Tell Me - Is Sonar capable of competing with ProTools?

Architect

ILLIEN
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 3
Sonar is a very good recording sequencing package and is geared towards musicians and artists who don't have all the money to spend on a Pro Tools system but still want the high quality recordings.

There really shouldn't be all the debating they serve different purposes, Pro tools comes with dedicated hardware which takes the load off of the system bus and cpu to ensures low latency recording into your DAW and usually studios choose Mac over PC for certain reasons. Such as the typical PC user has to do a lot more configuration of their Digital Audio Workstation as opposed to a Mac environment were it's pretty much already preconfigured. You can talk to a lot of professional producers who will tell you that Pro Tools sounds thin and too digital and a lot of guys use it to record their music and come back out to a analog console to get the warmth before going to tape or whatever medium they choose. That's why Mucka explained to us about all the different tube compressors, preamps, etc that is used in conjunction with Pro Tools in professional environments, Pro Tools ain't coming out fat without the help of other processors. I work in a pro studio as an intern- so I'm not talking out of my ass I sit and help out in recording sessions all the time-i'm doing this to beef up my own skills and understanding of working in a professional studio.

Pro Tools is one of the best Audio Recording applications around that's it

Pro Tools can't compare with the midi recording capabilities of Logic or even Cakewalk Sonar point blank and yes Midi is very important to tons of pro and sem-pro musicians and producers.

Pro Tools alone doesn't make a recording "sound " professional and to be honest it hasn't always been so popular in professional studios but it seems to be getting that way and from the engineers I work with Pro Tools is easy to work with that's why it's so popular now.

Sonar is a bad ass program for us "little guys" because we have the best of many things in one program- loop based composition recording, dxi syths instruments to use rewire ability with Reason and other programs, the Mixing capabilities are even greater in Sonar 3 nice plugins and the midi options are very good-second only to Logic probably.

I wouldn't suggest everyone start using Pro Tools unless you have the money invested in it as it makes it easy for your clients when your working because they've recorded at another studios with Pro Tools, that's one of the reasons why Sonar wouldn't necessarily work in the pro studio is because it's not a standard and it doesn't need to be, for a producer all he needs is a tool to create his ideas very well after that sure use whatever is at your disposal to get the best recording if that means going to the Studio and using Pro Tools then fine, but remember you also need good engineers behind the sticks that can maximize the benefits of Pro Tools. They serve different purposes Sonar is a sequencer that also records midi along with a host of other things, Pro Tools records Audio point blank, so if you guys want to use to midi instruments and other stuff like that Pro Tools isn't the one. And don't be discouraged about cats saying Pro Tools is for "Real" production work because what does that really mean all the app is doing is Audio recording and Mixing nothing else!!! No Midi No, VST Instruments, No DXi, no native instruments type shit so yeah for final recording you can use Pro Tools but for Pre Production you won't find many producers
using it.

To answer the question posed in this thread in my opinion Sonar and Pro Tools can't even be compared they are too totally different animals- I would sum up and say Sonar for Pre Production creating your sounds ideas, they Pro Tools is there in a Pro Studio environment to capture your final recording and mix add tweak etc, not saying you can't do this in Sonar but some advantages in the Pro Studios in my view is the outboard gear used with Pro Tools and not necessarily Pro Tools itself. Let's compare Logic with Pro Tools or Nuendo which is on more equal grounds not Sonar.
 

themucka

"The man behind the Hits"
*** ill o.g. ***
WELL SAID.... THATS WHAT I WOULD HAVE CONVEYED... IF I NEW HOW 2 CHOOSE WORDS LIKE YOU...

PRO TOOLS... IS 4 AUDIO REC.. AND MIXING... IT'S NOT MEANT 4 PRODUCTION PURPOSES... UNLESS YOUR A ROCK BAND....

I MAKE MY BEATS OFF THE MPC... THEN REC INTO PRO TOOLS... DO A RUFF MIX... THEN I SAVE MY FILES ON CD... AND HARDDRIVE... AND TAKE IT 2 THE PRO STUDIO... 2 MIXDOWN VOCALS... AND THE BEAT... ON THE SSL...

THAT JUS ME.... NEXT SHOWCASE I WILL DROP AND EXAMPLE
 

Architect

ILLIEN
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 3
Yes please do mucka that's what we need more of on this site, instead of all the shit talk lets show and prove more tips scientific explanations on why one is better than the other.
 

vitaminman

IllMuzik Staff
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 1
Architect,

Thanks for the great post, having well written information like this is very useful to people trying to make a decision.

I've read through your post very carefully, a few things mill over when you get a chance:

Here's something I don't understand. A few people who (I assume) use PT all the time in a professional environment ALL agree that PT alone doesn't get the sound they want; they use external processors to instead. No one is arguing that this topic, I think we can all agree on the merits of external hardware.

But if everyone is using external hardware to do a lot of the processing, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having the farm cards? And if it does defeat the farm cards, what makes PT any better than a native system?

-------

Would I be wrong in saying that you guys are using PT not because it's necessarily better or worse than any other system, but because it's the same system being used by the studios where you mix/work? To repeat an unanswered question from a previous post, would you be using Sonar instead if the studios were all running Sonar? A simple yes or no, please.

------

Why is the PT mentality that it is only used for recording and mixing? I talk to lots of guys who went to recording school, got their PT and Waves certifications, etc., but don't know about pretty basic editing tricks which the software is fully capable of doing. You ask them about it, their response is 'I dunno, PT is used for tracking and mixing'.... I feel like saying "Come ON!!! You've forked out 15+grand on school, and all you can do with this wonderful $50,000 system is frigging RECORD?!?!?"

-----------

As for preprodution and post production stuff...again, I see the division between these two getting smaller and smaller, and this is where PT can really shine over native systems.

If I had a full PT system at my disposal, I would be running nothing but virtual synths/samplers...and I mean LOTS and LOTS of them, and making my tracks completely from scratch in the computer. Sure, I'd use hardware as well, especially my analogue synths, but for the digital stuff I don't see the point of tracking stuff when you can in theory have it at your disposal in software.

I've used it before, there are a buttload of great editing tools and plugs; if someone let me loose in a big PT suite with no synths or other instruments, I would still be able to make some of the weirdest shit known to man, just like I would in Cubase or Sonar.

Those who have had the misfortune of listening to my music will understand...:D

There should be no excuse now that PT supports Rewire and companies are writing TDM and RTAS synth plugs, and I hear from the die hard fans that the MIDI is getting better and better, I'm sure it's already beyond what most people are able to get their heads around.


Mucka,

I'm sure you can choose words like Architect, but when you BREAK...UP ALL YOUR....SENTENCES WI .....PERIODS.... SPACES
, AND INCOMLET OR MSPLLDE WERDS...AND TYPE IN ALL CAPS, it makes it very difficult to follow. Seriously, it's like I'm reading a transcript of Stephen Hawking reading a passage from the Bible after getting a handjob.

Both God and Architect have basically said the same thing as you (minus the insults and bravado), the only thing they have done differently is follow the basic rules of written language. They have also taken the time to think out what they want to say and put into a format which is easy to follow by grouping similar thoughts into paragraphs, respecting subject-verb agreement, starting sentences with capital letters and ending them with punctuation, etc.

Some of us really want to know what you think, but you make it hard for us!

Take care,

Nick
 

Shonsteez

Gurpologist
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 33
WOW!?!
Hey thank all you guys for contributing so much information to this thread. I really appreciate it, plus ive learned alot of other stuff that coinsides with tha initial topic that also turned out to be very helpful......
Maybe someday i'll have tha opportunity to try out such an expensive system as well and put it to tha test?......As for now, i def. need to start my small journey towards creating better filtered music by buying a new soundcard instead of using tha MME that is provided with my computer...
Someone mentioned that tha audiophile is good a while back - thats funny cuz earlier i was considering that one if i bought one that must be installed...But then i decided to maybe take a chance on tha firewire 410 - and im pretty sure im gonna get it now, i just gotta figure out where tha cash is gonna come from?LOL.
Thanks again guys!


Steeze
 

themucka

"The man behind the Hits"
*** ill o.g. ***
@vitaminman... YAWNNN...

as usual faque... deliberately i don't know...
i know alot of people who will use jus pro tools alone.. with pro control

if you have the tools available why not... woudn't use a tube tech... or a real dbx subharmonizer.. rather than what sonar provides...

cmon.. your the one with the arrogant BRAVADO... WAKE UP..

i do alot of mixes.. all pro tools... and the came out tight...

i say put a mix you did with vocals on sonar...
and i'll put one i did on PRO TOOLS...

AND WILL SE WHOSE SOUND TIGHTER AND FULLER...

ALL YOU DO IS TALK IS TALK... TALK...

LIKE CUZ YOU A MODERATOR HERE YOUR ALL KNOWING... PLEASE...

TIGHTEN UP.. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.. I'M REAL WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT... ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS I'M OUT 2 HELP... YOU THINK I NEED 2 WAIST MY TIME ARGUING,... THAT'S WHY I LEFT THE 1ST TIME....
YOU GUYS AIN'T ABOUT ELEVATING...
YOU GUYS LIKE MAINTAINING AND ATTITUDE... LIKE WERE WRONG FOR ARGUING..

EVERYBODY GOT SOMETHING AGAINST ANYTHING THAT COST MORE 1G HERE
THATS THE TRUTH LOOK AT YOUR THREADS...

IF THIS WAS FOR UPCOMERS YOU WOULD WANT THEM 2 KNOW THE TIGHTEST HIGH END... EQUIPMENT... NOT THE SAME CHEAP STUFF THAT ALL THE ROOKIES USE PEACE..

YALL CAN HAVE IT BACK... I WOULD HAVE LIKE 2 HELP MORE
 

God

Creator of the Universe
*** ill o.g. ***
Dear Vitaminman:

You are putting assumptions on my part into the argument as you've claimed to decipher my post. I do not mean to be accusatory, but simply hope that what I will say will facilitate positive discussion further.

1. Your obvious misquote is stated in the following, and I don't think you understood what I actually said:

The hardware interfaces that Digidesign manufacture sound better than a lot of third-party cards. God feels that this is a critical element in a system which isn't discussed enough.
What I stated was that CONVERTERS aren't discussed enough as an argument in soundquality. Benchmark and Swissonics if placed on a SONAR system, would obviously increase the quality from a standard card, which is a subjective thing, that's why you pay $400 a channel for Benchmarks. That's great, I know that! I never said that Digidesign native converters are the standard or best. You simply assumed this. Please don't do that. That is subjective, honestly, I always try to get good converters in gear for everything I do. In fact, cheaper converters can "colour" your sound better to get a specific sound out of a synth you want, etc.

I'm trying to show the upside and downsides of BOTH programmes.

If you look at what I was saying, I actually was supporting SONAR if you want "good sound quality" if you have good converters. That's also why I assume you didn't form your argument on sound quality on the way too-high sample rate of 192kHz that TDM 6.x has. You stayed out of that quite nicely, when it is obvious I understand that Digidesign keeps making insane sample rates which are beyond the range of human hearing in order to foster consumer mentality. Thus, I have a good grasp on the garbage sound quality argument that is a subjective thing and I refuse to get into the "warm" or "better" sound argument.

2. I think you overlook "stability" massively. If I have a huge recording session with a band or an artist, I will choose HD because it is more stable. True PT software crashes, but not nearly as much as Native Softwares do. You have to agree with me on that, Vitaminman. That's why, if there is money on the line, and I have a time frame to get X down, then HD is more stable and that's what I choose.

3. My understanding that this was about SONAR w/o any other DSP allocation. If you want to redefine the situation, then do it. I think that using other rack-mounted computers to run VST instruments, etc., and have it allocated off the system the native software is using, is a good thing that ALL people using Native Softwares (like Cubase, SONAR) should consider, since computers are cheaper now, and many of the older computers can relegate processes to their systems without taxing the master computer.

4. I process a lot of effects, and you make it seem like a secondary thing that is not "as necessary." I have a lot of things running, and do not want to be limited by the amount of audio channels I can use, because my computer can't handle it. I want to isolate different cymbals etc, on different channels, and HD lets me do that without problem.

What were the most tracks running w/processing you've used on a Native Software, before you had to start bouncing tracks or throwing stuff around? I don't want to deal with the time wasted on that. I want it to do everything I want it to do real time, all at once, and not deal with incidences that cut into my time.

5. I also made it clear that Digidesign offers a planned obsolescence that is very expensive and sucks people into it. In the culture I am in, where I have to learn to use what the studio owners, or a band wants me to use because their contract has the garbage stated in it (Believe It!) I have to know how to use it. So, I AM FORCED, to use it. So, I have to use it, even though I DO KNOW that I can do everything in SONAR, CEP, or any sequencer, because I am confident in my skills.

Here's a visual:

PT introduced--------------Native Softwares get better-------Parity Almost

early 90's---------------------mid/late 90's--------------------------2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When PT was introduced, it was great, and people bought into the system. And through its evolution, as Native Softwares got better, then there was competition from the lower end... this parity is almost reduced, and Digidesign has to cater to this market, as well as make the high end gear seem better. Digidesign then introduces 192kHz which is unnecessary, and all "pros" wanting to be different, and also, to have the "larger phallus" purchase this. Therefore, people need to know how to use it, and I sit in my studio with a beer, and figure it out, when the version before was fine with me.

I still think that stability is an issue. I've run HD for really long tenures, w/o crashing.

The point:

SONAR IS A BETTER VALUE, it is the future. But if I have the resources and money to have HD now, because I find SONAR to be inconvenient, then I will go with HD.

Digidesign is the past, but has advantages over Sonar, due to Farmcards and stability, which will soon become less pronounced if processors get faster and better, and handle the computations in the code better.

You still have to admit that any allocation of resources from CPU to a DSP will always be better than having it based on the native CPU. Maybe it will get so small, that it won't matter. I wait for the day.

Trust me, Digidesign is a great marketer, it's got a lot of people brainwashed with their low-end stuff. I am skeptical of you saying that SONAR is better than HD, and you can say I'm "brainwashed" with the HD... no, hopefully what I've said is a way of saying that both are great programmes. Costwise, Sonar is a better value, but if I have the money, then why have to bother with limiting my audio tracks because of lack of CPU power? Your way of recording is different than mine, and each producer has a different way... is there a problem if I run too much real-time FX processing from Farmcards that SONAR w/o help from a rack-mount computer to allocate resources can't handle?

I'm with you, from a common sense perspective, if you start allocating resources out to DSPs from SONAR... then well, DIGIDESIGN has a PROBLEM, and can't charge $40K for their garbage.

Sincerely,
God
 

vitaminman

IllMuzik Staff
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 1
God,

Thanks for the reply!

1. That was a summary of what you and mucka had said about cards, maybe I should have written:

"mucka feels that Digidesign hardware interfaces better than a lot of third-party cards; God feels that convertors are a critical element of a recording system which people don't focus enough energy on." Is this fair?

My comment about the converters was made under the assumption that they are one and the same as interfaces. If I'm not mistaken, convertors are the electronic elements found in an audio interface which do the actual a/d and d/a conversion; the audio interface is the the entire package in a metal housing consisting of 8 a/d convertors and 8 d/a convertors, along with some other exciting stuff like buttons and lights. I assume that if one buys an RME interface, it is not designed to have its convertors swapped out with ones from a different manufacturer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And I completely agree that sonic quality is almost entirely dependent on the hardware used to bring the audio into the digital domain. There are things like drivers which can have an effect on the 0's and 1's as they're passed into the host software, by my experience tells me that this is a rare occurence.

2. I didn't intend to overlook stability at all...in fact, because I think that what you said about stability is 100% spot-on, I didn't make much comment on it aside from listing it as one of the benefits of a full PT system.

Oh, I know full well that native software crashes, and isn't it an absolute bugger when it does! I've been terribly lucky in that I take good care of my machines and keep the crashing down to a minimum, knock on wood.

3. I was making a list of the all the things that Sonar and PT were capable of. As the farm card was mentioned in a few posts (by you and mucka), and someone else had mentioned the UAD-1, I added it to the list.

As for running things like System Link on Steinberg stuff (I assume you're talking about this).....I'm so afraid of doing that because there are so many crazy things which could go wrong: multiple operating systems, multiple hardwares from different manufacturers, etc.. I've only ever seen it in use at the Steinberg booths, and those are so well scripted and controlled that I never know what's real and what's not. As for running only synths on a machine a la Gigasampler, that's next on my list to do with an old Frankenstein machine...wish me luck.

4. Yes, I did play down running effects because a lot of people who have posted here have made mention of using so many external harware units to get the sound they wanted. I believe that the quality of software effects that one can use on any system are about equal across the board, but the quantity, of course, jumps up when you have dedicated dsps to do the work.

Maybe they were referring to things like compressors and eq's on the external side, and reverbs and delays on the software side? I'd be interested to know how you (and mucka) decide to use everything...software reverbs, hardware compression? That sort of thing...

5. I think that everyone gets sucked into planned obsolesence, no matter what sofware or hardware you purchase; companies wouldn't survive long if they only made one good product. Syntrillium knew that if they didn't keep adding features and not supporting certain cards or OS's, current customers would just be happy with their version of Cool Edit 96, and potential customers would be drawn to the newer technologies of other companies.

It's a shame that people aren't happy with what they have, and a lot of problems arise from always wanting to have the biggest and fastest out there without fully understanding the power of what they have already...to comment on PT, I was amazed at how many radio stations here in Phoenix were using full blown PT setups to do their radio spots, which usually had no more than 8 tracks. Complete overkill, they could have done their work with the light version of Cool Edit that got bundled with Echo cards a few years ago.

Look at the hard drive market for example: you can get some pretty amazing ones (IDE), 7,200 RPM, ata 133, 120GB for a few hundred bucks, that will perform just fine for someone doing audio and a some video, but people who do only spreadsheets, word documents and surfing the internet feel that they just got to have one of those because they got sucked into the digital media hype of mp3's and streaming video across their 56k internet connections.

Larger phallus? What a divine expression!!! Haha, geddit? Nevermind...



I have never tried to claim that any system is better than another; my arguments here are that you do not need to have PT to make professional sounding music on a computer. The point of my involvement in this thread was to find out from people, especially the big-rig PT users who are fairly small in this forum, why they felt that their system was inherently better than anything else out there, and to do the same with the Sonar users. At least, that's my intention; whether or not this is what other people get out of my posts is another story.

What get's me so involved with these posts are the 'it's just better' arguments from people who don't fully understand the workings of how digital audio works. There isn't any magic, there isn't anything secret voodoo, it's just 0's and 1's. I try to present to people an understanding of how signals make it from the outside world and go into the 'inside' world...

One day I'll make a tutorial here to show people how to use Excel spreadsheet to do basic processing on an audio file to demonstrate that once inside the box, it's JUST NUMBERS. I'm going to market it as Direct-Excel plugins...do you think I'll get rich?

What happens outside the box in the analogue domain is outside my realm of experience and try to refrain from making any comments on it.

Mucka,

One could claim that I'm just snotty loudmouth who likes to write long-winded posts and strongarm everyone on the site just because I'm on the staff, but remember that I was chosen to be on the staff because of the amount of experience I've had with digital audio at the byte level and with different software and hardwares, plus the amount of help that I offer to people trying to get their feet wet. The staff are here completely because they like doing it...man, my favorite bands are Loverboy and Journey, what the HELL am I doing here?

I try to be fair, I try to refrian from blatantly insulting anyone, and I'm the first one to fess up if I misunderstood something or was wrong. By no means am I an expert on everything, and by no means am I the most knowledgeable here...but I do have an opinion on things which I feel I have a good understanding of.


Take care,

Nick
 
J

jamcity

Guest
Not to get into it...but both have good points....
digi oo1 & digi oo2...aint cheap....and it is a good card...just like my midi man...but i do notice a differnce. I own the nubus digi 882 for the mac and it rocks!!..clear and smooth...does not crash, smooth tools and smooth. I agree with "themucka" regarding that it is the Music choice in the studios...and if you would and could afford I think Protools would be the choice.

And I agree with vitaminman you dont' have to have protools to do the job. But it would be nice to have the right gear on hands.
Honestly I have not really played around with Sonar...I have played with the likes of Acid and Vegas....I can say that they have there flaws.....but I can't seem to put down my protools..
 

Craig Gantt

Microphone Violator
*** ill o.g. ***
Originally posted by vitaminman
God,


My comment about the converters was made under the assumption that they are one and the same as interfaces. If I'm not mistaken, convertors are the electronic elements found in an audio interface which do the actual a/d and d/a conversion; the audio interface is the the entire package in a metal housing consisting of 8 a/d convertors and 8 d/a convertors, along with some other exciting stuff like buttons and lights. I assume that if one buys an RME interface, it is not designed to have its convertors swapped out with ones from a different manufacturer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

ok....you lost me right about here:headbang: :crazy:

The bliking lights and bottons thing wa funny though lol
 

God

Creator of the Universe
*** ill o.g. ***
Dear Vitaminman:

For setup for an RME digiface configuration, Swissonic has a great visual:

http://www.swissonic.com/system_builder/rme.html

You'll also see an RME digiface and HD configuration that they give you... but there are studio design companies with which you work with when building or adding to a studio, because they give you great monetary deals on customising a setup like HD specifically for you, the customer.

I assume you would understand AD DA conversion if you worked with a lot of hardware like you've stated, and digital audio down to the "byte." Why don't you look at the Swissonic website when you're on it, it has more information about AD DA conversion than I wish to spout off here as well as different configurations available.

I think that people underrate jitter in converters, because most people don't really know about it. What matters is how the numbers, as you've eloquently stated, are created.

Another thing I'd like to point out:
Would you record a band or a group on SONAR if a record company gave you 300,000 Dollars and you had a specific deadline to hit, which is usually short and pressure-ridden?

Would you deal with the crashes that Native Softwares would usually bring around during the recording process? Would that be convenient, if you had the money? Would people give you a lot of money to record/produce them, when they stand around and wait for a programme to boot up again, or there is a bug that causes problems in an unstable Windows Native programme? They wouldn't take you seriously if there was a lot of crashing.

That's why I've stated that a lot of people on this site aren't in those sitautions, and SONAR is a better value. You have already said you understand the crashing element of Native Softwares. I know of the downsides of PT as well.

You could say, jokingly, that you'd record in SONAR natively, and take the extra money you'd spend on HD and pocket it. But what if you had to things like this day in and day out on a SONAR system. How many times would it crash. It would simply be a headache, as well as bouncing tracks because the native computer can't fully automate all the tracks I use, or run them simultaneously.

Vitaminman, I've done a lot of things for different people and companies, and seen and heard a lot of stuff from people in the music business. I don't necessarily care for where a person has been or who a person is, because a lot of stuff is "talk" in the music industry. However,you are extremely knowledgeable, and from you posts, I could already discern that you knew a gargantuan amount of things about digital audio, as well as your association with it in a professional manner. I never doubted it, or doubted your knowledge. I can see you are not just all "talk." However, you add "quizlike" questions to which the answers you know already. Because, I presume, you'd know from the type of answers you've given in other posts. They seem moot to the discussion, like your RME question and the Excel comments. I understand your points and don't doubt you or your comments.

Just curious, how many channels of audio can you support on your Native Software before you start bouncing audio tracks or grouping them onto one channel, Vitaminman?

I am simply here to facilitate discussion, blinking lights and all.

Sincerely,
God
 

fame_keyz

ILLIEN
*** ill o.g. ***
Check this out everybody if you was to put as much energy into getting your skills as yall have into proving why this is better then the next yall might get a chance to have the money to do and use what the hell yall feel good using. Theres gona be top of the line stuff and theres gona low level stuff but i dont care if your using cool edit, sonar or pro tools hd if your skills on the beats suck it will show and if you skills are good somebodys gona to pay to get your music on the best so unless we all are triing to open a up a full time for business studio just get something that will get the point across with no hissss and show that you have skills......Thats what its really about.....Sound is great but we all are at the bottom we all unknown and i dont think pro tools is gona get you a deal. Maybe understanding it might keep you around in the studio a lil longer but lets be real at the end of the mix nobodies really letting any of our wet behind the ear asses touch the last mix anyways. Use what you feel good cause music will come out the best when you feel good using your tools.
 

vitaminman

IllMuzik Staff
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 1
Hey,

Again, thanks for the reply.

I misunderstood the term 'convertor': I used this to mean the actual component, but according to some of the sites it refers to the entire box (blinking lights and all :D) which connects to the computer through another device, like an ADAT card. I suppose at the end of the day it doesn't matter, each component is important.

Checked out the site for Swissonics, I had no idea that people would fork out so much cash for something when they already have high-end gear with analogue ins and outs like the MOTU cards...I've just never needed to track more than 8 channels at a time, I guess for guys doing the BIG stuff like recording an entire band something like this would be a great idea.

I see that Digi makes a few different HD interfaces, my guess is that guys who want to use their own converters would get one with ADAT or other digital ports. So would someone with something like the HD 192 I/O still use different convertors when it has its own convertors?

Where it did make sense was with the Nuendo card (which I believe is by RME), and this is the kind of system I would eventually like to run: choose a PCI card which runs well with my software, and choose which convertors I want to bring my audio into the computer...what power! At the moment I can't tell the difference between all the lower spectrum of the pro cards and how they sound...I run a Delta 1010 and DSP Factory, to my ears they both sound great and they get the job done, but I hear people getting into heated debates about the Apogee's and Swissonics like the future of the planet depended on them...I just listen.

If I did get a card, it would probably be an RME because they have some sort of thing with Steinberg where an ASIO driver thingy is made part of the card, which as you can imagine must mean that there is about close to 0ms latency as possible.

Sorry about the 'this is who I am' speech in my last post, that wasn't directed at you. Thanks for the kind words, though.

How many tracks on my native system? I'm not sure,....I only use two physical outs of my 1010, but can run up to maybe 40+ mono channels of audio. It's sort of weird: in my mind I'm streaming all this audio, but in reality they're virtual tracks being mixed either by the CPU or card down to a single device which gets sent to my mixer...but when talking to guys who do a lot of 'real' tracking and mixing down externally, they all say I only have 8 tracks because that's how many outputs my card has.

As for grouping, I only group when trying to be efficient with something like a reverb or when I want to control a bunch of stuff with a single fader, this is all done by the software.

I've never ever bounced tracks. Probably should have a few years ago when my machine wasn't so fast, but it never seemed like a good idea because I was always wanting to change something. Being honest, though, I probably never bounced stuff down because there weren't enough tracks to fully push my system to point of needing to. Most of my songs now only have about 20 or so tracks (most of them stereo), and I will export things like vocal choruses as individual mono files so I can edit and mix them down to a stereo file in CEP (I like to do detailed stuff more in CEP than in Cubase) before bringing them back into Cubase to mix with everything else. This is done for simplicity's sake, though, as it reduces screen clutter and allows me to have everything exportable from Cubase. "Group tracks?" I hear you say... I don't like them, maybe I'm just not smart enough to use them.

As for understanding the actual conversion process of digital audio, I don't have a clue...We only cared about the numbers once they were in the box; the 'how and why' they got there was for the studio guys. We did care about the interfaces which converted the audio mainly because we had to make sure that we were receiving data from the driver as it was intended to be received...to us, the software driver and the physical interface were one and the same; you couldn't use Delta1010 drivers to pass data from an Audigy card, for example.

Would I record a band in Sonar if someone gave me $300,000 and a deadline to do it? I can't give you a fair answer on that because I know nothing about having to do that kind of recording under those conditions. I'll assume that you do (you lucky lucky person you!) and take your word for it that PT is the way to go.

There are plenty of people who claim that their native systems can handle that kind of work, whether or not they actually do is true is another story. I think that you and I do different kinds of recording and editing and maybe our own ways of working is suited to the systems which we work with. If you're working with 40+ channels of audio, you've probably surpassed the amount of tracks used to make the majority of hip hop tracks; at least, to my ears, it doesn't sound like most songs on our local hip hop station use more than 15, which is why I argue that PT is such overkill.

Mixing an entire album in a single PT session, however, is different; it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see a hip hop album using all sorts of tracks and effects.

Quizlike questions? You bet. Playing devil's advocate gets people talking and hopefully we can teach and learn something together. Do I know the answers? I'll have an answer, but I don't know all the time if it is the right one. Look at this thread for example, there has been some pretty good discussions here, I've certainly learned a thing or two and some other people have picked up some information on the way. Do I come across like an ass? Most definitely, and that's why Illmuzik pays me the big dollars :dance:

Take care,

Nick
 

h2flow

Member
*** ill o.g. ***
Hmmm,... In my opinion I would defineitly opt for a protools HD or TDM
set up over sonor and some other card.....

In my opinion software and hardware go hand in hand.....
The protools HD and TDM set up seem to offer a good implementaion of the two together.

Personally I don't like the digi 01,....There are more economical approaches for consumers at that level...

I agree with god that a/d convertors are an extremely important factor in hardware(sound cards)......

good looking out, god for that swissonic link......im going to check it out..

Even though Mucka seems to be arrogant at times, He does in fact bring up some good points...

If you serious about music,....sometimes you gotta put money where your mouth is....and invest in good gear.........

hey vitaminman,....
I own a dsp factory but I busted the ax44,.... I'll proablly still try to fix it.....I was wondering what about the the delta 1010,...
how does it compare to the dsp factory... in terms of straight recording(as god would put it in the A/D conversion)....The dsp factory has some decent built in effects,...but I'm not really interested in that at the monment......or mic pre's, phantom power,or etc....
 

vitaminman

IllMuzik Staff
*** ill o.g. ***
Battle Points: 1
Hey,

I really really like the DSP Factory, the only reason I switched to the 1010 was because the support for it in Cubase SX wasn't very good and the XP/2000 drivers were a little shakey.

The AX44 is installed in my old machine, and to be honest I never used it because it was inconvenient to have cables running out of the front of my machine.

The 1010 can record 24 bits 96khz and is has 8 ins and outs (10 if you use the spdif as well); the DSP Factory with the AX44 can record 20 bits 48khz with 6 ins and outs (8 if you use the spdif as well).

If you have a second AX44, you can increase those numbers, but I don't know exactly if you can go beyond 8.

You can run 2 DSP Factories on the same machine and they will sync with each other, and you can get the SX1000 card which is basically a hardware sound module on a card. Very cool.

The 1010 gets much better latency, mine is about 15 ms; I only got 30ms latency with the DSP Factory.

The 1010 is still supported by MAudio, the DSP Factory hasn't been supported for almost 2 years, although I believe that there are new XP drivers available.

There's more to the DSP Factory than just the effects. It's like PT in the fact that the card handles practically all the mixing and routing of your audio, provided that you route your tracks correctly in the host software. The 1010 does this as well, but it's not as flexible.

And those effects are pretty darn good: 2 sends, 4 bands of parametric eq and dynamics on each of 24 channels...its design was based on the Yamaha 02r digital mixer, which was a pretty big deal when it came out.

Take care,

Nick
 

Pankaj99

Newbie
Dear Vitaminman:

You are putting assumptions on my part into the argument as you've claimed to decipher my post. I do not mean to be accusatory, but simply hope that what I will say will facilitate positive discussion further.

1. Your obvious misquote is stated in the following, and I don't think you understood what I actually said:



What I stated was that CONVERTERS aren't discussed enough as an argument in soundquality. Benchmark and Swissonics if placed on a SONAR system, would obviously increase the quality from a standard card, which is a subjective thing, that's why you pay $400 a channel for Benchmarks. That's great, I know that! I never said that Digidesign native converters are the standard or best. You simply assumed this. Please don't do that. That is subjective, honestly, I always try to get good converters in gear for everything I do. In fact, cheaper converters can "colour" your sound better to get a specific sound out of a synth you want, etc.

I'm trying to show the upside and downsides of BOTH programmes.

If you look at what I was saying, I actually was supporting SONAR if you want "good sound quality" if you have good converters. That's also why I assume you didn't form your argument on sound quality on the way too-high sample rate of 192kHz that TDM 6.x has. You stayed out of that quite nicely, when it is obvious I understand that Digidesign keeps making insane sample rates which are beyond the range of human hearing in order to foster consumer mentality. Thus, I have a good grasp on the garbage sound quality argument that is a subjective thing and I refuse to get into the "warm" or "better" sound argument.

2. I think you overlook "stability" massively. If I have a huge recording session with a band or an artist, I will choose HD because it is more stable. True PT software crashes, but not nearly as much as Native Softwares do. You have to agree with me on that, Vitaminman. That's why, if there is money on the line, and I have a time frame to get X down, then HD is more stable and that's what I choose.

3. My understanding that this was about SONAR w/o any other DSP allocation. If you want to redefine the situation, then do it. I think that using other rack-mounted computers to run VST instruments, etc., and have it allocated off the system the native software is using, is a good thing that ALL people using Native Softwares (like Cubase, SONAR) should consider, since computers are cheaper now, and many of the older computers can relegate processes to their systems without taxing the master computer.

4. I process a lot of effects, and you make it seem like a secondary thing that is not "as necessary." I have a lot of things running, and do not want to be limited by the amount of audio channels I can use, because my computer can't handle it. I want to isolate different cymbals etc, on different channels, and HD lets me do that without problem.

What were the most tracks running w/processing you've used on a Native Software, before you had to start bouncing tracks or throwing stuff around? I don't want to deal with the time wasted on that. I want it to do everything I want it to do real time, all at once, and not deal with incidences that cut into my time.

5. I also made it clear that Digidesign offers a planned obsolescence that is very expensive and sucks people into it. In the culture I am in, where I have to learn to use what the studio owners, or a band wants me to use because their contract has the garbage stated in it (Believe It!) I have to know how to use it. So, I AM FORCED, to use it. So, I have to use it, even though I DO KNOW that I can do everything in SONAR, CEP, or any sequencer, because I am confident in my skills.

Here's a visual:

PT introduced--------------Native Softwares get better-------Parity Almost

early 90's---------------------mid/late 90's--------------------------2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When PT was introduced, it was great, and people bought into the system. And through its evolution, as Native Softwares got better, then there was competition from the lower end... this parity is almost reduced, and Digidesign has to cater to this market, as well as make the high end gear seem better. Digidesign then introduces 192kHz which is unnecessary, and all "pros" wanting to be different, and also, to have the "larger phallus" purchase this. Therefore, people need to know how to use it, and I sit in my studio with a beer, and figure it out, when the version before was fine with me.

I still think that stability is an issue. I've run HD for really long tenures, w/o crashing.

The point:

SONAR IS A BETTER VALUE, it is the future. But if I have the resources and money to have HD now, because I find SONAR to be inconvenient, then I will go with HD.

Digidesign is the past, but has advantages over Sonar, due to Farmcards and stability, which will soon become less pronounced if processors get faster and better, and handle the computations in the code better.

You still have to admit that any allocation of resources from CPU to a DSP will always be better than having it based on the native CPU. Maybe it will get so small, that it won't matter. I wait for the day.

Trust me, Digidesign is a great marketer, it's got a lot of people brainwashed with their low-end stuff. I am skeptical of you saying that SONAR is better than HD, and you can say I'm "brainwashed" with the HD... no, hopefully what I've said is a way of saying that both are great programmes. Costwise, Sonar is a better value, but if I have the money, then why have to bother with limiting my audio tracks because of lack of CPU power? Your way of recording is different than mine, and each producer has a different way... is there a problem if I run too much real-time FX processing from Farmcards that SONAR w/o help from a rack-mount computer to allocate resources can't handle?

I'm with you, from a common sense perspective, if you start allocating resources out to DSPs from SONAR... then well, DIGIDESIGN has a PROBLEM, and can't charge $40K for their garbage.

Sincerely,
God
beat making softwares trust me i used this it's free https://www.illmuzik.com/threads/good-free-software-for-beginners.39887/
 

konceptG

ILLIEN
*** ill o.g. ***
Talk about bringing back an old thread, but we know who won this battle. Sonar is a dead product even with band labs involvement and pro tools still rules the world.
I still use Sonar 8 PE for actual recording/composition and I have an old copy of PT M-Powered 7.3 I use for sending out projects.

Though in this day and age I don't really see these holy wars anymore. It's seems we've finally got to the point where we can use what we want as long as it sounds good and nobody cares.
 

illmuzik on youtube

ill resources

ProducerSpot
ProducerSpot
Top