A few here are wondering the same thing. We're on Sonar 8.5 producer. X1 looks better which I'm hoping may be the answers to my dreams. 8.5 is ugly and cluttered. My guess is , it blows ProTools 9 away for a variety of reasons, one being well established in 64bit already.

True...

Not as familiar with Pro Tools...but since they've gone native they got my attention. I know TDM was the big thing, but now with this i7 it's leveling the playing field some. I've heard Sonar X1-i7- win7 64 bit is a BOMB combo.

I personally started using Sonar X1 Producer right before the release of Cubase 6 previously I was on Cubase 5, but making the switch to X1 Producer was the best decision I've ever made. Simply put the user interface is amazing it has probably doubled my work flow and speed plus its greatly customizable so you can maximize your own work flow in your own way watch some youtube videos you'll know what I mean.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I'm thinking about upgrading. Do you share my opinion on the previous versions, that it was ugly and congested including kind of grainy to me? Maybe you started out in X1 so you don't have a reference of past versions to know what bothered me about Sonar 8.5 before?

Please continue to update us on it. Is it stable on Win7 64?

Sorry It took so long for me to reply I've been working my ass off on my live room. Anyway I really like Sonar X1 it has some amazing features like the "Pro Channel" on every input of the DAW mixer. I also started using Protools 9 on my mac It's really just personal preference the only reason I switched to Protools is because its the industry standard so say a customer comes in just for a mix I need to have the standard daw but personal I like sonar better.

Thanks for the update. Is the Pro Channel what you like more about X1 than Pro Tools 9 or what else?
As you become more proficient with both, please please share what you like about each one.

Works been bogging me down...thanks for the insight Mike. It will be great to here your input after spending some time with both.
I've work some on X1 at a friends studio and love the somewhat freedom in setting up work flow and the pro channel sounds really nice. Looking to actually mix on it for real here soon. His is a i7 Win7 32 bit...so would still love to see on a 64bit like mine.
I agree I get the "You got Pro Tools" from time to time...so will have to have it I guess.

So yeah share Mike where you caan.

Thanks!

Well I'll state a few points/opinions that I believe are correct based on different situations. If I wasn't in a professional environment and owned a Windows based machine I would use Sonar x1 Producer over any other DAW on the market. (If they put out a mac release I would be using it now.) (Windows just isn't reliable enough for serious studios.) with every session weather it would be tracking, mixing, or mastering. In my opinion Sonar is laid out better then any other DAW I've used (Cuabse 5, Protools 9, Logic etc.) Cubase was hard to navigate, and ProTools is a mess I can tell just by glancing at it its going to be a pain to get to know. Sonar has at least tripled my work flow due to its highly customizable user interface. Literally every thing can be moved around to your liking so if you have 2 or 3 monitors you can really get yourself a nice layout of the things that are important to you without unnecessary clicking or moving. Another selling point to Sonar besides its work flow is a feature called the "Pro Channel". Out of all the DAW's I've used they just don't have a realistic setup of a mixing console, but with Sonar the Pro Channel is amazing. It can give you big punchy mixes and has channel/bus compression to get punchy big studio sound nor does it sound "digital" or fake. My final verdict... The only reason I'm using PT9 is because its an industry standard. God only knows why haha. If Sonar came out with a Mac release and someone wanted to Track, Mix, & Master at my studio I would only use that. But for the time being im stuck with PT9 for all my studio needs..

PS. It ran amazing when I was on a 64bit Windows pc not even a hiccup and I never had it crash on me. The problem was my actual computer a hardware issue I didn't want to look into or spend the money to fix. Like I said I'f Sonar had a mac relase I would be all over it. It blows all the other DAW's out of the water.

If You buy a professionally built PC, the PC has no problem running 120 tracks wide open with plug-ins galore.

audiokid, post: 371623 wrote: If You buy a professionally built PC, the PC has no problem running 120 tracks wide open with plug-ins galore.

This is definitely true don't get me wrong pc's can be great if there properly built and maintained. Mac's just have alot of upside over the PC. Unable to obtain viruses, and a rock solid operating system to boot. There just very reliable thats why there an industry standard. The only thing you have to ask yourself is... "How serious am I going to take this will I need to be in a professional environment with clients?" My say on the situation is Sonar x1 + Windows for a less serious thing. Pro Tool's 9 + Mac for a professional studio. As much as I favor Sonar X1 over any DAW on the market, the industry standard (Pro Tools9) I'm forced to use it due to my client base.

Hello everybody. I own a small recording studio in Cyprus and working with mixing studios in Greece and Cyprus that they are working with Cubase mostly.

The Sonar X1 is very stable with Win7 64 bit. I was using sonart 8.5 64 bit and was very very exited...I had a few bugs with the midi editor and that for I had to switch to Cubase 5.1 to continue my work. Now with X1 I'm thinking to switch to X1 entirely because it's more stable and with fewer bugs....the problem I have is that I'm confused since the release of the Cubase 6.

What you think Sonar X1 or Cubase 6 ?

Mike Miller, post: 371694 wrote: Unable to obtain viruses

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.macworld…"]New Mac Trojan horse masquerades as virus scanner | Antivirus & Security | MacUser | Macworld[/]="http://www.macworld…"]New Mac Trojan horse masquerades as virus scanner | Antivirus & Security | MacUser | Macworld[/]

As nefarious as MAC Defender might be, the level of concern over infection remains low: Users must be tricked into downloading and installing the program, as well as entering their administrator password.

Not a virus per se but a trojan that you have to install in the first place. Only a person who is actually concerned about viruses would install it. Macs aren't impervious to viruses and trojans but they are certainly less susceptible. That is the nature of the Unix Kernel upon which OSX is based.

With all that in mind, I'm a happy PC user. I have also owned many Macs and hope to again in the near future.

There is one rule that will prevent 80% of virus infections: don't download illegal software and don't surf for ****. Prevention is still the best medicine, even with computers.