used to record I used Cubase VST for awhile, then I switched to SONAR 2.
Now it seems that Cubase 4 is coming soon, and SONAR 6 was just released. So which one should I get. Both programs seem to have come along way.

I just watched these videos on Sonar 6 on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...C1A732CFD41C88

Sonar's active controller technology and audio snap both seem pretty cool, and a 64-bit audio engine also sounds appealing.

So what do you guys think?

The next part of my question is what is the best mid-priced audio interface? I'm looking at the RME Fireface 800. It seems to me to have the best specs, but I'm not sure. Is this interface well regarded?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Arthur

[manning1]

arthur....
you say you bought a new pc . what is it ??
(amd ? intel ? single core ? dual core ?)
reason i ask is some of the newer programs need a good powerfull processor with lots of memory and fast hard drives.

if you want ease of use at a cheap price.
you might try powertracks and reaper that i use.
both are superb imho. for a total cost of 90 bucks for both.
(pgmusic.com and cockos.com for demos.)
if you doubt me talk to the users on the forums at the links i stated.
there are just too many features to list..particularly in audio effects youll be spoilt tween the two.

if your just getting back into music might i also suggest pgmusics band in a box.
quite literally you can have a song going in about 20 minutes if you know what your doing. its a rather unique product where you choose a music style or your own and enter the chords to your song and it comes back with as the name implies a "back up band" of say drums/bass/piano etc etc. its used in lots of music teaching classes all over the world.
one advantage of it is while others are laboriously recording tracks one by one it very quckly gives you a rhyhm section to test out song ideas.
thus its very usefull for generating new song ideas....and faster to get things flowing than traditional multitrack approaches.
as your getting back into music it might save you a lot of time.
as it will also generate melody and solo ideas also.
(a different one each time you ask it to.)
one particular advantage is it doesnt need an ultra hi end powerfull pc. if you google youll see its very widely used with various user groups on the net.

just some ideas. peace.

[Monkey Mouse]

I say Live 6 and a Fireface (400 or 800).

[shanabit]

Any RME interface is a solid I/O choice IMO.

As far as Cubase 4 and Sonar 6 goes, either one will get you there, just depends how you like to drive. Download Sonar 5 DEMO and check it out.

Which one did you like better before? I run SX3 and have been looking at Sonar as well. Really, if you cant make a kicking track with one of those, it aint the DAW.
You may want to look at SawStudio if your into mainly Audio and not midi stuff.

I have friends using both with great results. The license on Sonar is Non-transferrable but Cubase will allow you to transfer the license if you want to sell it.

Sonar 6 is about 600 and I think Cubase is aroung 1000. So let your budget and your conscience decide.

[Solar]

Either way Sonar or Cubase 4 especially you won't be disappointed. I've been using Sonar since version 3.0 and now i'm on Nuendo. I left Sonar since version 1 or 2 because of the too much of Colours etc.. but i never left it a 100% because i was sure that Cakewalk was wabout to come back strong and i think this TIME they simply did it. And yes its true too.. Steinberg did come back big time with Cubase 4

So as someone here mentioned, its simply a matter of you getting the Demo and see wich one really fill your needs. And anyways, you did use them before in different version so there is no way u will be too lost, so take the jump and try them back again and make your decision.. one thing for sure Sonar got soemthing above with their Snap audio and espcially TRUE 64 bit audio engine!!

So, all i can say is "good luck" but you won't be disappoijnted in both of them.. THEY SIMPLY ROCK!!

Peace!!

[Jay Kahrs]

When I tried a few of the various offerings out there last year I ended up with Cubase SX3. Seemed like it was the fastest, easiet thing that wasn't handicapped in some fashion.

One of my friends has Sonar and just like every other Cakewalk product I've tried, nothing about the layout and GUI really makes sense in a fashion were you can figure out 70-80% of it without a manual.

[taturana]

well, sonar 6 is kicking some serious *ss , 64 bit double precision resolution,
ability to mix 64bit 500khz (beat that protools!fuuck ), native vst support, freeze, track folders, you name it... i am currently using sonar 5.2 and i love it my mixes sound awesome currently i mix 32bit192khz. i am waiting to put my hands on version 6.. but judging from the 5.2 version, it is going to be awesome. put that on a intel duocore 2... it seems very very good. also if you feel adventurous, use the x64 version.

[MoreDynamics]

Hey everyone thank you for the replies.

I wasn't really looking for an entry level suggestion like Band in the Box. I was pretty serious about my recording before. So I think something like that would be a step back. I also am very interested in both MIDI and audio together. Plus I have some level of familiarity with each of these applications, even though they have changed significantly. So the only choices for me really are Cubase and Sonar.

I just have not been in the loop since those older versions of Cubase and Sonar and I was looking to see how they had progressed over time, and how they were regarded by current users.

I'm still not 100% decided, but I think I'm leaning towards SONAR. Cakewalk is making it way more attractive to me to come back into the fold.

Steinberg's upgrade price from Cubase VST is $439 (and that's the same price as if I were coming from a competitive product). Cakewalk's upgrade price to Sonar 6 Producer for me would be $249.

Cakewalk, also has a page online that clearly spells out what benefits were added for every version of Sonar since I last upgraded. There is alot of significant stuff on that list that I think I will really enjoy.

Lastly, from perusing some other forums, the overall vibe from Cubase users seems to be that they are disappointed with the upgrade to version 4, while Sonar users are more excited overall with the upgrade to Sonar 6.

I'm going to wait until this weekend to make my final decision with my wallet.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

[tamasdragon]

I think the new cubase4 is the way to go. It knows everythin what you need, and a littlle bit more.
Regards Tamas Dragon

[manning1]

dynamics....
re "toys"......
you might want to read this thread from some users , with respect....
just one of many. what i outlined can be as pro as you wish.
all in how the tool at ones disposal is used.
notice the last comment in the thread.
http://www.pgmusic.com/ubbthreads/sh...gonew=1#UNREAD

in summary dig a bit deeper rather than a cursory glance.

[theother]

I get good results with RME products. Good quality and reliable.

[stag]

Onyx 400f and C4.

[MoreDynamics]

OK, I've decided to go with Sonar 6 & the RME. I've placed my orders and will report back on my experience with Sonar if anyone is interested.

[tombuur]

I am upgrading both Sonar and Cubase to the new versions. For the last year I have mainly used SX3, but to me it looks like Sonar has advanced more than Cubase. So I may well be going back to Sonar now, if what I have read proves true with no hidden surprises once I have both updates.

Briefly I think the additions to Cubase are disappointing, considering it's been two years since the last update. They have mainly added several plugins I don't need.

[btsabq]

Is there a Cubase 4/sx3 demo out there to download? or do you have to purchase the program with no trial?

I'm currently a Sonar 4.04 user and would like to see how Cubase works. I'm especially interested in the integration of external hardware feature it has.

Thanks,

-Brian.

[Joe Cole]

Originally Posted by btsabq

Is there a Cubase 4/sx3 demo out there to download? or do you have to purchase the program with no trial?

-Brian.

Brian, there has not been a "legal" way to demo Cubase since SX 1, but.... the thing to remember is that when they went to SX2, they totally scrapped the previous audio engine and went with the higher quality Nuendo 2 engine.

So... the demo that IS available, is in no way indicative of what th new one will sound like. The interface and workflow will resemble the current version, but.... it ain't the same thing.

[KevWest]

Originally Posted by tombuur

I am upgrading both Sonar and Cubase to the new versions. For the last year I have mainly used SX3, but to me it looks like Sonar has advanced more than Cubase. So I may well be going back to Sonar now, if what I have read proves true with no hidden surprises once I have both updates.

Briefly I think the additions to Cubase are disappointing, considering it's been two years since the last update. They have mainly added several plugins I don't need.

why do people buy both? i never understood that why not buy your favorite one since thats the one you will be using most. Is there an advantage to this that i am missing

[True North]

Originally Posted by xabiton

why do people buy both? i never understood that why not buy your favorite one since thats the one you will be using most. Is there an advantage to this that i am missing

I can only speak from my point of view but I think the main reason people use/buy other DAW's is to take advantages of features that are available in one or the other.

In my case I am considering buyng Sonar 6 ($360 for Cross Platform price) which I thought might be useful for tracking. I am most interested in the Audio Snap - multitrack audio quantize. Most of the Audio/Non Midi guys were looking for an alternative to Beat Detective in PT.

A lot of people were pissed off that it wasn't available in Cubase 4 - now they have an option. I asked myself if I would pay $300-$400 for a Beat Detective plug and I said yes- so why not get an entire DAW for the same price. I was actually considering buying a cheap Pro Tools interface (Mbox) and buying the Music Production tool kit. I am looking more seriously at Sonar because it offers a cheaper and more flexible solution to PT.

Because I use a hybrid system (plugs and hardware) I wanted a DAW with full Automatic Delay Compensation. Cubase SX has full ADC for both Hardware and Software plugs which makes it more valuable to me for mixing. That is specifically why I am considering two sytems. I don't think anyone's specific reasons will be idetical but the overriding reason is because people want to take advantages of features available in both.

[KevWest]

thanks for clearing that up. To me it still seems pointless but then again I wouldn't use an audio quantize I try to rarely quantize so those snap features dont do anything for me. The added features are tempting without a doubt but Im glad my work only requires Reason and a handful of controllers because buying all of that other stuff has to be expensive.

[taturana]

i've been using sonar 6 for the past few days... great changes from the 5.2 version, one of the best things about it is to be able to use the mouse wheel to adjust faders and knobs... also the new version is great for mastering using stems... mix your song to as many different 32bit or 64-bit stems as you want and then open another session to master... too bad other programs don't seem to open 64-bit audio yet... ( i have wavelab 5.x, not the 6.0 version) it's quite ahead of it's time... also it looks like a good time to get an upgrade for the computer... some functions seem to be very heavy on the cpu i kept my 5.2 installed just in case, but havn't had the need to use it at all...
some features that were standart before now are hidden inside menus... did not like that, but after a few minutes customizing preferences, the program now has a pretty familiar face.
the color are weird, reminds of PT a lot...
i find it worrying that the default "views"of the prgram don't contain the staff view (i was even worried they had removed it (argggh!) but soon after i inserted a new toolbar they appeared. the staff view is one of the things that set sonar apart.. they should keep improving it and never forget about it or hide it...
as for being unfamiliar... to me it's very familiar, i 've using it since cakewalk for dos... also if you are lost... remeber to use the right mouse button... in specific places... that helps.... it's actually very very simple... but since there's a s***load of commands and functions... it's quite a maze (ing!)
also sometimes it takes to llong scanning for plugins... vst support in general has improved a lot, so far i had no crashes whatosoever even when mixing 90+ tracks with lots
of plugins...
summing bus:
it's great! and as usual can't wait for version 6.01, etc...

[Oldone]

Bottom line reason for using their software, 64 bit processing. This plus the fact that their top engineers monitor the Cakewalk forum daily and respond to technical questions. To give you an example, a person recently asked a question about Vista RC1 and a 64 bit plug-in issue. He got a response that although Vista is a beta OS they would work on the issue and get back to him.

They have great support unlike most of their competitors. These guys are passionate about their software and providing a highly creative, powerful environment for recording. Just great to deal with.

[Ruudman]

Originally Posted by taturana

ability to mix 64bit 500khz (beat that protools!fuuck )

Nika on Fixed vs Floating:

A digital mixer will perform better if it is a fixed point mixer than if it is a floating point mixer. Floating point does have advantages in other types of processing, though.

ruudman

[KevWest]

Originally Posted by Oldone

Bottom line reason for using their software, 64 bit processing. This plus the fact that their top engineers monitor the Cakewalk forum daily and respond to technical questions. To give you an example, a person recently asked a question about Vista RC1 and a 64 bit plug-in issue. He got a response that although Vista is a beta OS they would work on the issue and get back to him.

They have great support unlike most of their competitors. These guys are passionate about their software and providing a highly creative, powerful environment for recording. Just great to deal with.

i havent had good experience with their tech support but thats just the phone support. Cakewalk Tech support pisses me off.

[KevWest]

Originally Posted by taturana

i've been using sonar 6 for the past few days... great changes from the 5.2 version, one of the best things about it is to be able to use the mouse wheel to adjust faders and knobs... also the new version is great for mastering using stems... mix your song to as many different 32bit or 64-bit stems as you want and then open another session to master... too bad other programs don't seem to open 64-bit audio yet... ( i have wavelab 5.x, not the 6.0 version) it's quite ahead of it's time... also it looks like a good time to get an upgrade for the computer... some functions seem to be very heavy on the cpu i kept my 5.2 installed just in case, but havn't had the need to use it at all...
some features that were standart before now are hidden inside menus... did not like that, but after a few minutes customizing preferences, the program now has a pretty familiar face.
the color are weird, reminds of PT a lot...
i find it worrying that the default "views"of the prgram don't contain the staff view (i was even worried they had removed it (argggh!) but soon after i inserted a new toolbar they appeared. the staff view is one of the things that set sonar apart.. they should keep improving it and never forget about it or hide it...
as for being unfamiliar... to me it's very familiar, i 've using it since cakewalk for dos... also if you are lost... remeber to use the right mouse button... in specific places... that helps.... it's actually very very simple... but since there's a s***load of commands and functions... it's quite a maze (ing!)
also sometimes it takes to llong scanning for plugins... vst support in general has improved a lot, so far i had no crashes whatosoever even when mixing 90+ tracks with lots
of plugins...
summing bus:
it's great! and as usual can't wait for version 6.01, etc...

Andre Sachs
taturana.com

whats the point in 64 bit audio? In my opinion its only better on paper. 24 bit has been more than enough for my uses.

[Oldone]

Originally Posted by xabiton

whats the point in 64 bit audio? In my opinion its only better on paper. 24 bit has been more than enough for my uses.

From my experience. Deeper and wider soundstage. Reverb tails that are silky smooth in software. There's more but those two come to mind first.

[KevWest]

thats the experience I get with 24 bit I just havent found a soundcard that supports 64 bit so I dont see how anyone could benefit from 64 bit audio with a 24 bit soundcard

[clonewar]

Originally Posted by xabiton

thats the experience I get with 24 bit I just havent found a soundcard that supports 64 bit so I dont see how anyone could benefit from 64 bit audio with a 24 bit soundcard

It's still 24 bit audio. 64 bit refers to the internal data path and calculations, which gives more headroom for adding effects and summing. Floating point math produces rounding errors, which theoretically can effect audio quality. 64 bit math reduces the amount of errors. How this actually translates in the real world is open to argument..

[taturana]

Originally Posted by xabiton

thats the experience I get with 24 bit I just havent found a soundcard that supports 64 bit so I dont see how anyone could benefit from 64 bit audio with a 24 bit soundcard

friend, get informed. you miss the point completely. to mix using 64 bit internal resolution is a huge improvement, basically it allows for 32/64bit masters. it's a question of math. basically you always have to mix at a higher depth than the bit depth recorded or the bit depth which the material is intended to be mixed. or you'll lose detail by rounding numbers. digital audio 101.
i think bob katz could explain it a lot better than me though...

better yet, listen to the results. if you still can't hear the difference, better see a doctor...

my experience is that there's less loss (no loss?) at the mixing stage with this resolution. even dense rock mixes, which where the real problem with the old 32bit floating point resolution before 5.0, now work quite a lot better. it seems easier to fit complex mixes into 32 bit than 24bit. when mixing stems (eg. 6 x 64bit stereo tracks the sound gets really huge...

[KevWest]

Originally Posted by clonewar

It's still 24 bit audio. 64 bit refers to the internal data path and calculations, which gives more headroom for adding effects and summing. Floating point math produces rounding errors, which theoretically can effect audio quality. 64 bit math reduces the amount of errors. How this actually translates in the real world is open to argument..

ok that makes a lot of sense. its like getting more water into a 64 ounce bucket vs a 24 ounce bucket. theres just more space for it. That makes a lot of sense thanks for clearing that up I am still new to a lot of this I have been just using my ears.

[KevWest]

Originally Posted by taturana

friend, get informed. you miss the point completely. to mix using 64 bit internal resolution is a huge improvement, basically it allows for 32/64bit masters. it's a question of math. basically you always have to mix at a higher depth than the bit depth recorded or the bit depth which the material is intended to be mixed. or you'll lose detail by rounding numbers. digital audio 101.
i think bob katz could explain it a lot better than me though...

better yet, listen to the results. if you still can't hear the difference, better see a doctor...

my experience is that there's less loss (no loss?) at the mixing stage with this resolution. even dense rock mixes, which where the real problem with the old 32bit floating point resolution before 5.0, now work quite a lot better. it seems easier to fit complex mixes into 32 bit than 24bit. when mixing stems (eg. 6 x 64bit stereo tracks the sound gets really huge...

Ive never recorded to 64 bit to know the difference either. Ive never heard a 64 bit file because 1) I dont own Sonar Producer/Studio I have Home Studio which doesnt support 64 bit. 2) I dont do much sound recording outside of sampling to really gain that experience. 3) I am here trying to get informed. Experience in the concept of 64 bit is what I am really lacking. I honestly saw it like upsampling a track from 16 bit to 24 bit. I didnt know it was a whole different process. Thanks for clearing that up for me