2 sessions with Sonar 3... so far, so good!

  • Thread starter Thread starter OzNimbus
  • Start date Start date
Talk about hand editing. I've spent all day adding CC# to control a vocal harmonizer from midi for my live performances. Hope there is some improvement here when I finally get S3. Like cut and paste, drag move etc. Even just adding an event at a time corresponding to where the cursor is located causes problems sometimes.
 
Hey Oz...

I'm thinking about upgrading to Sonar 3 also....seeing as you have a similar set up as mine (I have an Aardvark Q10 instead of a 1010...) I was hoping you might be able to answer a couple questions for me.....

I would be upgrading from Sonar 1.XL....are the plug-ins replaced by new ones contained in 3.0 or are 3.0's plug-ins added to ones already existing in the earlier version?

Have you noticed if it takes more CPU's to utilize 3.0 and it's features compared to your earlier version?
 
The Waves gate has always worked just fine for me. And now, since Sonar 3 has PDC, you can set the Waves gate all the way down and it should be just fine.
You can also use the remove silence command I think and have it kill anything below a certain db range, and it deletes it from the hard disk so that its not taking up space and CPU resources. I still hand delete a lot of stuff, but I'm fast at it now, press C for cut, snip-snip, T, highlite, press the delete key, move along... gotten real fast at that.
 
Belive me, I'm farmiliar with the technique, Tubedude!

Add "custom head & tail fades to every edit" and you can see why it takes so goddamn long.
I'll stand by my earlier statement: The Ultrafunk gate blows the Waves one out of the water. The UF gate has lookahead, is frequency definable, and best of all, sounds good with a 0ms open time. The Waves does none of the above... especially sound good.

YMMV

-0z-
 
MAC2 said:
Hey Oz...


I would be upgrading from Sonar 1.XL....are the plug-ins replaced by new ones contained in 3.0 or are 3.0's plug-ins added to ones already existing in the earlier version?

Have you noticed if it takes more CPU's to utilize 3.0 and it's features compared to your earlier version?
Click to expand...


For the plugs, beats the hell out of me. I haven't used 1 XL in two years... you're best off asking CW tech support about that one.

As for your second question, I'll have to answer, again, beats the hell out of me. I upgraded my CPU at the same time I upgraded to S3.... But it's a safe bet that if you want to get the best performance out of S3, you'd better be running a decent processor.
As for features, read the above posts.

-0z-
 
With reference to the gate talk,

Do you guys say I should use a gate to remove silent parts? Like removing everything on a vocal track between words when the singer is not singing?

Makes good sense. Just didn't occur to me before, except during solos and the like.
 
I wouldn't go as far as to remove all the breath noises in a vocal track, as that's part of the performance, and is what brings humanity to the music.

However, I generally gate or strip out silent parts on most instrument tracks.

-0z-
 
Quote from tube dude

"The Waves gate has always worked just fine for me. And now, since Sonar 3 has PDC, you can set the Waves gate all the way down and it should be just fine.
You can also use the remove silence command I think and have it kill anything below a certain db range, and it deletes it from the hard disk so that its not taking up space and CPU resources. I still hand delete a lot of stuff, but I'm fast at it now, press C for cut, snip-snip, T, highlite, press the delete key, move along... gotten real fast at that."

What is this "PDC" thingy?

If you manually snip and delete a silent part out of a song I can understand it using less cpu resources. But will a gate cause less cpu resources to be used? I'm assuming that when there is silence in a wav form, it is still using cpu, but if you use a gate to remove silence you are adding even more to the cpu usage.

Isn't a gate used to bring the floor of the sound up? If there is silence, what is there to gate?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding gates, silence, and this part of the thread.

Will the "remove silence" command actually delete spots in your wav, leaving holes in the track?

Maybe I should gate my thought processes.


dana
 
mishappen said:
Quote from tube dude



What is this "PDC" thingy?

If you manually snip and delete a silent part out of a song I can understand it using less cpu resources. But will a gate cause less cpu resources to be used? I'm assuming that when there is silence in a wav form, it is still using cpu, but if you use a gate to remove silence you are adding even more to the cpu usage.

Isn't a gate used to bring the floor of the sound up? If there is silence, what is there to gate?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding gates, silence, and this part of the thread.

Will the "remove silence" command actually delete spots in your wav, leaving holes in the track?

Maybe I should gate my thought processes.


dana
Click to expand...

PDC: Plugin Delay Compensation

A gate will use more CPU resources, but when you're running at 2.8 ghz with 1 gig of ram, you don't worry about that sort of thing anymore :)

BTW, a gate does not bring the floor up. A gate opens and closes. That's it. You can set a threshold for what level a sound must be before a gate opens. Otherwise, it stays closed, and you get silence. The Ultrafunk gate does this more elegantly than any other gate plug I've seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top