"Sonar 3.0 sounds better" - Show us!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwerty
  • Start date Start date
Qwerty

Qwerty

New member
OK, I have read a few posts on here and also on the cakewalk newsgroups which seem to indicate that Sonar 3.0 somehow sounds, and this is where you insert your own non-specific descriptor of choice...., "cleaner", "brighter", "wider" or just good old "better".

Whilst this is great, (I still eagerly count down the days until Sonar hits these fair shores), I really want to hear what you guys are talking about. So -

How about some peoples post a demo.

I suggest -

- Take a song
- Find a clip with a good dynamic range
- Grab a 30 or 45 second loop
- Dump it out with in Sonar 2.xx
- Dump it out in Sonar 3.0
- Post it as per the normal MP3 mixing clinic stuff, but list it in this forum only

Let me know what you think.

:) Q.

-- Hey what about plugins? Should we also do one which is just a simple single sound source - stereo mic'ed acoustic guitar or something. Disable all plugins from both the Sonar 2.0 and 3.0 dumps so we just get the clean audio stream from each proggie.
 
Yeah, I'll be waiting for answers on this too...

I'll have to go to the local store (they have a "test" of Sonar 3, and I know the owner) tonight and test this out. :)
 
Qwerty said:
OK, I have read a few posts on here and also on the cakewalk newsgroups which seem to indicate that Sonar 3.0 somehow sounds, and this is where you insert your own non-specific descriptor of choice...., "cleaner", "brighter", "wider" or just good old "better".

Whilst this is great, (I still eagerly count down the days until Sonar hits these fair shores), I really want to hear what you guys are talking about. So -

How about some peoples post a demo.

I suggest -

- Take a song
- Find a clip with a good dynamic range
- Grab a 30 or 45 second loop
- Dump it out with in Sonar 2.xx
- Dump it out in Sonar 3.0
- Post it as per the normal MP3 mixing clinic stuff, but list it in this forum only

Let me know what you think.

:) Q.

-- Hey what about plugins? Should we also do one which is just a simple single sound source - stereo mic'ed acoustic guitar or something. Disable all plugins from both the Sonar 2.0 and 3.0 dumps so we just get the clean audio stream from each proggie.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that I had a couple of Sonar tracked projects that I absolutely could not mix in Sonar, but could in Nuendo because of it's buss structure. Now, I have been able to mix these in Sonar 3. I believe that it has something to do with the fact that S3 is 32 bit and it's harder to clip the buss while summing to stereo.
 
Re: Re: "Sonar 3.0 sounds better" - Show us!

BeeCee Powda said:
I believe that it has something to do with the fact that S3 is 32 bit and it's harder to clip the buss while summing to stereo.
Click to expand...
That made no sense to me. You're complaining about the buses in Sonar 2, but it's possible to mix it in Sonar 3 because it's 32 bit (internal)? I though even Sonar 2 was 32 bit... ;)
 
sonar 2 was....i guess the guys at cakewalk finally got the math right or reversed engineered another program and stole there summing math...thats sounds more american...
 
Well they changed something because the midrange and low end are more standout and the soundfield has more depth. I vote for the math which is enhancing different areas of the sound spectrum. I was always having to push the mix in the midrange for my car speakers. Now I don't have to.

Qwerty, I am not sure a sound file test will demonstrate the difference. It would tell you what the final summing differences might be, if at all, but it cannot show the actual sound difference for live monitoring. I will try to put something up this week when I get a few hours, most likely Saturday though.
 
Quote of 'Teacher'.

"...i guess the guys at cakewalk finally got the math right or reversed engineered another program and stole there summing math...thats sounds more american..."

End Quote.

-------------------

Yeah... and next, they're gonna reverse engineer your brain, to find out how your ass-hole took control of it.
 
Norbert said:
Yeah... and next, they're gonna reverse engineer your brain, to find out how your ass-hole took control of it.
Click to expand...
... and what's your problem?

Okay, Teacher sometimes have some weird and strange opinions (:D), but there's no reason for being a bad-mouth...
 
OK - I have got my copy, YAY!!, and I have done some preliminary tests which do indeed show greater clarity in the 3.0 tracks.

I will post some clips shortly.

:) Q.
 
i'm from NY just in case you think i'm a 'foreigner' bashing your country... just my take on how corporate america works... ;)
 
Norbert said:

Yeah... and next, they're gonna reverse engineer your brain, to find out how your ass-hole took control of it.
Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing I have read in 5 years. Although teacher is a great guy, go easy on him. I think he was referring to the American way of stealing intellectual property and putting your name on it to make a buck.
 
How can it possibly make THAT much of an audible difference? Its not like we are moving from 1/4" to 2" tape.... How do you compare, unless you have two completely identical systems side by side (not likely) and even then it is subjective to whats going on between your ears.

Just my silly opinion, but if I believed all the hype and advertisements in this industry, I'd be broke.

Is is really possible that there is an audible difference between 2.0 and 3.0? In the end, it all sounds better than my old Tascam 246.
 
It's all math so they can sum a bunch of digital signals and add or subtract anything they want to alter the sound of the original. Better yet, to make things sound closer to the original sound source would be a better objective.

This is why the same sound file sounds different in various software engines.
 
Yes, I find that hard to believe too. But there must be some algorithms at work when mixing tracks into a single stereo signal, and perhaps this can be done in different ways. Anyway, I would expect that to have been optimized several versions ago. And even if they improved it, I probably couldn't tell the difference. EQ settings no doubt will be more important.
 
Personally, I'll probably upgrade because I just like buying new thingies.....software especially. However, I tend to discount any claims to audible differences or nuances since it all relies on my input.....which explains why I'm not a career musician.

Long Live Homerecording
 
Personally, I'll probably upgrade because I just like buying new thingies.....software especially. However, I tend to discount any claims to audible differences or nuances since it all relies on my input.....which explains why I'm not a career musician.

Long Live Homerecording
 
tombuur said:
Yes, I find that hard to believe too. But there must be some algorithms at work when mixing tracks into a single stereo signal, and perhaps this can be done in different ways. Anyway, I would expect that to have been optimized several versions ago. And even if they improved it, I probably couldn't tell the difference. EQ settings no doubt will be more important.
Click to expand...

i think the difference comes more apparent the more plug-ins you use...justa hunch....cuz i've noticed a difference between sonar 2 and samplitude summing bus...definitly not a great difference for the type of music i do anyway(electronic stuff rap, rnb) but there was one...i omfed a file from sonar into samplitude and summed no DSP...not even panning or volume...difference wasn't eyepopping but samplitude was better...i doubt the differences could be heard in a MP3 file unless like at 320...
 
Well, what ever method was used, the increased clarity in sound quality does exist. This observation is not based on wishful thinking to justfy the purchase. For me, it's fact. My wife could hear it in a blindfold test.
There have been a few posts that have expressed skepticism over this. I believe the skeptics will be convinced once they get a chance to hear it for themselves.
Maybe someone will be able to post an example soon...I don't have the time to figure out how to do it!

Just buy it and enjoy!

Terry Kingen
 
Now that you mention it, I will simply record a wav of a current project in S2, then do the same in S3 after installing it ... when it finally arrives. Then I can check if the difference is audible with the kind of stuff I work with.
 
Teacher said:
sonar 2 was....i guess the guys at cakewalk finally got the math right or reversed engineered another program and stole there summing math...thats sounds more american...
Click to expand...

It would be "stole THEIR summing math", not "THERE summing math". You also might want to learn to capitalize also...especailly if you're going to call yourself "teacher". Why would it be more "American" to reverse engineer something else? You might think this is how the country you live in works but to suggest some company you obviously know nothing about is doing it this way is absurd and just askin' to get called on it.

CountZero
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top