Holy Overhead! Is Sonar 5 worth it?

maximum octopus

New member
Sheesh. I picked up Sonar 5 Producer edition and this baby gobbles up system resources like crazy compared to 4.

I have only recorded a few scratch tracks with it and I am seriously wondering if I just wasted my money. I don't think I can use this thing if it is going to be such a dog.

Anyone else have this experience with it?
 
maximum octopus said:
Sheesh. I picked up Sonar 5 Producer edition and this baby gobbles up system resources like crazy compared to 4.

I have only recorded a few scratch tracks with it and I am seriously wondering if I just wasted my money. I don't think I can use this thing if it is going to be such a dog.

Anyone else have this experience with it?

working fine at my end although I never had 4 to compare it with

what's your system setup?
 
ya it seems to be running fine on my 1.8 GHz PM laptop w/ 1 GB RAM. I have had about 16 tracks going with effects so far and it has worked fine. i'm really goig to test it this weekend though so we'll see.
 
Your post is interesting to me. I have never used Sonar 4, but I do notice that Sonar 5 seems to use more CPU than Sonar 2 for the same project. See the following thread:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=175656&highlight=cpu+sonar

There seems to be some debate about this because the CPU meter may not be accurate. However, it does seem accurate to me in one important respect: as it gets close to 100% I get dropouts!

One thing I have noticed is that with Sonar 2, the CPU meter was basically at zero until I started playing the project. However, in Sonar 5, a complicated project might have the CPU running at 30-40 per cent before I even hit play. The plug-ins seem to use CPU even when the audio engine is "idling"

Other people report that they find Sonar 5 to be as efficient or more so than previous versions. I never had any dropouts before Sonar 5, but on the other hand my projects are getting more complex with time--so more plug-ins, synths, etc.

One thing I do notice is this. I used to record at 24/96. When importing some of these older projects into Sonar 5 to re-mix, add plug-ins, etc., I find my system doesn't handle them well. With 16/44, I'm not having any practical problems.

You could always just continue to use Sonar 4--you would have access to most of the Sonar 5 plug-ins, with the exception of V-Vocal. Or, you could be liberal with your use of "Freeze".

I am still intrigued by this efficiency issue. I think I will post a poll.
 
I used Sonar 4 for about 3 months before Sonar 5 came out. I have, so far, found virtually no difference in cpu resources between the 2. However, I think workflow has an impact on this as I generally record in midi first and then bounce everything to audio after the midi is where I want it.

It would help us answer your question more accurately if we knew more about your system and setup.
 
jamie_drum said:
Your post is interesting to me. I have never used Sonar 4, but I do notice that Sonar 5 seems to use more CPU than Sonar 2 for the same project. See the following thread:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=175656&highlight=cpu+sonar

There seems to be some debate about this because the CPU meter may not be accurate. However, it does seem accurate to me in one important respect: as it gets close to 100% I get dropouts!

One thing I have noticed is that with Sonar 2, the CPU meter was basically at zero until I started playing the project. However, in Sonar 5, a complicated project might have the CPU running at 30-40 per cent before I even hit play. The plug-ins seem to use CPU even when the audio engine is "idling"

Other people report that they find Sonar 5 to be as efficient or more so than previous versions. I never had any dropouts before Sonar 5, but on the other hand my projects are getting more complex with time--so more plug-ins, synths, etc.

One thing I do notice is this. I used to record at 24/96. When importing some of these older projects into Sonar 5 to re-mix, add plug-ins, etc., I find my system doesn't handle them well. With 16/44, I'm not having any practical problems.

You could always just continue to use Sonar 4--you would have access to most of the Sonar 5 plug-ins, with the exception of V-Vocal. Or, you could be liberal with your use of "Freeze".

I am still intrigued by this efficiency issue. I think I will post a poll.


This is exactly the experience I have been having.

I have a Pentium 4 2.8ghz with 1 gb of ram and almost nothing else running on the pc. I am using an Echo Layla 24 in Producer 5.02. I have also done almost every tweak possible. A person should not have to work this hard and cross thier fingers when recording hoping that you won't get a dropout.

I am going back to 4 and waiting for more updates. Hopefully they will get some of these issues worked out.
 
the trouble is in this situation is that the software people blame the hardware and the hardware people blame the software... nobody is accountable nowadays
 
I have screwed around with the buffers to no avail. I looked over at the Cakewalk forum and it turns out that alot of people are having problems with the latest update.

I am just hoping there is a way that I can uninstall it.
 
I am going back to 4 and waiting for more updates. Hopefully they will get some of these issues worked out

Don't go back to 4, just go back to 5.o or 5.1 instead of using the new upgrade 5.2 version.. Your right alot of people are having problems with CPU in the new update.. that's why I haven't update my version yet
 
I've got everything from 2XL to 5PE. I had some minor CPU issues when I first upgraded from 4 to 5PE. After I upgraded the two patches, these have dissapeared.

AMD XP2 4400 2gb ram
Firepod
 
Yeah. I did the dithering thing right out of the gate actually.

I am happy with 4. I am just not happy about the money and the time I wasted.
 
Back
Top