|
Why do so few electronica producers use Sonar? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SGL |
It's not just the GUI that turns many people off. The piano roll editor is a PITA. On most other hosts, it's a breeze to quickly input notes with a mouse and edit them and what not. But on sonar, with their magnification and what not just complicates things to the next level. There doesn't seem to be a 'right-click' erase option. But I guess that can be personalized, even though I haven't figured out how to do that.
Another thing that really turned me off was the 'drop-outs'. I have a pretty good computer: Quad core, 4 GB ram, 2 HD (350 GB & 500 GB), (Echo Gina 3G interface), etc...but I still get these random audio drop-outs and they are annoying as hell.
Sonar is a good application. I have no doubts as to its capabilities. And the sound that comes out of it is very 'crisp & clear'. But unless they fix that horrid GUI, I would never consider it an option.
Too bad they stopped the development of Project 5. All it need was 'multicore support' and option to 'insert buses' so that one can side-chain if desired. It would've been my dream application. I love the GUI but... (sighs)...too bad they cancelled its development. It's a shame really. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
The UI is a total mind. This is the reason no one uses it. |
But, the thing is, a LOT of people use it as evidenced by its high market share, just not many EDM producers. It's not like EDM producers have different UI requirements than the rest of the market.
@SGL - you raise many excellent points, although I'm not sure that you can attribute the audio dropouts to an inherent issue with Sonar; otherwise, everybody using a similar setup should experience them, but most people don't, including myself. OTOH, I have problems with audio dropouts (among many other more serious issues) in Cubase where other people running a similar setup don't. I definitely agree with your points regarding P5 - I wish they would've made it open source. Instead, they've ported/emulated some of its features (e.g., the MIDI channel arps, Groove Matrix) into Sonar 8.5. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
I think the problem is that its a wannabe logic/cubase but came late to the party. Aside from which, I found it unstable, overly complicated, and impossible to set up.
I think ableton Live's got an amazing interface, because you can never find out how to do something unless you go looking, but theres nothing I've ever wanted to do that was impossible. It means it takes time to learn how to do the esoteric stuff, but also that the interface is uncluttered. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
I think the problem is that its a wannabe logic/cubase but came late to the party. |
The name Sonar may be relatively new (going on 10 years), but Cakewalk (previously Twelve Tone Systems, the original name of the company that developed the original Cakewalk sequencer, which subsequently became Cakewalk Pro Audio, then Sonar) has definitely been around longer than Cubase, and I believe longer than Logic as well, but I've never been a Mac guy, so I haven't really followed Logic. CW made its first sequencers back in the 80s and started working with audio before Cubase did. In the last few versions, Cubase has actually been playing catchup with Sonar and following its lead more than the other way I around, partially due to Sonar's annual upgrade cycle, which is more frequent than Cubase's, and allows them to release things like 64-bit compatibility (Cakewalk was the first DAW developer to do this, several versions before it was even on the radar of most developers), before Steinberg gets around to it. That's not to say that Sonar hasn't copied some of Cubase's features as well (all DAWs share a lot of common features nowadays, in case you haven't noticed), but to say that Sonar is a Cubase wannabe is quite short-sighted and uninformed. I don't pay much attention to Logic and what I gather from the Cakewalk guys is that they don't either due to its differing platform and target markets, so I doubt that Sonar is stealing any more ideas from them than any other DAW developer is else is stealing ideas from each other.
That aside, I agree with your points regarding Ableton Live, although I still think it has a hideous, but usable, GUI. :D |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| i thought about switching over to it. in the brief time i used it, it reminded me a lot of acid pro. i'd still use ableton for brainstorming, but i don't like arrangement in ableton. there is something about it that irks more and it seems to be bothering me more and more as times passes. to stay on topic the reason i don't use sonar is because i never really gave it a fair shot, but i might be daw hunting soon because ableton is really starting to rattle my bones. the audio warping engine is a sham that sometimes can't even keep loops in sync. im def. curious about sonar and more importantly it's audio editing capabilities. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
The name Sonar may be relatively new (going on 10 years), but Cakewalk (previously Twelve Tone Systems, the original name of the company that developed the original Cakewalk sequencer, which subsequently became Cakewalk Pro Audio, then Sonar) has definitely been around longer than Cubase, and I believe longer than Logic as well, but I've never been a Mac guy, so I haven't really followed Logic. CW made its first sequencers back in the 80s and started working with audio before Cubase did. In the last few versions, Cubase has actually been playing catchup with Sonar and following its lead more than the other way I around, partially due to Sonar's annual upgrade cycle, which is more frequent than Cubase's, and allows them to release things like 64-bit compatibility (Cakewalk was the first DAW developer to do this, several versions before it was even on the radar of most developers), before Steinberg gets around to it. That's not to say that Sonar hasn't copied some of Cubase's features as well (all DAWs share a lot of common features nowadays, in case you haven't noticed), but to say that Sonar is a Cubase wannabe is quite short-sighted and uninformed. I don't pay much attention to Logic and what I gather from the Cakewalk guys is that they don't either due to its differing platform and target markets, so I doubt that Sonar is stealing any more ideas from them than any other DAW developer is else is stealing ideas from each other.
That aside, I agree with your points regarding Ableton Live, although I still think it has a hideous, but usable, GUI. :D |
I didn't mean to imply that it was stealing, only that it wanted Cubase's target market. I know that Sonar has features long before anyone else most of the time.
I get the impression Sonar is a DAW for nerds who are very focussed on getting the newest tech quickly (eg 64 bit) but aren't that interested in stability or useability. |
|
|
| Specimen303 |
Main reason I bought Sonar because of it's price/features ratio. Got the (8.0) studio version for 120 euros. Then upgraded it to 8.5 producer couple of months ago.
I must say I'm more than happy with it. I've had no major stability issues. Few crashes every now and then, but nothing continuous. And I have no issues with useability either. |
|
|
| tehlord |
I took a look at the demo before I plumped for Cubase but I found it clucnky and difficult to navigate. I bought Cubase blind and I was making tunes the first day but with Sonar I had no clue even with the tutorials.
The other factor is that it's almost completely NFR isn't it? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| I know that the piano roll was a big turnoff for me when i have tried the program, that being said i havent spend more than 30 minutes with it in total, so its not enough to form a relevant opinion. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
The other factor is that it's almost completely NFR isn't it? |
That's true - the license can't be transferred on any Cakewalk products. That's the con side to not having a dongle. :( |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
That's true - the license can't be transferred on any Cakewalk products. That's the con side to not having a dongle. :( |
Do people really resell sequencers though? I don't think I've ever heard of that happening and can't imagine the type of person that goes looking for used software (although that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist). |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Do people really resell sequencers though? I don't think I've ever heard of that happening and can't imagine the type of person that goes looking for used software (although that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist). |
I've never sold a software sequencer, but I wanted to at one point. I bought FLS on a whim one evening and proceeded to not use it for two or three years. About the time I was wondering if I could sell it (turns out I can't), FLS 9 was released with Vocodex, so my purchase was justified. ;) |
|
|
|
|
