Between Sonar or Cubase what would you choose and why?

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:33 am

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.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:25 pm

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.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:38 pm

what do you mean exactly regarding better workflow with Cubase?

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:38 pm

bigtree 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.

Moderator Joined: Apr 13, 2006 Posts: 129

MrEase wrote:

bigtree 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.

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).

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:59 pm

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.

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:39 pm

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:

http://www.brothersoft.com/d.php?soft_id=72293&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.brothersoft.com%2Fmp3_audio%2Faudio_editor%2FSetup_Cubase_4.1.0_64bit.exe

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

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:17 am

dterry wrote:

MrEase wrote:

bigtree 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.

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.

Moderator Joined: Apr 13, 2006 Posts: 129

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 Smile

...

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.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:19 am

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 Smile

...

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!

Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:12 am

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?

This topic sponsored by: