They want me to use Cubase but I don't wanna!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teacher
  • Start date Start date
Teacher

Teacher

New member
THe guy at this studio suggested i used cubase cuz its format compat wit pro tools....but i don't really wanna learn a new software or leave my beloved cakewalk...are the any suggestions for transferring projects from sonar to pro tools?
 
Tell'em to go take a cakewalk!

Just kiddin'...
I really have no Idea.
Just thought it sounded funny.
 
Teacher.
First, I'd tell them what cakewalk can do, and that you are already proficant in it's use. Time and money would be lost relearning something in another program when you already know it and are comfortable and knowledgable in it.
Stress that the switch would take time when you could be teaching with confidence in CW.

Second, Ummm, I forgot what else I was going to say.
 
thanks but i still don't see answer to my prob....BTW i use Sonar

and as far i studio time i think its free...
 
In this town everyone is using Logic. It drives me nuts because every time I tell someone I use Cakewalk they give me shit about it. Pain in the ass. Anyway... just wanted to bitch and let you know similar things happen to me too.
 
It's easy to share projects between packages in .wav/.mid format, just write out each Sonar track to an individual .wav or .mid, and import them into your program of choice.

Naturally you lose any non-audio settings (i.e. tempo) this way, but I've found it mostly trivial to re-create them in the target software, unless the project is very complex.

I like emagic's logic but on the PC it tends to blow ass.
 
so are u saying if i save the wrk file as a mid file it will work on Mac version of pro tools?
 
Go with what you know!
I have them all (VST 24, Logic Platinum, Cool Edit ect, ect, ect)
But I always come back to Cakewalk. Personally I think it's the most user friendly. Whilst different software can open up new ideas and creativity, by the time you've figured out how to use it you've forgot what you where trying to do. If your comfy in Cakewalk then thats where you will be most creative and have the ability to get your stuff out of your head and in a track with the minimum of fuss. Everything else is dressing.
 
I ilive in the UK where CW products are difficult to get hold of. I would never change to Cubase. I have it on my puter but havent got the patience, puter skills nor a degree in nuclear science necessary to use it.

Check out this statement in Live! Centres forum on the same subject:

Author: Marty (---.defence.gov.au)
Date: 09-25-2001 02:46

Bduffy,
I have been meaning to post a topic to that effect for a
while now. I have recently become a Cubase convert after
using Cakewalk for years and while I now love Cubase it has
been a @!#$ fight to get it up and running and if it wasn't
for forums like this I would have given up long ago.

It seems to me though that while Cubase has SERIOUSLY opened
up new creative options for me Cakewalk is a far more stable
and logical program. My friends still use Cakewalk and while
I am dying to get them to come around to Cubase with me I
know that they too will have issues setting it up and
learning how to use it that they would never experience in
Cakewalk and I am not ready to become a support team yet.

The question is who is responsible for these latency problems
I now have to work around. Is it Creative, who promise
updated drivers (part of the reason I was convinced to buy
their card) but never deliver but who's drivers work fine
with Cakewalk and offer soundfonts as an option. Or is it
Steinberg who should make their software work seamlessly
whether you have ASIO drivers or not.

I mean what is the deal? And why do Creative bundle Cubasis
with the Platinum when it is clearly not adequately supported
without ASIO drivers.

I think Cakewalk rocks (but Cubase rocks harder), SONAR is
intriguing (though may still be buggy), and this whole ASIO
thing shits me up the wall. Personally I reckon if Creative
can supply ASIO with the Audigy it's time to release them
with Live Ware 4 and then the bitching will end.


So my creative juices flow with CW, as Alan's post says, by the time you know enough with Cubase to get you going, you've forgotten what you were going to do!
 
aight but the whole point of this post is to take a Sonar wrk file and import it to protools, i know i can export the midi files as waves but i'd rather keep it in original form so no to lose any quality recording on to computer
 
Teacher I think you would be wise to learn about audio file formats and how they relate to your work. But here is the brief summary.

Sonar essentially has two types of audio data, Digital Audio (also known as .WAV files) and MIDI (stands for Musical Instrument Digital Interface).

When you record by plugging in an analog instrument, directly into the soundcard or through a mixer or some other analog audio connection, Sonar records the signals in the form of Digital Audio. A guitar or vocal recording is almost always digital audio.

When you record using a MIDI cable (the sounds still come from the MIDI instrument, not from Sonar) the music is recorded and represented in Sonar as MIDI data. This is usually done using a MIDI Keyboard, internal soundcard, or other MIDI instrument. When you play back the song the sounds come from the instrument not Sonar.

To share a project, you must determine what type of data you are working with. Most people use digital audio. If that is the case you can export each track in Sonar to an individual .WAV file, then load them individually in Cubase or another program. This will keep your audio intact, but you will lose any parametric data like envelopes, mixer automation, etc..

If you work with pure MIDI, you can save out a general midi file (.MID) from Cakewalk and load it in Cubase. However your MIDI instruments will all have to be reconnected to the Cubase system for this to work, and you will still lose any Cakewalk-specific settings.

Hope that makes things clearer.
 
I, too, use Sonar and Cakewalk PA9. I have a good friend that uses Cubase. He and I are going to try a little experiment that should work. I've exported each of my tracks in a song from PA9 to seperate Wav's. He will import each wav file to seperate tracks in a blank Cubase file. They should match up fine. We'll soon see.

As for Midi data in your Cakewalk files, obviously you have to have Cakewalk Sonar or PA9 play back the midi instruments, and feed their audio back into another track on Sonar or PA9. Then you can export those tracks.

Tom Kemp
 
does no one see that i don't wanna use audio? cuz if any of ya know computer recording is the suckiest form of professional recording u lose alot of quality...that y i want the midi...i know the sound comes from the instruments when its midi i'm not an idiot...thanks for those that replied....even those that gave an extending answer cuz they felt it was necessarry (y i dunno)
 
Until you last couple of posts on this subject matter You never told anybody that you didn't want to use audio, but preferred Midi format only, so you don't need to get pissy about it.

Look, if you aren't going to use audio at all, then what is the problem? Does Protools support standard midi files? If so, there is nothing to 'convert'. You simply save the file as a standard Midi file. Save it as a Midi format 1 or 0 file...whatever Protools accepts.

However, if Protools is an audio program only, then you don't have a choice except to record the audio of your midi instruments back into a track for transfer into Protools.

Since you seem to be so smart and don't need our answers, you should be able to figure out this simple fact. Midi is simply just instructions, telling the instruments what to do. It contains no audio data. Therefore there is no conversion from one program to another. Midi is a standard...Midi Format 0 or Midi Format 1! If it has to be multitrack, well, Heinz already gave you the answer...so what are you looking for?!

You need to understand what a Cakewalk .wrk file is. It only a central pointer file. It ties the wave and midi files together into one synchronized configuration. Each audio track is a separate .wav file. These files are located in a workspace on your drive, not within the .wrk file.. Each midi track is a separate Midi file...so to speak. You can save files as .Wrk, or you can save them as .Mid Midi files...your choice. .Bun is simply a file that contains all of the files...so it's one big file. As for the quality of the sound, you need better equipment. It doesn't get much better than what a decent computer/sound card combination can do. The downside of the computer is that it wasn't built for audio work, and tends to have bad days when it doesn't want to cooperate...thus dropouts and crashes. The upside is much more power/capability than any other method of recording. I have a Roland VS-840 and Sonar. I prefer Sonar, but can't take it with me...

There...was that long enough?!
 
People gave protracted answers cos they felt it was necessary to answer your question as well as they could. Why? Because they wanted to help. Thats what they do in this forum.

Still, we'll all know better when you post a poorly defined question next time.

IMHO you didn't deserve such a good response as you got from tntkemp.

Sorry to have troubled you.
 
i dunno the "Professionals" @ recording.org....were bagging on computer recording bad saying u need to do tons of work to add depth i mean ALL of them none of them said it was better then analog or high digital gear...so the studio i'm going to uses high end digital gear so y i lower the quality and have more hassle sounding...better...this is the real deal kiddies not the fake studio, all i'm asking now does anyone know that a PC midi file will be read in a MAC protools?
 
Go find yourself a Protools support site.... Mac used to standardly use Midi format 0 files. I doubt that it is that specific anymore...that was years ago. I'll bet either would work. However, you need to ask that question of either a Protools support group or just browse to their website and look into support. There is nothing more that we can tell you....
 
True...i was hoping someone would of had the same experience thanks for the replies sorry if i Sounded like an azzhole my azzhole comment was just meant for heinz anyway, but i still apologize it wasn't needed well the way i wrote it anyway
 
Well Woop De Dooo!!!! Teacher, you just told at least 50% of the people here that our gear sucks. Guess what I've have been to pro studios with high end gear a few times. Ya they are great. Mostly it's the talent in the studio though I think. Also great is the hundreds of dollars that fly from your pocket by the day! My home set up sounds just as good or better than the dat I got last time I use a pro studio. I also have the ability to record at higher quality than a pro studio could dream of 5 to 10 years ago and lord knows all 5 year old digital recordings suck.?! You dont have to down the group to clarify your question. Next time correct your self and go on.

I would comment on the warmth and depth of midi but I don't want to offend any one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top