• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Topic: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    Ok,

    I know I still have the keyboard thread going, but I thought this deserved its own topic. I had planned to get Sonar 3 Producer, but when I was talking to a guy at Guitar Center, he said he\'d just made a switch from Sonar 3 to Cubase SX, because of the main reason of being a cleaner working environment. The transport bar is supposedly a dream come true. Problem is, I\'m fairly comfortable with the Cakewalk esque setup, and I didn\'t like Cubase VST32, or does that program just totally suck? I\'ve never used SX, so I don\'t want to speak out of ignorance. Does SX use notation as well as piano roll? Does it perform better in areas over Sonar 3? I heard in Sonar 3, by the time you\'re done with a project, you have 80 windows open, simply because you have to close them to get to the ones you want. Cubase SX just hides them nicely. Anyways, what\'s your experience?

    Jared

  2. #2

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    Here are a few thoughts.

    1. Yes, SX 2.0 has an excellent music notation screen that you can do full scores, even publish with. Notation has been a low priorit with Cakewalk.

    2. The new transport is much more effective than previous versions giving you a lot of quick work opportunities.

    3. New features include a quick set up for multiple time signatures, Time Warp which enables you to quick adjust a cue if the music needs to be stretched (or shortened).

    4. For my work, I need to have a dual platform compatibility, which Cubase has.

    5. The ASIO 2.0, VSTi features are native to Cubase and the plug-ins, including EW/QlSO, just work great. The use of System Link or FX Teleport makes for an ideal system with quick expansion and the end of spending extra bucks on multiple audio cards and MIDI interfaces. And now in Beta, GigaStudio works great within FX Teleport. So you have the best of all worlds with Cubase.

    There\'s a good review of SX at www.audioMIDI.com that you might want to read. I have nothing negative to say about Sonar, it\'s just that I\'ve been a Cubase user for a lot of years and really enjoy working with it.

  3. #3

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    Originally posted by peter269:


    5. The ASIO 2.0, VSTi features are native to Cubase and the plug-ins, including EW/QlSO, just work great. The use of System Link or FX Teleport makes for an ideal system with quick expansion and the end of spending extra bucks on multiple audio cards and MIDI interfaces. And now in Beta, GigaStudio works great within FX Teleport. So you have the best of all worlds with Cubase.

    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Peter, are you saying with FX Teleport, I can have SX on one machine, Giga on another, and play Giga tracks into SX and still maintain discrete tracks in SX?

  4. #4

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    CUBASE SX!

    You WILL NOT regret it... I used to use Cakewalk, but got SX about 6 months ago and have never looked back.

    I\'ve been hearing good things about Sonar, but Cubase makes everything SO easy...

    Just my 3 cents [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

    AL

  5. #5

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    CubaseSX/Nuendo 2 all the way!

  6. #6

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    I have only seen very little of Sonar 3 so I can\'t really compare Sonar 3 and SX2. I CAN however compare Logic and SX2. And I must say I have yet to find a more frustrating piece of software than Cubase SX. It kills my inspiration, it crashes much more frequently than Logic, it is terribly slow at basic operations like solo\'ing a track and there are a lot of bugs that gets in the way of my workflow. I planned to jump from Logic to SX and bought SX - after having used it on a few projects, I am migrating back to Logic again. Yes I\'ll miss the offline bouncing and proper implementation of multitimbral VSTi\'s and FX Teleport doesn\'t go well with Logic either. However Logic is such a breeze to work in and very rarely crashes. SX2 has been quite a headache for me. Maybe some day when they get the bugs out of it (if ever) I\'ll reconsider, but for the time being it\'s Logic as much as possible. And then I\'ll check out Sonar 2.2 and 3.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    Many of the features that Steinberg trumpets to the hills have been in SONAR for ages. Cakewalk consistently writes tighter, higher performance code. In SONAR 3, you get a far nicer set of DSP plugins and bundled content than you get in Cubase...among them, the Lexicon Pantheon reverb. It is sweet.

    SONAR also gives you the ability to do almost anything with MIDI via envelopes, on multiple levels. For controlling something like GigaStudio, it\'s excellent. The so called \"native\" VSTi support in Cubase, vs the way it\'s handled in SONAR is a red herring. The first time you run SONAR, it puts \"wrappers\" around all your VSTi plugins (nothing more than telling them where and how to \"hook in\"), and it\'s a done deal. You will never have to intervene in the process, and it is processor and user transparent. However, with SONAR you get the advantages of handling native DXi as well, and that has its own merits. Certainly, sample-accurate timing all around has been a SONAR feature since day one. Sonar\'s Track View his very highly detailed, and offers control that NO application matches.

    SONAR\'s mix engine allows UNLIMITED routing potential. There is no other mixer like this on the market, anywhere, at any price. Period. You can route buses, quite literally, in a tree structure, sending them wherever you like in whatever order or depth. There is no tie whatsoever to hardware mixers in structure...only Reaktor allows more flexible routing. Cubase\'s mixer, on the other hand, doesn\'t even offer the flexibility of hardware...it is a very preconceived structure.

    If that interests you, it\'s a reason to have a serious look at SONAR. If you respect a high-achieving, independant development team, you should also get to know Cakewalk. These guys are brilliant, accessible, and personable. They work hard and play hard, have families, and have an intense devotion to their users. They are quality people, top to bottom. They rarely fall into the \"feature of the month\" rut, preferring to keep their code clean, on-track, and steadily progressing.

    I cannot count the times I have tried to like Cubase. I have not gotten into SX, simply because I reached the end of my rope. For every \"golden\" version Steinberg releases, they manage to release five that are so buggy they boggle the imagination and confound the creative urge. Other times, I am simply baffled at Steinberg\'s development proirities. Multiple levels of undo took ages to achieve, and then they made it a bullet point in ads, like it was some stroke of genius!!

    But those are my opinions on how the programs work for me...and whose efforts I choose to support.

    What I think is that you should not take anyone\'s word for this. Download demos of both programs, find users of each and GO SEE their setups in action. That will inform you much more than hearing who likes what, in a forum like this. People are going to promote what they use, period. But their opinions and work flow will not be your own. There are very successful users of both SONAR and Cubase, so all else being equal, you need to insert YOUR priorities into that mix to determine what best suits your needs.

  8. #8

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
    I have only seen very little of Sonar 3...
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Logic is Mac only, Sonar is PC only, how would you switch between the two?

    Cubase is both, and I have not encountered the problems you have, sorry to hear you got a bad copy...

    I was looking into Logic after my dark days with Cakewalk but then it went Mac only and I only have a PC...

    AL

  9. #9

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    On paper, Cubase SX 2 is the best sequencer there is - and in use its the most user-friendly. You can start using it straight away without so much as glancing at the manual. The problem is is that its about as stable as a pin balanced on the end of my finger. Every new release from Steinberg is full of bugs and you only have to check the forums to see this. They do get fixed though but basically Simon is right.

    You should go with Logic really. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

  10. #10

    Re: Sonar 3 or Cubase SX 2.0 ?!

    You should go with Logic really. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [/QB]
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">But I don\'t have a MAC!

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •