Sorry for the repeats:Sonar with other software

Barometer

Barometer

New member
Hi All,

I've just been getting into editing with Sonar. I love it for the recording process, but I'm having a bit more trouble getting the results I desire in editing. Does everyone who uses Sonar use it for both purposes or do you do your edits in another piece of software? Is it difficult to get files out of Sonar and into another app.? Could I just get some plugins to help me out? I used to use Cool Edit a while back and it wasn't bad. Anyway, just wanted to get an idea of what other Sonar users experience. Thanks :D

Sorry for the repeats, my browser got "stuck and just kept looping for some reason when I posted. is there a way to delete threads that you started :(
 
It's a tad on the expensive side, baroman, but I happen to love Wavelab 4.0 as companion software to Sonar. I use it both as a wave editor from within Sonar, as well as for mastering finished mixes and CD burning.

It's a piece of cake to use from within Sonar. Sonar loads it onto the Sonar tools menu. From there, if you highlight a clip and choose Wavelab, it will launch Wavelab and load the clip. Once you've edited the clip, when you return to Sonar, Sonar will tell you that the clip has been modified and ask if you want to load the new clip.

FYI, most of these features are not unique to Wavelab. That just happens to be the software that I prefer. You can get similar functionality from Sound Forge, and I sure many others (Cool Edit, etc.)
 
Barometer said:
Sorry for the repeats, my browser got "stuck and just kept looping for some reason when I posted. is there a way to delete threads that you started :(
Click to expand...
Click the Edit button on your thread, and from within the edit screen I believe there is delete functionality.
 
What kind of edits do you want to do? Except for mastering, I use Sonar for all my editing.
Am I missing something Mike?
 
Chuck - there is lots of editing functionality in Wavelab that doesn't exist in Sonar. Eliminating DC offset for example. Stereo to Mono conversion (and vice-versa), sample rate conversion, bit depth conversion with excellent dithering algorithms (and not just 24 to 16, like Sonar offers), a pencil tool to make "glitch corrections" directly on the wave, and so on. It also includes several analytical tools such as a spectrum analyzer and a loudness analyzer that does both peak and RMS, plus a built in .mp3 encoder (based on the Lame encoder) and .wma encoder. It can also convert files from wave to aiff (and probably the other way as well), and save in the Paris Ensoniq format (if you have any need for that).

However, since my classic recording takes rarely require any editing whatsoever <falls off chair laughing>, I find I actually use Wavelab more for mastering than I do for editing. I just find its interface more conducive to working with the exported stereo wave files from Sonar.

Its CD burning functionality is also great, and allows you to lay out an entire album setting the pause between each track to whatever you want. In fact, I had two songs where I wanted one to fade out while the other faded in, and Wavelab let me do that, while still allowing a track marker at the second song (so you could select it on your CD player). I think most other programs would have required this to be burned as a "single song."


<Damn, when is that Wavelab commission check gonig to show up. I have gear to buy!>
 
I use Sonar exclusively too, and I can't imagine why I would want another dedicated editor. Once I've recorded a keeper track, I don't want it touched by anything other than realtime/non-destructive effects.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
dachay2tnr said:
Chuck - there is lots of editing functionality in Wavelab that doesn't exist in Sonar. Eliminating DC offset for example. Stereo to Mono conversion (and vice-versa), sample rate conversion, bit depth conversion with excellent dithering algorithms (and not just 24 to 16, like Sonar offers), a pencil tool to make "glitch corrections" directly on the wave, and so on. It also includes several analytical tools such as a spectrum analyzer and a loudness analyzer that does both peak and RMS, plus a built in .mp3 encoder (based on the Lame encoder) and .wma encoder. It can also convert files from wave to aiff (and probably the other way as well), and save in the Paris Ensoniq format (if you have any need for that).

However, since my classic recording takes rarely require any editing whatsoever <falls off chair laughing>, I find I actually use Wavelab more for mastering than I do for editing. I just find its interface more conducive to working with the exported stereo wave files from Sonar.

Its CD burning functionality is also great, and allows you to lay out an entire album setting the pause between each track to whatever you want. In fact, I had two songs where I wanted one to fade out while the other faded in, and Wavelab let me do that, while still allowing a track marker at the second song (so you could select it on your CD player). I think most other programs would have required this to be burned as a "single song."


<Damn, when is that Wavelab commission check gonig to show up. I have gear to buy!>
Click to expand...

Mike hit on a few things here that I am interested in, especially the pencil tool to work directly on the wave. This is of particular interest to me since I am very used to graphic interfaces (being a digital artist). Anyway I'm not intending on startinga battle about which way is better, I just wanted to get a feel for what other Sonar users are doing. Keep 'em coming :D
 
Aaron Cheney said:
I use Sonar exclusively too, and I can't imagine why I would want another dedicated editor. Once I've recorded a keeper track, I don't want it touched by anything other than realtime/non-destructive effects.
Click to expand...
I used to feel the same way. In fact, I remember asking Garrigus (Sonar Power) a similar question when he used to post here. He was touting Sound Forge, and I wanted to know why I would need both.

Again, my main use is for mastering the finished Sonar wave file. The wave editing features are a secondary benefit IMHO.

It's not that you can't do a lot of the same work in Sonar. It's just easier and more intuitive to work in a program designed specifically for working on stereo wave files, rather than one designed for multi-tracking and midi.

I'm not looking to make converts here. . . just expressing what works for me. YMMV.

(BTW, Aaaron, the mastering work in Wavelab is done on the exported Sonar wave file. It has no effect on the Sonar tracks. If you use it as an editor, you would only do it in cases where you want to make a destructive edit (such as editing out a glitch). And even in those cases, it is wise to make a backup of the original track first.)
 
dachay2tnr said:

Again, my main use is for mastering the finished Sonar wave file. The wave editing features are a secondary benefit IMHO.

It's not that you can't do a lot of the same work in Sonar. It's just easier and more intuitive to work in a program designed specifically for working on stereo wave files, rather than one designed for multi-tracking and midi.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was thinking more in terms of editing indivudial clips in SONAR. I actually use SoundForge to edit songs once they're mixed, for editing fades and such, before I go to CD Archtitect to compile the CD.

Aaron
http://www.voodoovibe.com
 
I use Sound Forge 6 to edit individual tracks I've recorded in Sonar 2. It is a selection in the Tools drop down menu and opens the highlighted track. The main reason I export the tracks to edit them is because you can listen to any selected effect through the whole track instead of a preview of just the first few seconds (in Sonar). Also, in Sound Forge 6 all the Cakewalk effects are available for use, so it's not like you lose any Sonar functionality by jumping out to Sound Forge. I'm sure the same is true of Wavelab ... but I don't have the four bills mentioned above. Maybe someday I'll get a chance to try it ... soon as I find that damned lottery ticket.
 
deadeye said:
The main reason I export the tracks to edit them is because you can listen to any selected effect through the whole track instead of a preview of just the first few seconds (in Sonar).
Click to expand...
Actually you can set the Sonar "preview" to as high as 25 seconds if you wish (the default setting is 3 seconds).

Go to Options -> Global and find the section labeled Audition Commands for ___ Seconds. You can enter whatever you want, up to 25 seconds.

However, this only applies to "destructive" applications. If you patch the effect in as a realtime effect, you can preview it to your heart's content just by playing the track.
 
Cool, good to know I can adjust the preview length. Maybe you can explain a bit more about destructive effects Mike. I did some reading on them and got a bit scared so I don't really use them. But are they really "destructive" or is it a minor quality issue? If I'm recording at 24/48 will I notice using these effects when sampling down to 16/44 for CD?
 
Barometer said:
Maybe you can explain a bit more about destructive effects Mike. I did some reading on them and got a bit scared so I don't really use them. But are they really "destructive" or is it a minor quality issue? If I'm recording at 24/48 will I notice using these effects when sampling down to 16/44 for CD?
Click to expand...
Barometer. Destructive effects are no better or worse (quality-wise) than non-destructive effects. The differece is that applying a destructive effect actually modifies the underlying .wav file.

For example, let's say you record a vocal track with no effects whatsoever (dry). Now you want to put reverb on it. If you apply a destructive reverb, the original dry track will now be modified to include the reverb. If tomorrow you listen to it again and decide it has too much reverb, well sorry. There ain't nothing you can do. The dry track is gone, and the reverb has now become a part of the .wav file. You can add more reverb, but you can't take away what's already there.

The other approach is to use non-destructive reverb. In this case, the dry track is played back through the reverb in "real time." The .wav file is not touched, rather the reverb is applied "on the fly" as you are listening to the recording. The advantage, of course, is if tomorrow you decide there's too much reverb, you just open up the effect and reduce the reverb setting (or remove it entirely if you wish).

OK, so then what's the downside? Well, it takes CPU horsepower to apply effects "on the fly." The more tracks you have in a project and the more realtime effects you are using, the more likely you are to get dropouts, playback stutters, and other such problems.

An alternate approach is to clone a track and archive the original. Then you can apply destructive effects to the clone, but still recall the archived original if you later decide you made a mistake along the line.

So all-in-all it's kind of a trade-off. I tend to use non-destrcutive effects exclusively until I start having playback problems with a project. Then I start looking for ways to reduce the workload. Fortunately this doesn't happen with all projects. Usually just the more complex ones. And, of course, if you've got a 2 GHz screamer with 1 GB of memory, and SCSI hard drives, you may never run into a problem. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top