Cubase & Sonar

[Reilley]

I know that comparing the two is the oldest cliche in the book, but here's the question: is there really much difference? Can one actually do something that the other one can't do? Aren't the differences between them pretty small compared to the similarities?

Thanks

 

[flamin-gitaur]

I think the biggest difference between hosts is workflow . What ever allows YOU to achieve what you need, is whats best. It's kinda like comparing Startocasters to LesPauls. Both are extremley capable, but not for everyones taste. Try a demo of each and see whacha like.

 

[Bulls Hit]

Some products work the way you think they should, while others are counter-intuitive.

For me Cakewalk products are instinctively easy to use. I've tried Cubase LE, and I don't know if it's because of it's european (German?) origins, but to me it seems to be designed by a geek more used to writing accounting software than a music recording application

 

[brzilian]

I've been using Sonar for 5 years and gave Cubase a try earlier this year.

I feel Cubase feels much more "polished". Everything works very smoothly and the UI feels much more refined and robust.

When I go back to Sonar now, it feels like a toy compared to Cubase.

The only negative thing going for Cubase is that Steinberg requires a USB Syncrosoft Key to enforce licensing. USB keys have to be the most ridiculous idea ever - they only make life harder for the honest people who aren't pirating and are easily defeated (with cracks). The last thing I want to deal with is having the stupid key sticking out the back of my laptop for someone or something to come along and break. If you break or lose the USB key, you have to repurchase your license at full price.

I dissagree with bulls hit claim that Cubase is counter intuitive.

 

[warble2]

I'd say the two really can accomplish the same tasks in a great way, but it all comes down to what tool best works with your workflow.

I used Cubase SX3 at one point, and I did like the user interface, just didn't like the issues I had trying to use it - a persistent click and pop problem. I tried all the tweaks I could find, and kept my DAW running lean and just couldn't get the issue resolved - it was very random in nature. Maybe it occurred when the software was communicating with the USB dongle while I was trying to record/playback. At any rate, I'm glad Steinberg allows for license transfer as I was able to sell it on eBay.

I moved to Sonar, and have been very pleased. Now using Sonar 6 Producer and have zero issues at this point. I'd say the UI isn't quite as well laid out as Sonar, but I quickly got used to Sonar - especially because it is not causing issues for me.

One of the things that led me to Sonar is while attempting to get help for Cubase SX, I had the misfortune of meeting the wonderful people in the Cubase forums. There are some good ones there that are helpful, but that forum is full of anger and disrespect. I product forums aren't typically used by people who are pleased as punch with the product they are using, but the Cubase forums took it WAY above a tolerable level of anger and BS.

 

[johnny5dm]

I've only used Cubase LE and Sonar 5PE, but what I'll say is this - but it for the features. Sonar seems to have more cutting-edge, universally applicable features, whereas Cubase seemds to do a better job with hardware integration. I was initially disappointed with Sonar 5PE because I bought it, in large part, for the V-Vocal editing, which had problems with phasing. However, they fixed it, so now I'm happy. The one thing I will mention is that, depending on your soundcard, Cubase may work better with it - for instance, I have an RME digiface, and Cubase allows ASIO direct monitoring, which is just slightly easier than how I do monitoring with Sonar.

Bottom line... yeah, try both of them, compare the features, price, etc... both are great pieces of software.

 

[brzilian]

I've only used Cubase LE and Sonar 5PE, but what I'll say is this - but it for the features. Sonar seems to have more cutting-edge, universally applicable features, whereas Cubase seemds to do a better job with hardware integration. I was initially disappointed with Sonar 5PE because I bought it, in large part, for the V-Vocal editing, which had problems with phasing. However, they fixed it, so now I'm happy. The one thing I will mention is that, depending on your soundcard, Cubase may work better with it - for instance, I have an RME digiface, and Cubase allows ASIO direct monitoring, which is just slightly easier than how I do monitoring with Sonar.

Bottom line... yeah, try both of them, compare the features, price, etc... both are great pieces of software.

That is not fair comparisin.

You would have to compare Cubase SX to Sonar 5PE.

Cubase LE is the free version bundled with certain hardware. Cakewalk has Sonar LE as well which is also bundled with certain hardware.

 

[xstatic]

My experience definately is the opposite of Bulls Hit's experience. Every time I open up Sonare it seems like a cluttered mess to me. Cubase however was a cinch for me to learn. I think it was so easy because it acts a lot like a traditional analog setup in a lot of ways. It just felt very easy to me.

As for clicks and pops, I have not had that problem. I would imagine whoever did have that problem may well have selected the wrong driver.

As for the USB dongle, I have never had a problem with mine. You also do not have to pay full price to get a new one. I can not see how it could cause clicks and pops either. If addressing the dongle is taxing your system that much, I would say there are much larger issues at hand than a USB dongle.

One advantage of Cubase is native VST and VSTi implementation, killer external hardware integration, especially with yamaha products, a much wider "professional" user base, and excellent delay compensation including with external hardware.

 

[DavidK]

One advantage of Cubase ... a much wider "professional" user base,

I dont see where one would actually get statistics for that. Since PT is STILL the industry standard in "pro" studios, I dont think one can stake the claim that either has a more "pro" base. If anything Sonar does by selling many more copies.

Personally I like Sonar, but I could use either and get the exact same results.

 

[brzilian]

You also do not have to pay full price to get a new one.

Is that so? Hmmm...

You make it so easy when you don't do your homework...

2.1. I have accidentally lost my USB key! Does it get replaced by Steinberg?


A simple answer: No. You are solely responsible for the USB key and the contained licenses. If you lost your key the only solution is to buy the products/licenses again. Imagine you have lost your watch: Would you get a replacement from the manufacturer? Most likely not. Keep your USB key safe! It is not a problem to replace manuals, installation media or other components but not an USB key with licenses!


http://knowledgebase.steinberg.de/96_1.html

 

[johnny5dm]

That is not fair comparisin.

You would have to compare Cubase SX to Sonar 5PE.

Cubase LE is the free version bundled with certain hardware. Cakewalk has Sonar LE as well which is also bundled with certain hardware.

I didn't mention anything negative for Cubase that you can't read on SX's webpage. Cubase LE still gives a reasonible idea of how SX works - that's why they sell it, so you get hooked. When I mentioned features that Sonar has that Cubase doesn't... I haven't seen Cubase publish anything like V-Vocal or Audiosnap. But Sonar doesn't do anything quite like Studio Connections or any other number of hardware integration things that Cubase does, including their new Control Room features.

 

[acidrock]

you can download a trial version of SONAR here.

 

[Reilley]

Please, leave the Packers and Badgers out of this. I'm confused enough.

 

[xstatic]

brzillian... When I called Steinberg a couple of years ago to ask that very same question, that was not the answer I got.

DavidK... Youa re right, I do not have "statistics" to back that up. What I have is years of talking with and working with hundreds of producers, engineers, A&R reps etc... and that is where I draw my statement from. I should have mentioned that it was not to be taken as a statistic. What most of them tell me is that they all have Pro Tools HD. However a great many of them also have Nuendo or Cubase in the studios at which they work and they actually get used pretty often. Very few have them have expressed any kind of liking for Sonar. The other program that pops up alot in those circles seems to be Digital Performer, and for many of the guys working on movie stuff, Logic. Audiotion, Sonar and the rest though do not seem to show up as often. That is what I meant by my statement.

 

[altitude909]

Cubase and Sonar are more sequencers than mixing/recording environments and are used accordingly. In the real world, if your signed and expected to deliver tracks you will end up in protools eventually for recording live stuff and mixdown. What you use is irrelevant up to that point. I dont know anyone who actually writes/sequences in protools but when it comes down to mixdown, I dont know anyone who uses anything but a HD/TDM Rig

 

[Reilley]

So, you can record real audio with sequencers, but not to the highest level of sophistication, is that right?

 

[DavidK]

DavidK... Youa re right, I do not have "statistics" to back that up. What I have is years of talking with and working with hundreds of producers, engineers, A&R reps etc... and that is where I draw my statement from. I should have mentioned that it was not to be taken as a statistic.

Cubase and Sonar are more sequencers than mixing/recording environments and are used accordingly.

These two statements go together. I am a keyboard/synth guy, and the people in my pro circle are going with Sonar for midi. I have never messed with Digital Performer but it comes up much more in Conversation than Cubase or Sonar. I have never run across Audition people in studios.

If anything, Sonar has the advantage in sequencing due to longevity, it is at least 15 years old and the midi hasnt changed. A lot of us learned it in the stone age and we stick with it because we know it. Maybe its safe to say that the pro environment for tracking might be hip to Cubase, but plenty of sequencists go with Sonar because of old habits. It really hasnt changed much.

For my goofy classical stuff, it's incredibly complex so I use a combination of Sonar and Sibelius notation software. Familiarity rules.

 

[DavidK]

So, you can record real audio with sequencers, but not to the highest level of sophistication, is that right?

No. You wouldnt know a difference in a zillion years, its the same thing. Pro Tools has:

Better plug-ins
A name
Power
A good user interface


Its all changing so fast that it is unprecedented. What was true five years ago doesnt hold true today, any program can record ones and zeros. What matters are the plug-ins or the actual recording gear. They all do the same thing, in theory they will all sound relatively the same before the plug-in stage.

Pro Tools is used for a reason, dont get me wrong. people arent going to shell out the dough if it isnt good, it IS good. It just costs a fortune. For MOST mortal people, they would get the same results using anything from Audacity and Ntrack to Pro Tools.

 

[altitude909]

Sonar has the advantage in sequencing due to longevity,

Cubase is about as old as it gets. "Cubit" was released in 1989 (Cubase 1.0) on the ST and it was the first program to use the linear track layout that we see in all DAW programs today.

Pro tools is the industry standard only because of its wonderful DSP via the Core cards . The software is not the selling point of PT

 

[Hard2Hear]

I am currently using both Sonar6 Producer and Cubase4 on my daw, have been for a couple months now, as I was testing pre releases. With the latest versions, these programs really are closer than ever before. I think the difference between them is pretty minimal now. This was untrue in the past, but they have gotten alot closer now.