Sonar 3 in Oct?

[bgavin]

Since it is computer based, my first thoughts are the same as my computer business: "Just say NO to One Dot Oh".

Is Sonar 3 a "radical and exciting new product" (read: Windows ME, NT 3.5, Windows 286) and fraught with the never ending stream of bugs?

Or, is Sonar 3 an evolution and refinement of a large code base that is stable?

For me, I will wait until the first service pack, no matter what. I can't imagine having my bread and butter on the line, for the privilege of living on the bleeding edge of new software.

 

[faithful]

Whats wrong with the summing bus? Its reputedly a good one.

I'm not sure there is anything WRONG with the summing bus but I will admit to liking what I hear out of Samplitude better. I can hear a difference by just taking the same WAV file and importing one copy into Sonar and one into Samp and A/Bing them. Some people think that is crazy, but I hear what I hear. Again, I'm not certain that one is technically more accurate or whatever. I'm just saying that I hear a difference in the playback of a simple WAV file with no fader moves, plug-ins, etc. and I slightly prefer the sound of Samplitude.

All that to say I still use Sonar as my main app for various reasons and look forward to ANY improvements they make. My #1 request (besides the gapping which they have supposedly fixed w/3.0) is a time-based nudge function that is easily shortcutable. Everytime I'm in a PT environment (usually VO work) that fuction is used constantly.

Just my opinion

Jason A.

 

[moskus]

I'm not sure there is anything WRONG with the summing bus but I will admit to liking what I hear out of Samplitude better. I can hear a difference by just taking the same WAV file and importing one copy into Sonar and one into Samp and A/Bing them. Some people think that is crazy, but I hear what I hear. Again, I'm not certain that one is technically more accurate or whatever. I'm just saying that I hear a difference in the playback of a simple WAV file with no fader moves, plug-ins, etc. and I slightly prefer the sound of Samplitude.

But if you create a wave-file in Sonar and exports that, imports it to Wavelab and save it under a different name. Then you burn both to an Audio CD. Do they sound the same?

 

[faithful]

But if you create a wave-file in Sonar and exports that, imports it to Wavelab and save it under a different name. Then you burn both to an Audio CD. Do they sound the same?

Can't say that I've done that. Maybe I'll download a demo of Wavelab and try it.

Although, what is the point you are trying to get at? Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude or anything. I'd like to know. Are you saying that the playback summing is different from the export summing? Are you trying to find out how different Wavelab can make a Sonar generated WAV sound? Are you saying you can't hear the difference after you make it back to 16/44.1 and onto a CD?

Again, I'm not trying to be hardnosed. I would love to find an explanation for what I am hearing and if that explanation is that I'm doing something wrong or an invalid test then so much the better.

Jason A.

 

[Wurlitzer]

I don't think there's anything crazy or even particularly surprising about what you are saying. Each different program uses different code to sum tracks together, and this will result in a different summed output. Of course some will sound different to others, just as different digital mixers sound different from each other.

FWIW, I tend to just use insert effects in Sonar, then send all the tracks of my arrangements to separate channels of my soundcards (2 x Soundscape Mixtremes = 32 channels) and mix and add send effects on the cards' DSP, thus bypassing software mixing altogether. I suppose its like the stability and quality of hardware mixing with the advantage of a computer display.

Can anyone tell me more about these Ultrafunk effects. What makes them so good - are they in any way particularly different from Timeworks, TC etc?

 

[laptoppop]

FWIW, I tend to just use insert effects in Sonar, then send all the tracks of my arrangements to separate channels of my soundcards (2 x Soundscape Mixtremes = 32 channels) and mix and add send effects on the cards' DSP, thus bypassing software mixing altogether. I suppose its like the stability and quality of hardware mixing with the advantage of a computer display.

OK, here's the dirty little secret that many folks tend to forget. All digital processing involves software. DSP (stands for Digital Signal Processing) is software run on a processing unit. While there *are* fully analog hardware based units (transistors, capacitors, resistors, tubes, etc.), most effect boxes these days are digital inside -- and are filled with processors running software.

Now there are a bunch of different processors to choose from, and a TON of different ways to write software for those processors. In theory, however, you should be able to do a bit for bit identical job on different platforms, given enough programming. In reality, its not usually worth it for audio -- if you get reasonably close.

Its perfectly reasonable for you to say you prefer the software running on the DSP chip of your soundcards over the software running on the CPU in your PC -- but just to be agonizingly accurate, its not hardware mixing.

-lee-

 

[Clemie]

Good lord, look at the price I didn't even make it to SONAR at all now (cakewalk 9 here ) . what is the difference in detail between two (producer and studio) versions? any hints ?

 

[Teacher]

checked them out in my car one seemed more bottom heavy,,,again not a huge o shit....but if you listen you can hear or i should say feel it...the funny t hing is i forgot which i put first and second...i think its the samplitude one not to sure though...

 

[Wurlitzer]

Its perfectly reasonable for you to say you prefer the software running on the DSP chip of your soundcards over the software running on the CPU in your PC -- but just to be agonizingly accurate, its not hardware mixing.

Fair point.