POLL..... your recording/mixing seesion software

What's your choice multitracking software ?


  • Total voters
    128
To answer both questions:

#1) Why my business doubled: I switched from Sonar 3 to Saw. At the time, Saw had a far cleaner mix buss than Sonar's. I understand there have been updates to Sonar in the meantime, particularly to the mix engine. However, my mixes did improve. But that's not the only reason. Due to being written in assembler, Saw is far, far, faster. This allowed me to work faster, and produce a better product more efficiently. Thereby freeing up time to work with even more clients. It's not bullshit, I've got the invoices to back it up. I understand the assembler thing is quite controversial around here, but I'm speaking from experience.

#2) What can it do that others can't? Well for starters, You can cut 12 tracks of drums to a click, do six takes, stack them on top of each other, and then fly them in & out of the mix without stopping playback. It's also great for coming vocals & guitar solos this way.
There's the softedge feature, which drops a micro crossfade onto every punch in, so no clicks, ever. This is also customizeable to every region in the multitrack, with no limits on lengths. Massive possibilities.
Others: reverse gates for auto edits... sidechain compressors on every channel (not unique, but a great deal of Daws are missing this feature) the ability to link 6 PC's together via TCP/IP for massive processing power (maybe if you're doing a movie soundtrack, or using a laptop for remote control from a drum room) and, the most unique feature of all, it's programmed in assembler by a guy who's been writing assembly code since 1982. It's the fastest DAW in existence. Flame away.

-0z-
 
OzNimbus said:
To answer both questions:

#1) Why my business doubled: I switched from Sonar 3 to Saw. At the time, Saw had a far cleaner mix buss than Sonar's. I understand there have been updates to Sonar in the meantime, particularly to the mix engine. However, my mixes did improve. But that's not the only reason. Due to being written in assembler, Saw is far, far, faster. This allowed me to work faster, and produce a better product more efficiently. Thereby freeing up time to work with even more clients. It's not bullshit, I've got the invoices to back it up. I understand the assembler thing is quite controversial around here, but I'm speaking from experience.

#2) What can it do that others can't? Well for starters, You can cut 12 tracks of drums to a click, do six takes, stack them on top of each other, and then fly them in & out of the mix without stopping playback. It's also great for coming vocals & guitar solos this way.
There's the softedge feature, which drops a micro crossfade onto every punch in, so no clicks, ever. This is also customizeable to every region in the multitrack, with no limits on lengths. Massive possibilities.
Others: reverse gates for auto edits... sidechain compressors on every channel (not unique, but a great deal of Daws are missing this feature) the ability to link 6 PC's together via TCP/IP for massive processing power (maybe if you're doing a movie soundtrack, or using a laptop for remote control from a drum room) and, the most unique feature of all, it's programmed in assembler by a guy who's been writing assembly code since 1982. It's the fastest DAW in existence. Flame away.

-0z-

Like you said Sonar 3 bussing was lacking. But like you also mentioned they have fixed it. It is really good now. About 3 months ago I was on the anti- assembly improvment bandwagon. Ha, guess what. I am currently taken a assembly language class as we speak. There is no dought in my mind that it has the ability to be lighting fast. Did the developer of it make use of it? I don't know. One thing I wonder is if it is written top to bottom in assembly or is it just optimized. What I do know is two things though. 1. Assembly is great for sucking out every last ounce of speed. 2. Those who program in assembly have a lot of time on there hands.
 
adobe audition here. been using it since it was cool edit pro, i've thought about upgrading, but i know this software very well and i'm efficient with it
 
I like working with both Pro Tools and SX/Nu, but I feel that I`m getting more for my money with Steinberg.
 
I'm interested as why so many of you dudes use Nuendo...It's marketed toward the video/post-production/surround sound market with very little promotion of it's audio capabilities, so there's obviously something they're not letting on. How similar is it to Cubase for instance?
 
OzNimbus said:
the ability to link 6 PC's together via TCP/IP for massive processing power (maybe if you're doing a movie soundtrack, or using a laptop for remote control from a drum room)

Hey Oz that's great this thing, I mean I got and old pc lying around and I know that there aren't any daw (besides saw as you say) that can do that.
that would be great if others daw's as could do that.
I always looked for something to hook up one or more pc for having more power.
 
sparkyness said:
I'm interested as why so many of you dudes use Nuendo...It's marketed toward the video/post-production/surround sound market with very little promotion of it's audio capabilities, so there's obviously something they're not letting on. How similar is it to Cubase for instance?

To me, it's exactly the same. That's why it's kinda weird to have a seperate poll entry for Nuendo and Cubase.
 
Sonar user here. You can bet I'd be using PT HD if I had the cash. BTW, kinda unfair to put Reason on the list since it doesn't even record audio.
 
protools takes the lead :rock:

But i did just get cubase sx for midi drum editing but i cant use it right yet so no vote for that :goggly:
 
Sweetnothing said:
I use Sonar 4PE, being a PC only software takes sense, it's stable enough.
Midi editing on it is wonderful, and the audio things are ok.
I loved Logic, but Apple bought it and no more Logic on windows...

Me aswell and as mentioned earlier the effects group offline feature really saves on the CPU usage.

As far as price goes, the best bang for the buck in my opinion. VST / DXI support everything is there.

Fuck it even edits movies.
 
chadsxe said:
. Did the developer of it make use of it? I don't know. One thing I wonder is if it is written top to bottom in assembly or is it just optimized. What I do know is two things though. 1. Assembly is great for sucking out every last ounce of speed. 2. Those who program in assembly have a lot of time on there hands.

Right on all points: Yes, he made use of it. Yes, it's been designed from the ground up in assembly. Yes, it sucks every last bit of horsepower out of your CPU (it really flies on a dual core Athlon.) And yes, Bob, the developer, designs Saw for a living, and the program has been in development & constantly upgraded since the early 90's.


Download the demo & check it out for yourself.