Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

[Percustard]

How do they compare software v software:

Internal resolution?
Number of Channels?
Standard plug ins?
Interface user friendliness?
reliablity?
price?
Support?

Anyone used both?

[stut5]

Originally posted by Percustard:
How do they compare software v software:

Internal resolution?
Number of Channels?
Standard plug ins?
Interface user friendliness?
reliablity?
price?
Support?

Anyone used both?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I bought cakewalk a couple of years ago I think it was pro audio 6.0 or something and I never did like it at all.I bought it second hand from a friend.I really don't remember alot of the specific things that your asking but I can tell you IMO for basic recording there is no comparison.It's not even in the ball park.I don't think that cakewalk even had automation if I remember correctly.I think the midi was probably its best feature.This was a few years back though so it may have gotten better.Hope this helps Stu

[nukmusic]

I agree and disagree......Cakewalk 6 & 7 was JJunk with 2 capital J's. But versions 8 & 9 (Pro Audio) was pretty good. it was like they never made those older versions. But Sonar is even better, the sound and the features. But I had to get Digi-001. It feels good to know that when I record a song or music....I can usely ship it out to just about any studio because most of them have protools.

Docta'J
www.nukmusic.com

[APAULOS]

I think 'Tha Docta' nailed down the ONLY tangible advantage PTLE has over Sonar, Logic, and Cubase SX. Some people will say that this one sounds better or that one is more intuitive but it's all personal opinion.

On the other hand if you were to stack up any of the afore mentioned DAWs to PTLE sheerly on features (Track count, ASIO, DC, DX, Scoring, 3rd party support)it would be a slaughter!

But it's kinda like an instrument...Try em' all and go with the one that grabs ya. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Davinci]

I've got both

When I 1st started with digital recording I began with Cakewalk V8 ???? Anyway, I used CW mostly for MIDI, then started using it for Audio around V9. Soon after getting V9 I also bought a DIGI001 .... but still used CW9 for some time. I had gotten really used to the interface over the years. Plus the MIDI capabilities of PT didn't strike me as being powerful at first (Actually the 5.0 version wasn't).

However after playing around and really giving PT a try, and studying the capabilities, I absolutely love it. Maybe the only downfall of PT is the MIDI engine's is the lack of Patch Names (Which CW does a good job of managing).

Beacuse it was cheap I upgraded CW9 to Sonar when it came out ... (just before I started getting used to PT), and never really used it up until about a month ago. The only reason I used Sonar was because I upgraded my PC to XP (in anticipation of the May release ...that didn't happen [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ) While Sonar is pretty good, you come to appreciate PT's unique features:
>playlists
>the editing tools are awesome
>signal routing
>compatibility with TDM
>plugin quality and availability
>really accurate MIDI engine

just to name a few

Even though I used CW for all these years, because of PT I am no longer comfortable in that interface. I am anxious for the XP release to get back to what has become the more efficient tool for me.

I think that there is some learning curve to PT, but I think you will find that it is very powerful and worth the time to learn