Sonar v.s ProTools

[DavidK]

I'm confused, you were trying to get a gig as a musician or as an engineer (or both?) I'm just curious, what was the session?

I am a pro violinist. We were contracted to record a modern piece ( 5 people I think) for a composer. His agent got a bug up his ass about "it has to be Pro Tools" and we lost the recording, which they will now do in L.A.

My point is: the agent wouldnt know what Pro Tools is if it bit him on the ass. He took in no other variables and will literally use strangers to record the piece. It could be students for all I know, he doesnt care about mics, venue, engineer or players. He heard Pro Tools is the best and that's that. It's all the power of a name when dealing with many "suits", they dont know anything and dont even think about things like the actual MUSICIANS involved.

 

[RAK]

I am a pro violinist. We were contracted to record a modern piece ( 5 people I think) for a composer. His agent got a bug up his ass about "it has to be Pro Tools" and we lost the recording, which they will now do in L.A.

My point is: the agent wouldnt know what Pro Tools is if it bit him on the ass. He took in no other variables and will literally use strangers to record the piece. It could be students for all I know, he doesnt care about mics, venue, engineer or players. He heard Pro Tools is the best and that's that. It's all the power of a name when dealing with many "suits", they dont know anything and dont even think about things like the actual MUSICIANS involved.

Well you're probably better off. That agent sounds like a moron, or just wanted an excuse to get out of it. I'd be the one to walk away if someone told me "it has to be Pro Tools"
Also, as musicians, why was your responsibility to find a studio with a ProTools rig? If your group was commissioned to record the piece, why wouldn't the agent find a ProTools-ready Studio. And why was that hard to find?

 

[SteveE9C6]

So get a copy of Pro Tools just to say you've got it if it's that critical. Pro Tools systems are incredibly overpriced in comparison with what currently is entering or in the market. PT is existing on hype, because almost all folks who deal with audio realize that programs like Sonar5 compete head to head quite favorably. Now, with the introduction of the new core duo intels and the slashing of AMD CPU prices, you can put a system together on a couple of PC's that will more than compete with PT hardware.
Use three PC's.
One for the program and recording
One for softh synths
One for effects
LAN them together using FX Express....

Use excellent converters...
Voila! Amazingly powerful system.


My new single..

The Ballad of Jake Masters

 

[xistenz]

PT is existing on hype,

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. if you think people keep pouring money into digidesign's pockets because of "hype", you're even more sideways than the average PT hater.

 

[SteveE9C6]

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. if you think people keep pouring money into digidesign's pockets because of "hype", you're even more sideways than the average PT hater.

Hey there... this is in the Cakewalk subforum. You expect a bunch of love for PT? Silly me. Why do I need to feel better? I feel fine. I don't dislike PT. I just believe it is overpriced. And yes, Digidesign is a massive marketing platform for an essentially closed system. People keep pouring money into their coffers because generally speaking, PT has the reputation and people are lemmings.

A serious pro tools installation costs near $100k. You can obtain the same end result using Sonar... or virtually any recording software.

 

[RAK]

Hey there... this is in the Cakewalk subforum. You expect a bunch of love for PT? Silly me. Why do I need to feel better? I feel fine. I don't dislike PT. I just believe it is overpriced. And yes, Digidesign is a massive marketing platform for an essentially closed system. People keep pouring money into their coffers because generally speaking, PT has the reputation and people are lemmings.

A serious pro tools installation costs near $100k. You can obtain the same end result using Sonar... or virtually any recording software.

Don't forget about the extra money you have to spend to get Digitranslator so you can export/import OMFs.

Just kidding, ProTools is great. I like it, I use it, I'd like to get faster with it. But I wouldn't buy it for my personal use. I definetly do not like how they tie it to their hardware. Oh well, whatcha gonna do? (luckily there's an answer to that).

 

[paulbeteivaz]

Here is the latest pricing information for both SW and their associated HW:

ProTools Mbox 2 $500.00
Sonar Power Studio 250 $500.00
Sonar Power Studio 660 $600.00

I'm a keyboard player, with a little experience in composing and recording, I'm not going to do any commercial jobs. What I want is a program that be able to handle my MIDI files from keyboard, be able to take audio directly from guitar and vocalist, add effects and make it ready to burn an audio CD.

What do you suggest?

 

[xistenz]

Hey there... this is in the Cakewalk subforum. You expect a bunch of love for PT?

i use both, and appreciate both for their strengths. sonar for midi, PT for recording.

A serious pro tools installation costs near $100k. You can obtain the same end result using Sonar... or virtually any recording software.

a $20k protools install gets you 64 tracks in and out, 96 tracks simultaneous 96k playback, plus the dsp card. $500 worth of sonar doesn't give you that.

 

[SteveE9C6]

Originally Posted by SteveE9C6
A serious pro tools installation costs near $100k. You can obtain the same end result using Sonar... or virtually any recording software.



a $20k protools install gets you 64 tracks in and out, 96 tracks simultaneous 96k playback, plus the dsp card. $500 worth of sonar doesn't give you that

Jeez... of course not. That' silly. Listen, I have nothing against protools. A friend of mine has a nice protools system. He just recorded a hit album on it. It most certainly cost much closer to $100k. It's based around the Icon.

I just looked at an install here. I decided that what I have is just fine. I may add the Mackie Controller and extender.

I really don't need 96 tracks and suspect not many here do.
Here is my system:
Mackie Onyx400F
Presonus Firepod
AMD 64X2 3800
2gb ram
80,250 and 250gb HD
Sonar5PE

I have a second computer for effects/soft synths
Pentium P4 2.8 with 2gb ram
Alesis Masterlink

ADL600 Preamp
JoeMeek TwinQ Pre
Langevin DVC

Lexicon MPX500
TC M-One
TC G Major

Mackie 1642VLZ Just in case

A boatload full of software plugs.

Lets see....

That's around $10k. ~~~

Of course, I have another $100k+ in the room,monitors, mics, guitars, amps, drums, keys... etc.

So you are dead right. $500 worth of Sonar wont get you to a pro recording setup. That is not what I meant. I would assume anyone who has an ounce of recording knowledge would understand that. I think what I have is every bit as good quality wise as the digidisign stuff. It certainly sounds it, and that is what is important.

 

[bryank]

but if one person were to record in Sonar............and record the same thing in protools (the m-box $500 thingy)........do you really think there is a differnce in sound quality?

its all the same to me. Sonar, sound forge, nuendo, pro tolls, cubase, acid pro, etc etc etc..........its all the same. i dont think one person would hear any bit of differnce between them all. the only differnce is the user freindlyness/ease of use/ layout/ options/ features and such that separate them from one another.

 

[sonnylarsen]

It's weird but these programs gain a certain rep over the years and that rep stays with them for a very long time. Pro Tools has developed a mystique over the last few years that it is THE DAW software and now that reputation has led to an unfortunate situation where the money people think that PT is magic and that every bit of audio that goes through it will somehow be transformed into something miraculous. This is pure bullshit. PT is great. It has a great audio engine and summing engine and it's midi is fine for most of us, but it is not magical. I use it every day and I can tell you first hand that if you do not know how to record, edit, and mix properly, it is not going to fix things for you.

SONAR is the same. I think SONAR 5 is great and I believe that SONAR's audio capabilities (which were never BAD by the way)have caught up to SONAR's superb midi abilities. But again, knowledge is key when creating good sounds (not to mention haveing good source material in the first place). SONAR's nifty 64bit duble precision engine will do you no good if you do not know a send from a return.

The bottom line, is that if you learn your stuff, any DAW will serve you well. They all use fairly similar terminology and to switch from one to another is mostly a matter of learning where stuff is.

So, all that being said, if you want to make great sounding records, then spend most of your time and energy learning to record, and pick up a DAW that suits that purpose. I would also recommend investing in the pre-computer part of your recording chain (mics, pre's, converters, audio interface, etc.) because it is important to capture sound accurately in the first place.

OK, so back to your question. Both are great. Which one is better is endlessly deabted. I don't think many people would argue however, that SONAR is easier to learn than PT, and has a bit more versatility. I myself learned the ins and outs (pun) first on N-track, the Cakewalk 8, then SONAR 1, and only with the advent of PT 7 did I purchase Pro Tools (M-powered). I think starting out you should go with SONAR, and then if you want to or need to go on to PT.

 

[SteveE9C6]

but if one person were to record in Sonar............and record the same thing in protools (the m-box $500 thingy)........do you really think there is a differnce in sound quality?

I don't think so. It is more about the converters and interface for each. The software programs themselves really don't have a "sound". I like Sonar because it is open. I don't have to buy their hardware to use it. The midi capabilities are sterling and the audio program is excellent.

 

[xistenz]

It most certainly cost much closer to $100k. It's based around the Icon.

well, you're comparing apples to oranges then. ICON is THE most advanced DAW control surface in the world.

I think what I have is every bit as good quality wise as the digidisign stuff. It certainly sounds it, and that is what is important.

absolutely. the thing with the digi stuff is it all comes as a verified unit. you know the capabilities, you know all the hardware works 100% with the software because it's DEDICATED. you don't have to buy piecemeal, one part from this company, one part from another. in order to get anywhere close to what a PTHD system can do you'd need to invest in a fair amount of dsp power, like TC Powercore or something similar, which ain't cheap either.

you really can't compare sonar to PT other than the software or lower end (mbox, 002) systems. i'll give you this, if you hooked up a 002 to sonar i'd fully expect sonar to sound no better/worse than PT.

 

[DavidK]

i'll give you this, if you hooked up a 002 to sonar i'd fully expect sonar to sound no better/worse than PT.

Isnt that the point of this thread?

The original thread is about comparing Sonar and MBox. I havent a clue, I havent used the MBox. SONAR I have used for many years and been quite happy with. Not only does it do midi stuff well, it is quite good for editing. I work very quickly because I do dense symphonic stuff, and SONAR is a snap ONCE YOU LEARN IT

I dont know the learning curve on Pro Tools, seemed fairly straight-forward when I have messed with it. Sonar's learning curve IMHO is medium, its not easy or that hard. It's deeper than most people think, it can do a LOT of nifty stuff if you learn the program thoroughly.

 

[SteveE9C6]

in order to get anywhere close to what a PTHD system can do you'd need to invest in a fair amount of dsp power, like TC Powercore or something similar, which ain't cheap either.

Are you familiar with FX Express? This is a software that uses LAN and satellite computers to achieve this power. It's really pretty cool. You can dedicate a separate computer just for effects and another for soft synths. I know of some folks using up to 6 computers in this fashion. Computers are getting dirt cheap...


Yeah.... I wouldn't mind having a D-Control... I think his with the expansion module and producers desk was around $98k list. I don't know what the bottom line was for the entire system.

 

[SteveE9C6]

Isnt that the point of this thread?

Yeah... we got a bit off topic Sorry.

I vote for Sonar

 

[RAK]

I'm a keyboard player, with a little experience in composing and recording, I'm not going to do any commercial jobs. What I want is a program that be able to handle my MIDI files from keyboard, be able to take audio directly from guitar and vocalist, add effects and make it ready to burn an audio CD.

What do you suggest?

I think you'll find the general consensus to be Pro Tool isn't the greatest for MIDI. Cakewalk traditionally has been known for MIDI. I like Sonar's MIDI capabilities. Part of what's going to be important is the MIDI sequencers/synths that are bundled. Do you already have software synths you like to use? (I'd like to through in a plug for Native Instruments, they have great software synths)

MOTU Mach 5 is a good Sampler, but I don't think it records audio, it's just a sampler. Digital Performer is also good for MIDI, but not cheap. Also, MOTU is MAC only, so don't know if that works for you. Cakewalk is PC only. I haven't used Logic or Cubase.

If you're using PC, you might want to take a look at some of the basic programs that do MIDI and audio recording. Sounds like you don't need large multi-track capabilities, so you want to focus on the MIDI aspect of the program.

I hope that was actually useful, and not just a lot of words.

 

[RAK]

I don't think so. It is more about the converters and interface for each. The software programs themselves really don't have a "sound". I like Sonar because it is open. I don't have to buy their hardware to use it. The midi capabilities are sterling and the audio program is excellent.

This is not to disagree with the statement, but to add to it. I think the bundled plug-ins and how they are written should play a part in the comparison. Plug-ins can definetly have a sound. Things like the way the programs draw their fades or dithering algorithms could also differ, but I don't know if anyone could tell a difference, or what the differences would be, I'm definetly not a programmer.

 

[K-dub]

As a side note: Sonar does allow import/export of OMF files, so files created on it can be utilized (to a degree) w/ PT.

PT's shortcoming and strength, and it's less a "shortcoming" than a strength, is its proprietary nature. That's a developer's/manufacturer's marketing/business decision (similar to Apple's decision about marketing their computers). The consequence being that it's expensive (comparitively) BECAUSE it's a closed system (less open competition) -- so it's going to sell for more money to less people.

That noted; Did Apple, with their proprietary approach ... win the popular PC wars? No, they got clobbered -- and their continued success has rested not w/ their computers (which are very good - I own both, but prefer the flexibility and product availability of the PC world for music creation), but that little music box they created.

Does PT possess the best sound/system? Frankly, like Apple, it doesn't matter. It is what it is -- and others are too close in level and similarity to make that call. Each has the product benefits deemed important by their creators, and accordingly each product is weighted in one direction or another as imbued/designed by the developers.

In the long run, variables such as ability to swap hardware/ease of use/features/flexibility and a host of OTHER influences and consumer friendly options -- dependent solely upon what the "market" determines is crucial -- will sway the day.

Manufacturers of technology equipment are always "the next best/hot thing" away from being woefully obsolete -- and by consequence, out of business.

Therefore, in choosing any system to record with, one must simply weigh one's own purposes with one's comfort level -- combined with product features and benefits (relative to need), future provider viability, and many other singular, personal values.

Sadly, such a decision is too varied and complex to solve w/in the confines of a simple bbs. Given that you do your research wisely, and you are aware of future external parameters, I'm sure you'll figure out the best decision for you.

Good luck w/ your quest!

Best,

Kev-

 

[orksnork]

apple runs windows now sir.