The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Sonar Users: Let's identify ourselves so we can nework.
Old 30th August 2007
  #91
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Well, better than in 6.
Yeah... 'cause at one point you said, "5 worked like a charm though."

But then, later, you said, " Man you're preaching to the choir in my case. I have tried to make it work, upgrade after upgrade."

So, I wasn't sure what you were saying.


I'll have to admit that I'm no expert on synching digital tape decks to sequencer, though I did do it for years.

But it has never been my impression that you would ever get really tight synch as long as you were using any sort of MIDI protocol. That said, for most of that time I used the old MasterTracks Pro sequencer and then I switched to Cakewalk Pro Audio in '96. I, myself, never started another tape project again. But I did still have a few clients who were working on ADAT for a couple years after that. Frankly, I was never convinced that the ADATs synched to themselves all that spectacularly tightly. I realize there are reasons people still work to tape but, just entres nous, as much as I was glad to get the ADATs I was just as glad to see them sidelined. They were a product that made sense for a very short time. God love 'em.

But -- anyhow -- clearly 100 ms is far, far, far outside the realm of acceptable sloppiness by a factor of ten or twenty times, at least.
Old 30th August 2007
  #92
Lives for gear
To answer your additional questions. Re upgrades: yes I have been on the upgrade path for some years and installed the update patches to fix newly discovered problems. And yes final 5 (last version) did seen to be tighter for my purposes on my machine, although, I do admit I still was not really fond of doing initial recordings on it.

For me, and for the sake of simplicity until future iterations are proven (to me), my use of Sonar has evolved into doing audio transfers for editting mostly. In addition to every thing else that was tried, I purchased a Muse Receptor to offload most of the VST instruments. Despite all of these efforts there still were/are timing issues that occur with audio. I have not encountered timing errors with midi that were not easily fixed. Also, in my own case, even freezing tracks introduced timing errors. Something like RealGuitar clearly demonstrates to me that additional subtle, minute timing differences are introduced on a frozen track. For these reasons are precisely why I went back to older technology for audio. It just works. Preaching to the choir was meant precisely as it is often used, I believe in it . . . . but. . .


Re the reliability of MTC: The Microlynx takes Sonars MTC,and generates smpte to resolve the rest of the machines. It continually displays any sync errors for referrence. I think you would find it was and still is to this day, the industry standard for the most reliable synchronization. The audio is via the DM24 mixer with its own PCI card via firewire on a dedicated bus.
Old 30th August 2007
  #93
Gear Maniac
 
mister sunshine's Avatar
 

Quote:
originally posted bt ssaudio

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue
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"
When you elected to single out your use of mics when, in consideration of what you have written, your concerns seem to involve all audio routing to and from your SONAR system it seemed, to me, that you were implying the use of microphones was causing your problem.

I have taken note that you have commented on all but one sentence I had addressed to you in my previous post. Have you accepted my apology?

best regards,
mike
Old 30th August 2007
  #94
Here for the gear
 

Yep, here 2.
Old 30th August 2007
  #95
Here for the gear
 
jinga8's Avatar
 

I use Sonar. It's really neat. I like it a lot.
Old 30th August 2007
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
To answer your additional questions. Re upgrades: yes I have been on the upgrade path for some years and installed the update patches to fix newly discovered problems. And yes final 5 (last version) did seen to be tighter for my purposes on my machine, although, I do admit I still was not really fond of doing initial recordings on it.

For me, and for the sake of simplicity until future iterations are proven (to me), my use of Sonar has evolved into doing audio transfers for editting mostly. In addition to every thing else that was tried, I purchased a Muse Receptor to offload most of the VST instruments. Despite all of these efforts there still were/are timing issues that occur with audio. I have not encountered timing errors with midi that were not easily fixed. Also, in my own case, even freezing tracks introduced timing errors. Something like RealGuitar clearly demonstrates to me that additional subtle, minute timing differences are introduced on a frozen track. For these reasons are precisely why I went back to older technology for audio. It just works. Preaching to the choir was meant precisely as it is often used, I believe in it . . . . but. . .


Re the reliability of MTC: The Microlynx takes Sonars MTC,and generates smpte to resolve the rest of the machines. It continually displays any sync errors for referrence. I think you would find it was and still is to this day, the industry standard for the most reliable synchronization. The audio is via the DM24 mixer with its own PCI card via firewire on a dedicated bus.
I wish I could help you here... obviously, something is out of wack.

There's no way that the 100 ms time mis-alignment of your sequencer and tape decks could be considered to be simply due to the rather imprecise time windows provided by MTC. Certainly, on my old rig, while timing could, a 100 ms mismatch would be a full on show stopper. And these days I find that even the 8 ms roundtrip from my MOTU FW box to the computer is long enough to be noticeable to be noticeable to me -- even musically, not just talking about reference pings and measurement -- if not corrected.


Again, I wish I knew what to suggest. But, in my gut, I can't help but suspect this is a sync issue for the whole system and not a Sonar-specific issue. You say you feel Sonar 5 was better but, if I understand what you're now saying, you've always had problems?

I remembered a bunch of issues with SMPTE and MTC and went looking for them briefly. I didn't find precisely what I was looking for but I did find this bit from a Digidesign manual troubleshooting SMPTE sync and it looked like it might be pertinent to the overall discussion. There were also some discussions of timing errors from MTC to SMPTE conversion I saw in the google listing for the PDF -- but the stinking 145 page PDF document was too big too search and had its permissions set so that I couldn't copy and paste text out of it -- so I had to take a couple screenshots and paste them together. (I guess Digi doesn't want the rest of the world to know what's in its manuals.)

Old 30th August 2007
  #97
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I wish I could help you here... obviously, something is out of wack.

There's no way that the 100 ms time mis-alignment of your sequencer and tape decks could be considered to be simply due to the rather imprecise time windows provided by MTC. Certainly, on my old rig, while timing could, a 100 ms mismatch would be a full on show stopper. And these days I find that even the 8 ms roundtrip from my MOTU FW box to the computer is long enough to be noticeable to be noticeable to me -- even musically, not just talking about reference pings and measurement -- if not corrected.


Again, I wish I knew what to suggest. But, in my gut, I can't help but suspect this is a sync issue for the whole system and not a Sonar-specific issue. You say you feel Sonar 5 was better but, if I understand what you're now saying, you've always had problems?
As i mentioned, but maybe not concisely enough - I went back to tape to solve my problem, Not to add more. And yes. Always had some sort of timing problem albeit somedays less perceptible than others. I'm not sharp enough to know why.

I had my brother up here from Florida about 2 years back to do drum tracks in a couple of tunes in 5. That was a really bad experience for me.
He has never wavered from analog in his setup and still uses a MCI jh24 and Sony APR24.

During the 80's, he perfected playing live to a in ear click track. By about 1988 in our final full time on the road group, hardware suequencers had advanced enough to where we were doing shows with 5 musicians on stage, 2 of which were female vocalists. So it was him, a guitarist and my self. We totally relied on a Roland MC500mkII sequencer for horn parts, bass and any other part one of us couldn't get to live. He could nail the click without problems. We were so anal about timing we would ****** or advance a track by 2 tics in a 480 tic sequencer and debate it's merits.

Anyway, thanks for your help thoughts.

Edit. Whoops, just saw your scan. Yep, I use 29.97 nd. Timeline Microlynx defaults to that and recommends it as the frm rate. I'll do a search and see if I can find the old Protools info on a Microlynx.
Old 30th August 2007
  #98
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filthyrich View Post
So, it looks as if we have a psuedo-solution for latency compensation in Sonar.
er, yes, we know that

but it's not a cure for the problem because it totally ****s up yer work flow
Old 30th August 2007
  #99
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
I'm here to network too. I'm usually a nice guy but if you step on my feet (like he did) then you're gonna get it. That's all there is to it. Peace!
You are a troll
Old 30th August 2007
  #100
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
When you elected to single out your use of mics
I didn't, you have, again, entirely misread my post(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
Have you accepted my apology?
I really can't remember now

but probably...
Old 30th August 2007
  #101
Here for the gear
 
jinga8's Avatar
 

Jose, your such a troll...tutt

Mike, learn how to read posts properly...
Old 30th August 2007
  #102
Gear Maniac
 
chrisma's Avatar
 

- Sonar 5.2 PE for Mixing and Mastering
- Kinetic 2 and Project5 2.5 for Squencing
Been with Cakewalk since Pro Audio 5.0 (Wow that was a long time ago...)

Eagerly awaiting Sonar 7.0 PE

Couldn't be happier!
Old 30th August 2007
  #103
Here for the gear
 

Cool Sonar Users

I've been composing with midi since the '80s. In the software world my first was Sonus by SoftPacific. Anybody here that old? Commodore 64 era. 5 1/4" diskette. My first Cakewalk product was DOS. Never could get that right. Once I got Professional 7, I never looked back. Don't remember there being a Pro Tools back then, but then I'm almost 60 so what do I know? It seems to me that when audio recording in home studios became the norm, Pro Tools became the favored medium for final mixdown. Cakewalk took a look around and realized they had to retool. No need to do that as long as you're #1. And they're still coming on. As to which is better I'd like to think it's what makes you the most comfortable. Kinda like getting to a job. Some go by bus. Some by Volkswagen, and some would settle for nothing less than a Benz with their name engraved in a parking space. At the end of the day, they're all producing the same product. If you did studio time in the late '60s and '70s when lots of ABC/Dunhill Affiliated studios used 16 synced Wollensaks into a 2" You'd think all of them are great. Have fun.
-Rajay
Old 30th August 2007
  #104
Quote:
Originally Posted by filthyrich View Post
[snip]...So, it looks as if we have a psuedo-solution for latency compensation in Sonar.
[From an earlier post, it's clear he's talking about outboard Send/Return latency... which is unadjusted hardware latency + any latency generated by (presumably digital) outboard gear as in an FX send/return loop. Scott Garrigus had explained that such latency could be adjusted using the same Recording Latency Adjustment field in Audio / Options / Advanced used to offset uncompensated hardware adjustment, using the number of samples of misalignment provided by a ping loopback test.]

As long as your your the unadjusted latency from your converters ("recording/tracking misalignment") and the round trip time for your FX loop doesn't change, this is a set-and-forget solution that appears to work solidly.

(Of course, if you have it adjusted to compensate for latency induced by outboard hardware-based digital FX, you will want to change the setting when you stop mixing and go back to tracking.)

It would certainly be nice if they had included a ping-loopback-auto-calibration utility (similar to the one in Mackie Tracktion) which would potentially automate the process. But, again, as long as the hardware latency you're compensating for doesn't change, this is a pretty trouble free fix. Seems to me.
Old 30th August 2007
  #105
Gear Head
 
Steved's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
[From an earlier post, it's clear he's talking about outboard Send/Return latency... which is unadjusted hardware latency + any latency generated by (presumably digital) outboard gear as in an FX send/return loop. Scott Garrigus had explained that such latency could be adjusted using the same Recording Latency Adjustment field in Audio / Options / Advanced used to offset uncompensated hardware adjustment, using the number of samples of misalignment provided by a ping loopback test.]

As long as your your the unadjusted latency from your converters ("recording/tracking misalignment") and the round trip time for your FX loop doesn't change, this is a set-and-forget solution that appears to work solidly.

(Of course, if you have it adjusted to compensate for latency induced by outboard hardware-based digital FX, you will want to change the setting when you stop mixing and go back to tracking.)

It would certainly be nice if they had included a ping-loopback-auto-calibration utility (similar to the one in Mackie Tracktion) which would potentially automate the process. But, again, as long as the hardware latency you're compensating for doesn't change, this is a pretty trouble free fix. Seems to me.
Glad somebody besides me had the same experience.

From my earlier post:

"Using a straight-wire loop back, I've calculated the offset in samples needed for sample accurate recording in SONAR. Only needs to be done once.

Same test recording 16 tracks simultaneously reveals perfect alignment... no drifting. Rock solid."


Only situation SONAR's Recording Latency Adjustment doesn't cure is when you're using multiple converter devices simultaineously with differing latency adjustments required. It's a global feature and not specific to individual devices.

Timing on my system is dead-on... not early, not late, and it doesn't drift. I've got drummers that have cut their teeth with the click come in to my studio and nail it with amazing accuracy. These guys are machines. Again... 16 tracks... dead-on. No way they could do that with a DAW app that lacks accurate timing.

Overdubs... after drums n' bass are down... same result.

If SONAR has hardware inserts in it's future... and I hope it does, I also hope the implementation is as good as the Recording Latency Adjustment feature.

It works for me.
Old 30th August 2007
  #106
Lives for gear
Sonar 6PE 64bit user here (on a Win XP x64 machine) - been using Sonar since 2003 and have recorded two of my band's CD's with it. I like it well enough, despite the fact that it often misbehaves whenever I use my UAD plugins or BFD, but have been thinking about giving Reaper a shot soon (when 2.0 comes out). I occasionally notice some weird timing/latency issues - sometimes, when I record guitar and bass overdubs, things seem just a little off, even though I am generally a tight player (been playing guitar since '85, professionally since '96).

My one gripe with Cakewalk is that the company the use to handle their rebates is rather shady - never recived my $100 rebate when I bought v6

- Chris
Old 30th August 2007
  #107
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jinga8 View Post
Jose, your such a troll...tutt

Mike, learn how to read posts properly...





He started it . Take care dude!
Old 30th August 2007
  #108
Gear Maniac
 
mister sunshine's Avatar
 

Jinga,
remember the puppy, the puppy is key.

best,
mike
Old 31st August 2007
  #109
Here for the gear
 

Thumbs up

Hi There

CWPA9, SONAR 2.2-6.2.1PE

Works great for me
Old 31st August 2007
  #110
Registered User
 

Very happy Sonar user here since Sonar 2!

I demo the the other DAW's once in a while, and also use them at associates' studios. Sonar fits very well with what I need and desire for a DAW. Nothing can be everything for anyone, but Sonar is the best choice for me. Today...

I find that no matter WHAT I mix with, I get a mix that sounds like MY SOUND. I find a way to get whatever I am after, or at least as close as my capabilities and ears allow. Doesn't matter if I'm mixing in digital or analog, nor what DAW, compressors, reverb, mixer, or whatever I am using in the mix. So I tend not to join in product bashing threads...

Just here to say, if I can be of any Sonar specific help, I'll be happy to chime in.
Old 31st August 2007
  #111
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steved View Post
Glad somebody besides me had the same experience.

From my earlier post:

"Using a straight-wire loop back, I've calculated the offset in samples needed for sample accurate recording in SONAR. Only needs to be done once.

Same test recording 16 tracks simultaneously reveals perfect alignment... no drifting. Rock solid."


Only situation SONAR's Recording Latency Adjustment doesn't cure is when you're using multiple converter devices simultaineously with differing latency adjustments required. It's a global feature and not specific to individual devices.

Timing on my system is dead-on... not early, not late, and it doesn't drift. I've got drummers that have cut their teeth with the click come in to my studio and nail it with amazing accuracy. These guys are machines. Again... 16 tracks... dead-on. No way they could do that with a DAW app that lacks accurate timing.

Overdubs... after drums n' bass are down... same result.

If SONAR has hardware inserts in it's future... and I hope it does, I also hope the implementation is as good as the Recording Latency Adjustment feature.

It works for me.

The loopback-latency adjustment has also fixed for me the BASIC RECORDING sample accurate timing functionality for the way I work. A deal-breaker for me not to have!

The question a few has brought up has to do with using Sonar as a "tape deck" and nothing else.

This brings the question to me: Does this Record Latency Adjustment work only after the tracks are recorded? Or does it also work on the Input Echo where someone would be monitoring the LIVE loopback-latency?

I've simply never tried to use it that way...and don't have the oppourtunity to try it at the moment
Old 31st August 2007
  #112
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlinXavier View Post
The loopback-latency adjustment has also fixed for me the BASIC RECORDING sample accurate timing functionality for the way I work. A deal-breaker for me not to have!

The question a few has brought up has to do with using Sonar as a "tape deck" and nothing else.

This brings the question to me: Does this Record Latency Adjustment work only after the tracks are recorded? Or does it also work on the Input Echo where someone would be monitoring the LIVE loopback-latency?

I've simply never tried to use it that way...and don't have the oppourtunity to try it at the moment

Hey Xavier!

I believe that's not be possible because it would be like traveling through time. If it was that easy then we wouldn't have to worry about latencies when monitoring through software anymore. Take care!
Old 31st August 2007
  #113
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
Hey Xavier!

I believe that's not be possible because it would be like traveling through time. If it was that easy then we wouldn't have to worry about latencies when monitoring through software anymore. Take care!
I disagree, I believe it wouldn't be that tough. It would take some intelligent coding (which the folks at Cakewalk/Twelve Tones are perfectly capable of). Basically, the application (SONAR) would need to be an OTB mixing/monitoring aware application. On playback, it would need to assess which tracks and/or busses have sends leaving the system (these would be pre-defined). It would also then need to inventory all tracks streaming strictly ITB (that includes analyzing all off-track/off-bus routing).

SONAR could then adjust the playback of the ITB tracks and busses (in real-time) to align with the signals returning from OTB processing.


This is information that could be constantly assessed and cached at all times. With the power of processors and the speed and abundance of ram these days, this would be nothing, IMO.

Also, long-time SONAR user here too! I use it 'professionally' right now...for a small, project/demo studio.

I am lucky enough to have (quite by chance) chosen interfaces that give me 0 issues with latency and time alignment...though the issues DO exist...just not with everyone.

I will be moving to PTHD in the next year. I have no choice. That does not bother me too much. I like PT. I use LE 7.3 now (I also use DP 4.5 and Logic Express on my Mac.).

I will always keep SONAR around. I have many hundreds of projects done with SONAR> i will also probably continue to upgrade after I've acquired HD. I REALLY love the program, warts and all. It has become a very good platform and is truly becoming a contender on the pro market. Once Cake tends to a few, 'pro centric' shortcomings (and they will, for sure), it will be a formidable DAW by anyone's standards!
Old 31st August 2007
  #114
Gear Maniac
 

Sonar 3,5,6 here, but I mostly use 5 because I ahve real problmes with 6 crashing things, and it plays nasty with my FW1884.

Mick
Old 31st August 2007
  #115
Gear Maniac
 
vespesian's Avatar
 

Sonar 6 - gets deeper the more you use/customize it. Audiosnap, VC64, the bus routing, and PerfectSpace can be amazing tools. And the sound...
Old 31st August 2007
  #116
Gear Addict
 
CoteRotie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_mccue View Post
Jinga,
remember the puppy, the puppy is key.

best,
mike
I can't remember the puppy, I've turned off "What I think".

Good to see some SONAR forum buddies here. Where's CJ?

John

Last edited by CoteRotie; 31st August 2007 at 05:04 PM.. Reason: Speling
Old 31st August 2007
  #117
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
I disagree, I believe it wouldn't be that tough. It would take some intelligent coding (which the folks at Cakewalk/Twelve Tones are perfectly capable of). Basically, the application (SONAR) would need to be an OTB mixing/monitoring aware application. On playback, it would need to assess which tracks and/or busses have sends leaving the system (these would be pre-defined). It would also then need to inventory all tracks streaming strictly ITB (that includes analyzing all off-track/off-bus routing).

SONAR could then adjust the playback of the ITB tracks and busses (in real-time) to align with the signals returning from OTB processing.


This is information that could be constantly assessed and cached at all times. With the power of processors and the speed and abundance of ram these days, this would be nothing, IMO.

Well, let's see. Your saying that Sonar could adjust ITB tracks and busses with signals returning from OTB, right? But either way, you're delaying the ITB signal in order to match the OTB signal. That's basically what Sonar does (except backwards) with its delay compensation feature.

The problem is that there's still some type of delay invloved which is fine for monitoring playback but not for recording+monitoring at the same time which is what I think Xavier was asking in his first question. On the other hand, I agree with you in that we're getting to the point were soon all of this is not gonna matter anymore thanks to the processing power of modern CPU and the speed of RAM.

Hopefully, I understood you correctly. Take care!
Old 31st August 2007
  #118
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
The problem is that there's still some type of delay invloved which is fine for monitoring playback but not for recording+monitoring at the same time which is what I think Xavier was asking in his first question. On the other hand, I agree with you in that we're getting to the point were soon all of this is not gonna matter anymore thanks to the processing power of modern CPU and the speed of RAM.
Even though I wan't clear ... manthe got what meant. I was indeed talking about live monitoring in a MIXING with out-of-the-box gear situation. Not a tracking instruments situation. Of course there will be non-recoverable latency while tracking instruments and monitoring through a DAW...
Old 31st August 2007
  #119
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlinXavier View Post
Of course there will be non-recoverable latency while tracking instruments and monitoring through a DAW...
How does PT manage it?
Old 31st August 2007
  #120
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
How does PT manage it?
You'll have to tell me. I'd like to know.


The non-recoverable part I'm talking about is the couple of milliseconds it takes to go through the ADCs and back through the DACs. That's still enough to bother some people in some situations.
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump