Sonar and MIDI

[flatfinger]

OK , so I was reading in the pro reviews about the latest incarnation of sonar. Craig says he's an old Cubase guy and had'nt had the time to compare them in the midi composing dept.

Before you tell me to use search, remember , they just updated again to a new version ; so let's hear it . How does Sonar hold up in the MIDI dept?? how about the tools and composition things like beat/groove Quanitize?

 

I'm not going back to Cubase after they f$##ked us on the last 3 patch and every time I've spoken to one of there employees they act like there slumming down to talk to a customer!

 

It's going to be Sonar or samplitude. I like samp allot , but there is a dearth of books and articles with tips and tricks. The forum is also skimpy. I don't understand , If thats a big program in europe why does'nt sound on sound have monthly articles like they do on Sonar??

 

Any comments to compare and contrast these to are most appreciated !!

 

:D

:D

[blue2blue]

I can't decide where to answer this question... in here... in Phil's forum... or in the Recording forum...

 

I'm in a quandry.

 

Of course, we all know that, with my memory, I will eventually post in each one of them, probably a couple times each, saying maybe more or less the same thing, with little or no recollection or apparent awareness that I'd already posted.

 

What was the question, again?

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah... MIDI... and Sonar.

 

Honest to gosh, I've been using Sonar (and CW Pro Audio before that -- previously I'd used MasterTracks Pro [MIDI only though I drove a soundfont synth with it that I used for backup vocals sometimes] but that was back in Windows 3.1 days) for so long that I'm not sure HOW it stacks up against other DAWs. I did demo Samp (or was it SAW... dang... one of those iconoclast DAWs) and, compared to whichever that was, Sonar has more MIDI stuff... but I didn't actually USE the MIDI in that app so I can't tell you if the implementation was better or worse.

 

Well... I broke the ice, anyhow... Now people won't be in a quandry, looking back and forth from three identical posts in three different forums trying to figure out which one to go with...

 

Now... THIS thread has momentum.

 

Go with it.

[Anderton]

Sonar has more complete MIDI capabilites than Samplitude, including MIDI FX...which Steinberg was slow to add to Cubase (Sonar got there first). Both Cubase and Sonar now have inplace MIDI editing. What I like about Cubase is that it handles filtering more elegantly, and I just like the "look" better...for some reason, it looks less cluttered.

 

Either one will get you where you want to go, but frankly, there are ways both could beef up their MIDI that other programs haven't tumbled to yet. But I don't feel like revealing that stuff tonight, it's an essay question and I have other things I need to do...

 

Samplitude seems more like a direct competitor to Pro Tools, whereas Sonar seems more like a direct competitor to Cubase.

 

Now I should also say I'm a big Sonar fan, but I also use Cubase and despite some of the negative press it's gotten lately, I think it's a fine program.

 

As to Samplitude being popular in Europe so why doesn't SOS have a "Samplitude Notes," England may technically be part of Europe, but it isn't part of "the continent"...maybe an English person could explain this for me

[Cry Logic]

SONAR is fantastic.

Just buy it, you won't be disappointed.

And Cakewalk as a company are so far

ahead of Steinberg in the customer

relations area it's not funny.

 

SONAR is a wonderful sequencer.

For both midi and audio.

The best IMHO.

And considerably cheaper than

Cubase as well.

 

And here's a thing... I know this will sound

weird to some people,but the combination

of SONAR with FL Studio running as a VSTi/DXi

is very very powerful.. and around the same price

as cubase on its own.

 

SONAR ROCKS!!!

[Alndln2]

One thing I can't live without now is midi groove clips(like acid clips, only for midi) in Sonar. I don't get as crazy as I used to with midi, but it all seems to be there. There is a fully functioning demo availible. It would probably make more sense to download and try the demo first and then ask questions based on what you understand or don't understand.

[tradivoro1]

As a guy who's worked with various programs, my main test of a program is how far can one go wihtout opening up the manual.... I gotta tell you I couldn't get to 1st base with cubase without opening up the manual, and with sonar, I was recording both midi and audio tracks without even trying... I think it's a helluva more intuitive program than cubase or logic... And it's midi capabilities are just fine... If you're the kind of guy that has to edit a lot of midi controls to make more realistic performances, you will not be dissapointed with Sonar... Just get it...

[ggm1960]

 

As a guy who's worked with various programs, my main test of a program is how far can one go wihtout opening up the manual.... I gotta tell you I couldn't get to 1st base with cubase without opening up the manual, and with sonar, I was recording both midi and audio tracks without even trying...

 

 

I never knew if it was just me but my experience over the years has been the same. That's certainly not to say Sonar or any of the prior Cakewalk programs have been simple. Going clear back to DOS days the Cakewalk sequencer programs have had menus full of options and features I've never used and perhaps never will, but I've always gone back to the Cakewalk programs because, like you say, I got further faster.

[blue2blue]

I used to read every new manual... and if I have a question, I will, indeed, RTFM.

 

(I recently introduced my mom to that phrase when we were gettting her used to her new [first ever] laptop. She was greatly amused by the existence of the acronym, which I described as something more or less like "Read the flogging manual." Of course, as someone just a little younger than the WWII generation, she was well familiar with the colorful and vulgar acronyms of that era like SNAFU and FUBAR.)

 

 

But, nowadays, I typically plunge in and read up later if absolutely necessary... there just AIN'T ENOUGH TIME LEFT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD to read all the manuals and documentation for all the stuff I have to use everyday...

[philbo]

Sonar is pretty much the 900 lb gorilla of MIDI. I don't know of any program that does MIDI as well.

[Magpel]

Don't worry about SONAR and MIDI. It's pretty evolved. At that level, it is simply a matter of preference and familiarity.

 

I looked briefly into REAPER's suddenly much beefier MIDI component the other day--at a glance, it seems as though SONAR/CW was their model, which made me happy. see, I'm smiling 'cause I'm happy.

[blue2blue]

Reaper seems to evolve at a rapid pace.

 

Those involved with or who've watched team development of major apps have got to be thinking it's because it's just one guy who doesn't have to deal with all the headaches of managing a dev team. That said, developing a major app by yourself is probably not for someone who wants to have a private life, too...

 

 

BTW... I notice that while it took Sonar until VERSION SIX to get a proper recording latency offset adjustment (still no ping loopback calibration, though), Reaper has essentially the same option now -- without having to raise a big fuss and holler (as Sonar users had to get a simple latency offset slot in the audio config, if you'll recall last year's Sonar-"serious bug" thread).

[Magpel]

Oh yeah, as I mentioned in another recent thread, the only development pace I've seen that matches REAPER's is Jorgen Aase's madcap VST host/modular environment multi-widget...thing, EnergyXT--another user community-driven process where featrure requests become features at an astonishing pace.

[Lancaster]

Reaper seems to evolve at a rapid pace. BTW... I notice that while it took Sonar until VERSION SIX to get a proper recording latency offset adjustment (still no ping loopback calibration, though), Reaper has essentially the same option now -- without having to raise a big fuss and holler (as Sonar users had to get a simple latency offset slot in the audio config, if you'll recall last year's Sonar-"serious bug" thread).

 

Reaper's audio capabilities are extremely impressive for such a "young" program.I've been getting into it recently and have been impressed by CPU and RAM use,ability to run at low latency without problems and general handling of all things audio.There are threads on other forums going into details of the

600 track audio torture test.

 

I'm looking forward to Reaper's MIDI capabilities being brought up to par with other apps. I hope as much effort is put into that as the audio side of things as the result would surely be one of the finest DAW apps of them all.

[Monkey Mouse]

Even though my new DAW is running Live 6, I have to say Sonar (have 3.1) is one hell of a program for someone who needs heavy midi capability. It had no problem controlling both my internal soft synths and my 2 external hardware boxes to the "t". I did have Cuase VST 5.1 way back when - it was good at midi, but not so good at audio (audio quality).

[rasputin1963]

The latest SONAR 6 is fantastic.

 

AUDIO-SNAP and V-VOCAL are, alone, worth their weight in gold as editing tools. Many other fabulous features are in there, too.

 

For awhile, CUBASE enjoyed a lower latency and faster FX processing times on audio clips.... but SONAR has more than caught up with it of late....

[flatfinger]

Well it just shows to go ya that everybodys got adifferent Idea of "good". The users at the cakewalk forum don't seem to feel that the Midi editors in sonar are up to speed . ( http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=958359&mpage=2&key= If you are more of an audio user , as opposed to loops and midi , then you have a different set of priorities.

 

I did allot of research and the best midi editor seems to FL.

 

:D

:D

[rasputin1963]

To me---at this point in my game--- the usefulness of MIDI is as a taking-off point for the audio. Using MIDI chiefly as a sequencing device for SoundFonts and SoftSynths, and for creating grooves and other metronomic tricks.

 

I'm through making those all-MIDI arrangements that sound cheezy and stiff...

 

Audio's, where-it's-at, baby. :cool:

[flatfinger]

And here's a thing... I know this will sound weird to some people,but the combination of SONAR with FL Studio running as a VSTi/DXi is very very powerful.. and around the same price as cubase on its own. SONAR ROCKS!!!

 

 

Thanks Frettwizz ; you called it!!!!!!!

 

 

:D

:D

[pbognar]

To me---at this point in my game--- the usefulness of MIDI is as a taking-off point for the audio. Using MIDI chiefly as a sequencing device for SoundFonts and SoftSynths, and for creating grooves and other metronomic tricks. I'm through making those all-MIDI arrangements that sound cheezy and stiff... Audio's, where-it's-at, baby. :cool:

 

I agree with your assessment of "all-MIDI" arrangements. However, as a guitarist, I think MIDI still has a place - even in a final product, such as a demo.

 

Audio loops sound awesome, but trying to alter their content can be a pain or even impossible. Not being keyboardist, or a drummer, I see MIDI as viable for capturing editable performances which can add a dimension to your final project. I'd like to be able to take a keyboard part, transpose it, alter/remove/delete notes, change durations, etc. and then send it to a synth - hardware or software. Drums are the same - BFD, and all the rest wouldn't be nearly as flexible, unless you could alter the MIDI stream driving them.

 

Other instruments are more questionable...

 

Also, when I get a MIDI guitar setup again, it would be great to be able to edit the performance, note for note.

[philbo]

Reaper's audio capabilities are extremely impressive for such a "young" program.I've been getting into it recently and have been impressed by CPU and RAM use,ability to run at low latency without problems and general handling of all things audio.There are threads on other forums going into details of the 600 track audio torture test. I'm looking forward to Reaper's MIDI capabilities being brought up to par with other apps. I hope as much effort is put into that as the audio side of things as the result would surely be one of the finest DAW apps of them all.

 

Dang, Lancaster, I like your icon... you aren't Russian by chance, are you? :D

[Cry Logic]

I'm through making those all-MIDI arrangements that sound cheesy and stiff...

 

The idea is to make midi arrangements that don't sound cheesy and stiff.

[blue2blue]

Yeah... I want to put in a word for MIDI here... there's no reason why MIDI instruments and arrangements have to sound stiff or cheezy -- though we all know that's almost their native state.

 

But MIDI does, indeed, offer a LOT more flexibility in dealing with instruments we might not actually play (like drums) than other solutions. When a good arrangement is played on a good drum module (real or virtual) you can get a level of realism that rivals any loop combined with the flexibility to tinker the parameters of almost every aspect of the sound -- right down to multi-mic "virtual placement" (in the case of VIs like BFD) -- so rather than cutting and pasting snippets of preformed audio, you're actually working a sort of living document... want a touch of drag on the back beats? No prob. High hat a little over-aggro? Just pull the velocity trim down a little for the hat. Don't like the kick sound? Replace it -- it'll take 3 seconds.

[Cry Logic]

I have to agree... Midi is the Beez Kneez for this sort of stuff...

[Anderton]

One thing that people often overlook in Sonar are the MIDI effects. You can use them for all sorts of things, in fact, my next Sonar Workshop article for Sound on Sound will be dedicated to MIDI tips and tricks. As a quick example...the velocity plug-in can make sure that really low-velocity notes come up to a minimum value, and I use the Transpose plug-in to transpose my playing in real time when I have to deal with a "difficult" key (e.g., I'm not a fan of playing in G#, so I just play in C, D, A, or another "easy" key and transpose on the way in).