N-tracks vs. Cakewalk Home Studio

Ricklh

New member
I'm posting this here as a general question for anyone who has tried both N-tracks and Cakewalk's Home Studio 2002. I've downloaded the trial version of N-tracks, have been to the N-tracks website and listened to some of those guys' demo's and am very impressed. My question: is there anything CW Home Studio can do better or more of than N-tracks? The reviews on Amazon of Home Studio are mixed, although mostly positive, so I thought I'd get some thoughts/opinions from this "general computer recording" forum. Is it worth spending 80 bucks on Home Studio over just using N-tracks? I almost forgot to mention my purposes: I'm just recording acoustic guitar, vocals, and keyboard for basic home demo's. I get the feeling that Home Studio is for someone who wants to do a lot of techno beats, etc. But, I'd also like to have a way of coming up with new song ideas other than on my guitar, so is Home Studio good for this?

Thanks.
 
HS2002 is far from being a "techno" beat music maker - it is pretty much the same is Sonar minus some advanced MIDI editing features and other more professional features.

The 2 main reasons I use HS2002 is because:

1. It makes use of the Sonar interface. HS2002's interface is light years ahead of nTrack. When I played around with nTrack, I found that it felt very toy-like and toolbar buttons intrude too much onto workspace that would be better used for other purposes.

2. It supports ACID loops and lets you create your own as well. Being a keyboard player and not a drummer, this feature comes in very handy when I don't want my drum tracks to sound dry and cheesy, I can either go off on the web and do some searching or make use of the extensive library on the HS2002 installation CD.

The only reason to not choose HS2002 would be if you need to record more than 2 tracks in a single take. This is one feature removed from the program that its bigger brother Sonar has. This is not an issue for me.

I took advantage of the discounted upgrade to HS2002XL earlier this year and it does add extra functionality, but if its features are not what you need, just go for HS2002. It mainly adds some extra DXi plug ins.

I would suggest downloading the Sonar demo - that way you will get a pretty good feel for what the HS2002 interface is like.
 
For Me - A Good Reply...

brzilian said:
HS2002 is far from being a "techno" beat music maker - it is pretty much the same as Sonar minus some advanced MIDI editing features and other more professional features.

Hey good reply Brzilian. I just bought myself a copy of HS2002 largely on your recommendations in previous posts on this BB. I haven't got around to installing it yet - but I'm looking forward to unleashing my music on an unsuspecting public. Well, unsuspecting family and two cats.:)

I also have tried N-Tracks and just couldn't get to grips with it. My aging PA7 is about to be consigned to the great Recycling Bin in the sky ;)

--
BluesMeister
 
I had n-track but didnt like it. Went to cakewalk 9.3 and cool edit. Cakewalk 9.3 is better than cakewalk Homestudio. Price is down on it. Check ebay for it too.
 
duck said:
I had n-track but didnt like it. Went to cakewalk 9.3 and cool edit. Cakewalk 9.3 is better than cakewalk Homestudio. Price is down on it. Check ebay for it too.

But it is also a discontinued product which has no support.

Why is it a better product then HS2002? I used PA9 before switching to HS and find the interface to be quite dated when compared to Sonar/HS.

It lacks support for DXi softsynths, ACID loops and really should not be run on 2000 or XP.
 
But it is also a discontinued product which has no support.
I dont know why you would say that as its still discussed at The cakewalk forum (not here) as well as other places. Also it can be upgraded to Sonar as well.

Why is it a better product then HS2002?
Just because of the 2 track limitation. That makes 9.3 one notch above it in my opinion. But if 2 tracks is all you will ever need Then I guess it would be fine.
It lacks support for DXi softsynths, ACID loops and really should not be run on 2000 or XP.
I like to play real Music on my k11 Synth, so the DXi and looping programs are not an issue for me. But the real question is would DXi be that much better if you did need it? That I dont Know.

I run CW 9.3 on XP and have not had any problems. Version 9.00 I dont know about.
I also run Cool edit 1.0, Soundforge 4.5, Jammerpro 4.0 on XP and they seem to be fine so far.
Ive seen Complaints about the 2 track Limitation on HS (What version I cant remember) but they should have looked at the specs more closely.
I never did like N-Tracks so HS2002 has got to be better.:cool:
 
I didnt make the statement on Hs2002 so the 2 track must be on an earlier version.
Maybe brzilian was thinking of an earlier version.
If thats the case its problably a good deal.:cool:
 
Okay, maybe I got it wrong, but Brzilian was talking about recording only two tracks simultaniously. I know he is using HS 2002, so he is well aware that HS can use more than two tracks in a project. HS2002 can basically do whatever Sonar 2 can do, read the comparison here. No hard feelings, duck! :)

I for one wouldn't recommend ProAudio anymore. It's old. I've used Cakewalk programs since the old DOS-version, and Sonar 2 is the best so far. But if you can't justify using that amount of money, HS2002 is great value for money!

Roumors will have it that you aren't Cakewalk wouldn't let you buy a second hand copy of ProAudio9, and then use the update offer. I don't know this, but that's what I've heard...
 
duck said:
I didnt make the statement on Hs2002 so the 2 track must be on an earlier version.
Maybe brzilian was thinking of an earlier version.
If thats the case its problably a good deal.:cool:

I have been talking about HS2002 from the beginning and like moskus said, HS2002's 2 track limitation referrs to how many tracks can be recorded simultaneously.

In my case, like I said, it is not an issue because I use the Audiophile which only has 2 inputs.
 
There was nothing there to have hard feelings.:) Just a little confusion,
So brzilian was still right on the two track limitation. Which was my contention of using Cw 9.3 instead of Hs 2002 if you planned on doing more than 2 tracks "simultaneously". Unless of course you wanted to pay big bucks for sonar. If not then Cw 9.3 would be my choice to do more than 2 tracks simultaneously. Thats the only reason I think its a better choice.

"Roumors will have it that you aren't Cakewalk wouldn't let you buy a second hand copy of ProAudio9, and then use the update offer. I don't know this, but that's what I've heard..."

I bought Cw 9.3 from Ebay which was used but unregistered for $30.00. I registered it. If I buy Sonar without using the upgrade price and sell my 9.3 they have the right to ugrade to sonar even if it was registered. Cakewalk is still making money off of it and they know this. If I use the upgrade price then the person I sold it too wouldnt be able to use the upgrade price. At the price of Sonar though you can bet Ill use the upgrade.
:cool:
 
Back
Top