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 31st August 2007
  #121
Gear Head
 
Steved's Avatar
 

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
It works with input monitoring.

I do all my tracking that way. Low latency setting (Buffer 64 = 1.5ms latency). I'm a drummer and I can't hear or feel that latency. Singers can't hear that latency even though they can hear both their own vocal chords and the playback monitor mix in the cans.

There's a lot that goes into it. I'm using a Lynx AES16 ASIO driver on an AMD Opteron 175 2.2Ghz Dual Core 1GHz HT 2MB L2 Cache / Gigabyte GA-K8U-939 Socket - ULi M1689 Chipset system.

One more thing... I generally track with SONAR's multi-processor engine off and switch it on for mixing.

All of the above gives me sample accurate recordings aligned perfectly with all other tracks in the playback.

I've tested it.
Old 31st August 2007
  #122
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodlinXavier View Post
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...

OK, that makes sense. I interpreted you wrongly then. In that case, all Cakewalk needs is to implement a way of automatically calculating the loop-back latency in a per input manner. This will solve the issue.
Old 31st August 2007
  #123
Gear Head
 
Steved's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
OK, that makes sense. I interpreted you wrongly then. In that case, all Cakewalk needs is to implement a way of automatically calculating the loop-back latency in a per input manner. This will solve the issue.
Gotcha. If we're talking about per track hardware inserts... SONAR doesn't have that yet.

I've been asking them for it as a feature request though and I'm hopeful that we will see this in SONAR. Would certainly make SONAR a commercial studio contenda.
Old 31st August 2007
  #124
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

it certainly would
Old 1st September 2007
  #125
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
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!
I was not actually talking about tracking (as others have cleared up). BUT, you do have a great point...and your logic seems correct from that perspective, when you 1st think about it. But, when I consider it a bit more deeply, it occurs to me that it doesn't really matter if there is a delay in the monitoring during tracking, if SONAR designs there software correctly.

Consider this...SONAR 'sees' a few tracks with hardware, OTB inserts - automatically calculates the round-trip latency and adjusts playback for all tracks for real-time monitoring - SONAR also sees an armed track or tracks with monitoring turned on and accounts (separately) for the latency for the given sample settings (which should be roughly half of what the pre-recorded tracks with hardware, OTB inserts is at). The tracking musician hears the synchronized playback and plays right along (hopefully your interface and drivers support very low latency). SONARactually writes the streamin audio data to the track or tracks which are being recorded at a pre-calculated nudge position as the musician(s) tracks.

It seems complicated, but somehow it is making sense to me right now. Inmy mind, I can see the playback of existing tracks (with varying latency adjustments) as a completely separate thing from the real time monitoring of a tracking musician. As long as the musician hears syncrinized playback and low-latency monitoring, they'll be able to lay there part(s) down accurately. SONAR can handle the math on the back end WRT where (on the timeline) to actually start and stop the writing of the audio data to the track(s).

Am I missing something glaring here? I usually do and it is usually embarrasing. So, I'll give myself a golden parachute now and just say:

A - I have been known to be completely boneheaded about these types of things...especially 'theoretical logic type things!

B - I've already had some alcohol this evening, so...


Anyhow, I am enjoying this thread thoroughly and I hope....REALLY hope that Cakewalk listens to the 'professional', audio studio types and implements these important features. There is an amazing amount of potential in this app!
Old 1st September 2007
  #126
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
I was not actually talking about tracking (as others have cleared up). BUT, you do have a great point...and your logic seems correct from that perspective, when you 1st think about it. But, when I consider it a bit more deeply, it occurs to me that it doesn't really matter if there is a delay in the monitoring during tracking, if SONAR designs there software correctly.

Consider this...SONAR 'sees' a few tracks with hardware, OTB inserts - automatically calculates the round-trip latency and adjusts playback for all tracks for real-time monitoring - SONAR also sees an armed track or tracks with monitoring turned on and accounts (separately) for the latency for the given sample settings (which should be roughly half of what the pre-recorded tracks with hardware, OTB inserts is at). The tracking musician hears the synchronized playback and plays right along (hopefully your interface and drivers support very low latency). SONARactually writes the streamin audio data to the track or tracks which are being recorded at a pre-calculated nudge position as the musician(s) tracks.

It seems complicated, but somehow it is making sense to me right now. Inmy mind, I can see the playback of existing tracks (with varying latency adjustments) as a completely separate thing from the real time monitoring of a tracking musician. As long as the musician hears syncrinized playback and low-latency monitoring, they'll be able to lay there part(s) down accurately. SONAR can handle the math on the back end WRT where (on the timeline) to actually start and stop the writing of the audio data to the track(s).

Am I missing something glaring here? I usually do and it is usually embarrasing. So, I'll give myself a golden parachute now and just say:

A - I have been known to be completely boneheaded about these types of things...especially 'theoretical logic type things!

B - I've already had some alcohol this evening, so...


Anyhow, I am enjoying this thread thoroughly and I hope....REALLY hope that Cakewalk listens to the 'professional', audio studio types and implements these important features. There is an amazing amount of potential in this app!

It does make sense in a way, but there's a flaw. Why would you wanna track while monitoring EFX? I don't see the need for this.

Usually you just print the EFX together with the signal that's being recorded. And even if you already had something pre-recorded (like a D.I. Bass Guitar) it is not necesary to delay the Bass Guitar's track because all you want to do is monitor in real time which is what the ASIO latency compensation feature in Sonar 6 is for. Also, you degrade the sound quality by adding another layer of DA/AD to the tracks.

What we do need is for Sonar to automatically calculate loopback delay from EFX inserts in a per input manner like I said before. It would also be cool to insert whatever EFX you wanted like you do with plugins, into the FX Bin.

I hope this makes sense. Take care!
Old 1st September 2007
  #127
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
It does make sense in a way, but there's a flaw. Why would you wanna track while monitoring EFX? I don't see the need for this.

Usually you just print the EFX together with the signal that's being recorded. And even if you already had something pre-recorded (like a D.I. Bass Guitar) it is not necesary to delay the Bass Guitar's track because all you want to do is monitor in real time which is what the ASIO latency compensation feature in Sonar 6 is for. Also, you degrade the sound quality by adding another layer of DA/AD to the tracks.

What we do need is for Sonar to automatically calculate loopback delay from EFX inserts in a per input manner like I said before. It would also be cool to insert whatever EFX you wanted like you do with plugins, into the FX Bin.

I hope this makes sense. Take care!
It does make sense, and for the most part I agree.

For me, the only time I'd care to monitor FX on a track insert, in real-time, while tracking would be to strap a compressor across the 2 Bus. It isn't a great idea to do this most of the time. But, as we learn with experience, we come to realize that there are no real *rules* about whats right or wrong when it comes to anything regarding recording heh

Most of the time I wouldn't do this, but there would be occasions where it would be *exactly* what we need to do the trick!

.....

OH...I just thought of another scenario where this might be handy. Now, you could argue (quite successfully) that this could be done temporarily with a plug-in...but indulge me ! Lets say there is a singer, or a backup singer putting down a backup or harmony track. Lets also say that the singer prefers to hear the lead vocal track with a beautiful, lush reverb. Lets say that you REALLY favor a certain, outboard reverb that inspires the singer to do a better job on their harmony or backup. That is a situation where monitoring while tracking and using outboard processors would be a very handy 'feature' to have!

Great discussion. I really appreciate the civility and the back-and-forth.

Thanks!
Old 1st September 2007
  #128
Gear Nut
 
Lay in Wait's Avatar
 

Quote:
Lets say there is a singer, or a backup singer putting down a backup or harmony track. Lets also say that the singer prefers to hear the lead vocal track with a beautiful, lush reverb.
You can do this with Sonar and your Interface's software mixer. Albeit I use a cheap Alesis Midiverb3 for this. I do this by running my dry vocal track into channel 1 of my Digimax FS which gets recorded. Then I run the direct out of channel 1(FS) into my midiverb, then out from the verb to one of my 2408's analog TRS inputs and just monitor that channel via the cuemix mixer along with the dry input. Works flawlessly.thumbsup
Old 1st September 2007
  #129
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
It does make sense, and for the most part I agree.

For me, the only time I'd care to monitor FX on a track insert, in real-time, while tracking would be to strap a compressor across the 2 Bus. It isn't a great idea to do this most of the time. But, as we learn with experience, we come to realize that there are no real *rules* about whats right or wrong when it comes to anything regarding recording heh

Most of the time I wouldn't do this, but there would be occasions where it would be *exactly* what we need to do the trick!

.....

OH...I just thought of another scenario where this might be handy. Now, you could argue (quite successfully) that this could be done temporarily with a plug-in...but indulge me ! Lets say there is a singer, or a backup singer putting down a backup or harmony track. Lets also say that the singer prefers to hear the lead vocal track with a beautiful, lush reverb. Lets say that you REALLY favor a certain, outboard reverb that inspires the singer to do a better job on their harmony or backup. That is a situation where monitoring while tracking and using outboard processors would be a very handy 'feature' to have!

Great discussion. I really appreciate the civility and the back-and-forth.

Thanks!


No problem thumbsup,

I am enjoying this too. But again, I believe this is unnecesary. Check this out.

Let's take your second example first, the one about the vocalist recording using an external reverb unit just for inspiration. Like you just said, this could easily be done with a plugin FX. But, it's actually better with outboard FX. Why? Because it saves CPU resources and also because there's "zero" delay when using the Harware Direct Monitoring feature of your soundcard (I put quotes on the word zero because there is no such thing, but it's ususally low enough to be called that). So, basically, you gain more by tracking this way if you wanna record the signal dry and non-destructive. And if you want to record with the FX included than you just do that destructively, right?

Ok, now to the compressor example. I'm really not sure I understand you on this one beacause if you just wanted to track with the compressor then you simply do that destructively. You'll be able to hear the compressor+dry signal going in as one in Sonar, so there would be no need to Bus the compressor. If you could provide a more specific scenario that would help. Thanks!
Old 1st September 2007
  #130
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lay in Wait View Post
You can do this with Sonar and your Interface's software mixer. Albeit I use a cheap Alesis Midiverb3 for this. I do this by running my dry vocal track into channel 1 of my Digimax FS which gets recorded. Then I run the direct out of channel 1(FS) into my midiverb, then out from the verb to one of my 2408's analog TRS inputs and just monitor that channel via the cuemix mixer along with the dry input. Works flawlessly.thumbsup

Exactly! You beat me to it .
Old 1st September 2007
  #131
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

wow

Hey guys, I'm the OP for this thread. I must say that I was SHOCKED to see this many posts. Awesome. I've been using since Pro Audio 9. The dude at Guitar Center said this one might have an easier learning curve than the Emagic stuff. So I bought it. I love it. It frustrates the crap out of me at times, but I really do think it's great overall.

I just read the whole thread, top to bottom. Very enjoyable and at times comic, sort of like reading a great book, and then Whoa! it turns into pro wrestling! Far out.

Glad to see all the Sonar users around here. Ultimately, this has helped me to learn a few new things about my program. Some can be hugely benifical to me, and my music.

As a regular Sonar forum reader AND a regular GS reader, I have to say that it is indeed interesting to compare the vibe of different forums.

This thread showed up over there. Now it's time to read it. I hope I learn some more.
Old 1st September 2007
  #132
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lay in Wait View Post
You can do this with Sonar and your Interface's software mixer. Albeit I use a cheap Alesis Midiverb3 for this. I do this by running my dry vocal track into channel 1 of my Digimax FS which gets recorded. Then I run the direct out of channel 1(FS) into my midiverb, then out from the verb to one of my 2408's analog TRS inputs and just monitor that channel via the cuemix mixer along with the dry input. Works flawlessly.thumbsup
Good call. I could do this witrh my FW-1884..OR..as it happes, I could do it with my Digimax FS (which is ADAT attached to the 1884. I've only had to use it a few times - when tracking > 8 tracks at once. It isn't the greatest, but it'll do in a pinch! I've never actually used the preamps on it...luckily I have plenty of outboard pres to cover. For 500 or 600, it is a pretty decent little unit *especially* with per-channel inserts AND direct outs...not too shabby!)
Old 1st September 2007
  #133
Lives for gear
 
uptoolate's Avatar
 

Could someone sum up this issue?

Please clarify:

This is related ONLY to the latecy introduced in monitroing through the software.

I just want to monitor my inputs through the software, so that I can monitor through plug ins. Assume that I use a FF800 with ASIO drivers set to the lowest possible buggers.

Will the latency that I hear on the input signal actually be in time with the tracks already recorded?

Do the "Record Latency Adjustment" settings apply to this quesiton in any way?

(Assuming that no external processing is being used)

Am I correct in thinking that the latency adjustment settings only matter if I introduce a round trip to hardware?

Can someone please clarify this for me? I just want to make sure that I have this nailed down in my mind.

A summary sentence of sorts on this would be great.

Thanks!
Old 1st September 2007
  #134
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jose7822 View Post
No problem thumbsup,

I am enjoying this too. But again, I believe this is unnecesary. Check this out.

Let's take your second example first, the one about the vocalist recording using an external reverb unit just for inspiration. Like you just said, this could easily be done with a plugin FX. But, it's actually better with outboard FX. Why? Because it saves CPU resources and also because there's "zero" delay when using the Harware Direct Monitoring feature of your soundcard (I put quotes on the word zero because there is no such thing, but it's ususally low enough to be called that). So, basically, you gain more by tracking this way if you wanna record the signal dry and non-destructive. And if you want to record with the FX included than you just do that destructively, right?

Ok, now to the compressor example. I'm really not sure I understand you on this one beacause if you just wanted to track with the compressor then you simply do that destructively. You'll be able to hear the compressor+dry signal going in as one in Sonar, so there would be no need to Bus the compressor. If you could provide a more specific scenario that would help. Thanks!

I certainly see that point...and it is a good one. As long as one (like me) is using a interface that features 'zero' latency monitoring, this is definitely an option.

As for the 2-Bus compression....it is very common (especially at mix time) to put a nice compressor across the Master bus. I know several people who like to track with them strapped...and I've been in situations where it was all but necessary to 'glue' the mix together.

I have a very nice outboard that is PERFECT for 2-Bus duties...very high performance, clean, transparent and...just...nice! It is the Klark Teknik DN500 +.

I've had situations where bands have brought in tracks recorded from other places (often at home) that were very tough to get to 'stick' together. I have some very decent software comps that do a good job for this, but nothing as good as that one for the Master bus!

I know it is an odd situation, and I feel like I am really stretching for examples to make my point. I'll concede logistical defeat on this one! heh
Old 1st September 2007
  #135
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptoolate View Post
Please clarify:

This is related ONLY to the latecy introduced in monitroing through the software.

I just want to monitor my inputs through the software, so that I can monitor through plug ins. Assume that I use a FF800 with ASIO drivers set to the lowest possible buggers.

Will the latency that I hear on the input signal actually be in time with the tracks already recorded?

Do the "Record Latency Adjustment" settings apply to this quesiton in any way?

(Assuming that no external processing is being used)

Am I correct in thinking that the latency adjustment settings only matter if I introduce a round trip to hardware?

Can someone please clarify this for me? I just want to make sure that I have this nailed down in my mind.

A summary sentence of sorts on this would be great.

Thanks!

As I understand it, the Latency Compensation feature in Sonar 6 was designed to align your recorded tracks so that they end up synchronized with each other. It automatically calculates the latency introduced to your system (globally) in ASIO mode, but also gives you the ability to manually do fine adjustments if necesary. Now, if you use WDM drivers, then you'll have to do a loopback test (preferably using CEntrance) to calculate this latency and then adjust it manually. Basically, it works by moving your recorded tracks to the left by the amount of samples defined either automatically (ASIO only) and/or manually.

There's also another feature in Sonar called "Plugin Delay Compensation" (PDC). What this does is delay the signal of all tracks by certain amount so that tracks containing plugins with delay compensation can be in sync with the ones that don't. Otherwise, you'd end up with some tracks (the ones without such plugins) being ahead and, thus, out of sync with the rest. But, naturally, this feature doesn't work while tracking and only works while monitoring because your plugins can't see what's gonna happen before it happens. They make their calculations in real time and then your host delays the signal to compensate by typically 1 or 2 ms. This is specially the case with plugins that have "lookahead" features (i.e. Limiters) which gives that plugin the ability to "read the future".

Anyways, this is how I understand it. So anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hope this helps!



EDIT: By the way, these are also reasons why it is not possible to sync both the recorded signal with the monitored EFX signal at the same time. The best we can do is to lower the latency as much as possible just like we currently do with Plugin FX.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #137
Gear Addict
 

I have Sonar 5 on my Dell, I don't record into my computer, but I can import.

I have a new MacBook but don't really use it for music. I want a Metric Halo ULN-2, but with garageband???????

Don't laugh but I use a MRS ZOOM 1044 to record my music. dfegad

I know how it functions and that lets me write my songs, and yes it doesn't sound Metric Halo, RME, Lavry, Prism GOOD, but I finish the songs without wanting to commit a violent crime. thumbsup

Sonar to me is impossible, I want to bring my .wav into the PC and master and mix my final copy using the great tools in SONAR, but I can't even cut a 4 click track at the beginning of a song, or import a drum loop, I F"N SUCK!

I will be reading to learn some NOT TRICKS but BASICS!!!!fuuck

I hope to learn from you guys thanks.....
Old 3rd September 2007
  #138
Lives for gear
 
manthe's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chk027 View Post
I have Sonar 5 on my Dell, I don't record into my computer, but I can import.

I have a new MacBook but don't really use it for music. I want a Metric Halo ULN-2, but with garageband???????

Don't laugh but I use a MRS ZOOM 1044 to record my music. dfegad

I know how it functions and that lets me write my songs, and yes it doesn't sound Metric Halo, RME, Lavry, Prism GOOD, but I finish the songs without wanting to commit a violent crime. thumbsup

Sonar to me is impossible, I want to bring my .wav into the PC and master and mix my final copy using the great tools in SONAR, but I can't even cut a 4 click track at the beginning of a song, or import a drum loop, I F"N SUCK!

I will be reading to learn some NOT TRICKS but BASICS!!!!fuuck

I hope to learn from you guys thanks.....
feel free to start a private dialog with me at manthe ( a t ) gmail ( DOT )com (obfuscated for the bots). I'll be happy to help u learn in any way possible.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #139
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Are the SONAR Power books and the like worth getting? I want to speed up the learning curve. The Help manual describes many things with the assumption that you've done it all before somewhere along the line.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #140
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Yes, they are excellent
Old 4th September 2007
  #141
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manthe View Post
feel free to start a private dialog with me at manthe ( a t ) gmail ( DOT )com (obfuscated for the bots). I'll be happy to help u learn in any way possible.
Thank You very much.....I don't really want to be a producer at all......or a burden to you.

I just want to cover the basic needs so my music sound polished.


1. good tracks (decent mic position, little compression with my grace 101) I can do that myself (I could propably be better)

2. Mastering, with (V-vocal which I did use 1 time, and thought it was pretty good) EQ balance between instruments, surround panning (which I would love to know how to use) create good space and distance......

3. Be able to use Drum loops, all my songs have a constant drum beat through the song, which adds no dynamics at all, Session Drummer would be cool, and I bought Loops from Betamonkey????(anygood?) To cure this problem.

That would be it, I would be happy, the rest would be icing on the cake....

I imported one song (about 7 tracks) this past winter thinking, I will just get Sonar going make loops cut and paste, rearrange song parts to fit my needs add some drums, fix pitch problems, speed or slow tempo without quality loss, BOY WAS I WRONG!

I used garageband in a video class, and I was doing some of those mentioned above with ease....but it doesn't have the bells you get with Sonar.

Thanks, and don't be surprised if I mail you, cause I have a set of songs ready to go.

sorry to be long winded, to everyone, maybe I will pick up a dummies CD too
Old 4th September 2007
  #142
Lives for gear
 
filthyrich's Avatar
 

my only problems are..

I love Sonar 6. I have no problems

When I record drums..they line up because you are recording them all at the same time.

When I add bass to the drums, the bass player never complains about "feeling late" or something. It lines up when they are done adding to it.

Ditto for guitar and vocals.

I have a problem when I take a solid beat..lets say a click..and export through hardware. When it comes back..if I want to add the newly compressed or eq'd track to line up with the original..it's late. It makes it sound chorusy or phasey ..however you want to describe it. I have to manually line it up with the original now. It is especially difficult if it is a combo track..ie..lots of drums. I have to find which drum hit to line up with..either with ears or eyes. Neither is ideal.

That's my only problem. It's the same thing when I dump an entire L-R final mix out and back in. If I wanted to tuck that under the full mix..it isn't lined up after returning.

p.s.--I love sonar.
Old 4th September 2007
  #143
Gear Addict
 

There is a set of you tube videos for Sonar 6 users, would that be pretty much the same as Sonar 5 with a twist here and there?

Thanks
Old 5th September 2007
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
Yes, they are excellent
Thanks.heh
Old 5th September 2007
  #145
Gear Nut
 
Fearless1's Avatar
 

I'm a Sonar 6 user and have used cakewalk products since Home Studio.
I used it in 64 bit mode using XP64 with 4 UAD cards and have had no problems since upgrading my computer.

I use a quadcore QX6700, with 4 raptor drives in RAID config. with 8 Megs of RAM.
My interface is a RME FF800. My old Pentium 2.8 was OK but had some glitches with latency. Now I use my old PC just to run my softsynths like Gigastudio, EMU etc. Perhaps running a separate PC for softsynths helps.

I haven't had ANY timing problems and I use a Tascam 2600 8 bus board for sending my headphone mix feeds from the FF800 outs, but tracking goes through outboard pres - my API's, Vintechs, Focusrites, and dbx 786 into the FF800.

Yeah, Sonar isn't perfect, which is why I'm looking forward to networking. Since I'm an old fart who went to the old school, I'm always amazed at the new ways of looking at the different approaches to reaching greater heights with our craft.
Old 5th September 2007
  #146
Gear Addict
 
sscannon's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Sonar rocks. Every time I go back to the alternative ("standard" *ahem*), I curse it. I mix on consoles, with outboard gear, and return my stereo mix back into Sonar. Lovin' it...

See us on Pro Sound News! See you at AES!

http://www.prosoundnews.com/

www.themixingworkshop.com
Old 6th September 2007
  #147
Here for the gear
Thanks, ssaudio! I appreciate the recommendation.

Old Goat -- If you'd like more info on my Sonar Power books, you can find it in the Power Books section of my site:
Scott R. Garrigus Web Sites - DigiFreq, Power Books, NewTechReview

And be sure to check out my free music technology newsletter:
Scott R. Garrigus' DigiFreq - Free music technology news, reviews, tips and techniques!

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 6th September 2007
  #148
Lives for gear
 
mr. torture's Avatar
 

I just purchased Sonar 6 Power!:

Looks like an informative read!
Old 6th September 2007
  #149
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Thanks, Scott! I will check it out.heh

I have SONAR LE. The Help has a section New in SONAR 4. Is that the book that will do me the most good?

Last edited by Old Goat; 6th September 2007 at 12:46 AM.. Reason: Add question
Old 6th September 2007
  #150
Gear Nut
 
Jeff S's Avatar
SONAR A+

Another vote for SONAR 6 along w/ 2 UAD-1 cards on the studio DAW. Using SONAR 4 on the laptop. SONAR user since the beginning (moved over from Cubase).
Interesting thread.
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