|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sonar (cakewalk) V PT Le
Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|
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 |