I should add a few more points

, this new system is for composing, and heavy midi production. if it was a good tracking system to boot, I would be even happier.
Ultimately I will be teaching my oldest child the world of digital audio production.

Not sure if I should respond to this?

While I'm a user of neither, I have been exposed to both. I nearly called the cops on 'em fer that but I digress....

I'de be more incliened to go with the Steinberg/YAMHA product. From Cubase you can tightly intigrate to NUENDO & back. Yamaha will be around longer in the end I would also imagine?

Cakewalk is well just a plain Cakewalk. Look out for all that sticky iceing. You don't want to time slip.

Time keeps on Slippin' slippin' slippin' into the future.............
Ms Remy Ann David

I don't agree with Remy on this one. Cubase (V4) no longer supports DX effects or instruments and from what I have read, technical support is something you can forget with Steinberg.

On the other hand I have used Cakewalk products for around 20 years and have never had a big problem with support - or indeed the product. Remy's Steinberg/Yamaha argument is also moot as of the start of this year as Roland now have a large stake (majority I think) in Cakewalk.

In Sonar 7 Cakewalk introduced major revisions to their ageing MIDI editing structure and this seems to have addressed the vast majority of the gripes expressed on their forums.

They have recently introduced V8 and although there have clearly been a few teething problems, these have already been addressed with two updates. For the lesser gripes, another update is apparently being worked on. I don't think you will ever see support from Steinberg like this. Indeed when Cubase 4 was released, promised updates to clear bugs in V3 were abandoned, this resulted in many users changing over to Sonar. I don't think I know of any "converts" who are dissatisfied. It seems the workflow differences are the only big changes other than relatively minor features being missing from one or the other.

Overall, if you like good support and frequent updates from a company who seem to listen to their user base, I think Sonar is the only logical choice. JMHO!

EDIT: P.s. From what you said about usage I don't think Remy's point about Nuendo is relevant either. Sonar can show video clips so you can sync to video, but a video editor it is not! Many users seem to use multiple software and don't appear to have major problems with import/export. Again these facilities have been enhanced considerably over the last two releases.

I chose Sonar only because I don't like dongles. If Cubase didn't have a dongle, I would have chosen it.

Yes, DX plug-ins are no longer natively supported in Cubase4 but they can be used just fine within a wrapper. Many plug-ins come in different varieties, VST, DX, AU, etc. This was really only a big problem for people who had existing projects that used DX plugins. When they loaded in the older projects cubase would not load the plug-ins. To fix that, users had to reconfigure their project with a wrapper and apply their DX plugs as needed. For people who used Waves, DX, they had to jump through a couple hoops to change from using the DX version to VST.
BUT, for a new user, I don't see any of this being a problem.

I haven't use Sonar a lot. The last time I checked it out was 4 years ago. At that time Cubase just simply blew it away as far as MIDI implementation/functionality was concerned which was one of my major concerns. I've heard great things about Sonar's 64bit implementation which has been out for a couple years now whereas Steinberg just released a 'beta' version with Cubase4.

I'm not going to say alot because I can't really compare/contrast the two applications but [[url=http://[/URL]="http://forum.cubase…"]here's[/]="http://forum.cubase…"]here's[/] what one recent convert had to say about his switch from PT. Check out the other posts there as well. There's plenty pointing out problems and plenty giving it props.

fmw wrote: I chose Sonar only because I don't like dongles. If Cubase didn't have a dongle, I would have chosen it.

Assuming Cubase didn't require the dongle, why would you pick it over Sonar?

If I went with Sonar, what other scoring software is out there?

pr0gr4m wrote: Yes, DX plug-ins are no longer natively supported in Cubase4 but they can be used just fine within a wrapper.

Do you know what specific wrappers are available to use my DX plug-ins in Cubase 4? I have been looking and the only one I found is no longer compatible.

[="http://pagesperso-orange.fr/vb-audio/us/products/dxrack/dxrack.htm"]FFX4[/]="http://pagesperso-o…"]FFX4[/]
or
[[url=http://="http://www.acondigi…"]EffectsChainer[/]="http://www.acondigi…"]EffectsChainer[/]

There's another one called buzz or something like that. It seemed a bit complicated to set up.

audiokid wrote: (W)hat other scoring software is out there?

Leisure Suit Larry?

Fruity Loops?

pr0gr4m wrote: [quote=fmw]I chose Sonar only because I don't like dongles. If Cubase didn't have a dongle, I would have chosen it.

Assuming Cubase didn't require the dongle, why would you pick it over Sonar?

It just has better placement among pro studios. I don't think it does anything Sonar can't do for my purposes. It would have to be really, really, really special to get me to buy a piece of software with a dongle.

pr0gr4m wrote: I haven't use Sonar a lot. The last time I checked it out was 4 years ago. At that time Cubase just simply blew it away as far as MIDI implementation/functionality was concerned which was one of my major concerns. I've heard great things about Sonar's 64bit implementation which has been out for a couple years now whereas Steinberg just released a 'beta' version with Cubase4.

That's why I mentioned the overhaul of MIDI with Sonar 7. It really has changed almost beyond recognition now and I have seen very few criticisms of the new implementation. Personally I find Sonar more intuitive than Cubase, but that is probably because I have been using Cakewalk products for so long now.

4 Years ago you would be comparing Sonar 4 to Cubase 3 (I think). Sonar 8 is almost unrecognisable from Sonar 4. I have a good friend still using Sonar 4 and whenever he asks a question (he's not very technical and calls at least weekly) I find I have to open Sonar 4 (still on my system for this very reason) just so I can work out how I used to do things! It reallly highlights the improvements that have been made.

Thanks for your opinions all.

I'm going with Sonar 8. Sounds like its a step ahead of Cubase. From what I understand, it does have a basic scoring feature ( Staff View) that will hopefully be updated. If not, there are a few third party options out there. Has anyone used Sibelius, Finale or Overture..?

I suppose it's too late now but I use Cubase still. It's a great program. I've used Sonar in the past and it's alright. It has it's own issues. I can't remember but I'm pretty sure it had issues with my interface. The thing I don't like about Sonar is their insistence on maintaining DX plugins. It's one of few DAWs that still use this platform. Of course you can use VST with a wrapper.

The support issues with Cubase I think have improved quite a bit since Yamaha took over and Avid(as in Pinnacle and Digidesign) dropped out of the picture.

I think at this point it all comes down to personal preference.

I have Sonar 7 (wrote a review of it), and use Nuendo (have also used Logic, Samplitude, etc). Imho, Cubase has a much better workflow than Sonar. Sonar has some good features, but Cubase is a better all around app in my opinion. Cubase/Nuendo's tempo/grid warp feature is better than anything on the market for adapting tempo grids and having clips follow, or remain locked to timecode (PT's elastic time is good in other ways). Nuendo's edit mode makes spotting effects and score to picture a snap. Not sure Sonar has anything like that.

Also, imho, Cubase is much easier to grasp intuitively and to teach.

Sonar 8 may have changed this, but having to reboot Sonar just to change ASIO latency was a complete no-go for any time-critical work. It probably does WDM on the fly, and if you are happy with WDM drivers, then it may not be a big deal.

As far as DirectX - I haven't missed it in years and that whole basis for complaint when it was dropped made no sense to me. Really not sure what plugins are DX-only still that would require a DX host (other than an old version of Autotune, which is in VST format now). Especially when you look at soft synths and sample libraries - there are none outside of Cakewalk's own plugins.

After the fact most likely, but fwiw...

dterry, thats the kind of info I'm looking for. I still haven't bought it.

Here is the other scenario.

My computer choice sadly dictates what software I start with. I'm understanding Cubase is not supported by 64-bit systems now.

Cubase 64 bit is still pre-release, but there are people using it. You can apparently use the 32 bit version under Vista 64 but without the extended memory advantages (I am going to be setting up a farm PC with the 64-bit version running EWQLSO Play 64 bit in a few weeks).

The downside to watch out for with either app is running 32-bit plugins under a 64-bit app. Both use a bit bridge and performance varies there. I don't know how stable the 64-bit preview version of Cubase is vs. Sonar 8.

If you have the time before committing, I would download the Sonar demo and see how it works for you. I don't like the workflow, but it might work well for you.

I don't the way Sonar makes you work, the wave editing is annoying. I'm spoiled by the simplicity of old-school Cool Edit and Audition.
I find Sonar LE to be really annoying to set up the right tools and getting the mouse buttons to do the right thing. Makes me feel like it's giving me R.S.I.

hueseph wrote: I suppose it's too late now but I use Cubase still. It's a great program. I've used Sonar in the past and it's alright. It has it's own issues. I can't remember but I'm pretty sure it had issues with my interface. The thing I don't like about Sonar is their insistence on maintaining DX plugins. It's one of few DAWs that still use this platform. Of course you can use VST with a wrapper.

The support issues with Cubase I think have improved quite a bit since Yamaha took over and Avid(as in Pinnacle and Digidesign) dropped out of the picture.

I think at this point it all comes down to personal preference.

The post may be late but the info you give is well out of date too. Sonar has supported both DX(i) and VST(i) natively since Sonar 6. If you don't like Dx(i) then don't bother but if you DID occasionally want it, it is there - no longer so with Cubase.

dterry wrote: Sonar 8 may have changed this, but having to reboot Sonar just to change ASIO latency was a complete no-go for any time-critical work. It probably does WDM on the fly, and if you are happy with WDM drivers, then it may not be a big deal.

As far as DirectX - I haven't missed it in years and that whole basis for complaint when it was dropped made no sense to me. Really not sure what plugins are DX-only still that would require a DX host (other than an old version of Autotune, which is in VST format now). Especially when you look at soft synths and sample libraries - there are none outside of Cakewalk's own plugins.

As of Sonar 8 there is no longer any restarting of Sonar (never was a reboot) for either ASIO or WDM. Sonar also supports the latest Vista audio spec's (can't remember the acronym off hand) for apparently even lower latency.

If you have Sonar 7 then you should know that both DX(i) and VST(i) are supported natively. I don't see why DX(i) is a bad thing - at least it is fully specified whereas VST(i) has very many gaps in the spec's which often lead to incompatibilities (due to differing interpretations) on any DAW software.

I'm not trying to tell the OP what to buy but I will try to make sure he is getting up to date info. Several of the comments about Sonar have been pretty dated.... to be fair one poster did mention Sonar 4 but any opinion based on experience even say only one year old is dated as I have mentioned. Sonar has been updated every year since 2001 (and beyond with the Pro Audio series) and EVERY release has made significant changes.

Greener wrote: I don't the way Sonar makes you work, the wave editing is annoying. I'm spoiled by the simplicity of old-school Cool Edit and Audition.
I find Sonar LE to be really annoying to set up the right tools and getting the mouse buttons to do the right thing. Makes me feel like it's giving me R.S.I.

I don't think we're talking about Sonar LE here are we? Sonar 8 has been mentioned by the OP which comes only in Studio or Producer versions and is a different beast to LE. Does LE support Shortcut Key definition like the others? That can easily beat R.S.I.

dterry wrote:
If you have the time before committing, I would download the Sonar demo and see how it works for you. I don't like the workflow, but it might work well for you.

The Sonar 8 demo should be available fairly soon. Apparently Cakewalk are working on it as we speak. I think the Sonar 7 demo is still there and would at least let you see the workflow.

It always makes me smile a bit when people talk of workflow. It always seems that people who change software usually find the workflow of new software odd. Unless you commit to learning a new DAW then I think the "familiar" workflow will always be preferred. Strangely there have been many converts from Sonar to Cubase since the release of Cubase 4 and the dropping of promised updates to Cubase 3. When these guys arrived on the Forum there were often "how to" questions from them but several have now acknowledged a preference for the flow of Sonar.

Me I can't comment as I've hardly used Cubase, so it naturally seems "odd" to me - but that certainly does not mean it is odd per se!

dterry wrote: Cubase 64 bit is still pre-release, but there are people using it. You can apparently use the 32 bit version under Vista 64 but without the extended memory advantages (I am going to be setting up a farm PC with the 64-bit version running EWQLSO Play 64 bit in a few weeks).

The downside to watch out for with either app is running 32-bit plugins under a 64-bit app. Both use a bit bridge and performance varies there. I don't know how stable the 64-bit preview version of Cubase is vs. Sonar 8.

If you have the time before committing, I would download the Sonar demo and see how it works for you. I don't like the workflow, but it might work well for you.

I'm buying both computer ( either 32 or 64-bit) at the same time I buy the software. Initially, I wondered if I should stick with 32-bit, stay clear of Vista. I guess its a no brainer, regardless of what software I go with, to move with technology and get a 64-bit Vista OS. Initially I was sold on Cubase but after so many recommendation to get Sonar 8, glad we have a good debate going on.

Without the computer in hand, downloading a demo won't help me at this point.

Chris - just be sure your full system is 64-bit compliant - shouldn't be an issue as most new hardware has 64-bit drivers. True, a demo wouldn't help here. It really does come down to workflow preference imho.

What apps have you used in the past and what did you prefer about them? That might help more than simply offering our personal preferences.

MrEase wrote:

As of Sonar 8 there is no longer any restarting of Sonar (never was a reboot) for either ASIO or WDM. Sonar also supports the latest Vista audio spec's (can't remember the acronym off hand) for apparently even lower latency.

I thought I had read that on Sonar 8, but it was a problem with Sonar 7. Restart, reboot - semantics. I think everyone understood when I said "reboot Sonar" and not "reboot Windows".

MrEase wrote:
If you have Sonar 7 then you should know that both DX(i) and VST(i) are supported natively. I don't see why DX(i) is a bad thing - at least it is fully specified whereas VST(i) has very many gaps in the spec's which often lead to incompatibilities (due to differing interpretations) on any DAW software.

I did know that, but that wasn't the point. The original response was about Cubase dropping DX, and not losing anything, not Sonar.

Cakewalk is about the only developer making DXi plugins (if not the only - the VST, VSTi, Core Audio, RTAS and TDM markets are much bigger than DX at this point).

Yes you can run either in Sonar, but outside of Cakewalk, name one DX-only plugin....

I have no idea where you got the "gaps in the spec" proposal on VST, and how it is weaker, other than perhaps a Cakewalk forum, but afaik Sonar is the only app that still supports DX/DXi plugins so 3rd party development for DX seems dead, at least on the professional level (don't know about Live, Traction, and the lower end freeware/shareware market, etc).

dterry wrote: I did know that, but that wasn't the point. The original response was about Cubase dropping DX, and not losing anything, not Sonar.

Cakewalk is about the only developer making DXi plugins (if not the only - the VST, VSTi, Core Audio, RTAS and TDM markets are much bigger than DX at this point).

Yes you can run either in Sonar, but outside of Cakewalk, name one DX-only plugin....

I have no idea where you got the "gaps in the spec" proposal on VST, and how it is weaker, other than perhaps a Cakewalk forum, but afaik Sonar is the only app that still supports DX/DXi plugins so 3rd party development for DX seems dead, at least on the professional level (don't know about Live, Traction, and the lower end freeware/shareware market, etc).

This was my understanding as well. Also, like many things, newer isn't always better.

dterry wrote: Chris - just be sure your full system is 64-bit compliant - shouldn't be an issue as most new hardware has 64-bit drivers. True, a demo wouldn't help here. It really does come down to workflow preference imho.

Will do

What apps have you used in the past and what did you prefer about them? That might help more than simply offering our personal preferences.

I've never owned a PC. Been on Mac since PT 24 started. Used MPC's for sequencing. The apps I've used were all PT TDM and waves. I'm not to big on plug-ins other than a few. However, current plug-ins might be a lot more useable now-a-days. Everything else I use is hardware. I haven't upgraded my PT in 6 years. ( I know, I know... Babies and fatherhood) Its all new for me once again, which is exciting.

I don't care about bells and whistle too much. I much rather focus on smart and logical design that are stable and whom have strong support from 3'rd party. I don't care about learning curves. Its all easy to me once I get my head into it. Bottom line, I don't want anything less than pro. Money is not an issue when it comes the core of what I need to buy here.

Hope that helps.

hueseph wrote:

This was my understanding as well. Also, like many things, newer isn't always better.

Exactly. but I know we're moving towards 64-bit systems, software that draws from multiple racks of computers. Don't you just hate it when you buy new and it takes a year for the bugs to ease up.
Never the less... I'm basically going to toss my PT rig in the garbage soon dive into 2009 DAW world and start rocking again.

audiokid wrote: I haven't upgraded my PT in 6 years. ( I know, I know... Babies and fatherhood)

I know the feeling. :-)

As far as stability, they all have their issues. I've considered moving to a PT HD rig just for post work and to maintain the "marketing" appeal, but in truth, Nuendo gives me more bang for the buck and is just a better all around app for what I do.

Cubase/Nuendo aren't without some issues in terms of bugs, and how fast they are fixed (an area Digi probably exceeds Steinberg). Sonar does fairly well with fixes afaik.

I would hate to give you a definitive statement that either Cubase or Sonar would be more professional, as both can produce professional results easily. I don't know how many PT users have made the transition to Sonar (just not around the product's market that much), but do know some that have moved to Nuendo (mainly post users as that's my market). For scoring, Cubase is a great app, and is used in Hollywood, though it's pretty much a Logic/Mac town.

Current plugins are much improved over the Mix24 days, and can be a nice complement to your outboard hardware. That's another killer feature in Cubase/Nuendo - integrating outboard hardware with delay compensation. It's easy to setup. Sonar 8 also offers this capability.

Really, both are great apps. Sonar comes with some superb plugins and softsynths (I use Rapture and Z3ta in Nuendo as they are VST plugins), and Cubase has the excellent control room feature than no other DAW really does quite as well - if you monitor on a desk it might not be as useful though.

To me Cubase is much more intuitive, faster workflow, and easier to look at for long hours. The current plugins are quite good imho. The included VSTi's may be great for some, but I prefer 3rd party options there. But you won't be losing anything with Sonar and it has it's own advantages (Variphrase is pretty decent for pitch correction; main 3 soft synths are very good) - I would get a demo from someone local if possible, or even just see how the layout/flow of each appeals to you from their online demo videos, etc. (If you were local, I would be happy to have you drop by the studio and try both.)

Regards,
Dedric

Here is my review of Sonar 7 fwiw:
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.audiomid…"]here[/]="http://www.audiomid…"]here[/]

Thanks for telling us about the review. Very good btw.

Me being an old Linn, then MPC pioneer, it sounds like it has a pretty decent midi setup and sounds. This is one area that is very important to me. I'm also closing the door on hardware sequencers. Is Sonar OS much like Roland? I like Roland sounds but have never liked anything about how they operate. Way to goofy for me.

How is Cubase Midi? Drum programming etc?

Cubase's midi is excellent. Some features there that supercede most others are the Logic Editor where you can create custom midi command operations and macros that can be assigned to key commands; and the Project Logical Editor where you can create custom operations on folders, tracks, etc.

The drum editor is very good, and like all others it has a key editor, list editor and score editor. One thing Sonar has that Cubase 4 doesn't is a step sequencer, but there are step sequencers available as plugins.

Sonar isn't anything like Roland menus on hardware sequencers, etc. But, menu and command access is one area I'm not fond of with Sonar. Cubase seems more intuitive there for the most part. I would also put audio editing ahead with Cubase over Sonar - routing is also more flexible between tracks, buses, groups, etc than in past versions. Sonar 8 may have improved management of tracks such as VSTi/DXi outputs vs. midi, etc, but it was infuriating to me in v7. Much more elegant in Cubase/Nuendo with the VSTi rack, and option for instrument tracks, in addition to handling of multiple outputs, use of folders, arranger track, tempo mapping, etc.

As dterry indicates, it is very difficult to recommend Cubase or Sonar over the other as both are very strong DAW applications.

It has occured to me that you could consider posting on both the Cakewalk Sonar Forum and the Cubase Forum asking for information from people who have changed from one to the other. As I have said before there are quite a few ex-cubase users on the Sonar forum and I guess vice versa. They will probably be in the unique position of being very conversant with both and I am sure would be able to point out the strengths and weaknesses of each. There also seem to be quite a few who use both programmes that might help.

What is most important is that you get a comparison of both as they stand today, as information based on older versions is certainly not going to give a clear picture. This has been my main reason for posting here.

Other than being able to point out where Sonar has been updated I am certainly not in a position to strongly recommend one over the other.

Depends what you need.

Cubase has a better GUI and workflow IMHO and this is MASSIVE.

Sonar has MASSIVELY better plugins, including good convolution reverb, good audio channel strip (the VC-64 which is basically a Kjaerhus audio golden channel), the full version of Z3TA+ synth (awesome), Dimension and Rapture LE, and new mastering plugins including linear phase EQ, peak limiter, mastering limiter and multiband compressor, all of which are better than anything included in Cubase. Sonar has really improved in versions 7 and 8. It included a good step sequencer in V8 too, for those who lik ethat sort of thing (I don't).

BUt Cubase is also cross platform PC and Mac and given that I use both, plus have been a Cubase user for several years, that tips it for me. But I do think that Sonar offers better value for money and has better plugins, although you would probably want some good 3rd party plugins anyway in both cases. Cubase has the weakest plugins of any major DAW IMHO. Logic, Samplitude and Sonar all beat it in this respect.

Slightly better in C4 compared to SX3 but certainly I rarely use them and need 3rd party plugis.

what do you mean exactly regarding better workflow with Cubase?

audiokid wrote: what do you mean exactly regarding better workflow with Cubase?

I honestly think what leedsquietman means is that when you are familiar with any application you can work well with it. I could say exactly the same as he did about Sonar! Whenever I have tried Cubase I had virtually zero workflow. In my case that is simply lack of familiarity so I would never make such a bold statement about any application.

I would guess whichever would fit you best regarding workflow (or at least getting up to speed) would depend on what you have used previously. I am quite sure that with either, once you are familiar and up to speed, there will not be any great difference in what you can achieve.

I am not trying to push you either way but am trying to present a balanced view and point out any dated information that has been given. In the end it's up to you.

The only point I would make is that there are many helpful people on the Sonar forum and I'm sure they would jump in to help you with any problems. Of course this may well exist on the Cubase forums. From what I have read, this is not always the case BUT this is only what I have read and therefore not personal experience.

As I suggested before, have a look on the respective forums and you may find out more.

MrEase wrote: [quote=audiokid]what do you mean exactly regarding better workflow with Cubase?

I honestly think what leedsquietman means is that when you are familiar with any application you can work well with it. I could say exactly the same as he did about Sonar! Whenever I have tried Cubase I had virtually zero workflow. In my case that is simply lack of familiarity so I would never make such a bold statement about any application.

Just to clarify a bit - what I personally refer to as workflow has little to do with preference and is first based on: the ease of access to functions, how easy it is to surmise where on the screen you want to look with a glance, and how easy it is to sort out buttons, menus, GUI layout, etc.

The second part of workflow is how directly functions, features and key commands relate to a specific job or task.

For example, when working with VSTi's, how easy is it to setup, assign midi tracks, and audio outputs and how well do those integrate with existing audio tracks at mixdown? Just one example where Sonar falls short vs. Cubase/Nuendo, and even a few other apps (though most a lacking a bit in handling of VSTi's - Logic 8 isn't too far behind Cubase/Nuendo here). There are many more. GUI just isn't easy to work with for hours on end, but I can see where you could think the opposite if you are already used to it (i.e. a longtime Sonar user would of course be more comfortable with Sonar).

Great info all, thanks.

What I'm used to is Pro Tools and the look of PT as well.

Does Sonar or Cubase have skins/templates options.

How does Sonar look to you all, How does Cubase look to you all?

I did try Cubase about 10 years ago and couldn't get used to the look of it. Visually, it looked like a toy so I've always had a negative thing towards it for that.

Although I believe Cubase has been the better software of the two, something is telling me Sonar is the one to buy.

Try the demo of Sonar and see how you like it.

http://download.cakewalk.com/sonartrial.asp

It's only Sonar 7 but it should give you a feel for the software.

I've been using Cubase since the Atari days so I'm biased. It all comes down to personal preference at this point, I think.

I found this link to a Cubase 4 Demo:

Download Now

Apparently this Cubase is 64 bit. That's what it says on the link anyway.

dterry wrote: [quote=MrEase][quote=audiokid]what do you mean exactly regarding better workflow with Cubase?

I honestly think what leedsquietman means is that when you are familiar with any application you can work well with it. I could say exactly the same as he did about Sonar! Whenever I have tried Cubase I had virtually zero workflow. In my case that is simply lack of familiarity so I would never make such a bold statement about any application.

Just to clarify a bit - what I personally refer to as workflow has little to do with preference and is first based on: the ease of access to functions, how easy it is to surmise where on the screen you want to look with a glance, and how easy it is to sort out buttons, menus, GUI layout, etc.

The second part of workflow is how directly functions, features and key commands relate to a specific job or task.

For example, when working with VSTi's, how easy is it to setup, assign midi tracks, and audio outputs and how well do those integrate with existing audio tracks at mixdown? Just one example where Sonar falls short vs. Cubase/Nuendo, and even a few other apps (though most a lacking a bit in handling of VSTi's - Logic 8 isn't too far behind Cubase/Nuendo here). There are many more. GUI just isn't easy to work with for hours on end, but I can see where you could think the opposite if you are already used to it (i.e. a longtime Sonar user would of course be more comfortable with Sonar).

Not being a Cubase user I'm quite surprised by this as just about all of what you mention you can fully customise in Sonar to suit your preferences. Menus, hot keys, screen layouts etc. can all be customised and saved. This is really a once only set up. Also the GUI, although not skinned, can also be customised with preferred colour set up's. In fact there are a bunch of the schemes available in the forums.

Any synth inserted in the synth rack has all requested I/O tracks allocated when inserted and any audio will be assigned to the default (selectable) bus. I don't see how this could be much simpler? VST and VSTi's can also be customised and also controlled from control surfaces with ACT. Any parameter's that the VST(i) exposes are available in Sonar and to ACT. I just don't see what is lacking in the handling of plug in's at all.

I am wondering what version of Sonar you have based these conclusions on?

Of course, not being a Cubase user, there may be a light I cannot see but at the moment I cannot see how things could be much simpler within the complexity of any serious DAW.

Unfortunately for the OP we can only put forward opinions and these are all based on personal preference. As hueseph said, and has already been mentioned, you can download a trial of Sonar (I don't think there is a trial version of Cubase without dongle) but the OP seems to want to buy PC and Software in one hit, so is really flying blind and completely dependent on our opinions. That's why I have avoided saying "BUY SONAR" and tried to concentrate on him getting a balanced and unbiased view. Yes, I have stood in Sonar's corner but only because I believe there were several comments that reflected antiquity rather than the here and now.

MrEase wrote:
Not being a Cubase user I'm quite surprised by this as just about all of what you mention you can fully customise in Sonar to suit your preferences. Menus, hot keys, screen layouts etc. can all be customised and saved. This is really a once only set up. Also the GUI, although not skinned, can also be customised with preferred colour set up's. In fact there are a bunch of the schemes available in the forums.

Hi MrEase - first, thank you for your insight on Sonar. Here is my reply mainly just for sake of our discussion more than for advising potential buyers :-) ...

Yes, you can customize Sonar quite a bit, and I did setup a skin for my use here. That is a nice feature in Sonar.

I have Sonar 7 Producer Edition, and wrote a review of it for a retailer (I plan to update to v8 just to have it on hand).

I personally find it more difficult to visually search easily compared to other DAWs, as it is (or seems to be) a Windows native graphics based GUI rather than using more custom graphics. I have the same qualms about Reaper in that respect, though to some degree, Reaper has improved on some similar graphical features also found in Sonar. To me, Sonar just looks bit like a mess graphically, which makes it harder to find what I need fast. It's there, and once you learn it, that probably isn't as big of a deal, but I came from Logic and Paris, both of which had clean graphic layouts, with the power beneath the GUI, so that's what I look for in a DAW.

To me Cubase/Nuendo (4 and up) appear a bit more elegant in GUI design which aids in the long hours of use - just a better separation of functions, buttons, and sections for me - ymmv of course. Cubase SX 1/2 weren't as graphically appealing.

The Nuendo VSTi rack is visually easier to search and operate than Sonar's add button approach, and VSTi outputs are all put in a folder (selectable from a drop down menu in the rack's insert, not just a one-time assignment when created - at least I can't find a way to enable/disable multiple VSTi outs in Sonar - I know you can reassign outputs at least, so it's probably there somewhere, or I forgot how to since it's been a while since I reviewed it). Also, removing a VSTi from the rack in Nuendo removes it's audio output tracks, so you don't end up with a cluttered track window needing manual cleanup.

Sonar's folder and track approach is more cluttered graphically, but has quite a few nice features to it. It just seems Cakewalk went for features over elegance in design, but again, just my opinion here.

To Sonar's credit, there are some fabulous functions such as the customizable PRV Tool, the V-Vocal editor (maybe not quite melodyne, but it is a very good tuning editor), midi zoom, linear phase plugins (I use them in Nuendo quite often), etc. I'm leaving out major features of course, but those are a few less noted features I find noteworthy for potential buyers of Sonar.

Overall, Cubase just seems to simplify the work a bit more, where while Sonar has a lot of power, more of it is up front requiring you to sort through it from time to time.

As far as demos, no, there is no Cubase demo. I would think the link listed could be for a cracked version - fyi.

Nothing wrong with preferring one or the other. My opinions aren't any more valid than anyone else's. Preference is an individual thing, and both DAWs will give you great results in terms of creativity and final output.

Good discussion here. Always good to have opinions from users of different apps as each will view their app of choice differently and often point out capabilities those of us who don't use it regularly would miss.

dterry wrote:
Hi MrEase - first, thank you for your insight on Sonar. Here is my reply mainly just for sake of our discussion more than for advising potential buyers :-) ...

Thanks for that explanation and it is certainly food for thought. I originally found leedsquietman's comments quite strong with no basis given. You have stepped into the void he has left and I see your point of view.

I always think it a poor idea to ask for opinions on a A versus B on a forum as you will usually get as many different opinions as responses. As you say I think it is useful dialogue and I hope of more use to the OP than someone saying something like - "Sonar stinks, buy Cubase" - or vice versa. Also, as I have tried to point out, all software moves on, sometimes perhaps too often. This means that well intentioned comments can be outdated all too quickly.

Personally I much prefer Cakewalk's more enlightened approach to IP protection. Let's face it, any good software always seems to get cracked in short order. I firmly believe that any form of "dongle" protection really only hampers the paying customers (the extra software required has no useful purpose to the user and is nothing but overhead) whilst having minimal apparent effect on the "crackers". Having said that I feel I have also learned something from you regarding Cubase. Many thanks!

cubase eq's do need some working on. it doesn't seem to do much when it comes to tweeking.
i hope this is because C4 plugs are so accurate you cant tell .
can any one reccomend a good freeware eq plugin?