Cubase 5 vs Sonar 8

[Nebulous]

Ok, so I've been a Cu-endo use for some time now, but I'm now looking to "upgrade" my version. Sonar 8 has been offered to me, but I'm unsure if it's the right one for me. It seems to have a crap load of synths which I would be happy to utilise, has a similar layout to Cu-endo and is about the same price range.

What are the recommendations here?
For people who may have had experiecne with both, which would be less resource heavy, and which would be more reliable?

I have considered Reaper, but to me it just doesn't have the workflow and logic that I am use to, nor does it feel comfortable to do heavy editing.

All in all I'm after something with an easy work flow (check on both), usefull interface and simple editing options (I know that's a check for C5, no idea about Sonar), usefull MIDI and VST instruments (seems to be in favour of Sonar) and definately something thats reliable and doesn't put rediculous amounts of stress on my system.

Thanks in advance for any opinions and experiance offered.

 

[ahjteam]

Explain why do you need an upgrade? What you are missing with Cubase that you want? Don't upgrade for just for the sake of upgrading...

 

[Kazrog]

Cubase 5 is awesome, and is my DAW of choice. Haven't used Sonar much, since I'm a Mac user and Sonar is Windows only. I'd say that the simple fact that Cubase has full feature parity and compatibility on Mac and Windows is a major edge over Sonar in and of itself, especially if you ever plan to do any work in big studios.

That being said, Sonar looks nice and I'm sure it can do some cool things, but my overall impression of Sonar using it at a couple of friends' houses was that it was trying really hard to be like Cubase, mostly successfully, and had little identity of its own. A solid app, but I'm unaware of it having any particular advantages over any other DAW.

 

[Nebulous]

Let's just say that my "version" of Cubase at the moment is not a permanent one, which means there's afew too many crashes than I would like, considering I've got a larger project on the cards.
I know, crappy of me to have done it that way, I'd now like to make up for it but I want to go with the correct route.

 

[Nebulous]

Cubase 5 is awesome, and is my DAW of choice. Haven't used Sonar much, since I'm a Mac user and Sonar is Windows only. I'd say that the simple fact that Cubase has full feature parity and compatibility on Mac and Windows is a major edge over Sonar in and of itself, especially if you ever plan to do any work in big studios.

That being said, Sonar looks nice and I'm sure it can do some cool things, but my overall impression of Sonar using it at a couple of friends' houses was that it was trying really hard to be like Cubase, mostly successfully, and had little identity of its own. A solid app, but I'm unaware of it having any particular advantages over any other DAW.

Thanks Shane. I haven't really needed it yet at this point, so maybe you could enlighten me: does the current or any of the previous versions of Cubase have a multi-track editing tool which you can use to edit drums for example and have all the tracks edited identically?
A simple tool, possibly dumb question, but like I said, I've not needed it up untill this point.

 

[Kazrog]

Thanks Shane. I haven't really needed it yet at this point, so maybe you could enlighten me: does the current or any of the previous versions of Cubase have a multi-track editing tool which you can use to edit drums for example and have all the tracks edited identically?
A simple tool, possibly dumb question, but like I said, I've not needed it up untill this point.

All you have to do is group your drum regions (by selecting them and hitting ctrl-g), and the edits apply the same way to all the tracks. Usable for anything, not just drums. Every other DAW I know of does this, but Cubase's implementation is a bit more flexible in the sense that it's region-based rather than track-based grouping.

Also, one feature that Cubase has that NO OTHER program has is the Logical Editor - which allows you to do session wide batch modification of just about anything, it's very powerful and hard to describe, something you have to see or try to grasp fully. Cubase's Logical Editor has literally saved me many DAYS worth of time that would be otherwise eaten up by mindless busy work in any other DAW.

 

[Ermz]

My experiences with Sonar weren't too pleasant. It's actually clunkier in nature than Cubase, if you can even imagine that being possible. Neither have the editing power and workflow of ProTools. Neither have an adequate multi-track drum editing solution. Neither have such a simple and uncluttered GUI.

One to keep your eye out for is Presonus' new Studio One DAW. At the moment it doesn't have the full functionality of full-fledged DAWs, but the potential to crap all over Cubase (it was designed by the lead designers of Nuendo) is only a few versions away. Has mastering/sequencing functionality in-built, which is a really great boon. I loved consolidated feature sets.

As far as synths go, Cubase is quite good. Sonar may come with more, but the ones that bundle with Cubase are quite quality. You won't be getting short changed in the sequencing department. It's the multi track audio work, editing & track routing where Cubase will start to take a dump on your face. They still don't have mousewheel zoom implemented

 

[Stillborn]

Neither have the editing power and workflow of ProTools. Neither have an adequate multi-track drum editing solution. Neither have such a simple and uncluttered GUI.

That's what I would say about protools... To me, ProTools is only interesting in its HD form... And even that, I wish there was a Cubase HD that could run on its own DSP cards...
I hate working on ProTools, to me, it's incredibly tedious...

But it's all a matter of taste I guess...

 

[Ermz]

What do you find tedious about it?

I've always tried to develop the mindset of Cubase users that actually enjoy using it. For the record I've used Cubase way longer than PT, and as soon as I got into PT I found it immensely hard to go back. The UI is a lot more simple, there aren't submenus within submenus, the main functionality is right there in your face, the keys are already mapped.. you don't have to program all of them yourself. I want something I can install, load up and track/edit/mix/master an album with instantly. With Cubase I spend hours rummaging through preferences, key maps and whatever else to get it behaving in a pseudo-logical manner. It just isn't for me at all, and it's the DAW that I'm more 'seasoned' on. Let's not even get into how Steinberg constantly blow off their userbase and their cries for help or functionality that has been standard fare in other DAWs for years...

I have confidence in the new Presonus daw, after it spends a few years developing. I don't think they are aiming at the PT market. It's obvious that PT is the only tool for top-tier professional audio editing work, and for some reason no other DAW makers are trying to challenge that. The Presonus Studio One, if anything, will kill off the rest of the DAWs (with the exception of perhaps Reaper, which seems like to develop into something useful in a few years) if they play their cards right. They have a clean slate, minus all the bloatware that comes loaded with most modern DAWs.

 

[Stillborn]

Well, I don't want to hijack Nebulous' thread, so I'll be brief... Maybe it's a brain thing, I don't know, maybe my brain works differently than yours, and I feel more comfortable on cubase than I do on PT... Cause most of what you said about your experience with PT is what I like about Cubase, I know it doesn't make much sense, but still. I think it would be interesting to make a global survey counting all studios in the world... My guess (and it's only that) is we'd find that only something like 10% of bands go through a 100% PTHD production (granted those 10% would probably make 80-90% of the market) but the rest would consist of logic, sonar, cubase etc...

But anyway, to answer your question, the way I use(d) PT is probably wrong, but it's a lot of mouse work... Whereas in Cubase, it's a lot of keyboard work, which I like a lot better... There's also the fact that I find PT utterly ugly, really really ugly...

Honestly, I don't have specific problems with PT, it's just not for me I guess...

 

[Kazrog]

It's obvious that PT is the only tool for top-tier professional audio editing work, and for some reason no other DAW makers are trying to challenge that.

Uh... I can almost see how you could arrive at some of the other conclusions in your post... almost... but this statement is insanely delusional at best.

I would argue that every major DAW on the market has outpaced PT in every way, and that PT is constantly trying to play a slow game of catch-up. That being said, PT is still a strong app, and Digidesign is very careful about adding new features - always doing so very elegantly.

I can name tons of "top-tier" albums that weren't done in Pro Tools - including every recent Porcupine Tree release (Logic), Lamb of God (Logic), Meshuggah (Cubase), Hans Zimmer (Cubase), Textures (Cubase), Annihilator (Cubase), Depeche Mode (Cubase), etc... and I'm sure others can contribute plenty of big names of great sounding records to that list.

You're not providing supporting arguments or examples for what you're saying, and you're categorically dismissing the other DAWs on the market based on some sort of elusive, subjective criteria that is really just your personal preference. I'm happy that you have found a platform that you feel at home with in Pro Tools, but realize that your personal preference does not make the other software inferior. Every DAW on the market is incredibly powerful, and there are people doing amazing work in each program.

 

[GarethSE]

Which LOG album was done in Logic? :|

 

[Ermz]

What supporting arguments do you need? Should I take some screenshots of how many keymaps are done in Cubase by default, or how many sub-menus some features are hidden in? Maybe I need to show how limited the routing ability is... how I can't route my FX track into another FX track and do something as simple as routing my delay plug to a reverb plug easily. How about how long it took them to implement side-chaining into the VST platform, how long it took to get batch export functionality, the lack of mousewheel zoom, the amount of preferences windows, the amount of editors beyond the main edit and mixer screens. The huge row of mouse tools in the face of lacking a singular smart-tool, the lack of a dedicated, phase coherent, multi-track audio editor, the lack of playlists (track lanes don't count), the lack of a tab to transient tool (hitpoints don't count), the lack of track grouping (as opposed to region grouping.. and no, folder tracks don't count) etc. etc. etc.

Cubase is simply a DAW with a grossly clunky UI, aimed primarily at composers and programmers. The jump to Cubase 5 was a testament to that. The new features included a bunch of bloatware, but no jumps to free us up with the ability to create routing loops, edit multi-track drums, include a smart tool etc. There is nothing delusional to what I'm saying. The limitations of Cubase to PT, if dealing primarily with audio are substantial at the very least.

I respect that those releases were done with Cubase. I also respect that prior to digital many world-class releases were done on 4-track machines, and prior to that they were cut directly onto wax cylinders in real-time. That doesn't say anything about the software beyond outlining the artists' preference, and lack of need for the intuitive editing features of PT (if you look back you will see I was referring solely to editing with the statement you are addressing). There are people out there still working with ProTools Mix systems. It's just a matter of preference and the lack of incentive to switch over to something newer and/or more powerful. I also heartily doubt that Gavin Harrison or Tomas Haake need a substantial amount of drum editing done. For those of us who work with up-and-comers & inexperienced acts, which constitute the majority of artists out there, the ability to edit multi-track audio on the fly is an absolute godsend. The smart tool, beat detective, track groups & elastic audio are indispensable in that regard. What does Cubase have out of the box to match these? That isn't even a rhetorical question. I would LOVE to know, because then my purchase would seem somewhat worthwhile, in that I could use it for something other than pedestrian mixing and mastering work (which in itself is limited because I can't route flexibly).

 

[Nebulous]

Haha, chill guys

I think for the moment, given some tutorial watching, spec chasing and opinions stating that Cubase and Sonar are "very similar" I will stick with Cubase. I already have some experience with it, it's regarded to be one of the better options for MIDI and for the moment is my cheapest option as a legit purchase*.

Just to clarify that again, I have been using "Cubase/ Nuendo" for some years, though as of now I've not made any cash with my recordings. With a pending project coming up that will be my first local release and then hopefully working on original material next year for release, I thought it was only fair I purchased the product that has been so good to me.

* I've tried Reaper, but just can't learn to love it.

 

[Stillborn]

I think the smart tool should be called "retarded tool" cause it's really not that different from the plain "arrow" in cubase... Also, the elastic tool, while Cubase doesn't have it, to my knowledge, ableton's been doing it long before PT... Those softwares are more or less all the same... The "preference" factor is what makes the biggest difference. What seems intuitive for you may not be intuitive for others... I personally think PT is utterly NOT intuitive... But it's fine if it works for you.

 

[jhrv]

I've tried Reaper, but just can't learn to love it.

I've been a Cubase/Sonar user for years, tried Reaper one day and hated it. After a few weeks I decided to give Reaper another shot for a few days, Love It!

 

[Nuk3m]

Uh... I can almost see how you could arrive at some of the other conclusions in your post... almost... but this statement is insanely delusional at best.

I would argue that every major DAW on the market has outpaced PT in every way, and that PT is constantly trying to play a slow game of catch-up. That being said, PT is still a strong app, and Digidesign is very careful about adding new features - always doing so very elegantly.

I can name tons of "top-tier" albums that weren't done in Pro Tools - including every recent Porcupine Tree release (Logic), Lamb of God (Logic), Meshuggah (Cubase), Hans Zimmer (Cubase), Textures (Cubase), Annihilator (Cubase), Depeche Mode (Cubase), etc... and I'm sure others can contribute plenty of big names of great sounding records to that list.

You're not providing supporting arguments or examples for what you're saying, and you're categorically dismissing the other DAWs on the market based on some sort of elusive, subjective criteria that is really just your personal preference. I'm happy that you have found a platform that you feel at home with in Pro Tools, but realize that your personal preference does not make the other software inferior. Every DAW on the market is incredibly powerful, and there are people doing amazing work in each program.

We can name albums all day. Even with that dick waving contest PT will come out on top. It has NOTHING to do with what is being done on what. I wouldn't care if I was the only person using PT in the world. Names, numbers, the measurement of power have no say in this argument.

It comes down to a simple matter of work flow, logic and convenience. The fastest way to getting something sounding as good as it can.

Powerful? It could be a DAW created by God and it was so powerful you could mix new universes and galaxies on it. If it was as unintuitive as nuendo then its as useless as religion itself AND if God did use nuendo to mix “in the beginning” that took 7 days. Then he should have used PT! Would have taken him about 3-4 days less. He would also have been able to edit that apple tree and snake right out of there in one simple motion and saved himself some trouble. And maybe even cleaned up that dirty bitch eve.

But lets put it into REALISTIC TERMS for you.

The best way to put it into perspective is the scenario below:

Well get two pcs. Blank hard drives. You install anything you want. Ill get PT. Clean install from scratch. No importing any settings. Sterile hospital set up.

Lets make it interesting by wiping our brains clean on how to use each chosen program. Well get an hour for watching tutorials. Ill get through mine but you’ll have 2-3 DVDs worth left over.

And then well do a mix starting with drums. Lets edit them.

And to make it a bit more fair my drummer can be a monkey on crack chained to the kick drum with drum sticks strapped to ALL of its limbs, head, tail, and its dick I don’t care it can hit the cowbell.

Ill be done with my crack monkey freakout dick bell drum editing before you have finished assigning your keys. This is pure fact. No way around it.

PT has the most logical work flow there is out there. From adding tracks, punch ins, automation, side chaining (i dont need the menu surf for those) and thats not even mentioning how superior it is in the editing department. Hopefully the monkey was enough of a picture for you BUT JUST INCASE track groups, beat detective, elastic audio, AND PSYCHEDELIC TRACK COLORINGS!

Don’t get me wrong here I’m not some digidesign fanboy flying a big rainbow flag. I LOATH DODGEYDESIGN. I hate their hardware and their forcing the EXISTENCE of shit hardware onto my desk.

SOMEONE JUST NEEDS TO RIP OFF THAT PROGRAM SO I DON'T HAVE TO USE THEIR SHIT HARDWARE!

 

[Stillborn]

No offense but... are you the monkey on crack ?

 

[Nuk3m]

No offense but... are you the monkey on crack ?

So what if i am?:Smug: My molestation of the drums would still be fixed quicker on PT then anything i know of.

 

[Stillborn]

It's just that your post looks more like the rambling of a retarded kid than someone who is providing real arguments... And just because you're slow on cubase, doesn't mean Shane is... And just because you're fast on PT doesn't mean your sound is good...