cubase or cakewalk...or neither?

[fraserhutch]

Fraser,

It's OK by me --- I frequently spend time going WAY back to read threads of interest. AFAIC, the Sonar vs Cubase vs whatever is still relevant, among many others.

Yeah,. but it's sort of funny when a guy replies to a 2-3 year old posts in the for sale section........

 

[RobertN]

Cakewalk, I love sonar!!!

 

[EdWonbass]

This thread was probably dug up by someone actually using the search function.

 

[jgourd]

I've used Cubase for several years now -- copy protection was never ever an issue...

Both SX and SX 2 are extremely stable, with a great interface and powerful features.............

SX3 is stable as well.

They use a dongle, what's wrong with that? You move the dongle from notebook to desktop when you have to.

 

[fraserhutch]

So, again I ask, are the audio engines between Sonar and Cubase considered to be the same quality?

 

[jgourd]

I can't say. It is my understanding that SX is better but I may be misinformed.

 

[Carter]

Smyth,

I'm with Beltron. I wouldn't buy Cubase even if it were better than Sonar, which it's not, because of the copy protection.

--Ethan

Man what the hell are you talking about. you dont like a program because it's copy protected? I say if you take care of your software it should not be a problem that it's copy protected.... and Sonar is not better than Cubase!

 

[Maniac]

Indeed, you are right my friend, Cubase and Sonar are no where close in the same league. Cubase is much more robust and loads more sophisticated. As a Nuendo user who once used Cubase and Sonar and Cakewalk and Audio Logic, I can speak from experience. Cubase for audio & midi, Nuendo for audio, midi and Video Post Production, etc.

 

[jgourd]

This is true. I too an a Nuendo user. I have only been able to keep SX up to date though so My Nuendo is still version 1.

 

[fraserhutch]

Indeed, you are right my friend, Cubase and Sonar are no where close in the same league. Cubase is much more robust and loads more sophisticated. As a Nuendo user who once used Cubase and Sonar and Cakewalk and Audio Logic, I can speak from experience. Cubase for audio & midi, Nuendo for audio, midi and Video Post Production, etc.

Pleae back up this statement. I have used both, and current;ly have both installed, yet, I see little *real* difference between Sonar and Cubase. That doesn't mean there isn't any, just that I haven't discovered it. I am truly curious.

Blanket statements like the above don't say anything other than you're biased against Sonar. Some hard examples please?

 

[Maniac]

Pleae back up this statement. I have used both, and current;ly have both installed, yet, I see little *real* difference between Sonar and Cubase. That doesn't mean there isn't any, just that I haven't discovered it. I am truly curious.

Blanket statements like the above don't say anything other than you're biased against Sonar. Some hard examples please?

Just to name a few, Cubase has, 10.2 Surround sound, Plugin delay compensation, use of external effects units as VST instruments, Studio Connetions, Virtual desktops, Audio Warp, Inplace Editor.

 

[fraserhutch]

I believe equivalents for those exist. I *know* plugin delay compensation does. I don't know about the others for suere.

However, I am curious about this "external effects as VST instruments". How does that work? I would imagine that you need hardware IO support of some kind for this. What does SX offer specially to support this?

 

[Beltrom]

I believe equivalents for those exist. I *know* plugin delay compensation does. I don't know about the others for suere.

I didn't want to get into this debate - I'm really tired of it. Basically I view both Sonar and SX as serious apps with lots more features than I could use.

But as you put it like that

Sonar has 30 different configs for surround. Probably not 10.2, didn't know SX had - previously was a difference between Nuendo and SX.

pdc - Sonar has it

ext. effects VST - actually I believe there's vst's around that implements this. But it is a bit redundant in Sonar. The flexible bus architecture makes it really easy to implement in a way that to me makes more sense.

Studio connections is a (new) Yamaha (who owns Steinberg) standard . Sonar do have automation with external gear various ways - not this.

virtual desktops seems to be close to Sonars layouts.

Warp seems to be Sonars mpex.

To be fair the inplace editor could be a big thing to some people.


The sound quality of the audio engine debate is also old. There's been tests showing that the outputs are down to the bit identical if you zero everything out. The differences comes from eq, panning and so on. But the engines by themselves provide identical results.

 

[Maniac]

Simply Amazing; I was asked to back my statements up and for the most part, I did. It astounds me to see that it's admitted these differences exist, but how you try to rationalze the same can be done with Sonar in some other way and downplay the things that Cubase has that Sonar doesn't and speak about how unimportant this or that is. These differences and others exist, whether or not they are important to you is insignificant.

Fraserhutch, in answer to your question concerning "External effects as VST" it's great! And there is yet no equivalent for it's convienence. You are rignt a hardware I/O is necessary, Cubase allows you to set up this I/O as a VST effect, you can use and process this hardware effect on as many channels as you like. I find there is no software equivalent to my hardware Lexicon reverb and my hardware tube EQ which I use in many projects by way of VST plugins. It's and astounding tool!

The Studio Connections protocal is also a marvel, one of the things is has is "total recall". For instance, if you have a project from a month ago or so that you want to work on, once you open it in Cubase it will set your control surface or mixer (effects, dynamics, faders and all) exactly to the way it was when you last worked on it. It's and unbelievable asset. Studio Connections is an open Protocal.

Best to all,

 

[jgourd]

How about VST Link? Sonar doesn't have that one.

 

[Beltrom]

Simply Amazing; I was asked to back my statements up and for the most part, I did. It astounds me to see that it's admitted these differences exist, but how you try to rationalze the same can be done with Sonar in some other way and downplay the things that Cubase has that Sonar doesn't and speak about how unimportant this or that is. These differences and others exist, whether or not they are important to you is insignificant.

I guess that was meant for me? Sorry you took it that way. But seriously, you mean if Sonar has the feature implemented with a different name and/or in a different way it doesn't have it?

For all I know Cubase might lead the feature race at the moment. That's not my point - I was responding to this particular list and more in response to fraserhutch comment. And came to the conclusion that you mentioned two valid features that might make someone choose SX over Sonar, 10.2 surround and inplace editing. I don't think the new Yamaha protcol is significant enough yet - but sure, Cubase has it, Sonar hasn't...

I didn't downplay anything. The only place I mentioned an alternate route was where I think Sonar actually has a valid replacement that I can't imagine is worse - but it's quite different.

What bugs me in these discussions is that they move real fast from discussions to religious war. I don't have money in Cakewalk or Steinberg. Both are fine apps in my book. If you can't make good music with either the problem isn't the app.

 

[Maniac]

Agree with many of your points friend. I wish you the best, thanks for replying to my post.

 

[jgourd]

Here is how I chose Cubase SX. In the beginning I bought N-Track. I didn't like it much. Then I bought Cubase VST-5 which I also didn't like as much. I found both to be clumsy and difficult to perform what I thought should have been simple steps. Then I bought Logic which frustrated me to no end.

Then I bought Nuendo. I was in heaven. Why, because it worked the way I wanted to work. Nuendo's layout and feature set simply made sense to me. Finally a DAW that worked well, was not cryptic (to me at least) and sounded good.

Then I bought Cubase SX. Why, because I left the damn Nuendo dongle at home when I went to Jamfest 2. I ran out to get a second copy of Nuendo, (I knew VST Link was coming so it made sense to have two) only CubaseSX was all they had at the store.

That was three years ago. I have been continuing to keep CubaseSX up to date and may update Nuendo in the future. I haven't tried Sonar although my friend ChuckU uses it and I have seen it working and it looks good. I haven't a single negative thing to say about Sonar.

My advice is to base a purchase on the look and feel of a program. You want a DAW that you are comfortable with above all else. You want a DAW who's layout and feature set makes sense TO YOU. Your software will be the center piece of your studio.

 

[Beltrom]

Agree with many of your points friend. I wish you the best, thanks for replying to my post.

Thanks, the same to you. Friends we are!

 

[Beltrom]

My advice is to base a purchase on the look and feel of a program. You want a DAW that you are comfortable with above all else. You want a DAW who's layout and feature set makes sense TO YOU. Your software will be the center piece of your studio.

Listen to this kids!