Allright you bastards! I ordered Sonar 3 it better SOUND better or I kill you all...

  • Thread starter Thread starter tubedude
  • Start date Start date
tubedude

tubedude

New member
Ok, all the new features seemed pretty cool but I was holding out to see what the word was.
Now, if there was the chance that it actually SOUNDED better, well... that would be in instant and neccesary purchase and no longer just a want. Well seems like enough people think it sounds better in the mids for me to try it. So i just ordered the basic studio version of 3.0 and I'm gonna compare.

What are you guys opinions, then, so far, on any sound improvments?

If you can improve your whole overall sound for $99, thats the best buy of all time. Ya think?

Peace.
 
I loaded up a bunch of old mixes and did scientific measurements of the two specturms. S3 has significantly worse performance in dynamic range, clarity and stereo image phase seperation. Sorry, Tubedude -- I think you jumped the gun and ordered it too quickly.















(just kidding!) <Evil Grin>
-lee-
 
MAN! That was NOT cool! :mad:

You really had me going there... :eek: :p
 
moskus said:
MAN! That was NOT cool! :mad:

You really had me going there... :eek: :p
Click to expand...

Hey folks -- I apologize if you think that was over the top. I was just really feeling grumpy.

In all seriousness - I've loaded up S3 on my system and loaded in a few tunes, but I haven't had the time to do any a/b comparisons. All I know is that it seems to be working great so far -- totally stable, no crashes or freezes. The biggest "issue" was that I had to configure it for my Mackie control again - that setting didn't come across from 2.2. Since that was about 3 mouse clicks, I'm not concerned about it at all.

It seems like S3 may be better than 2.2 on CPU usage, but I don't have any direct comparisons.

-lee-
 
laptoppop said:
It seems like S3 may be better than 2.2 on CPU usage, but I don't have any direct comparisons.
Click to expand...
Really? Other threads tell the oposite... And the minimum specs are quite higher.
 
Right - I've read posts here and there about CPU usage versus the two programs. Its hard to make a precise comparison, because you have to make sure that everything is configured exactly the same way - same plugins, same latency, same buffers, same memory, etc.

I know that on my system, I'm very happy - and that's the bottom line for me. I wonder if Cakewalk improved S3's ability to use physical RAM -- I've got a gigabyte of RAM on my audio beast. A little improvement there would show up on some systems, and not on others. In fact, it could make some systems behave worse.

I ran a pretty big mix yesterday - 98 channels, an assortment of UAD plugins and Cakewalk plugins - and it was sitting at 20% CPU, 35% disk. In all fairness, not all the channels had audio through the whole piece - it looked like S3 was doing a great job of optimizing for when the audio really was in a particular channel.

Just speculating,
-lee-
 
laptoppop said:


I ran a pretty big mix yesterday - 98 channels, an assortment of UAD plugins and Cakewalk plugins - and it was sitting at 20% CPU, 35% disk. In all fairness, not all the channels had audio through the whole piece
Click to expand...

98 channels! What takes that many channels in a home studio? How do you mange the views?

I have a complex S2.2 mix I fired up the other night (P4 2.5 1 gig ram) in S3 and it would not make it through without dropping out. I did nothing to try to fix it but it was like 20 tracks and 14 had audio throughout. I have waves and was running C4 on one track as well as Rverb but it would not keep up. I had many plugs going but not tons. Most compression was outboard.

Cheers, RD
 
rcktdg said:
98 channels! What takes that many channels in a home studio? How do you mange the views?
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot, doesn't it. But when you have tracks to burn, things just seem to come along to fill them. Start with a couple of stereo mic'd acoustic guitars, add a lead and a couple of backup singers, throw in a bass guitar and stereo mic'd lead mandolin, add drum kit with 5 microphones and a few extra tracks for percussion (shakers, etc.).......**** and then multiply by a few takes for each one**** (except the bass -- he nailed it in one).

Normally, I'd have a bunch of the tracks muted/archived -- probably more like 16 tracks of audio that I'll be using, along with cut snippets from the other tracks. But just for interest's sake, I played all of them at once to see what would happen. The sound was, well, a huge awful mess -- but the usage meters sure were sweet!

I didn't have to manage the views much for this test - just scrolled around and make sure everyone was unmuted/unarchived.

-lee-
 
I haven't had a problem yet. Not a dropout, nothing. It's more audio oriented which suits me fine. Even the appearance is more inviting.
I ran into minor bugs with previous versions. All were fixed but who wants to screw around when you've got the urge to create something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top