"Sonar 3.0 sounds better" - Show us!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwerty
  • Start date Start date
CountZero said:
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? Where are you from anyway?

CountZero
Click to expand...

Maybe you should turn especailly into especially before you comment on Teacher's spelling.

Even though English is not my primary language I do take notice of all the misspellings around here. Then again, these folks have their strength in music and recording. I don't think we should discourage those who have problems getting the language correct from participating. Most of them know more about recording than I do, and I like to hear their views.
 
CountZero said:
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
Click to expand...

i don't give a flying fuck...:D

besides reverse engineering a competitors product is EXTREMELY common i don't see the big deal in suggesting they might of done that....

damn i forgot to capitalize....
:rolleyes:
 
I think CountZero should have turned into CountOne when he wrote his one and only contribution. But, of course, there must be someone else lurking behind that name. Could it be CountDracula?

Things are odd around here. For instance I am a junior member, despite the fact that I have turned 50.

And talking about spelling skills, I recently received this:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
it deosnt mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod
are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Aamzanig huh?


Hvae a ncie day
 
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...

Actually,I have no problems with this statement at all.

What's the big deal.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
 
Hi Gang

some say the Sonar Audio Engine does'nt sound as good as the Cubase Engine.

Can anyone confirm this ?
 
tombuur said:
Maybe you should turn especailly into especially before you comment on Teacher's spelling.

Even though English is not my primary language I do take notice of all the misspellings around here. Then again, these folks have their strength in music and recording. I don't think we should discourage those who have problems getting the language correct from participating. Most of them know more about recording than I do, and I like to hear their views.
Click to expand...

(taking deep breath)- It wasn't his spelling I was commenting on, it was his incorrect use of the word ("their" and "there" mean two different things entirely). My mistake was obviously typographic as teacher's was actually a mistake in grammar (the kind children usually make). I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. And had he said something worthwhile, I wouldn't have taken the time to point it out. It was the fact that someone would make absurd statements they know nothing about that urged my post. To propose, with no evidence, that Cakewalk possibly reverse engineered another product, is not only baseless, but is insulting to the good folks at Cakewalk that actually write the code. I did not mean to discourage anyone from participating but I did mean to discourage rediculous and unfounded conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Teacher said:
i don't give a flying fuck...:D

besides reverse engineering a competitors product is EXTREMELY common i don't see the big deal in suggesting they might of done that....

damn i forgot to capitalize....
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here is the big deal:

Stealing ideas is indeed common, but reverse engineering is actually quite shady and, I would contend, not nearly as common as you assert. Generally only companies with a lack of creativity and/or talent actually reverse engineer a product from a technical standpoint.
 
acidrock said:
Actually,I have no problems with this statement at all.

What's the big deal.Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Click to expand...

Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery, but reverse engineering is not. Reverse engineering is basically copying someone else's work verbatim. That is the difference I see here.
 
Come on Lads lets not get personal.... get back to the Topic.

This Tread is starting to sound like something from Cubase Net .
 
Bonkwell said:
Come on Lads lets not get personal.... get back to the Topic.

This Tread is starting to sound like something from Cubase Net .
Click to expand...

Hehe ;-) Indeed it does. Point well taken and I will shutup now unless I have something constructive to say.

Best Regards to all.
 
CountZero said:
Here is the big deal:

Stealing ideas is indeed common, but reverse engineering is actually quite shady and, I would contend, not nearly as common as you assert.
Click to expand...

well maybe not so much in the pro audio world...but in general it definitly is...thats the whole point of a patent so people can't reverse engineer whatever you just put out and make it themselves...
 
Teacher said:
well maybe not so much in the pro audio world...but in general it definitly is...thats the whole point of a patent so people can't reverse engineer whatever you just put out and make it themselves...
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, this is why I felt the need to point out that this is obviously not what Cakewalk did in regard to the summing buss. Maybe you were just being flip and I took you too seriously? It's been known to happen ;-) No worries....
 
Sound samples comparing the difference

Hello,

Go here to grab some test samples that I made. Two 192kb/s MP3 files about 200-oddK each.

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1746&alid=-1

S2.MP3 => Sonar 2.2 XL Test file
S3.MP3 => Sonar 3.0 PE

To my ears there are noticeable differences. Post what you can hear and I will then say what I think I can hear.

The source is the same file created in 2.2XL and using only the Timeworks EQ plugin and then dumped out of 3.0PE using the same FX set.

I like it, I like it a lot!

:) Q.
 
i used my on board sound card monitored thru a mackie and i got...

sonar 3 was a bit clearer and punchier then sonar 2.2
 
I didn't hear much differance at all :(

I was using headphones. Don't know if that makes a differance.

Sure is a cool sound tho.

dana
 
mishappen said:
I was using headphones. Don't know if that makes a differance.
Click to expand...

Guess that's why they tell you not to mix using headphones :)

Thanks,

:) Q.
 
Bonkwell said:
some say the Sonar Audio Engine does'nt sound as good as the Cubase Engine.

Can anyone confirm this ?
Click to expand...
Let me think....

You've heard this from Cubase users, right? ;)
 
Bonkwell said:
some say the Sonar Audio Engine does'nt sound as good as the Cubase Engine.

Can anyone confirm this ?
Click to expand...
Let me think....

You've heard this from Cubase users, right? ;)
 
Bonkwell said:
some say the Sonar Audio Engine does'nt sound as good as the Cubase Engine.

Can anyone confirm this ?
Click to expand...
Let me think....

You've heard this from Cubase users, right? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top