Sequoia vs ProTools?

Well in some respects they are similar. Both are more or less best suited for audio handling, although you can do midi in both with good results. It is only that some of the others has bunches more of midi tools.

Anyway, there are at least two different ProTools, which sound and work a bit different they say. The PT LE is a native system, ie running inside your PC or Mac and uses 32 bit float internally. The "normal" PT systems, might be called for example HD2 and runs most of the operations in dedicated signal processors using fixed point 48 bit (or 24 bit for part of the handling), although it also requires a PC or a Mac. Both requires a bit of special hardware to even start, spanning from the low end MBox to some really expensive (and probably extremely good) system setups.

Sequioa and the little brother Samplitude is a native system and is only available for the PC. They happily chug along with whatever sound cards you happen to have, although of course some of the cards may have an effect on the sound quality.

Now, why should this then Seq/Sam be so big in the acoustic recording world?

If you ask me there are probably three main reasons for that. But I think you will get more clearly articulated answers from some other people. First of all though, remember that some of the current position comes from the history. So if a particular system is "big" right now, it is at least partly because it was first or had a better marketing or whatever, things that might not matter much any more.

1) First reason I believe is that Seq/Sam simply sounds good. The resulting mixes seems to sound better than when using most other programs. I will not try to analyze why or how, but I hear it, and much more seasoned ears share the impression. It might or might not be true from a measurement point, but we still do hear it. Or let´s put it a little more low-key, Seq/Sam simply sounds good, not saying that the others do not.

2) Secondly Seq/Sam has some features that really fit perfectly well into the workflow when working on recorded acoustic music. It is a set of basic functions that together both saves a lot of time and gives better sounding results.

Time savers are as example the object oriented things, that mastering can be done directly in the program, that bounces are done off-line, ie at max speed (PT only does them in realtime), that CD-s are burnt from inside the program and so on.

The object based working method also makes it easier to get a better sound (again if you ask me), and the included effects in Seq/Sam are of such high quality that I at least feel no desire at all for all the extra expensive plugins that PT owners lust for, including the Waves stuff and so on. And if you look at the so called "four-point editing" in Seq you will find things that some people almost can kill for. Of course, also PT is usable to achieve similar end results, but not even nearly as convenient (again if you ask me).

Just one example of the time saving, a typical concert recording mix session from stereo mic recording to finished CD for me went from a 10 hour exercise when using PT LE to a 2 hour exercise in Samplitude, with to my ears better results. (It might be simply that I´ve got more training, but it is not quite as easy as that).

Thirdly, there is a small part of Digidesign bashing. We seem to be a few who find that we do not really like the Digidesign marketing / product setup / various other stuff. I, at least, like to be able to go somewhere else for parts of my rig. This is sort of the same thing as the people willing to go to Unix or Mac simply to be able to stay out of the "Microsoft camp".

Hope this has helped a bit. Remember though that there is parts of this which resembles religion, you either believe it or not.

Gunnar

It is indeed like a religion. I've been working with digital performer for years and years and if you go to the Unicornation site you will witness some of that religious fervor. I mainly stick with DP out of habit and because I know the program so well but if I had to it would not be heresy for me to switch. Actually, I thought of switching to logic a few times but I reconsidered everytime when I realize that with the 1k that it would cost to switch I could get a new mic, pre, VI, etc and I end up staying

For me, it is the editing model and the cross-fade ability. Pro Tools doesn't even come close to what I can do in Sequoia... I'll leave the sound arguments out of it- PT HD is quite good in that department.

From a money perspective, I can get just as much computer in a custom built turnkey Sequoia DAW as I can in say a PT HD3 system at about half the price... For doing large tracking projects (ie film scores) where I have large numbers of tracks at high resolution (48 tracks at 96K for example), I'd probably go with a PT system as it can handle the I/O better than a native system.

Sequoia can also burn CDs and generate DDP images that I can send off to replication. Pro Tools has none of that... In an operation that is a single person operation, it makes the workflow easier...

Just a few thoughts...

--Ben

Ben,
That's interesting. Could you tell some more on the editing model ?
Spell out the things one can do in Sequoia and can't in the PT ?
Thanks,
Costy.

Spell out the things one can do in Sequoia and can't in the PT ?
Thanks,

Costy, that's a pretty tall order; and tough to say at the depth of info you want. (I CAN tell you what Samp/Sequoia does, but I have very little hands-on PT's experience - other than as a producer having someone ELSE run it for me.)

Perhaps, if you're a PT's user, the best thing to do is sit down with an experienced Samp/Sequoia user and get your feet wet, watch/listen/participate what's going on. An afternoon or a day is probably a good start; perhaps even find a session you can do with an experienced Samp/Sequoia user doing the driving.

I've had many angry and upset PT's users after working a session with me on Samp. The main complaint seems to be finding out all that's included with Samp/Seq., and NOT available in the basic PTs package. ("Gotta buy a plug-in for that!" - is the most commomn complaint I hear about it.) Feelings of been ripped-off and overcharged is the general attitude from PT's users when they find out what comes included with Samp/Sequoia right out of the box. (Notice I haven't mentioned the "sound" of Samp/Sequoia, no reason to here.... :wink: )

About the same for Sadie users. One of my temp assistants is a former Sadie user. Once she tried Samp., she was FURIOUS and disgusted at the hoops they make ya jump through, along with the proprietary stuff & extra $$ for this, extra $$ for that, and a whole lot of "Can't there from here." She dumped Sadie almost immediately after working with Samplitude and has never looked back. (I've seen the prices for Sadie & the extras, and I just shake my head in bewilderment...whatever it is they're selling, it doesn't hold up, cost-wise to Samp/Sequ., IMHO.) I guess I'm bashing Sadie here, but from what I've seen, I can't imagine paying their prices (well, maybe 5-10 years ago for what it does) , but certainly not now, not what Samp/Sequoia can do as a native system.

With the lastest Plugins that come included with V8 (for both Samp/Seq), you barely need to go outside of the box for much, unless you want something specific. EVen the newer room sims are fantastic. There's no audio tool I can think of that isn't included in V8 of both products; way too many to list here. The AM suite with opto limiters & tape emulations included in V8 is simply amazing. (Just imagine adding a "little" tube or tape warmth to your mixes, without leaving the application...)

I don't think PT's has anything near to Elastic Audio and Algorithmix's reNOVAtor plugins, either. (You can try out both in the Sequoia V8 demo.) I'm sure there's a few things in PT's that Samp/Seq doesn't have, but I don't worry about it, and get no complaints from my clients when they see/hear Samp/Seq in action.

It's a fine line between sounding grateful and bragging, but Samp/Seq. users are fanatical about it for good reason. It may not be your cup of tea in the long run, but I can tell you that for "Serious" Music - or music that needs more TLC and care than something that'll just end up as an MP3, this may be worth your time to at least try it.

(Actually, it DOES import/export and generate MP3's if you want that, too.)

Hey JoeH,

Thanks. You're right, PT's default plug-ins are not too good and
scarse. At least a bundled pack is needed. However, one can
always use off-board verbs, compessors, EQs ecc. Also, the
plug-ins are available for rent.

...tough to say at the depth of info you want...

I want a pro opinion depth. I'm still interested to know what
Ben meant to say, because I sort of like PT editing. I'd like to
know if there are any flows I'm not aware of.

One of the reasons I've chosen PT 'cause I need full compatibility
with the studios. Most of them these days have a PT setup with
a Mac and use SoundDesiner (SDII) audio format.
If compatibility is not needed there many ways to go. I remember,
I was impress by some mariachi indie record made start-to-finish
in Cubase.

Cheers,
Costy.

I want a pro opinion depth. I'm still interested to know what
Ben meant to say, because I sort of like PT editing. I'd like to
know if there are any flows I'm not aware of.

Again, I think you're going to have to spend some time in front of it to really get the full impact. Talking about it, and reading about it only go so far. (No offense, but aside from all the gushing here about it, I'd really much prefer to SHOW someone, instead of writing about it again and again..) Since you already know & work with PTs, that should clear it up for you fairly quickly, I think.

One of the reasons I've chosen PT 'cause I need full compatibility
with the studios. Most of them these days have a PT setup with
a Mac and use SoundDesiner (SDII) audio format.
If compatibility is not needed there many ways to go.

I completely understand. I know this sounds cocky (and I realize I don't live in LA), but one of the reasons I STAYED with Samplitude and never bothered with PT's is BECAUSE everyone else has PTs. (I HATE doing what everyone else does...that always feels too easy and suspect to me. 8) ) Of course, Samp/Seq does deliver the goods (and then some) but NOT following the path carved out by everyone else if fun, if you enjoy that sort of thing, and want to be apart from the crowd. It can be daunting, at least at first.

Samp/Seq isn't for wimps, there's a fairly serious learning curve, and you do need to be ready to explain yourself every time someone says: "Huh? No Pro Tools?". (It gets old real fast....) But as more options open up, and more people get aquainted with other apps than just PTS. (Cubase being one, and DP being another), things have a way of evening out.

I was extremely lucky in the early days ('95, '96). Someone pointed me to Red Roaster (an early, basic version of Samplitude) for CD burning. I was told it did two things very well: Basic Digital Audio for PC, and CD burning in the same app., with the ability to handle larger musical works (ie: Classical). Once I figured out how to work the darn thing, I was off to the races.

Try it whenever you get a chance; it's better than trying to explain it here.

Thanks

Thank you gentleman for all your info.

JoeH wrote: (I HATE doing what everyone else does...that always feels too easy and suspect to me. 8) )

Funny!! Me Tooooo! It's the black sheep in me. (Eww, that sounds a little gross?! :? )

Let me just spell out what I love about the software and I've only been a convert from the Cubase/Nuendo world for a few months.

The object based editing (BTW... I had to post a note here and call Ben on the phone to find out what was so special about this feature - then I saw the light and began figuring it out.)

Get this - I just recorded "The Four Seasons" with a full orchestra. It was a great concert with a fantastic soloist. But, no matter how good the acoustics were, I could hear this low frequency rumble coming out of the sub when the violin was playing solo. So, I split the object with a rather wide cross-fade (1-2 seconds) and put a high pass filter on the sections with the violin (around 70 Hz - also gets rid of any "light buzz"). Now, the piece sounds good and full when the cellos and basses are playing, but when the violin is playing solo, it's just as clear as you could ever want it to be.

In my old editing suites, this wouldn't be possible. I would have to create an effect on an additional bus and then automate that channel so that it comes in and out when appropriate. Now, imagine if I had 20 different EQ curves that I wanted to apply throughout a piece - I'd have 20 Aux buses all with automation. If the system survived this massive torture, I could barely make heads or tails out of what I was doing.

Now, imagine gain riding. With objects, if I want a portion quieter, I section out the object, make a relatively wide crossfade and create a decrescendo where it's appropriate. Instead of fader automation which, to me always sounded rather artificial (that is, when used in the PC - flying faders and the like are a different beast), I have a smooth, natural transition from loud to soft. And, I can draw the fade in just the way I want it with the in-depth cross fade editor.

Speaking of the cross-fade editor -- splices have never been easier. If you want to do a simple click and drag splice, you can view the two waves on top of eachother, align them and apply the appropriate fade. It doesn't get any easier than this!! Oh, that is until you get into the 4 point cuts, where you literally just tell the software with keyboard shortcuts, where you want to cut and where you want to past in the destination and it does it nice and easy (and non-destructive!!!) and crossfades automatically. (Of course, you can tweak to your hearts content.)

Costy - you don't live that far away from the Fredericksburg area - any time you are in the area (visiting the beautiful historic district and taking in some fantastic lunch at one of our dozens of amazing restaurants) let me know. I'll be glad to sit down with you in my studio and show you some of the coolness that is Sequoia!

J...

Costy-

I use both here and I can explain the difference in editing easily... It all comes down to the ability to manipulate a crossfade and the audio around it. In Sequoia, Sonic, Pyramix and SADiE, you can manipulate your crossfades to any shape that can be imagined with any overlap, assymetry, etc... and you can do all of this while you are in the crossfade editor (not to mention that it all happens in real time). In Pro Tools, you have a choice of 0, 50 or 100% overlap, 3 or 4 basic fade shapes, but they can't be modified and the fades write a crossfade file. In PT, if you want to move where the crossfade point is in the audio, you need to do this in the edit/arrange window, not in the fade editor.

The Source-Destination/4 point cut paradigm also allows for a much easier way of selecting which takes/audio you are going to use in an editing session. Trust me, without seeing how it works, you won't appreciate it (right Joe? :P For those that don't get this- Joe is a long-time samp user as you know. When he saw Sequoia at AES this year when I showed him the demo, he finally saw where the power of working this way was...)

--Ben

I HATE doing what everyone else does...that always feels too easy and suspect to me. --JoeH

Me toooo! .... Eww, that sounds a little gross?! -- Cucco

Are you, guys, revolutinaries or something ? Sounds like it.

Anyway, a straight question: is Samplitude/Sequoia "object" is the
same as PT's "region" ?

Costy - you don't live that far away from the Fredericksburg area - any time you are in the area (visiting the beautiful historic district and taking in some fantastic lunch at one of our dozens of amazing restaurants) let me know. I'll be glad to sit down with you in my studio and show you some of the coolness that is Sequoia! -- J.

Thanks. Yea, I'm about 2 hours down south from you. If I'm in the
area I'll contact you. Curious to see your setup.

Cheers,
Costy.

Costy wrote:

Anyway, a straight question: is Samplitude/Sequoia "object" is the
same as PT's "region" ?

Only in the fact that an object is a clip of audio in the project. That is about where the similarity ends. With objects, you can non-destructively add any effect that you want- VST, DX, or any of the native effects (room sim, dehissing, eq, comps, elastic audio, etc...)

--Ben

Thanks Ben,

Good to know. Right, in PT the non-destructive (real-time, RTAS)
plug-ins are asociated with tracks not with "regions", as far as
I know.

Costy.

FifthCircle wrote: The Source-Destination/4 point cut paradigm also allows for a much easier way of selecting which takes/audio you are going to use in an editing session. Trust me, without seeing how it works, you won't appreciate it (right Joe? :P For those that don't get this- Joe is a long-time samp user as you know. When he saw Sequoia at AES this year when I showed him the demo, he finally saw where the power of working this way was...)

Magix really needs to produce a good video demo of that, instead of the confusing and out-of-context one they have on their web site now. As a Samplitude Pro 8.1 user I've been interested in Sequoia. But I'm not about to lay out the very hefty upgrade price, without understanding why this source-destination/4-point thing is such a must-have feature. I don't understand it at all, after going through all the web site info, and reading what people have said about using it. I mean... I get the basic idea, but not why it's so useful on a real-life project. They need a video where someone takes a real-world editing project, and shows the workflow advantages.

Mike Barrs

FifthCircle wrote: For me, it is the editing model and the cross-fade ability. Pro Tools doesn't even come close to what I can do in Sequoia... I'll leave the sound arguments out of it- PT HD is quite good in that department.

From a money perspective, I can get just as much computer in a custom built turnkey Sequoia DAW as I can in say a PT HD3 system at about half the price... For doing large tracking projects (ie film scores) where I have large numbers of tracks at high resolution (48 tracks at 96K for example), I'd probably go with a PT system as it can handle the I/O better than a native system.

Sequoia can also burn CDs and generate DDP images that I can send off to replication. Pro Tools has none of that... In an operation that is a single person operation, it makes the workflow easier...

Just a few thoughts...

--Ben

PT cannot do PCM either.

I would also recommend SAWStudio. It is very powerful, built on machine language that practically bypasses Windopes. Go to their website and download the working demo. http://www.sawstudio.com

PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency. BUT, no matter whose system you go with, you are forced into updating OS, DAW software, plugs, etc, if you want/need support.

PT cannot do PCM either. -- Sheet

Sorry, what is the "PCM" ?
Thanks,
Costy.

PT cannot do PCM either.

Huh? This makes no sense... Do you have the right letters for your acronym?

PCM stands for Pulse Code Modulation which is the way that all of your "standard" digital audio is sampled... By standard, I mean non-DSD/dbx, etc... When you talk about 24/96, 16/44.1 etc... that is all PCM audio.

--Ben

PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency.

That's because of all the OUTBOARD hardware involved. Comparing to all the native stuff is just apples and oranges. (No pun intended...) PT's HD is quite impressive; it is a huge investment of rack mounted gear, with DSP farms, cards, HD controllers, a control surface; and you still need a host computer to run it. Yep, it can do a LOT of tracks, with ridiculously low latency; just about transparent in that dept. It also costs between $20 -$30K for all the bells & whistles.

Samp/Sequoia comes on a CD-ROM and runs with whatever you have under your hood, from a P3 on up. It's not better or worse in that way; it's just a completely different kind of app.

FifthCircle wrote:

PT cannot do PCM either.

Huh? This makes no sense... Do you have the right letters for your acronym?

PCM stands for Pulse Code Modulation which is the way that all of your "standard" digital audio is sampled... By standard, I mean non-DSD/dbx, etc... When you talk about 24/96, 16/44.1 etc... that is all PCM audio.

--Ben

Holy crap, I was reading another paper about DSD, SACD and DVD-A. I had single-bit PCM in my head. POWr is what my intent was.

If you look at Magix's dither vs. PT HD's in "Tweak Head" mode, the results are not subtle. PT HD's dither is not as good.

What was the dbx remark about. They have nothing to do with DSD. That's a Sony thing.

JoeH wrote: PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency.

That's because of all the OUTBOARD hardware involved. Comparing to all the native stuff is just apples and oranges. (No pun intended...) PT's HD is quite impressive; it is a huge investment of rack mounted gear, with DSP farms, cards, HD controllers, a control surface; and you still need a host computer to run it. Yep, it can do a LOT of tracks, with ridiculously low latency; just about transparent in that dept. It also costs between $20 -$30K for all the bells & whistles.

Samp/Sequoia comes on a CD-ROM and runs with whatever you have under your hood, from a P3 on up. It's not better or worse in that way; it's just a completely different kind of app.

Compare apples to apples. You don't have to have controllers for PT.

sheet wrote:
What was the dbx remark about. They have nothing to do with DSD. That's a Sony thing.

The short-lived dbx digital from what, 15 years ago or so... The competitor for the Sony F-1. Also went to a beta machine. If memory serves me right, it was another variant on the 1 bit recording idea.

POW-R is indeed a great dither, the Magix standard dither isn't bad, either... I prefer POW-R for what I do, but I have also had good results with Magix's internal dither...

Compare apples to apples. You don't have to have controllers for PT.

I think he meant that to run Sequoia, you need nothing besides a sound card and a computer. Sequoia doesn't need controllers, either- especially since the idea of objects mixing is completely different than a fader-based mix. A PT HD setup has a lot of extra stuff from expensive I/O boxes to processing cards to the Sync I/O, etc...

--Ben

I think he meant that to run Sequoia, you need nothing besides a sound card and a computer. Sequoia doesn't need controllers, either- especially since the idea of objects mixing is completely different than a fader-based mix. A PT HD setup has a lot of extra stuff from expensive I/O boxes to processing cards to the Sync I/O, etc...

Exactly. I'm suggesting that it's really pointless to compare them on any kind of similar cost per function basis. They have two completely different approaches to doing things.

I don't expect any fully involved PT's users to want to switch to Samp/Seq (why WOULD they, after that kind of investment?), nor do I think a seasoned Samp/Seq would find a reason to leave a fully functional app for a lot more $ outlay. Two very different ways to get the job done.

Magix really needs to produce a good video demo

If I remember, you can find more video on the german site.

Why I prefer Samplitude? Because I can't imagine to work now without object editing. When you use it one time, you find that PT, Nuendo etc. are prehistoric softwares :roll:

I did a 12 track recording (120 voice choir, piano & string quartet accomp, solosits, announce mic, etc.) with Sequoia, Friday night on location at 8 p.m., recorded it all via laptop to a FW HD, and got back home from the gig by 11 p.m. Took a short food/mental break, and then began working on it around midnight. (Hey, I have no life, I can do this sort of thing when I have to... :wink: )

By 3 a.m., I had 90% of it complete. Removed air handler noises, processed the live ambient tracks (for applause, etc.) Trimmed & leveled the solo tracks, polished up the piano tracks, added three separate hi-end room sims/Aux's (one for the choir, one for the piano and the gold-plate setting for the vocal soloists.)

Trimmed objects, used all kinds of log & cosine fade ins/out, adjusted levels with volume drawing tools as well as the object function tool, EQ'd everything just as I needed it (looked up to see my CPU usage was topping out at 20%...hoooeeee!), and did all kinds of ubelievable things with the object editors, as well. The HVAC system - which they would NOT turn off for us - had a discernable "Whine" at about 980HZ which showed up on most of the tracks, so I had to precision-notch-out (with the FFT tool) this noise as well. Did a lot of judicious low-end rumble removal as well with the FFT & EQ tools track by track, object by object.

Of course, there was the mandatory "clap-along" that all these white-suburban (read: LAME) choirs attempt - their singing ability immediately DROPS once they start clapping; FORGETABOUT clapping with any feel or vibe, either - so I had insane peaks with the sound of 100+ people attempting to keep time. I would have never been able to fix this without the multiband & brick wall limiting I can dial up with both the odject-based limiters and the master multiband and final limiter in Samp/Seq's. toolset, much less get any usable levels out of this track alone.

Even added a little tape warmth after all the cleanup (god, I love that AM suite plug-in!)

There is no way in the world I could have pulled off the mix I did in the time I spent on it, and no way I could have turned it around as fast as I did with anything else. (Clients are eagerly awaiting copies ASAP, of course).

While I started on two new events today, my assistant finished burning the copies, printed the covers & tray cards, and we'll shrink wrap 'em all in order to get them in the mail and outta here by Monday or Tuesday.

Simetimes, time IS money with fast-track projects like these, and Samp/Seq is worth the price each time I get something this frantic to finish up. I'm not all about fast & furious, quick & dirty, but I really do love it when I have all the tools in front of me to make it happen so beautifully. I expect to have a lot of happy clients after this one, no small thanks to the power of working with this software. Even in the best of studios a mere ten years ago, I would NEVER have been able to even remotely aprpoach this kind of recording.

Costy wrote: Thanks Ben,

Good to know. Right, in PT the non-destructive (real-time, RTAS)
plug-ins are asociated with tracks not with "regions", as far as
I know.

Costy.

...and that's one of the strongest features in Samplitude/Sequoia...because you can, use a plug in in real time for just a portion of audio, not the entire track, or make combinations of tracks, objects, buses, aux, and the master.

So....you can run complex projects on a slow cpu...and using less tracks, because maybe you won't need as much tracks as with other software.

For example, in a Protools LE system you have 32 voices available, if you only put a short sample on a track you already used a voice, even if that little part is only a few seconds long.

Hmmmm...if I may add something that is being discussed at another forum:

Many clients have succumbed to the advertising hype - that if its not done in PT, it is not a pro level project....especially at the level my client 'base' is situated....(no majors, few indies, mostly demo, lots of forensics)...Pro audio may be the ONLY profession that has this level of hype (how many folks refuse to ride in a cab based solely on the kind of car?)...and as much as I LOVE Samp, I do get a bit tired of the oft requested 30-45 minute dissertation of why my shop is every bit as capable (and in most cases more so) than the guy down the road with a PTHD3...

I've been a Samp user for seemingly ever now, and am seriously looking at either an HD1 rig or a Sequoia rig....each has advantages, each has disadvantages...I've used an HD2 system, and while it was quite "slick" I found it to be relatively time consuming on the editing side, but a bit quicker and more stable on the tracking side...note my time on the HD2 was somewhat limited.

Ken

I only peruse this board every once and a while, since I am wrapped up in so much these days....however, I thought I'd chime in once again. Ben has really done a fine job explaining the benefits of Sequoia/Samplitude versus Protools. Thanks Ben!

I too am more than happy to provide input, having been a Sequoia user for 32 months now, and a Samplitude user for over 6 years. I have also worked on SADiE for 3 years, Sonic solutions for over 10 (and have trained people how to use Sonic) and Protools on/off for several years. I have also driven the old Dyaxis workstation (care not to remember that). In my studio, I have two machines running Sequoia. One is a portable system for location recording and another is a full blown workstation with DX and VST plugins gallore and a TC Powercore to boot. I also have Cubase in my studio as well, which I have only to run the SRS Circle Surround plugin which is specifically programmed to run with Cubase/Nuendo only.

I'll try not to repeat to much which has already been said.

I will agree that PT is a better tracking system. It is very stable and able to handle tons of tracks with stability. It is also great for mix to pix applications. However, there are other systems that track extremely well. I have used outboard HD recorders such as MX2424s and other such devices for this application when necessary. Then I port that audio from those systems to my Sequoia DAW for the rest of the project. Note - I have not used Sequoia version 8.2 yet (but will in the next 2 months or less). Sequoia 8.2 has major enhancements for tracking and other applications as well.

With the systems that 'track' extremely well, I have found they usually have several downfalls when it comes to being able to manipulate the 'fine details' of sound. I have found no other system that allows for extreme/detailed editing and 'within' track manipulation (ie. object level manipulation with DX/VST support as previously described) AND sound excellent AND be as cost effective as Sequoia.

Before buying Sequoia 32 months ago, I was strongly looking at all systems for the center point of operations in the Corbett Studio. PT was eliminated from my choices quickly as it lacked many fine detailed editing features that I was used to from other software. Also, the dedicated hardware was/is costly. Furthermore, when PT upgrades hardware, their software usually gets updated along with it, and leaves those with older hardware left behind. This has gotten much better as of late. The only other system that attracted my eye was Pyramix. Pyramix is an excellent system. However, at the time, I conducted several tests and found that I would need at least two dedicated hardware boards with Pyramix to achieve the same results as I do with one, high grade built PC with a Pentium 4, 2.4 Gig processor, a Lynx card for I/O and no dedicated hardware. Keep in mind Pyramix needs a quality PC to run it as well as dedicated hardware. If I were doing DSD and PCM work, I'd choose Pyramix in a heart beat.

Some other information. I exchange sound files with PT, Cubase/Nuendo, SAW and other system users on a regular basis. I have also have had people with those systems be very impressed by Sequoia. The common response I get from those who have the other systems is "yeah, I could do that, but it would take me at least twice as long to accomplish that." My only complaint about Sequoia, is that they could use an even better distribution net here in the US that has more knowledgable staff -and- that they had more tutorials (aka videos as mentioned before), as it does have a sizable learning curve.

I am now in the processes of making some major changes in the Corbett Studio once again. I will undougtedly be purchasing a new computer that will become the central point for all operations in the studio. It will have Sequoia version 8, with all the plugins we currently have (mostly Waves, TC and Antares). This improved system will also have full Linear Equalization and restoration plugins from Algorithmix, as well as DVD-A Authoring and mix to pix support. I have no doubt in my mind that this is the correct choice for the Corbett Studio, which specializes in classical, jazz and acoustic recording (both on location and studio/multi-track). The savings alone from using Sequoia continues to allow me to use funds to purchase other gems, such as great microphones, mic pre's, etc. And far as being concerned about marketing hype, I simply say this "We use Sequoia, the software is like Protools on steroids, please feel free to come see." That phrase works most of the time for the clients I desire.

Awesome thread!

I'm looking at Sequoia now. This topic is 4 years old. How do people still feel about SEQUOIA ?

(y)

Wow...what an old thread!

Anyway -
I still feel quite positive about Sequoia. I've had the opportunity to work on a great deal of the software suites out there from PTHD to PTLE to Cubase/Nuendo, Vegas (just got Vegas 9 for Video again!!!) and Logic.

The fact that I'm not tied to specific hardware always makes me happy. The ability to make red book CDs so easily makes me very happy! The object-oriented editing is fantastic and the editing model is unbeatable! Also, to me, it's the most like working with an ATR and a mixer.

Also, the built-in effects are awesome! The EQ and compressors rock. Plus, I have NO problem with MIDI on Sequoia (granted, it's gotten a LOT better than it used to be).

Anyway - if you've got the $3K to drop, I can't imagine a better DAW.

Cheers-
J

Cucco wrote:
Anyway - if you've got the $3K to drop, I can't imagine a better DAW.

And if you don't have $3k to drop, you can get 95% of the features at 1/3 the price (or less...) by purchasing Samplitude, Sequoia's little brother.

There are lots of versions of Samplitude, so let me try to sort through the confusion. The current released version is Samplitude 10 (10.21 is the current maintenance release and is considered quite stable). Version 11 has been announced and is shipping in Germany, but the English version won't be available until the end of the summer. Anyone who purchases version 10 now will get a free upgrade.

Priced from highest to lowest:

Sequoia

This is the most advanced version, used by classical music producers, mastering engineers, and large media production organizations with multiple licenses. It's very expensive, but I bought it because it's the only version that supports the "four point cut" editing model used in classical music editing, along with an extended crossfade editor. I think radio producers use the "clipstore" feature a lot, but you can do the same thing manually if you label and file your audio carefully. It also has some noise and click elimination tools aimed at vinyl remastering.

Samplitude Pro

This has nearly everything in Sequoia at one third the cost. It's still expensive, but there is a half-price competitive upgrade available ($499) if you own a legitimate version of another DAW. Samplitude Pro supports 5.1 surround production and its convolutional room simulations can be auditioned in real time. Elastic Audio allows adjusting the duration of pre-recorded material. Samplitude Pro is dongle-protected.

Samplitude ("Classic")

This is probably all a lot of people really need. It supports 64 tracks (128 in the next release), still has Spectral Cleaning, and a stripped-down version of Elastic Audio. You don't get real time convolution or the very fancy simulated optical compressor. Samplitude Classic uses traditional software copy protection, but you can buy a dongle if you need to run it on different machines at different times. Crossgrade pricing for Classic is available ($299) but harder to find.

Samplitude DLV

This is a web-purchase version, basically the same as Classic with some MIDI and room simulation libraries stripped out to make it a smaller download. It is cheaper than boxed versions, but priced only in Euros and not much of a bargain if you're eligible for a crossgrade. There's a free 30-day trial period, however. That's a good way to try Samplitude on a project before committing real money. Don't try to learn it from the manual, though! Check out the tutorial videos on the Samplitude web site.

Samplitude Master

Don't buy this. It was aimed at consumers doing vinyl transfers and is being discontinued.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

Thanks David, I'm looking into getting one of these versions now.

I haven't read anything on midi functions. I'm assuming in this day and age, it has midi or a third party add-on? If not, what would someone do for midi programming and editing?

I'll add one thing to David's comprehensive post... Sequoia also has the most advanced tools for Post Production as well.

For example, better video support, more surround options (Samp is only 5.1), version 11 will have AAF and OMF (Samp can support it as a paid add-on), better time code support, better MMC support...

Samp and Sequoia do have MIDI sequencing as well. Version 11 adds a lot of functionality there including some new instrument features and new amp sim features (Vandal).

I have looked around a great deal at the competition. For my work, Sequoia is still the best bet for my post work, although for my recording, I'm using Pro Tools almost exclusively these days. With my large track count recordings, I find PTHD to be the most stable thing out there. Still not a fan of the sound or the edit model, but I use what my clients pay me to use and in LA, that means Pro Tools.

The other good thing to know about the MAGIX products is that there are upgrade paths from all versions to the higher end versions. If you buy Samp pro and want Sequoia's features, you can upgrade easily without loosing money from an extra purchase.

--Ben

Well, I think that I've finally found a rival to Pro Tools. I have Sequoia 11 on order. I'm told Sequoia 11 be released Sept 2009. I will keep my Pro Tools for marketing, and begin mastering Sequoia 11. Their youtube video's look like this system is a beast.

Ya!

A small heads-up for the tutorial videos. There has been quite a few additions lately.

http://www.samplitude.com/eng/seq/tutorial_videos.html

// Gunnar

Awesome link. Thanks for that!

I'm curious to see how you like Sequoia V11. I had V8, then skipped V9 altogether and went straight to V10 for Samp & Sequoia. I like them both a lot; Samp on some workstations, and Sequoia for the big stuf.

And of course, there's Windows 7 coming out, followed by the inevitable V11.0x, and so on. ;-)

You're in good company here for Samp/Seq., I doubt you'll find better Tech support than the folks here. 8-)

Two years later and this is by far the best DAW I have ever used. Thanks for the recommendations here. I am now on Sequoia 11.2 using Win7 64 and I can't wait for the new 64bit native coming this summer!

That fits my timeline, too. I'm planning on upgrading to Win 7 64 bit, and upgrading to Sequoia 12, whenever it comes out; hopefully some time this summer.

Just an update; been busy as all-get-out, but I did manage to upgrade to Windows 7/64bit on a new quad-core machine, and life's good. Everything runs better of course, including many original 32bit programs. (I have Sony Vegas 10 Pro 64 bit that's just awesome now. Handles AVCHD video with ease...)

Waiting for the 64 bit version of Sequoia 11 to arrive. I'm told it's coming in September now?

Hi Joe,
Do you use jbridge? I see quite a few post on the sampliquoia forums where they mention it. Since I upgraded to win7 64bit I've had some crashing. My latest session needed 35 tracks and was flowing great until I needed yellow tools. As soon as I plugged them in I got instant crashing. Read support forums, lot of guys are saying they use jbridge in 64bit.

I'm looking forward to the big upgrade in Sept too. Isn't it version 12?