Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-18-2002, 10:05 PM
Percustard Percustard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: oz
Posts: 245
Default Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

How do they compare software v software:

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

Anyone used both?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-18-2002, 10:22 PM
stut5 stut5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg,Va 22407
Posts: 479
Default Re: Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-18-2002, 11:17 PM
nukmusic nukmusic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new orleans, la
Posts: 1,433
Default Re: Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

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
__________________
Docta'J

Download free music at
http://www.nukmusic.com
nEVER uNDERESTIMATE kNOWLEDGE
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2002, 01:52 AM
APAULOS APAULOS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 942
Default Re: Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

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]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2002, 09:40 AM
Davinci Davinci is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11
Default Re: Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cakewalk+Sonar to Pro Tools.... roboman01 Getting Started 4 04-11-2013 05:18 AM
Sonar/Cakewalk to PT TDM 5.1.3 Alécio Costa Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 0 06-17-2005 08:39 AM
001 and cakewalk sonar dmaxj 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 1 04-01-2003 03:25 PM
Importing OMF from Cakewalk Sonar gleeb Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 0 01-02-2003 11:08 AM
Cakewalk SONAR Rock_Artist 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 09-19-2001 03:28 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com