The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Sonar Users: Let's identify ourselves so we can nework. Audio Interfaces
Old 28th August 2007
  #31
Gear Nut
 
sada10's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
There's no (automatic) latency compensation if you do the round trip i.e. out your desk, into Sonar, out Sonar into your desk for monitoring - it's hopeless in that situation and just can't be used for tracking/overdubs etc.
I am to a SONAR user and have been for the past 5 yrs. now!
I am looking to get a small to mid-size console where I will record via midi, bounce down to audio, then transfer to Protools for mixdown and use my console for summing and outboard processing.
Now I really hate to sound dumb, but I am trying to figure out a senerio where what you quoted above would be applicable; I am trying to think this through. Would the latency issue occur if I had a convertor that did not have a monitor out, and I am tracking and monitoring my prerecorded tracks, then I would experience what you are describing-correct?
Old 28th August 2007
  #32
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sada10 View Post
I am looking to get a small to mid-size console where I will record via midi, bounce down to audio, then transfer to Protools for mixdown and use my console for summing and outboard processing.
Now I really hate to sound dumb, but I am trying to figure out a senerio where what you quoted above would be applicable; I am trying to think this through. Would the latency issue occur if I had a convertor that did not have a monitor out, and I am tracking and monitoring my prerecorded tracks, then I would experience what you are describing-correct?
Firstly - why transfer to PT?

apart from that

I record musicians with mics, so that's the difference. You don't have that stage and are only monitoring so there's no extra level(s) of compensation required. I need to go:

Mics > Hardware (pre-amps, desk etc) > AD > DAW > DA > Desk

and I want to overdub too, sometimes multiple channels, so add that to the mix and you can quickly see why the DAW needs to do some nifty calcs on the fly

I also have a dozen aux sends coming from the DAW to hardware FX which I may or may not want to monitor in the DAW too

Basically I want the DAW to be hooked up just like any other tape machine in a typical studio set-up

call me old fashioned
Old 29th August 2007
  #33
Gear Nut
 
Jeraz's Avatar
 

I use SONAR v6 Producer Edition for Acoustic Guitar and vocal tracking. I use Reaper for sketches now, because nothing in my experience is faster for whipping out a sketch...that matrix view of routing is just killer, as is the take implementation. And right-click a track meter and choose an input and you are tracking quick as a blink.

I master in Samplitude Professional. Still haven't found anything else (including WaveLab) with the unique flexibility and combo of wave editing, CODECs, CD/DVD production and plugs, though the latest version of Adobe Audition, of all things, is gaining on it.

SONAR is cool, but I look forward to some three-D interface implementation...not a skin freak, but three-d does help the eye find stuff fast.
Old 29th August 2007
  #34
Gear Head
We are also Sonar users! -since Pro Audio 7, love it!
Old 29th August 2007
  #35
Gear Maniac
 
mister sunshine's Avatar
 

Sonar doesn't have a MONO output selection because, as far as I know, MS Windows uses "stereo" pairs. So all of us windows users are accustomed to using the Left or Right of a pair as MONO sends.

For example, I effectively have 24 mono sends on my system.

I'm having some trouble understanding the timing compensation complaint.

I multi track (with mics wise guy) all the time, I don't see any sync issues when playing to previously recorded tracks?

I do use my hardware to route my monitoring... cause that's just like I did it in the analog days. I guess it's cause I monitor EE rather than a playback head on a hardware recorder.

I think the main disappointment some people have is that they can't use Sonars internal routing to leverage the efx for live use without latency. Once the track is laid down the "real time" efx sync up great.

I have no interest in using amp sims etc etc... cause I record with microphones ;-). So IMO people complaining about that very specific issue are expceting too much.

As far as sending to outbaord gear for a round trip... it works just like the multitrack recording... unless your outboard gear is digital and introduces it's own latency. I guess that could be a hassle.

It seems there's a workflow some of you use with other systems that some of us SONAR users never encountered so we find everything works really really well.
Old 29th August 2007
  #36
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

I just want to use Sonar the same way as I use PT, that's all - you cannot do that with Sonar in it's current implementation because it has no automatic delay compensation for external hardware and it's routing is fairly rudimentary
Sonar simply cannot be used in the scenario I described without the manual lining up of samples, plain and simple - this is a known shortcoming and one accepted by Cakewalk. They might fix it, they might not...

As to your 'wise guy' crack, that was a tad childish - I made my comment in direct reply to a poster that doesn't use mics, but it's pretty obvious if you care to read it again (slowly)
Old 29th August 2007
  #37
Gear Nut
 
Lay in Wait's Avatar
 

Just signing in as another Sonar user.

For those of you wanting to calculate your roundtrip latency for using outboard gear, this is a cool little ap for the job.
CEntrance, Inc. / Products
Once you figure out the exact amount of samples (at a particular latency setting) it takes for the round trip, set it as a nudge setting. Now, everytime you send something out (of your interface) and record it again its only one click with the nudge feature to put it in its place. This method has worked flawlessly with reamping guitars and whatnot.

Craig
Old 29th August 2007
  #38
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
I just want to use Sonar the same way as I use PT, that's all - you cannot do that with Sonar in it's current implementation because it has no automatic delay compensation for external hardware and it's routing is fairly rudimentary
Sonar simply cannot be used in the scenario I described without the manual lining up of samples, plain and simple - this is a known shortcoming and one accepted by Cakewalk. They might fix it, they might not...

As to your 'wise guy' crack, that was a tad childish - I made my comment in direct reply to a poster that doesn't use mics, but it's pretty obvious if you care to read it again (slowly)
You're right. I've had some pretty darn good musicans here. Whenever I tried recording them in Sonar, The recorded audio tracks were NEVER played back exactly as the musican played them. I've proved that to myself and others by recording audio in Sonar and my DTRS machines syncronized via my Microlynx at the same time. The 2 pings never line up without nudging the track OR adding track delay on the DTRS machine via the digital mixer and then tweaking the transients.

I also posted the results using a second hardware sequencer recording a midi track at the same time as it was being recorded in Sonar, a while back. Sonar failed that test too.

RE your last paragraph, word got out Sonar was being discussed somewhere else. What others are saying...
Old 29th August 2007
  #39
Gear Maniac
 
mister sunshine's Avatar
 

ssaudio,
I apologize for the wise guy crack.

But my overall take of your perspective on this matter is that you do not want to use Sonar in the manner in which it is most effective.

At face value it seemed that your comment about recording musicians with mics made your needs uniquely problematic.

I use my hardware for zero latency monitoring... I just don't have any problems because I have set up my system to make best use of Sonar.

I'd be curious to understand why pianodano has differences in what gets recorded on his various recorders, although if such a problem exists I don't see how it would only apply to really darn good musicians... I mean, sync issue would suck... pretty much on anything. I wonder how that digital mixer is routed? I'm curious what AD converter is used to get into Sonar on that system. I'd also be curious to know if that converter is tied to the same external clock with a star distribution or a daisy chain?

Anyways, I'm a happy Cakewalk user since Cake PA6.

best regards,
mike
Old 29th August 2007
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
ssaudio,
I apologize for the wise guy crack.

But my overall take of your perspective on this matter is that you do not want to use Sonar in the manner in which it is most effective.

At face value it seemed that your comment about recording musicians with mics made your needs uniquely problematic.

I use my hardware for zero latency monitoring... I just don't have any problems because I have set up my system to make best use of Sonar.

I'd be curious to understand why pianodano has differences in what gets recorded on his various recorders, although if such a problem exists I don't see how it would only apply to really darn good musicians... I mean, sync issue would suck... pretty much on anything. I wonder how that digital mixer is routed? I'm curious what AD converter is used to get into Sonar on that system. I'd also be curious to know if that converter is tied to the same external clock with a star distribution or a daisy chain?

Anyways, I'm a happy Cakewalk user since Cake PA6.

best regards,
mike

Man you're preaching to the choir in my case. I have tried to make it work, upgrade after upgrade. I have resisted going to ProTools because we often do midi intensive work. You also sound like you been with Cakewalk long enough to know that it started out in life as a really nice midi sequencer.

I think many people are experiencing delay/sync or anything else you might want to call it, issues. They just aren't aware of it or perhaps they can't quantify it. I do know it does not always put the performance in the EXACT same postion it was played. Consider that guys have been asking for sometime for midi INPUT quantize. Who would really need something like that? I think the users are in many cases, more accurate than they think they are. But they are basing their thoughts on what Sonar plays back. And now, in 6 we have audio snap. In 6.2 we suddenly have input quantize.

Also, I am not implying that the musicans working here are any better than any of the other fine musicians anywhere else. I AM saying, we got really tired of very tight performances, that even though they were played very well - when played back - not so good. So, we did what anyone else should do and spent a great deal of time and effort trying to solve the problem or at the very least, identify what the problem is.

RE the digital mixer, It's 32 channel, 24 I/O via firewire. It is the audio convertor. It's latency is at 5ms. Everything is on the same Microlynx ACG low jitter clock. Digi certified the microlynx clock as fine for resolving their stuff. And, I've been at this stuff for a while, so I do know how to hook it all up.

__________________________________________________________

Please don't think for a second that we are even attempting to resolve Sonar as a slave. That won't work!

When the sytem is synchronized, Sonar is the master. The microlynx converts MTC into smpte and sends it on down the line and resolves the tape machine. DTRS recorders resolve themselves to smpte.

Regards,

Danny
Old 29th August 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Oldone's Avatar
Sonar here but man, I am thinking about some other solution. They hooked me on the 64 bit thing but that environment is so sketchy. I am going to check out 7 but if that does not deliver on stability and better latency with multiprocessors, I will probably move to another platform.
Old 29th August 2007
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
Sonar doesn't have a MONO output selection because, as far as I know, MS Windows uses "stereo" pairs. So all of us windows users are accustomed to using the Left or Right of a pair as MONO sends.

For example, I effectively have 24 mono sends on my system.

I'm having some trouble understanding the timing compensation complaint.

I multi track (with mics wise guy) all the time, I don't see any sync issues when playing to previously recorded tracks?

I do use my hardware to route my monitoring... cause that's just like I did it in the analog days. I guess it's cause I monitor EE rather than a playback head on a hardware recorder.

I think the main disappointment some people have is that they can't use Sonars internal routing to leverage the efx for live use without latency. Once the track is laid down the "real time" efx sync up great.

I have no interest in using amp sims etc etc... cause I record with microphones ;-). So IMO people complaining about that very specific issue are expceting too much.

As far as sending to outbaord gear for a round trip... it works just like the multitrack recording... unless your outboard gear is digital and introduces it's own latency. I guess that could be a hassle.

It seems there's a workflow some of you use with other systems that some of us SONAR users never encountered so we find everything works really really well.

Mike, the problem is you can't just assign to an out. You have to adjust your pan hard left/right and make sure you're not using one of the ******** pan laws that will clip a zero dB center signal when panned.

I'd like to shorten that in the way PT does. I believe Cubase allows this as well.

It's also difficult using external gear - can't use it as an insert.

I have to use busses and route them to physical outs which connect to my board.
Old 29th August 2007
  #43
Gear Maniac
 

I thought this was meant to identify Sonar users, not to bash it. Oh well....I guess I am a user too. Take care all!
Old 29th August 2007
  #44
I don't think there's really bashing going on, just a few similar views on a weakness that it has. SONAR has MANY great features that overshadow the weaknesses and that's why we love it.

I use it professionally daily. Great DAW. Not perfect yet, though.
Old 29th August 2007
  #45
Gear Maniac
 
mister sunshine's Avatar
 

glitch,

"Mike, the problem is you can't just assign to an out."....
"I have to use busses and route them to physical outs which connect to my board."

I see what you are saying. It never occured to me that it was problem because I've never personally owned (have operated many) a hardware board that had a direct out for every channel. So I'm accustomed to using buses or aux sends in general.


"You have to adjust your pan hard left/right and make sure you're not using one of the ******** pan laws that will clip a zero dB center signal when panned."

Ok I see what you are saying about having to use the pan slider because all the busses are 2 track... (there is a mono select, but I imagine that too would not be ideal for your use). I guess you know the stereo pan law is a global option? You can set that and move on. Are you saying you want to use different "pan laws" within the same project?

best regards,
mike
Old 29th August 2007
  #46
Pan law is per project - well, at least it's saved with the project.

You can select an individual input in SONAR (i.e. L of 1/2 L/R). I wish you could do that with the outputs.
Old 29th August 2007
  #47
Gear Maniac
 

glitch,

How do you set the pan laws? I'm just setting up to run into a board and am interested in the pitfalls I might be up against.

I too would like to see separate outs as like the ins.
Old 29th August 2007
  #48
Gear Nut
 
sada10's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
Firstly - why transfer to PT?

apart from that

I record musicians with mics, so that's the difference. You don't have that stage and are only monitoring so there's no extra level(s) of compensation required. I need to go:

Mics > Hardware (pre-amps, desk etc) > AD > DAW > DA > Desk

and I want to overdub too, sometimes multiple channels, so add that to the mix and you can quickly see why the DAW needs to do some nifty calcs on the fly

I also have a dozen aux sends coming from the DAW to hardware FX which I may or may not want to monitor in the DAW too

Basically I want the DAW to be hooked up just like any other tape machine in a typical studio set-up

call me old fashioned
Thanks for the clarification-I am actually learning a bit more on this thread than I bargained. I am currently a SONAR III registered user, but I am married and we have 6 kids, so I don't get an oppurtunity to write consistently. I am hoping to open a SONAR midi/Pt audi studio with a friend of mine over the next few months, so I have been gathering as much info. on small to midsized consoles, convertors, etc. etc.
Old 29th August 2007
  #49
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by IzovAge View Post
glitch,

How do you set the pan laws? I'm just setting up to run into a board and am interested in the pitfalls I might be up against.

I too would like to see separate outs as like the ins.
Go to Options > Audio > General and you'll see the Stereo Panning Law option.

Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - Author of Cakewalk, Sound Forge 6, 7/8 and SONAR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Power books.
** Get Sonar 6 Power & Sound Forge 8 Power - Today! **
Scott R. Garrigus Web Sites - DigiFreq, Power Books, NewTechReview

Publisher of DigiFreq. Win a free Absynth 3 or Kontakt 2 DVD Tutorial and learn cool music technology tips and techniques by getting a FREE subscription to DigiFreq... over 20,000 readers can't be wrong! Go to:
Scott R. Garrigus' DigiFreq - Free music technology news, reviews, tips and techniques!
Old 29th August 2007
  #50
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
But my overall take of your perspective on this matter is that you do not want to use Sonar in the manner in which it is most effective
I want to use Sonar in a professional environment and I don't want to change my methodology just because Sonar does not implement a function (through their own choice) that will allow me to do this - I have no problem with change, but I'm not about to make a backwards step just for an omission in someone else's software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
At face value it seemed that your comment about recording musicians with mics made your needs uniquely problematic
Quite how you can arrive at that conclusion is beyond me

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
I use my hardware for zero latency monitoring
And this doesn't suit me because it makes for extra patching and routing and tells me nothing about my signal path - I have no interest in monitoring what is in essence a PFL during recording. If I have a room full of musicians I cannot keep changing their monitor mixes just because my choice of software dictates I do

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
although if such a problem exists I don't see how it would only apply to really darn good musicians
Well, it does, is acknowledged and has been discussed umpteen times on the Sonar forum.
As to your latter statement, the better the musician/engineer, the more they will notice, it's as simple as that
Old 29th August 2007
  #51
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Who is using Sonar?
I am!

I love Sonar and will never switch, but the user interface and MIDI editing need a bit of work IMO.

--Ethan
Old 29th August 2007
  #52
Lives for gear
 
filthyrich's Avatar
 

Scott

Great to see you on here Scott. I didn't know you were a member here. Your books are great. I have sonar 4 power and sonar 6 power. Very helpful. I should use them more than I do. Maybe you can chime in on how to use outboard hardware in conjunction with Sonar. Really, I want to know what to possibly do about tracks not lining up after a L-R submix's round trip out and back in.
Old 29th August 2007
  #53
Lives for gear
 
filthyrich's Avatar
 

Speaking of scott, for anyone who doesn't know...

Scott R. Garrigus Web Sites - DigiFreq, Power Books, NewTechReview is a great info source on Sonar.
Old 29th August 2007
  #54
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
I thought this was meant to identify Sonar users, not to bash it. Oh well....I guess I am a user too. Take care all!
Don't be so childish.
I use the software as much as I can, because I really like it. It's natural to discuss the shortcomings
Old 29th August 2007
  #55
Sonar 6P, here. I've been using CWPA/Sonar since I put together my first 8 channel DAW in 1996.

It was the first software that promised to meet my very strong desire to move to non-linear recording after using ADATs for 4 or 5 years and analog multitracks for many years before. And it met those needs, for the most part, better than I had ever expected.

In those years in the mid 90s, software was not nearly as stable or reliable as today's apps and OS's. But Cakewalk Pro Audio was remarkably stable, particularly vis a vis other major apps I had to use.

I've used CW/Sonar to record many, many hundreds of projects, from acoustic guitar to full blown, BFD and virtual-synth laden projects, and it's been one of the most reliable and least frustrating softwares of any I've used in that period. (I also do business software development and lately have been doing some video work. There is a huge range of software usability and reliabilty out there.)


I'm also an avid reader of other people's troubles and frustrations -- as well as their triumphs and joys, mind you -- with their DAWs. (I never miss a Logic thread. Now that's entertainment!) And while there are a fair-sized handful of features I think really should already be in Sonar -- based on what I know at this point -- there's no way I'd consider switching. For my needs, Sonar does its job for me quite well and with very little trouble or frustration.

I also read the how-to articles that have popped up in recent years specific to other DAWs, how-to comp vocal tracks, etc, and those have been highly informative -- and overall reassuring -- as well.
Old 29th August 2007
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
Don't be so childish.
I use the software as much as I can, because I really like it. It's natural to discuss the shortcomings
Absolutely.

If it had not been for a forthright and lengthy public discussion of tracking misalignment issues in Sonar (and other DAWs) at Harmony Central, I don't think CW would have finally given us the tracking alignment offset that Ron Kuper, himself, was moved to promise in that thread.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with DAW users talking about their desires and frustrations.

With a company like CW, that's responsive to its user base, it can only help push the product forward.
Old 29th August 2007
  #57
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Place has been overrun by militant home recordists who spend all their time on the forums rather than making music.
Militant? Watch it, buddy. I have a Tandy SPL meter and I'm not afraid to use it.
Old 29th August 2007
  #58
Gear Nut
 
mic anon's Avatar
 

Sonar 5 user here.

Switched from adobe audition, but I miss the editing power of adobe audition.
well I Guess i'll just have to get another copy of audition and use them both.
Old 29th August 2007
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lay in Wait View Post
Just signing in as another Sonar user.

For those of you wanting to calculate your roundtrip latency for using outboard gear, this is a cool little ap for the job.
CEntrance, Inc. / Products

Craig
Hey Craig, thanks this is very cool! Just what I have been needing. I have been calculating this by trying to line up a ping, visually.

I have a feeling that the next major SONAR update will include an external gear insert plugin, similar to Wavelab's, that will do this ping test for us and compensate the way it does for plugs. But in the meantime.... yeah!
Old 29th August 2007
  #60
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Man you're preaching to the choir in my case. I have tried to make it work, upgrade after upgrade. I have resisted going to ProTools because we often do midi intensive work. You also sound like you been with Cakewalk long enough to know that it started out in life as a really nice midi sequencer.

I think many people are experiencing delay/sync or anything else you might want to call it, issues. They just aren't aware of it or perhaps they can't quantify it. I do know it does not always put the performance in the EXACT same postion it was played. Consider that guys have been asking for sometime for midi INPUT quantize. Who would really need something like that? I think the users are in many cases, more accurate than they think they are. But they are basing their thoughts on what Sonar plays back. And now, in 6 we have audio snap. In 6.2 we suddenly have input quantize.
Wow, I had to register to this forum just to ask you if you really understand the purposes of Input Quantize or AudioSnap?

First off Input Quantize has never been requested to fix any issue with where Sonar or any other program places notes. The request for and the use of IQ was/is to achieve a certain technique of recording used by most of today's Urban/Hip-Hop/R&B producers.

IQ lends toward working in a specific style of creating, that's it! The feature isn't there "suddenly" to fix accuracy problems with the program.

I've never had the program just play something back in some other way than what I've played into it and the only possible way it could even do that is under incredibly high (relative to the in use system's power/ability) latency settings.

As far as AudioSnap is concern, its use is toward combining (tempo-wise) totally unrelated audio/midi clips, allowing users to quickly match them up to one another or to altogether new tempos. It's other use could be toward correcting persons with not so great timing , but tell me where did you get that it was suppose to correct some inaccuracy of the program itself?

Not cool talking down features for which you yourself don't have a clear understanding of... It's no wonder users in the Sonar forums have become so defensive after being subjected so long to comments like these.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
filthyrich / Cakewalk Sonar
20
bionic brown / Cakewalk Sonar
15
lord_bunny / Cakewalk Sonar
2
tone4407 / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump