I Have Sonar X1 Up and Running Here...

[Anderton]

Any questions? I'm running it as a 64-bit app.

 

Just finishing my first X1-oriented Sonar column for Sound on Sound. I could just spew verbiage about it, but I figure maybe there are questions that should be addressed first.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Um... how's it sound?

 

(I really have no questions, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling)

[ekeys]

I know you have seen cakewalk evolve over time. The UI is a big overhaul from what a gather. How much more friendlier and intuitive would you say this is over 8.5. Thanks.

[MikeRivers]

What does it do that the previous version doesn't do? How could any program be less friendly than Sonar? What's important? It'll probably be another 5 years before I have a computer that can take advantage of 64-bit processing, so that doesn't matter to me. Heck, I'll probably be dead before I care.

[D Charles]

What do you think of the new 'Pro Channel' as compared to the Vintage channel or just the Sonitus plugs?

 

Is it way easier to get around in than the 8.5.3 version?

 

Would you recommend it to singer/songwriter types who play all the instruments and just do one part at a time?

[nat whilk II]

Craig - I've got a UAD-1 card which seems to give Sonar 8 (64-bit) fits sometimes...I even get bluescreened with some frequency. (Win7 on an i7 machine)

 

Have you tried any UAD-1 cards with X1? Any issues noted?

 

nat whilk ii

[Anderton]

I know you have seen cakewalk evolve over time. The UI is a big overhaul from what a gather. How much more friendlier and intuitive would you say this is over 8.5. Thanks.

 

It is a big overhaul. The way I'd describe it is like this.

 

Sonar has added many features over the years, and sometimes they felt tacked on ("I guess we'll add it on to this menu here"). That didn't make it difficult to use, but for example, there were several different places you needed to go to set up all the preferences.

 

It seems with X1 the main object was to make all those changes seem like they'd been included from the ground floor. The way that you can hide, dock, collapse, and expand makes the program "scalable" for different displays - its useable on a laptop, but really works great with a dual monitor display.

 

Overall I like all the UI changes, particularly because they weren't hard to figure out. The one exception is that they've eliminated all toolbars and consolidated them in a master "Control Bar." In some ways it's very cool, it's modular and you can determine exactly what you do and don't want to have at your fingertips. But you can't float the individual modules, and the Control Bar takes up more height than what I had before - thanks to the user customizable toolbar they had in 8.5, I had 90% of what I needed in a thin, single-icon strip along the top.

 

Aside from that, the UI is a whole lot cleaner and although things aren't always where you expect them to be based on using previous versions, they ARE where they should have been all along

[Anderton]

 

What does it do that the previous version doesn't do?

 

 

Really good channel strip

Very browser/drag and drop oriented - less loading via menus and navigation

The inspector is much more evolved, you can do a huge amount of tasks from the inspector without having to go to different windows or menus - they also copped the dual fader architecture from Logic, which I really like

Mini-menus on windows put functions related to a window in the window rather than having to go to a menu or toolbar

 

 

How could any program be less friendly than Sonar?

 

 

I've always thought Sonar was pretty friendly. The word I'd apply to Sonar X1 is refined.

 

 

It'll probably be another 5 years before I have a computer that can take advantage of 64-bit processing, so that doesn't matter to me. Heck, I'll probably be dead before I care.

 

 

If you use virtual instruments that load lots of samples in RAM, 64-bits is a Godsend. Using Electri6ity in XP is possible albeit compromised, but with 64 bits, it's enjoyable.

[Anderton]

 

What do you think of the new 'Pro Channel' as compared to the Vintage channel or just the Sonitus plugs?

 

 

Way better than the Sonitus plugs. The Vintage Channel is kind of a special case, as it's more of a "character" plug-in. ProChannel is more neutral than the Vintage Channel, but overall, I think it's one of the strongest features in X1. I don't feel like I have to use other plug-ins to get the sound I want. The dynamics are even good. Cakewalk did their homework on this one.

 

 

Is it way easier to get around in than the 8.5.3 version?

 

 

Yes, BUT only once you've learned it, and done things like set up screen sets to take advantage of the layout options. There are some things that initially struck me as WTF but made sense later on. For example, the Synth Rack, when docked to the left or right to take up minimal space, doesn't show several elements the old synth rack does. But if you stick it in the multidock (another cool feature, like the tabbed views in Sonar 8.5 but better implemented), then the program assumes you want to see a more detailed view, and provides it.

 

I also dig that you can do most functions with a single tool based on context. I never liked having to switch back and forth among draw, select, etc.

 

 

Would you recommend it to singer/songwriter types who play all the instruments and just do one part at a time?

 

 

I don't think Sonar has any particular mojo that makes it ideal for that application, but I don't think any other program really does, either. Certainly you can customize Sonar to be tweaked for what you want to do, and the Inspector would be a great help, but other programs can provide similar functionality.

[Anderton]

 

Craig - I've got a UAD-1 card which seems to give Sonar 8 (64-bit) fits sometimes...I even get bluescreened with some frequency. (Win7 on an i7 machine) Have you tried any UAD-1 cards with X1? Any issues noted? nat whilk ii

 

 

I have not used the UAD cards with 64-bit systems, only with XP. I have a removable system drive, and install Sonar on both XP and Vista-64 bit. The Vista-64 drive has only Sonar X1 and 64-bit Vegas. When I want to use lots of other stuff, I boot into XP.

[Lucky #9]

C.A.: What are the specs on your current computer and does it handle the X1 without a problem? Based on my machine, I don't have the strength to handle X1, according to what they have listed on the Cakewalk website (Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz/AMD Phenom Quad Core 9750 2.4 Ghz). Wondering if it will run on less than they have listed. Thanks...BB

[MikeRivers]

I've always thought Sonar was pretty friendly. The word I'd apply to Sonar X1 is refined.

I think that what I wrote came out backwards. I, too, think that Sonar is very friendly and was wondering how they could make it more friendly. That's all.

 

I hardly know how to play real instruments, much less virtual ones. But putting configuration things where they make sense is always a good move. I wish they wouldn't use terms like "inspector" though. That never clicked with me, so I don't usually think of clicking on it.

ProChannel is more neutral than the Vintage Channel, but overall, I think it's one of the strongest features in X1. I don't feel like I have to use other plug-ins to get the sound I want. The dynamics are even good. Cakewalk did their homework on this one.

This is a very good thing, and one that I think that all DAW manufacturers should aim for. But to go along with this, the users need to get over the "I need more flexibility so I need more plug-ins" thing and learn to use what the manufacturer gave them. I have a few outboard compressors and reverbs because those are functions that my console simply doesn't have. But I have only one outboard EQ because I'm perfectly happy with the one that Mr. Soundcraft gave me. I don't think I'll necessarily make better mixes with a Neve or API equalizer plug-in, it'll just take me longer to decide when to stop fooling around.

[WRGKMC]

I been using Cakewalk products as my main daw dating back to Cakewalk 7&8 and you're right about them tacking on new features as they upgraded, in fact some of the tools date back to their original versions.

 

I have one specific question about the Envelope tool. Its GUI has never changed and is just as glitchey and hard to use with a skinney pencil tool for writing volume envelopes and having no memory of the previous setting when you open it in any of the older versions which sucks. Its probibly the only gripe I have because I mainly use it to create silence between say vocal parts to eliminate noise. I'll use track view and use it to create an envelope based on highlighting the waveform and using guesswork creating the proper slope. The tool has no ruler marks and if you get it wrong, you have to undo the envelope and guess again where the best slope might be.

 

If the tool had memory of the last setting when you reopened it, or the ability to save the setting, or at least a ruler marking, it would be a godsend for fine editing.

 

So after that long explanation, has any improvement been made to the envelope tool? That tool alone would make the difference between eventually upgrading or just sticking with version 8.

 

 

Oh and the biggest question for Sonar users would be is, has the CPU memory allocation for plugins improved. It's one of the areas where Sonar falls way behind the competition.

 

I've seen the results of tests done with other programs plugging in multiple instances of a plugin to see how many could be run and frankly, Programs like Reaper blew the doors off Sonar in that catagory.

 

I'm sure improvemts there would also be a huge deciding factor for most current users. GUI changes are one thing. Most users can even deal with older tools and such. They been doing that and prefering not to have to completely retrain to do the same ald thing. Having better performance for the same hardware is something worth thinking about.

 

The rest is mostly fluff I can live with or without. Spending bucks to learn a new GUI is not worth the money, OIts simply a wow factor and can maybe save a littel time mixing and editing. If the only really new features besides the GUI are one or two new plugins, then I'd likely have to pass cause I'd likely be paying full price of the program for those two plugins only, and that doesnt get me there.

 

I realize there are deals for upgrading if you buy Sonar 8 now but theres nothing for the faithful users who got the program when it first came out. To me thats screwing the main customer base you want to keep. If anything, those people have made the company paying for upgrade after upgrade and the ones who should get a break on upgrade costs. I dont know of any business whose loyal customers dont get the best breaks, because its the easiest business to turn over because you dont have to convince them its a good product.

[Alndln2]

I realize there are deals for upgrading if you buy Sonar 8 now but theres nothing for the faithful users who got the program when it first came out. To me thats screwing the main customer base you want to keep. If anything, those people have made the company paying for upgrade after upgrade and the ones who should get a break on upgrade costs.

They do.

[Anderton]

They do.

 

Seems to me that being able to upgrade from Sonar 1 to X1 for $199 is a pretty good deal.

[Anderton]

 

Um... how's it sound?

 

 

Well check this out...major surprise. I was cutting some narration and there was a nasty clip. I zoomed way in and saw that three individual samples had "bottomed out" and basically created a gap.

 

I selected each sample individually, then deleted them. The distortion was completely gone! Like it had never been there in the first place.

 

Now THAT is cool.

[Anderton]

I been using Cakewalk products as my main daw dating back to Cakewalk 7&8 and you're right about them tacking on new features as they upgraded, in fact some of the tools date back to their original versions. I have one specific question about the Envelope tool. Its GUI has never changed and is just as glitchey and hard to use with a skinney pencil tool for writing volume envelopes and having no memory of the previous setting when you open it in any of the older versions which sucks.

 

Not sure if this solves your problem, but tracks now have an Edit Filter. If you have a zillion envelopes on a track, which I often do, it used to frustrate me to zero in on the right one for editing. With X1, if you do something like select "Volume" in the Edit Filter, whatever you do will affect ONLY the volume envelope...you can be as sloppy as you want.

 

Its probibly the only gripe I have because I mainly use it to create silence between say vocal parts to eliminate noise. I'll use track view and use it to create an envelope based on highlighting the waveform and using guesswork creating the proper slope. The tool has no ruler marks and if you get it wrong, you have to undo the envelope and guess again where the best slope might be.

 

Have you tried using the "Remove Silence" DSP function? This does what you want really fast. It's basically a noise gate where you specify the gate open, gate close, attack, and release, and voila - it removes the spaces between audio. I've also used this with percussion parts if I wanted to separate out the hits so I could move particular hits around a little bit.

 

So after that long explanation, has any improvement been made to the envelope tool? That tool alone would make the difference between eventually upgrading or just sticking with version 8.

 

I'm still exploring automation...will have to report back. The Edit Filter thing is a major step up, though, for the kind of work I do.

 

Oh and the biggest question for Sonar users would be is, has the CPU memory allocation for plugins improved. It's one of the areas where Sonar falls way behind the competition.

 

I'm not sure how I would test this. I've never run into the limits of plug-ins, I really don't use that much processing on my tracks...it just sounds that way

 

Spending bucks to learn a new GUI is not worth the money, OIts simply a wow factor and can maybe save a littel time mixing and editing. If the only really new features besides the GUI are one or two new plugins, then I'd likely have to pass cause I'd likely be paying full price of the program for those two plugins only, and that doesnt get me there.

 

Well, I'm a "time is money" kinda guy, so the new interface letting me work faster - even though I don't feel I've mastered it all yet - is a big deal for me, more so than the cosmetics. They're nice, but nicer cosmetics is not a reason for me to upgrade unless the UI lets me work faster.

 

I should add that the ProChannel is really compelling. I pretty much used the PSP Audioware plug-ins for this kind of function instead of the Sonitus plugs, but the ProChannel does what I need now.

[Anderton]

 

C.A.: What are the specs on your current computer and does it handle the X1 without a problem? Based on my machine, I don't have the strength to handle X1, according to what they have listed on the Cakewalk website (Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz/AMD Phenom Quad Core 9750 2.4 Ghz). Wondering if it will run on less than they have listed. Thanks...BB

 

 

My system is a killer PC Audio Labs 8-core (dual Xeon) machine with 8GB RAM, running 64-bit Vista. Haven't tried it on XP yet. I can't predict what systems it will run on, but my experience with Cakewalk's specs is that they spec the minimum required for a satisfying experience, not the absolute bare minimum required to "wake up" the program but not much else.

 

These days you pretty much need a dual-core machine...

[Anderton]

 

I know you have seen cakewalk evolve over time. The UI is a big overhaul from what a gather. How much more friendlier and intuitive would you say this is over 8.5. Thanks.

 

 

Well...I would say the interface is more logical, which to me translates as friendlier. At first, things didn't seem in the right place and it was kinda confusing. But as I worked with X1 more, my attitude changed where I felt that X1 had things in the right place, and previous versions had them in the wrong places.

[ADSilva]

 

My system is a killer PC Audio Labs 8-core (dual Xeon) machine with 8GB RAM, running 64-bit Vista. Haven't tried it on XP yet. I can't predict what systems it will run on, but my experience with Cakewalk's specs is that they spec the minimum required for a satisfying experience, not the absolute bare minimum required to "wake up" the program but not much else. These days you pretty much need a dual-core machine...

 

 

I had the same concerns, since I am running a 3 year old Sony Laptop and really don't want to upgrade my system for at least another year or two (early to mid 2012).

 

My current system is a Sony VAIO VGN-SZ360P Notebook PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 (2.00 GHz), 2 GB DDR2 RAM (533 MHz), NVidia GeForce GO 7400 (128 MB Video RAM) running WinXP Professional (32 bit) with SP3.

 

The Cakewalk rep emailed me that Sonar X1 Producer should run "fairly well" on my machine. What this means in terms of track count, plug-ins, soft synths and the like I suppose is a "your mileage may vary kind of deal," but "fairly well" is good enough for me to go ahead with the upgrade, since I can always fall back on 8.5 Producer if my laptop struggles too much with X1, and patiently wait for a year for the laptop with the features and price I want to appear on the scene.

[ADSilva]

Do you know or do you expect X1 Producer to work any better, worse (the same) under Win7 (64 bit) than XP Pro?

 

My current machine is Core 2 Duo running XP Pro (32 bit), and my next machine will most likely be an Intel i7 running Win7 Ultimate (64 bit) (I need ultimate for the Japanese Language tools that used to be available as a download with previous versions of Windows, but now can only be accessed by purchasing Ultimate).

 

Thanks. Always get so much from your columns--I have been saved a lot of time in frustration by just searching your name anytime I have a computer recording question.

[TBAKER1328]

On a new AMD X6 (1075) with 8-16G of memory, and WIN7, what kind of latency will I be able to achieve with X1?

[tecknot]

Mr. Anderton,

 

Can you give us the down and dirty and tell us if the Bakers have made any improvements on long standing bugs (such as copying envelopes) and features which leave much to be desired, for instance, routing limitations in the Matrix View or notation features? I want to know if Cakewalk has really made SONAR what is should be, "as advertised" so to speak. Too many times have I upgrade with each new version only to learn that it's features and functions fall short. Seems the more they add features the more legacy feature are left alone unperfected and forgotten. I'm sure you can relate. Can you give it to us straight, Craig(obi)? You're my only hope.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

tecknot

[SLY_Z_28]

im confused on what sonar x1 is...is it a new sonar daw program, it is an extension of sonar 8.5, is it a upgrade for 8.5, or is it something totally different?

 

 

- noob

[Anderton]

 

im confused on what sonar x1 is...is it a new sonar daw program, it is an extension of sonar 8.5, is it a upgrade for 8.5, or is it something totally different? - noob

 

 

Think of it as Sonar 9.0, but with a very different approach. The main change is a complete re-thinking of what a DAW interface should be, I think for the better, but there's also some tying up of loose ends...like having a real channel strip, and edit filters for the envelopes.