Testing SONAR-XL, but having doubts (re: ACID 4.0)

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3des
  • Start date Start date
3

3des

New member
I'm testing Sonar XL, Acid Pro 4.0, & Cool Edit 2.0, and although I was leaning towards Sonar just so I could "grow into it", I'm having serious doubts because when I try to preview effects & processing or even apply them to a track, they take MUCH longer than Acid Pro (using the same exact effect plugins), and the real time processing is flakey on my system. Admittedly I'm using an older system (Win98SE, 600Mhz, 256MB, SCSI drive), however, Acid performs great on my machine, am I missing something or does Sonar just have a larger memory and processor footprint, or just doesn't handle effects as well as Acid??

Any feedback would be appreciated.
 
I should probably add that...

I don't do midi (not yet anyhow)

All analog in: synth, guitars, and vocals, as well as relying on samples and loops, which brings me to one other serious problem: Loop creation (or construction as it's called in Sonar), I cannot for the life of me figure out how to create loops in Sonar, yet in Acid it is a wizard that is so easy to use. I'm not writing to discredit Sonar, but to get feedback that might explain where I'm going wrong.

Thanks.
 
To make a Acidized clip in Sonar, just select the clip and hit Ctrl + L (if I remember correctly) or right-click on the clip and select "Groove Clip". If the clip doesen't turn out right, rightclick on it and select Properties. There you can tweak the groove clip to "suit your mood"... ;)

I think Sonar is more demanding than Acid, because you have so much more options in Sonar than Acid. Acid is just a loop based program, and Sonar is a fullblood multitracking system if you get my drift.

There's no doubt that if you know Acid well, you can create some amazing tunes. But if you know Sonar at the same level, I think you have more options for your tunes... :)


And remember A.C.K.U.S :D
 
Re: "...if you know Sonar at the same level, I think you have more options for your tunes..."


This is the reason I'm even pondering this question, because I'm relatively new to all of them, I thought it might be in my best interest to learn the tool that offers the most and then i could grow into it.


HOWEVER: I still need to get the lowdown on the effets and processing performance issues, to be honest, this is the #1 reason I stopped using Sonar and went back to Acid, I mean, it's really quite painful how long it takes to apply an effect in Sonar vs Acid (and as I said, the realtime previewing in Sonar seems terrible to, as it only allows a small segment of the track to be played, whereas in Acid I can play the whole song and constantly change and try out effects and processing while the track/song is playing. Again, perhaps I'm missing something, so hopefully somebody has more info on this).


Thanks for your feedback.
 
That's strange. I have zero problems with running realtime effects, or any other performance issues. I don't know if it's due to your slower processor, there's plenty of guys around who get by with what you have. All I know is, Sonar is the coolest app I've ever used. I think If you can get the kinks worked out, you'll see what I mean.
 
In Sonar are you right clicking on the track and applying the effect that way? Because that is doing it destructively which means it actually is rendering the effect and making it apart of your track. Which is why it takes so long.

Instead, apply the effect by inserting it in the pane on the left of the track view. This will do it non-destructively and you can hear the results in real time.

That got me when I first bought Sonar.
 
Let me verify this because I do think I'm doing the right-click approach for auditioning effects and processing, however, that still doesn't seem to explain why it takes so long to render once I've auditioned and want to apply the effect.

I must be missing something because the performance difference doesn't add up regardless of my processor, because both apps are running on the same machine.
 
3des said:
Let me verify this because I do think I'm doing the right-click approach for auditioning effects and processing, however, that still doesn't seem to explain why it takes so long to render once I've auditioned and want to apply the effect.

I must be missing something because the performance difference doesn't add up regardless of my processor, because both apps are running on the same machine.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Acid, as I am not familiar with the program, however in destructively applying effects, you must wait for the entire wave to be processed before it plays back. If it is just a small clip, it will happen fairly quickly. But if it is the entire track, it could take a bit of time (varies with the size of the wave, your CPU, and the particular effect).

I suggest you take the approach recommended by Zone Ahead and use the effect in a non-destructive manner. This is a more prudent approach anyway, since it does not change the underlying audio, and it will also allow you to preview the effect immediately - since you don't have to wait for the entire clip to be processed - just hit the play button.

.
the realtime previewing in Sonar seems terrible to, as it only allows a small segment of the track to be played
Click to expand...
The reason for this is that the default preview setting in Sonar is 3 seconds. You can adjust this up to 25 seconds by going to Options > Global > General. Look for the box labeled "Audition Commands for 3 seconds" and change the 3 to anything you want up to 25 seconds.

However, if you take the non-destructive route, this becomes a non-issue anyway.
 
Very cool, much appreciated info, I'm seriously wanting Sonar to work for me and your feedback is making things look promising.

The only other significant issue I've had was the loop construction tool was giving me some major problems, i.e. when I let it do it automatically, it always sounded wacked out, then when I went to the loop construction window, there didn't seem to be any intuitive tools to use, and definitely not a wizard. I did read the help files at least 2x, but maybe a 3rd time will do it, or maybe that is the one thing I'll need to use another tool for, loop creation that is, apparently a lot of you guys use several tools for different tasks, but for cost reasons, it would be nice to get most of it done in Sonar, which seems like what they're trying to do.
 
foor groove clip construction, make sure that the number of beats in the section is correct. I.e. if it is in 4/4 time, and you are trying to loop a section 4 bars long, make sure it says 16 beats. On short sections it is usually good, but if you get out to 50 measures or so, sometimes it calculates it wrong, so that when the groove clip is enabled, it is stretching it out to the wrong length.

Seriously, run through the tutorials, I have learned half of what I know about SOnar through those, and the other half right here.

When you check out effects, make sure you are inserting them into the FX bin for each track (ie in track view, there is an fx box, right click in that, and you get to fiddle with it all you like as fast as you like, but there is a stutter if you try to insert an effect while the track is playing)
 
Why don't you use both Sonar and Acid Pro? They both do what they're supposed to do quite well. If Acid is easier for you to make loops with, then do it and import into Sonar. Get a good audio editor(maybe Sound Forge), and off you go. Right now, I think you can get Acid Pro 4.0 from Guitar Center during their "blowout" sale or something, for US $99 after rebate. And for a looping program, Acid is very easy to learn the basics. That's good bang/buck value for a well-written program. I think Sonar is excellent value for the money as well. You will be able to do just about anything with Sonar, as it is very comprehensive. Try and upgrade your computer with XP, and at least 512MB RAM, maybe a 1.5Ghz processor or better, and you'll be able to do more with your projects. Good luck!
 
You're right, running several tools may be the route to go.

I'll experiment tonight with the extra info I got about loop construction in Sonar, but maybe keeping Acid for the loops will work in the end, it's just the expense issue, I mean, sure, if money wasn't an issue...

As an aside, I'm also testing Cool Edit Pro.

As far as the upgrade goes, indeed, I started spec'ing out the parts, perhaps I'll pickup a barebones as a base, though I really want to make sure I get the quietest fans, I can hear my current setup on quiet vocal takes because I'm in a small apartment with hardwood floors!

Thanks again for the info.
 
Attention Dachay!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could it be that Sonar uses more time to process audio-effect, just because it does a better job? Doesen't Sonar work with a 32-bit floating-point bitrate? Doesn't it take longer time to process effects if that's the case?

Or am I way off? :confused:
 
I would imagine that the effect/plugin would have to have been written to take advantage of any advanced processing algorhithims, and although I haven't done enough formal testing of the exact same effects side-by-side, the two apps are using the same plugins.



P.S. My first test using the non destructive left pane method that zone_ahead mentioned (instead of right clicking), worked just as well as in Acid. Thanks!

Now to run a couple of other tests (the one mentioned above: side-by-side with the same effect in Acid and Sonar)
 
WELL, USING SOME OF THE TIPS PROVIDED:

1. Loop construction: I created a loop in Acid & Sonar using a percussion kit from my keyboard, approximately two measures (I guess), however, by paying attention to what 'cstockdale' said, I realized there was probably some value in reducing the size of the source file first, so that it was representative of ONLY the amount I needed looped, as opposed to a 30 second .wav file. Well lo and behold, both programs seemed to generate spot on loops fairly easily and without any noticeable difference in quality and time to create! *I think the problem I was having in Sonar was that it doesn't automatically identify the potential looped segment in a longer file.

2. Side-by-side effects comaprisons: I Added the exact same Cakewalk reverb to the newly created loop, both in Sonar and Acid, and both actually seemed to take about the same time to render, and as I mentioned before, using the left pane approach makes the auditioning as seamless as in Acid (on a 600mhz, 256mb machine!). *

*I'll have to do a little more extensive testing with several tracks to see how long each app takes to render a complete mixdown with different effects.


Anyhow, I have to say that already the input I've received has quickly turned my opinion around about giving up on Sonar (you see, I suspect that there when I do finally embrace all of the midi possibilities and the whole realm of soft synths, etc, as well as more advanced mixing/mastering, that Sonar might have some functionality that I'd be missing in Acid)

Thanks for all the great and patient tips (trust me, I did read the Sonar help tutorials, for some reason, and as we've all experienced, it's having someone say the same thing but in a clearer form that does the trick!)

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