Does anybody use Sequoia ?

[Sinewave]

For recording and mixing and mastering a project ? especially audiophile type music. how does it perform, is it stable, does it sound good, how many tracks can you achieve at high sample rates?. thankyou for your time.

Sinewave.

[pw8888]

I do.
I always print my mixes with it.
Very stable. It sounds GREAT.
I only do 2-4 track with it.
I use it with a lynx. (AES in out)

[Brad Blackwood]

I use Sequoia for mastering here, rock solid (has never crashed) and easy to use. Love it!

[mds]

Sequoia is part of the Samplitude family and is a very hi quality native DAW. It is well known for its excellent sound and mix engines. Stability is good and it is a very efficient program, so count track will be excellent assuming you're using a decent computer. I personally find it very intuitive as well.

Hope that helps,

Mike

[Sinewave]

My God you guys are fast, i was not expecting a reply so soon WOW thanks alot, but i heard that it's little brother Samp is buggy, is Sequoia more stable and reliable than Samp? thank you

Sinewave.

[Sunbreak Music]

I've only had a couple of crashes w/ it, and I could attribute those to other software. Very stable since then, and the "crash guard" is a godsend. It allows you to save your project before exiting if it's about to go "south".
Expensive, but I'm glad I did it.
CAA

[NathanEldred]

Sequoia and Samplitude sound exactly the same...if you don't need certain feature sets that Sequoia has (that are actually quite specialized mainly for classical music editing and some forms of mastering)....then get Samplitude. You'll save yourself thousands of dollars, there is always an upgrade path if you find yourself needing what only Sequoia offers. The amount of tracks is completely dependent on the power of your computer, but if you have something like a 3500 AMD with a couple gigs of RAM or better, at hi res 96k your probably realistically looking at 50 tracks that are playing simultaneously with automation running on the program. I haven't stress tested mine in a while, so it could be more than that. And for how it sounds? It sounds like it's supposed to. If you have great converters, you won't hear any strange anomolies, it's basically like using a hard disc stand alone recorder (of which I've never heard differences between when using the same converter in the same way I hear some differences between DAW programs).

[obostic]

I use Sequoia for mixing and mastering and coming from Protools it take a little getting use to. IMO, the sound quality is second to none. The only caveat is the documentation is next to nothing; You will need to spend countless hours trying to unmask this beast. Personally, I don't find it intuitive, but for the sound quality, I am willing to sacrifice the ease of use that I found in Protools. Samplitude, Magix Studio and Sequoia is the same product; the only difference is the feature set. I went with Sequoia because I needed DDP for mastering and the crossfade editing is comparable to Sonic Solution for a lot less money.

[Sinewave]

but if you have something like a 3500 AMD with a couple gigs of RAM or better, at hi res 96k your probably realistically looking at 50 tracks that are playing simultaneously with automation running on the program. .

that is great man then maybe with samp or Sequoia i could get maybe at least 24 tracks at 192 with little or no plug -ins.

Sinewave.

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by obostic

I went with Sequoia because I needed DDP for mastering and the crossfade editing is comparable to Sonic Solution for a lot less money.

Well, Sonic Studio DDP costs 1100 € and Soundblade 1300 €.
Soundblade can be used with Sonic´s own hardware (which is in fact Metric Halo) or with any other core audio interface.

I guess it may be even less expensive than Sonic Studio DDP.

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by Adebar

I guess it may be even less expensive than Sonic Studio DDP.

Sorry, I meant SS Soundblade, which is able to create DDP masters, may be less expensive than Sequoia.

[larsfarm]

Originally Posted by Adebar

Well, Sonic Studio DDP costs 1100 € and Soundblade 1300 €.

... but isn't Soundblade stereo only? A specialized two-channel pre-mastering application where Seq/Samp are full fledged multitrack audio apps doing everything from multitrack recording to mastering ?

[Adebar]

Yes for now it is only stereo, but there are already 8-channel boxes in the line - 303 and 304, which can be cascaded.

[redddog]

I have Samplitude and I haven't had a single blip. It has been rock solid - almost hardware-y. I hope I didn't jinx anything but I've tried Sonar before and it's simply in a totally different league. No offence to the Sonar guys but it should be - it's double the price.

Anyway, there should be no difference between Samp and Seq in terms of Bugginess. And it's the same engine. It sounds beautiful. Aaannd...Paul McCartney and Kelly Clarkson are both tracking and mixing their new records on Samplitude(from the hourse's mouth).

For recording, mixing and mastering there is no better program.

Cheers,

Dan

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by redddog

I have Samplitude and I haven't had a single blip. It has been rock solid - almost hardware-y. I hope I didn't jinx anything but I've tried Sonar before and it's simply in a totally different league. No offence to the Sonar guys but it should be - it's double the price.

Anyway, there should be no difference between Samp and Seq in terms of Bugginess. And it's the same engine. It sounds beautiful. Aaannd...Paul McCartney and Kelly Clarkson are both tracking and mixing their new records on Samplitude(from the hourse's mouth).

For recording, mixing and mastering there is no better program.

Cheers,

Dan

WOW kelly and paul McCartney now that is cool. But Sequoia is said to be a high end post production App, yet an app like Nuendo seems to have a lot more features than Sequoia, what is the difference in the two, why is sequoia so much more expensive but don't have alot of the features that Nuendo has, or am i wrong?



Sinewave.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

WOW kelly and paul McCartney now that is cool. But Sequoia is said to be a high end post production App, yet an app like Nuendo seems to have a lot more features than Sequoia, what is the difference in the two, why is sequoia so much more expensive but don't have alot of the features that Nuendo has, or am i wrong?

Sequoia is aimed more at the mastering world and therefore has features not in Samp (or even normal tracking/mixing DAWS) like DDP support and 4-point editing (source-destination). It can apprantly do multi-track just fine (I only master) but is really well suited for the mastering room...

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by obostic

I use Sequoia for mixing and mastering and coming from Protools it take a little getting use to. IMO, the sound quality is second to none. The only caveat is the documentation is next to nothing; You will need to spend countless hours trying to unmask this beast. Personally, I don't find it intuitive, but for the sound quality, I am willing to sacrifice the ease of use that I found in Protools.

I have to agree with this. I like Samp allot (I am using it for my main DAW now) but it is VERY non-intuitive. Maybe it is because I have been using ProTools for almost a decade but Samplitude is just not as easy to use and it really messes up my work flow.

I know I could be tainted by my ProTools experience but Samp is just so freak'n hard to get some times and this is coming from a computer guy.

That said, Samp sounds good to my ears and the best part is I am not tied to any hardware like I would be with Digi products.

[EVREST]

sequoia is getting more better n better on every new verson which is what needed after getting the best quality sound.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by EVREST

sequoia is getting more better n better on every new verson which is what needed after getting the best quality sound.

Wow thread from the dead.

So after using it for a while now Samp is starting to make a little more sense to me.

I still really HATE some of the work flow issues, things that should be easy aren't always.

But that said, there are a few nice features in Samp that I LOVE now that I have gotten used to them. I don't think I could live without the ability to slice audio files and adjust volume and EQ on the segments, that is really really freak'n handy.

In short, I don't hate it as much as I used to and I am starting to really love it for some of it's better features.

[Glenn Bucci]

I have Cubase SX3, but had switched to Samplitude after years of poor customer service and lack of support of Steinberg on their own products. (The Houston controller, their own midi boxes, failure on certain features promised in SX3 that never happened). I currently have version 9 and version 10 is being shipped to me today. It is a great product, effects all around are better than Cubase and I like the work flow better. It was a little behind the other DAW's out there, but now with version 10 they are catching up. Great customer support as well.

[Thijsemans]

I have Samplitude V8 pro and i like mixing in it very much but i hate tracking with it. Tracking is very unnaturally to my opinion.

The workflow for mixing is very good.

[James R.]

Hi everybody,


Here's another vote for Sequoia. I have a 1800 AMD with a gig of ram, and a pair of raided 80 gig hard drives. As a test (no plugs-ins) I have done 32 in and out with no hiccups what so ever at 44.1 My system doesn't go above 48K. Don't know about higher sample rates. It is very stable.
The learning curve has been pretty steep, but I'm getting the hang of it. Still a lot to go though. I love the sound.
I have a fair amount of plugs and have only had a few that didn't want to play well together. Nothing I couldn't get around.
I primarily mix on a desk. I go from the direct outs (tape sends) to 4-8 channel breakout boxes/PCI sound cards to computer. Out of computer, breakouts back to tape returns on desk. Breakouts are word clocked to each other with one of them being used as a master word clock. No word clock or latency issues here. I can also mix in the box as well by changing the routing so that that the stereo outs of the software mixer are assigned to a pair of outs on one of the break out boxes. I know this is bad, but I have never mixed anything in the box. On occasion I do use the compressor and the EQ in the software mixer.
Sequoia also does 5.1 as well as 2 channel surround. Right clicking the pan control on any channel activates the 2 channel surround mode.
I go from Sequoia to Sound Forge for mixdown and throw whatever hardware box I like in between for color. It's a great piece of software and sounds GREAT. It is challenging at times, but well worth the aggrevation in return for new knowlege and skills.
I hope this has been helpful.


James R.
Avian Studios
(we're for the birds)

[siriusbliss]

A lot of the workflow issues can be resolved by setting up hotkeys and, as well, a lot of the menu features lurk behind the right mouse-click as you float over different areas of the GUI.

Templates and presets are also easy to setup in order to save time later on and get more into a flow.

At least this is my experience (I hate menus and constant mouse maneuvering with a guitar in my arms).

Greg

[enorbet2]

Greetz
I've seen some very informative responses here from very knowledgeable sources and thought it might be useful to have someone a little more amateur to weigh in.
I'm old. I was brought up on Neve, Revox, Ampex and the like and even when I learned electronics in high school, we were taught tubes as well as solid state so I obviously was not born into the digital world with computers as ubiquitous.
Anymore my main interests in recording are strictly amateur and involve on one hand creating music for my own (and a select few others') enjoyment and remastering and converting old analogue audio and video tapes.
I got Sequoia on a like-minded bass player/recording enthusiast's recommendation and due to the tutorials and a little playing around very easily and very quickly got results I liked. Let me amend that - loved.
In fact a few world known musicians I know were absolutely shocked at the quality I got mentioning how much money they'd spent to get a decent live recording and how much better a quality I got from an old cassette tape (from a home quality recorder, in fact) that came off the mixing board.
Because it came off the board it was a mirror image recording and being only 2 tracks it took a lot of passes to return any semblance of a coherent band sound yet it doesn't sound at all synthetic or even "worked on" let alone "worked to death".
So, though I may not take as quickly to much software as younger cats do, I found Sequoia quite intuitive once I got a little kick start from the tutorials. I have only moderate knowledge of competing products and that primarily in finished product, but mine certainly stack up as in the same league easily. A commercial studio head I know who uses ProTools, and is the source of some of the product to which I am comparing, was very impressed and asked many questions, all the while shaking his head. I'm quite certain some of the head shaking was merely at the prospect of salvaging from cassette tapes, but he truly did enjoy the results.

So hopefully this post will give some measure of how easy it is to get good results if you are willing to put in even a little work.

[siriusbliss]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

...but i heard that it's little brother Samp is buggy, is Sequoia more stable and reliable than Samp? thank you

Sinewave.

You heard wrong. Samplitude Pro 10.1 running flawlessly here.
The main differences between Samplitude and Sequoia is the 4-point crossfades, and other high-end features most suitable to mix and mastering.

Greg

[boojum]

Originally Posted by siriusbliss

You heard wrong. Samplitude Pro 10.1 running flawlessly here.
The main differences between Samplitude and Sequoia is the 4-point crossfades, and other high-end features most suitable to mix and mastering.

Greg

And SAM 10.1 Master is working just fine for me. No bugs; no crashes; good sound. And It is a bit of a problem divining how to do something at times but once learned it is a peach. Most of my problems are the RTFM type. ;o)

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by siriusbliss

You heard wrong. Samplitude Pro 10.1 running flawlessly here.
The main differences between Samplitude and Sequoia is the 4-point crossfades, and other high-end features most suitable to mix and mastering.

Greg

LOL , did you notice the date when i asked this question , it was since 2006 dude, I bought Samplitude that same year, and yeah 10.1 works fine

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

LOL , did you notice the date when i asked this question , it was since 2006 dude, I bought Samplitude that same year, and yeah 10.1 works fine

I wondered why had missed this thread - until I realised it was a resurrected thread.

But Sequoia is wonderful - I upgraded from Samplitude a year ago just for the source/destination editing - superb and well worth the money.

I think the "buggy" comment comes from the fact that the Samplitude forum is very honest and the developers are at great pains to fix any small bug reported. I have heard of other programs where any bad comments are immediately deleted. The Samplitude Forum is extremely helpful and Sequoia 10.1 is absolutely the best.

[siriusbliss]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

LOL , did you notice the date when i asked this question , it was since 2006 dude, I bought Samplitude that same year, and yeah 10.1 works fine

Yeah, my eyes are getting really bad I guess. The 6 looked like an 8.

Greg