|
Subject:SONAR vs ACID
Posted by: deeplfo
Date:11/5/2002 2:10:22 AM
Any opinions from people who might have both ACID and SONAR 2? Thanks, Mohsen |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: indeepthought
Date:11/5/2002 3:53:01 AM
Not really fair to compare the two since they are very different products. If you look at both products website, they both include comparisons to each other, but each company leaves out key information when their product does not compare favorably. If your primary focus is loop based production, Acid wins hands down. However, Sonar does a lot of what Acid does and a lot more that Acid doesn't do. Midi on Sonar is superior and it is a true multitrack sequencer. IMHO SF offers better product support than cakewalk. The free loops given out by cakewalk are weak compared to SF. The deals that SF offers continuing users also blow most companies out of the water. Bottomline is that it really depends on your needs. If you see yourself doing heavy midi sequencing, Acid is not your product yet, although it is improving in that area. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: antistar
Date:11/5/2002 4:04:51 AM
Grid anchoring resolution is larger in ACID. That means you can position your wav file very exactly with ACID. With Sonar I couldn't manage the positioning with that precision. Stability. Sonar is very stable, well programmed and has plenty of plugins. ACID 4.0 hast to be improved in this area. Video. Maybe I am wrong, but as far I know Sonar can't handle videos. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: oddboy
Date:11/5/2002 4:46:37 AM
Are you talking about the loop cababilities? If so, Id love to see some comments on Sonars Loop tools (loop constrution) . I have tried to play with it but found it kind of tedious compared to Acid. Anyone using loop constrution and throwing the loops into acid? I can say that navagation is kind of clumsy compared to A. Not very intuitive. But I am editing my midi in S. Cant hang with the old piano roll in A |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: BeachDog
Date:11/5/2002 10:01:37 AM
HI, I agree that Sonar is still a little clumsy when using the loop construction view, compared to Acid. Acually, Acid is still much better when dealing with loops, although there are a couple things I like about Sonar that can not be done with Acid, in regards to loops. I haven't used much of the Midi capabilities in Acid yet, and don't intend to since Sonar completely takes care of my needs in this department. As far as the loops go, some of SF's loops are good, but I find the Smart Loops that Cakewalk offers incredible (for rock-pop stuff). These loops work great in Acid. I think Acid users may be missing out on these loops. www.smartloops.com |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: indeepthought
Date:11/5/2002 10:49:27 AM
thanks for the link. I like the fact that those loops are dry. I agree too that Sonar cannot touch acid as far as using loops. I'm really hoping that some thrid party makes an OPT plug-in with more extensive midi capabilities. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:11/5/2002 11:00:53 AM
Now that I've gotten the hang of working with loops in SONAR, it's not so bad. It's not Acid, but it works. I still use them for different tasks, though. Acid is my remixer. SONAR is for original creations. I couldn't stand to do what I do in SONAR in Acid, but I could probably manage to do what I do in Acid in SONAR. Remeber, Sonic Foundry did not create Acid to compete with SONAR. Acid is not a sequencer. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: deeplfo
Date:11/5/2002 11:31:58 AM
I got AP4 since it was touted as having what Acid always lacked, midi. But I am a bit frustrated with the way its implemented. On the other hand I love the loop capabilities. That's why I was thinking about Sonar, it's great to be able to have Acid-like loop functionalities with a full blown midi aware sequencer. I like to import all kinds of loops, beat-matched, and carry on with multiple midi tracks all in one place with no hassels. Does Sonar give you that? thanks, mohsen |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:11/5/2002 11:35:03 AM
I use sonar mainly for its DXi's and reason 2.0. I just bought it last wed and haven't slept much at all since! ;) Sonar 2.1 bug free?...I personally have had an easier time getting acid 4.0a to run right using vsti's than sonar's dxi's. But after much tweaking I'm happy with both. Looping...acid is KING...period. I only even consider loops in sonar if its really necessary. I agree with teecee, I can get the work done in sonar but I hope I wouldn't have to. Key point about DXi's over acid is that their implementation is fully realized in sonar while in acid it seems unfinished[but very usable]. You have multiple outputs,not just a stereo pair. Plus more options for tweaking dxi's. And don't forget rewire support...Reason is alot of fun. I still like doing my mixing in vegas. Video...I feel acid wins hands down though some might disagree. Again everything I do in acid seems to take an extra step or two in sonar. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:11/5/2002 11:48:42 AM
"I like to import all kinds of loops, beat-matched, and carry on with multiple midi tracks all in one place with no hassels. Does Sonar give you that?" It does loops, beat matched, but I don't think it does beat mapped (in case that was a typo). But it is not as loop friendly as Acid. Oh, and define "hassle". That's a relative term. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: deeplfo
Date:11/5/2002 12:05:44 PM
"I don't think it does beat mapped (in case that was a typo)" Yes, I meant beat match. "Oh, and define "hassle". That's a relative term." It's just that I'd like to be able to do everything in one environment. It's a bummer to do your loops once place, your midi another, etc... I don't think I meant hassle as in a "perfect" piece of software. We know that doesn't exist. Here is another one for you: how many of you guys still have a hardware sampler, and if so to what use are you putting it to? I have one and I have been struggling with the idea of making a bunch of loops beat-match in Acid then export it to the sampler, and work from a midi environement that allows me to access those samples and midi tracks again in one place. I haven't found the middle ground between hardware and software, if you know what I mean! Thanks, mohsen |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: TeeCee
Date:11/5/2002 12:08:15 PM
I have an ESI-4000 that I NEVER liked using. I now use the FXPansion DR-008 instead. The only thing I wish it had was some velocity controlable filtering, even if moderate. TeeCee |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: deeplfo
Date:11/5/2002 12:14:25 PM
I have a A4000 that I really like. But how are you fitting your sampler with the Acid/software tools at your disposal? cheers, mohsen |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: Laurence
Date:11/5/2002 12:40:57 PM
Nobody's mentioned Acid's lower CPU usage! Especially with the DLS synth, Acid's CPU usage is way lower. I have a PIII 1.1 notebook. I've been converting all my SF's to DLS's and my CPU usage has never been lower! I love the feature set and layout of Sonar midi wise, but it taxes my humble notebook cpu too much. I just downloaded and tried the Sonar 2.1 update hoping for an improvement in the coding. It was still the same thing though: glitching and sequencer stopping before I even finished a piano part, let alone having enough horsepower to finish the arrangement. Somebodies going to come along and make a great editing OPT plugin at some point anyway. Laurence Kingston |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: MoreK
Date:11/5/2002 12:45:18 PM
Sonar can handle videos. But Cakewalk has not really developed that area, and it shows. There have been bugs in video handling, though I heard they have fixed them in 2.1 (I'm using 1.3.1). Whatever, I have been very satisfyed Acid's video capabilities. I agree you all these products are not really comparable. Not yet. But I see the sign :-) Cakewalk is developing loop features in Sonar and SonicFoundry develops MIDI in Acid. They are really coming close to the same area, aren't they? I'm happy owner of both Sonar and Acid. I need Sonar and it's MIDI cababilities, I have used it some 10 years (well it was Cakewalk earlier). I'm composing various different music styles (classic, rock, folk...), and Sonar suits better in those needs. But when I need to put dance, hip-hop etc. together, Acid is my choise. MoreK |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: MyST
Date:11/5/2002 1:25:06 PM
"I'm composing various different music styles (classic, rock, folk...), and Sonar suits better in those needs. But when I need to put dance, hip-hop etc. together, Acid is my choise." If you're just using Acid for dance, hip-hop, you're not using Acid to it's full potential. Check out the different loop categories available, ambient, jazz, etc. I just received the Bill Laswell collection, Liquid Planet, Mick Fleetwood, Spektral Minimalism, and Numina. All these can be used to make very different styles of music. M |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:11/5/2002 1:54:34 PM
I've heard users use both quite happily, mainly SONAR for its MIDI sequencing and ACID for its looping and digital audio sequencing. A lot of users go even further and also have a digital audio editor like Sound Forge or WaveLab and a multitrack app like Vegas on hand. You certainly can't beat a combo like that. Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: BeachDog
Date:11/5/2002 2:30:45 PM
I agree - I'm quite happy using several apps to accomplish any given production. I'm not concerned with being able to do everything under the sun in one program. I'd rather see each company further develop their strong points, and make their code as stable as possible. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: BeachDog
Date:11/5/2002 2:32:21 PM
Don't forget Smart Loops for styles other than dance/techno. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:11/5/2002 3:13:48 PM
"A lot of users go even further and also have a digital audio editor like Sound Forge or WaveLab and a multitrack app like Vegas on hand. You certainly can't beat a combo like that"---Thats my studio in a nutshell... 1.Vegas Video 3.0c 2.Sonar 2.1 XL 3.Acid 4.0A 4.Soundforge 6.0D 5.REASON!!!!! 6.DR-008 FXpansion 7.CD Architect 5.0[soon] 8.More Vsti's/DXi's/opt plugins on the way. We really do live in a great time to be a musician/composer/producer/etc... |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: deeplfo
Date:11/5/2002 3:32:42 PM
To the folks who use both apps side by side, do you mean to imply that you use Sonar JUST for midi projects, and Acid JUST for loops? The point of doing everything in one package is that your projects have both midi and loops. If you are combining the two I'd like to hear how you are accomplishing this. Are you importing midi into Acid, or ... Thanks, mohsen |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:11/5/2002 4:01:49 PM
Usually, people who use multiple apps do several things, including using MIDI sync or just rendering the file(s) and importing it (or them) into another app. (I should note that ACID Pro is the only version of ACID that can render tracks separately in a project for use in another app as well as export loops preserving project tempo and key info.) Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: BeachDog
Date:11/6/2002 10:11:54 AM
Hi mD, I wonder if Acid will have the ability to Export to OMF, as Sonar 2.1 can. I haven't used this format yet, but it looks promising for people who need to take there productions to different studio. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: BeachDog
Date:11/6/2002 10:16:25 AM
I'll use Sonar for Midi and recording audio tracks. But for creating my original tracks, regarless of whether or not they will be scratch or keeper tracks, I'll usually start with Acid. That's only if I start with loops, which I usually do. I've not done any Midi in Acid yet because of Sonar. If I have to get a Midi track into Acid, I'll use Sonar to record it to audio first. Then I'll master the stereo file in Sound Forge. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: kilroy
Date:11/6/2002 11:59:41 AM
Shucks, couldn't just sit here and say nothing... Two different apps. We use Acid alot for panic gigs. You know, the "we need this done by yesterday...is that a problem?", jobs. It's the bomb for that. I can't say that I like this approach to composition, but hey, it's the perfect tool for quickly throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. When the clock is ticking you absolutely have to be able to try things very, very quickly. Working under extremely high pressure is usually not the best springboard to the normal creative flow of composition, so this app goes along way towards easing that pressure and getting you through that blue funk zone. What bugs me to no end with Acid is the fact that you cannot share lanes with different loops. Annoying. What if I have 10 different loops that can all share the same track properties, FX or whatever? What if I have even two or three such cases? What you could concievably have is a 30 track project that could have been easily consolidated into just three. Think about that for a moment. For us, Acid has been *very* stable. We are using the last version of 3.0 and things are just the way we like them in this department. The interface is a dream, simple, logical and fast. We can achieve huge track counts if necessary (it never is) and everything purrs right along. My personal Acid computer is a lowly PII 450 with a good ol 440BX chipset and 512meg of (good) RAM and the biggest project I personally did on this setup was a remix of between 55 and 60 tracks, if my memory serves me right, and there were no problems whatsoever (well, not quite true, it was a bear of a mix). That seemed very good to me, and we were delighted. I should point out that there was not alot of native FX processing going on that I can recall, some delays I believe and a weird modulation effect or two. Alot of tracks were bussed off to a Creamware Scope system and to outboard processing hardware, but regardless, it was a very thick sound with Acid as the primary host. I can't vouch for Acid 4.0 but 3.0 for us has been a godsend. We use Sonar as well and are pleased with it, especially as a more fully fleshed out compositional tool. It seems stable for us, the automation works well, you don't require a stoopid virtual mixer (which it has but you never need), the looping works as advertised *and* you can dump all the loops you like on the same track. Everything (audio\MIDI\looping\) seems to integrate seemlessly, for the most part. We dumped some high profile audio\MIDI apps that we have used for years for Sonar and so far never looked back. I suppose that says something. Very personal thing this whole software deal...one man's wine is another's poison. And don't forget, your hardware can make all the difference to the performance of any app. If you like eye candy, then you will hate Sonar. It is butt ugly, but nobody here cares a flip as long as it works. That goes for any app we use. It could look like the horse's ass, but if it keeps going and delivers the goods we are all smiles and waves, folks. Sonar as a replacement for Acid? Naaa. Vice versa? Nope. Solution. If you are a pro who needs to make deadlines, some of them pretty absurd, then it's a no brainer. You need *alot* of software and alot of those apps will have overlapping features. Get every last one of them. If you are busy enough you will easily pay for them. It's the hardware that's the expensive bit. Compared to that, the software is a freaking flash in the virtual pan. Cheers |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: oddboy
Date:11/7/2002 11:09:52 PM
Anyone know of a good Sonar forum? I cant find any |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: SHTUNOT
Date:11/7/2002 11:31:31 PM
http://www.cakewalk.com/support/newsgroups.asp http://www.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/select_forum.cgi?forum=cakewalk http://www.digifreq.com/digifreq/discuss.asp |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: androgyne
Date:11/9/2002 9:35:13 AM
While you guys are on this topic, it looks like a good time to ask this...if you guys are recording in Acid, what are you using for count in or metronome? That is the one thing I cant seem to get past in Acid. Otherwise it would be perfect for my modest needs. Or are you just recording a short loop? What would you suggest for recording longer, multiple tracks? Or should I just stick to Sonar for that? |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: Jessariah
Date:11/9/2002 2:11:36 PM
You can use a four-count loop as a metronome. I don't know, cuz I don't record in Acid. As for applying the same effects to multiple loops -- why don't you just use busses for that? I use busses to apply the same effects and/or just control the volume of groups. |
|
Subject:RE: SONAR vs ACID
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:11/9/2002 4:07:59 PM
I just usually set the cursor back a bit and record along with playback. I basically know what my cue is at that point. For those silent passages where you are playing but the rest of the project isn't, you could create a four count loop and use that as Jessariah mentioned. You'd just mute or delete the track before a final render. HTH, Iacobus |