Cubase Sx vs Sonar 3

[Frantz]

Hi there,

I ask the same question in the Cakewalk forum......

Very sorry for such a basic question but I'm just starting with recording on PC.
I'd like to know which you think is best between those 2 software ? and in a few words why ?
Or let me know if you already spoke about that or if I'm in the wrong place of the forum.

Thanks in advance

Frantz

[Bass Master "K"]

I can quickly sum up what you are going to hear:

Users in this forum will say Cubase is better.

Users in the cakewalk forum will say Sonar is better.

Did that help you yet?

It's basically different flavors of ice cream. For the most part they function in a similar capacity, but each also has a few functions the other don't. Of course we do have native VST capabilities, without having to rely on wrappers that sometimes don't function perfectly, and that is handy.

This isn't going to be something that I think you will make a decision on from peoples opinions. Best bet is to try out the demo's I would think.

Good luck.

[Flight 16]

I had the same question...now I use Cubase and have no regrets....YET!!

What I gather is Cubase is the best all rounder especially for a home studio, I think in the USA Sonar is more used than in Europe, where I am from,London, Sonar is a second choice to Cubase...but maybe in the USA its more respected...I'm not sure

The good thing about Cubase is it runs on both PC and MAC platforms so what ever set up you have you can install your software ok...it also has a GREAT VST engine

like what Bass Master says its all preference, and I think its all about what and how you want to record. I think the over all picture is Cubase is used more than Sonar.

I have heard from a few friends that Sonar is not as solid as Cubase. and Cubase is better with Midi too

the bottom line is all the programs out there at the moment are pretty hot!

good luck

[Flight 16]

I had the same question...now I use Cubase and have no regrets....YET!!

What I gather is Cubase is the best all rounder especially for a home studio, I think in the USA Sonar is more used than in Europe, where I am from,London, Sonar is a second choice to Cubase...but maybe in the USA its more respected...I'm not sure

The good thing about Cubase is it runs on both PC and MAC platforms so what ever set up you have you can install your software ok...it also has a GREAT VST engine

like what Bass Master says its all preference, and I think its all about what and how you want to record. I think the over all picture is Cubase is used more than Sonar.

I have heard from a few friends that Sonar is not as solid as Cubase. and Cubase is better with Midi too

the bottom line is all the programs out there at the moment are pretty hot!

good luck

[Frantz]

Thanks VERY much guys !!!
Very helpful !!

Hey Flight 16 I'm now listening to your songs !!! I like them VERY much !!

Take care

Frantz

[Flight 16]

Frantz

no probs its best to do your home work on these things

glad you like our stuff

Hole In My Pocket was done %100 on Cubase useing a Tascam 122.

good luck

[Bass Master "K"]

I have had two friends who in the last year have switched from Sonar to Cubase and in their opinion, Cubase felt like a more complete recording program. I don't like to bring this stuff up because it is the beginnings of what flame wars are made of, but since it was brought up already..... Over in the Cakewalk forum, I am sure there are plenty of ex-cubase users who felt it was too complicated, or not layed out in a way that suited them and so they went to Sonar and are as happy as can be.

If you are looking at one or the other, the truth of the matter is, you will most likely be more limited by your recording skill, than by the program you use. They are both capable of great recording quality.

[warble]

I just purchased Cubase SX 2 a few days ago. Spending a few days with it, I'm finding that getting the "hang" of it isn't terribly difficult. I've dug in the manual, and that's really helped. As far as sound quality, I LOVE the Cubase sound engine. I'm running it with an Echo Gina 24, Athlon system (Athlon XP2100+, Windows XP Pro SP2, 1 gig Ram), and a pair of Tannoy Reveals. I am also doing MIDI work with VTS's (primarily SampleTank and the Sonic Synth stuff). Haven't had any MIDI glitches yet, and Cubase handles this very well.

I've heard tracks done in Sonar, and I can tell a difference in sound quality. NO, Sonar does not suck, both programs have their strengths and weaknesses I'm sure. I won't go on about all this here either - it's been done before and many, many times in the forums here. I just wanted to put my vote in for Cubase SX. It's been running smoothly, no crashes, and great sound. I also updated Cubase to version 2.20 build 35 from the original 2.02 version on the CD.

Warren

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by warble

I just purchased Cubase SX 2 a few days ago. Spending a few days with it, I'm finding that getting the "hang" of it isn't terribly difficult. I've dug in the manual, and that's really helped. As far as sound quality, I LOVE the Cubase sound engine. I'm running it with an Echo Gina 24, Athlon system (Athlon XP2100+, Windows XP Pro SP2, 1 gig Ram), and a pair of Tannoy Reveals. I am also doing MIDI work with VTS's (primarily SampleTank and the Sonic Synth stuff). Haven't had any MIDI glitches yet, and Cubase handles this very well.

I've heard tracks done in Sonar, and I can tell a difference in sound quality. NO, Sonar does not suck, both programs have their strengths and weaknesses I'm sure. I won't go on about all this here either - it's been done before and many, many times in the forums here. I just wanted to put my vote in for Cubase SX. It's been running smoothly, no crashes, and great sound. I also updated Cubase to version 2.20 build 35 from the original 2.02 version on the CD.

Warren

You can really tell the sound difference between Cubase and Sonar??
I thought there was no difference as its just 2 digital recorders..can the sound be different?.

[hugojacquet]

Originally Posted by warble

I just purchased Cubase SX 2 a few days ago. Spending a few days with it, I'm finding that getting the "hang" of it isn't terribly difficult. I've dug in the manual, and that's really helped. As far as sound quality, I LOVE the Cubase sound engine. I'm running it with an Echo Gina 24, Athlon system (Athlon XP2100+, Windows XP Pro SP2, 1 gig Ram), and a pair of Tannoy Reveals. I am also doing MIDI work with VTS's (primarily SampleTank and the Sonic Synth stuff). Haven't had any MIDI glitches yet, and Cubase handles this very well.

I've heard tracks done in Sonar, and I can tell a difference in sound quality. NO, Sonar does not suck, both programs have their strengths and weaknesses I'm sure. I won't go on about all this here either - it's been done before and many, many times in the forums here. I just wanted to put my vote in for Cubase SX. It's been running smoothly, no crashes, and great sound. I also updated Cubase to version 2.20 build 35 from the original 2.02 version on the CD.

Warren

Hi,

I just bought the Sonic synth and omnysynth and everything bundle from Esounds with sampletank 2 Le.

It looks promising (cant wait till it arrives :-). What are your experiences with it?

PS: Using cubase SL 1.06 here and going to upgrade to SL 2 soon. No real complaints. I love the Cubase way of working.

Hugo

http://stage.vitaminic.nl/hugo_jacquet

[xstatic]

Ther are thousands of ways in which the sound of two similar programs will differ. They all use slightly differnt algorithms and engines. Thes differences may be minute, or may be huge. You may or may not notice them. There are people who say that they all "sound" the same. I for one do not buy that. There is TONS of code that goes into a program. Most of which can and will affect the sound of things. Personally, I have tried using Sonar 3 a fw times and as an engineer I think that Cubase is laid out much easier and intuitively than Sonar. However, if I had learned Sonar first, my opinion might well be the opposite. As a person that started recording using traditional analog console/recorders/outboard setups, I found Cubase to be very easy to learn. It just seemed like it was laid out more like a traditional setup would be so seemed a little less foreign to me.

Just my 2cents.

[warble]

Originally Posted by Flight 16

You can really tell the sound difference between Cubase and Sonar??
I thought there was no difference as its just 2 digital recorders..can the sound be different?.

Yes, I could. To me, the Cubase engine had what I'd call more presence or "uumph" for lack of a better word. Again, in no way do I think Sonar sounded bad, it actually sounded good to me, but my ears prefer Cubase. I believe too all this software has a foundation for sound in it's coding, but there will be differences is how each one handles it. I don't possess the technical skills to break it down, but my ears tell me what I need to know (of course my ears aren't perfect, but they seem to do the trick).

Now I might be partially biased - I love working in Cubase and Cubase seems to be loving me back so far. I like the way it's laid out, and my workflow is actually flowing.

[warble]

Originally Posted by hugojacquet

Hi,

I just bought the Sonic synth and omnysynth and everything bundle from Esounds with sampletank 2 Le.

It looks promising (cant wait till it arrives :-). What are your experiences with it?

PS: Using cubase SL 1.06 here and going to upgrade to SL 2 soon. No real complaints. I love the Cubase way of working.

Hugo

http://stage.vitaminic.nl/hugo_jacquet

Well, I love a vast majority of the sounds - especially for the price. SampleTank is a pretty decent sample engine, and it seems to be working great with Cubase for me. You might find you'll want to upgrade Cubase, I don't know. I know there were fixes and improvements, especially with the sound engine. I've been able to run a few instances of SampleTank via VST, without any glitches. I like the Freeze feature in SX too - nice to control VST's this way and free up some CPU.

I've got a feeling you'll be happy with the sounds.

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by warble

Yes, I could. To me, the Cubase engine had what I'd call more presence or "uumph" for lack of a better word. Again, in no way do I think Sonar sounded bad, it actually sounded good to me, but my ears prefer Cubase. I believe too all this software has a foundation for sound in it's coding, but there will be differences is how each one handles it. I don't possess the technical skills to break it down, but my ears tell me what I need to know (of course my ears aren't perfect, but they seem to do the trick).

Now I might be partially biased - I love working in Cubase and Cubase seems to be loving me back so far. I like the way it's laid out, and my workflow is actually flowing.

I C, I guess that does make sense as I heard some PT people talking about Nuendo 2 when it came out and won awards for best Audio Engine...these Pro Tools guys was saying he hated to admit it but the Nuendo did sound pretty fantastic..

And Cubase SL/SX 2.0 has the same Audio Engine as Nuendo

I love using Cubase...I would like to see more Studios with Nuendo or Cubase though, as then you know, should you have some shithot tack ..you could take it into a Studio and take it to another level...like Pro Tools users can.

[illacov]

Im a para professional user of Cubase and im in the midst of converting my MIXING not my SEQUENCING from Cubase SX to Sonar 3.

WHY?

A: Complete and total control over your tracks...whats this mean? Ok ..Cubase SX 2 only gives you 8 inserts on your individual tracks...and 32 vstis...thats cool...for 600 bucks..but for 300 dollars or 150 if you get home studio which is supposed to be damn near sonars equivalent .... you get unlimited fx per track...unlimited busses...and from what ive read unlimited vstis. Why is there a limit to how many fx we can use on our tracks in cubase?? Maybe you might just need 9 fx on one track??? Think about it...of course cubase people might say that you could just buss your track and then add more effects in the busses...but dont you realize that bussing uses a nice piece of cpu power during offline mixdown as well as realtime mixing? Sonar also is notorious for better CPU optimization...if you have a decent sound card you can get a hell of alot more out of your cpu than in cubase which seems to be a cpu whore from hell when u mix..

B: Multi Cpu optimization...yes cubase uses more than one cpu but we all know that more than one cpu or more than one core is more than an idea for digital workstations now...just follow george lucas' lead....(60 Dual Opteron workstations...all working with a 140 Opteron render farm!!!)..Sonar is waaaaaaaay more flexible for dual or more cpus..You can basically send your threads to the cpu of your choosing!....cubase just sends the load to the next cpu leaving one cpu sitting there doing absolutely nothing...IMHO this translates into sonar actually giving you twice the cpu power. More like 2 X 2.2 ghz chips equaling 4.4 GHZ.....

YES YES YES....Now in terms of sequencing im not too impressed with Sonar's capabilities...BUT I still have Cubase on my plate in the form of SE...which is a very nice combo with Sonar's mixing capabilities....It makes perfect sense that when engineers would use a certain compressor with a certain eq, in conjunction with a certain preamp and certain console that we should be so discerning with our software picks...Instead of getting buy with what we have because we get screwed in the retail stage..its best to get a component concept rolling...Get the best sequencer you can and couple it with the best audio mixing interface....to me thats Cubase SE with Sonar 3 i find that combo unbeatable and for the price its still a hell of alot cheaper than SX alone...

BTW the features in SX vs Sonar 3 are so close in scope that theres no real point in nitpicking...its more a value argument...SE is a better buy for sequencing and Sonar or Home Studio is an incredible buy especially since you get unlimited undo...JUST LIKE SX for a 3rd of the cost ....Sonar 3 also has 32 bit floating point resolution...A big plus for me....

Ah welll

see you at Sam Ash...BTW call up Sam Ash and if you buy Sonar 3 with Cubase SE you might be able to scheme a discount out of them...maybe even bigger if you get a sound card....they are one of the few places i know that do that sort of thing

Peace
Illumination

[Bass Master "K"]

More than 8 fx on a track and dual CPU usage?!?! You must be doing some pretty 'out there' stuff.

I'm no George Lucas, so SX has more than I ever need, but I am glad you have found the ultimate combo for your needs.

Peace as well, and happy music making.

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by illacov

Im a para professional user of Cubase and im in the midst of converting my MIXING not my SEQUENCING from Cubase SX to Sonar 3.

WHY?

A: Complete and total control over your tracks...whats this mean? Ok ..Cubase SX 2 only gives you 8 inserts on your individual tracks...and 32 vstis...thats cool...for 600 bucks..but for 300 dollars or 150 if you get home studio which is supposed to be damn near sonars equivalent .... you get unlimited fx per track...unlimited busses...and from what ive read unlimited vstis. Why is there a limit to how many fx we can use on our tracks in cubase?? Maybe you might just need 9 fx on one track??? Think about it...of course cubase people might say that you could just buss your track and then add more effects in the busses...but dont you realize that bussing uses a nice piece of cpu power during offline mixdown as well as realtime mixing? Sonar also is notorious for better CPU optimization...if you have a decent sound card you can get a hell of alot more out of your cpu than in cubase which seems to be a cpu whore from hell when u mix..

B: Multi Cpu optimization...yes cubase uses more than one cpu but we all know that more than one cpu or more than one core is more than an idea for digital workstations now...just follow george lucas' lead....(60 Dual Opteron workstations...all working with a 140 Opteron render farm!!!)..Sonar is waaaaaaaay more flexible for dual or more cpus..You can basically send your threads to the cpu of your choosing!....cubase just sends the load to the next cpu leaving one cpu sitting there doing absolutely nothing...IMHO this translates into sonar actually giving you twice the cpu power. More like 2 X 2.2 ghz chips equaling 4.4 GHZ.....

YES YES YES....Now in terms of sequencing im not too impressed with Sonar's capabilities...BUT I still have Cubase on my plate in the form of SE...which is a very nice combo with Sonar's mixing capabilities....It makes perfect sense that when engineers would use a certain compressor with a certain eq, in conjunction with a certain preamp and certain console that we should be so discerning with our software picks...Instead of getting buy with what we have because we get screwed in the retail stage..its best to get a component concept rolling...Get the best sequencer you can and couple it with the best audio mixing interface....to me thats Cubase SE with Sonar 3 i find that combo unbeatable and for the price its still a hell of alot cheaper than SX alone...

BTW the features in SX vs Sonar 3 are so close in scope that theres no real point in nitpicking...its more a value argument...SE is a better buy for sequencing and Sonar or Home Studio is an incredible buy especially since you get unlimited undo...JUST LIKE SX for a 3rd of the cost ....Sonar 3 also has 32 bit floating point resolution...A big plus for me....

Ah welll

see you at Sam Ash...BTW call up Sam Ash and if you buy Sonar 3 with Cubase SE you might be able to scheme a discount out of them...maybe even bigger if you get a sound card....they are one of the few places i know that do that sort of thing

Peace
Illumination

To be honest why would you want more than 8 insurts on a track? + 8 Sends any computer and sequencer is going to start packing in if you have to much on each track and if not, you start to question the quality of it all?...the way i see it, if you have to put more than 8 effects on your tracks you need to record them again...

[Flight 16]

Originally Posted by Flight 16

To be honest why would you want more than 8 insurts on a track? + 8 Sends any computer and sequencer is going to start packing in if you have to much on each track and if not, you start to question the quality of it all?...the way i see it, if you have to put more than 8 effects on your tracks you need to record them again...

Mind you i do make Rock Music, so i guess thats my thing

[Toddskins]

If you can locate them, Keyboard Magazine did in depth reviews of

Sonar 3 Producer edition this past January, 2004 issue

and

Cubase SX the next month, February, 2004.


The editor reviewer gave his nod to Sonar giving it their Key Buy award.

You can back order copies if you don't know anybody with that subscription. http://www.keyboardmag.com/

[Strryder]

Originally Posted by illacov

Cubase SX 2 only gives you 8 inserts on your individual tracks...and 32 vstis...thats cool...for 600 bucks..but for 300 dollars or 150 if you get home studio which is supposed to be damn near sonars equivalent .... you get unlimited fx per track...

Home Studio 2 has a 24 realtime effects at once limitation, so if you have 16 tracks with an EQ on each one, and 3 auxes setup for 1 reverb, 1 delay, and 1 chorus, you only have 5 more plugins till you hit the limit.

[illacov]

Why impose LIMITS?

At more than 8 inserts a good system does what? Why would a dual processor system choke?

I know why a P4 would choke unless you have a denormalizer plug in which would have to occupy a plug in slot in cubase so 1 out of 7 down already!

My XP 2700 handles its loads quite well...but there are times when i might just need an extra few slots to squeeze things into...what about the use of automation on a mix? you might only use some of your inserts at certain times...but you must not be into that sort of thing... to each his own..but i want something that gives me the best expansion possible....there may come a time where some Pro engineer gives his secrets away and guess what he uses more than 8 resident fx on a track...damn! Now SX users deserve more for their money??

No you deserve it now man....for 700 bucks theres no way in hell that they couldnt have implemented that feature for the people that have been dedicated to Cubase for 10 plus years....i dont see their logic man... you'll have to explain that one to me...

Anyways..

You spend your money how you like..
I also happen to be enrolled in university again...so i get a nice student discount on Sonar 3...im only gonna drop 250 to get Studio Edition...which in my opinion is the friggin cats meow compared to SLs mixing features...like i said...Cubase is the still one of THE best sequencers ive ever seen for making your beats up and the like...but mixing in Sonar just makes so much more sense....especially since we all know that the audio per se is where we suffer the most with our cpus...including the rendering...This is one definate reason why i want Sonar in a dual CPU setup....Also even if you go the route of a render farm for audio...you still get better results from Sonar...why? Cuz with a farm system you'll have tons more cpu to burn but you dont really take advantage of say 6 ghz of available cpu in a Host like Cubase SX...yes VSTis do eat up some cpu but its not them that im worried about..I want to achieve that 30 second mixdown that Pro Tools guy in my other poll posted... so far the only way i can get that result is to disable all my fx...so i already know i need to get a dual cpu setup....

Peace
Illumination

[Toddskins]

Illumination,

For $50 more, you can get the Producer edition (much advised), or save $100 for the Studio. Also, free shipping.

http://www.academicsuperstore.com/ma...=12&image.y=10

[Flight 16]

Well I have never used Sonar, I am going buy what my friends say who have used it have said, the impression I get is Cubase and Logic lead the race in home set ups and Sonar does not really do enough to justify changing.

also Cubase looks better

[illacov]

Oh my friggin God!! What a bargain!!!

Thank you so MUCH!!!

If you dont work at this store you need to YOU DA MAN!!
Im calling purchasing right now!!!!!!!
Peace
Illumination
CEO, Founder Mt. Olympus Records

[warble]

And of course remember: you can't use academic software to produce commercial recordings. This will be in the license agreement for most academic software.