SmooveMode
New member
I just read a little bit about traction 3. How does it compare with the other two mentioned items?
It seems cool!
It seems cool!
kb420 said:I don't know much about Trackion, but actually, I just bought another Mackie mixer and it came with a free version of Traktion. I haven't installed it or played with it yet. When I do, I'll let you know what I think.
too_late_prod said:I have tried all 3 mentioned and it really depends on your workflow.. personally, i dig Live. Its easy to manipulate loops, MIDI, tempo based fx. Sonar I have never liked, feels too clunky and old. And Tracktion is kinda cool... just a diff approach to me.
Do you use loops, MIDI, record audio? That may help narrow down what u need..
later..
too_late
kb420 said:You are not the only one who feels like that about Sonar when it comes to composing. Check out this thread someone started yesterday.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1381983
Sonar is excellent for recording audio. If you had a studio with a soundproof room miked up to a band playing live instruments, Sonar would be your go to tool. It handles recording and editing audio extremely well. That is, if you have a powerful pc. Once you start piling on track after track and effects, Sonar will begin to show latency. That's where Pro Tools HD wins the battle. You won't have any latency with a HD Accel system. That's why I think all the magazine advertisements Cakewalk has made bashing Pro Tools are kinda funny.
Sonar was the first software that I ever used. I know it well enough to work with it. I can compose, mix, and basically do everything with it, but the learning curve was ridiculous, and I find composing in it very cumbersome. Up until version 6.2.1, I don't even believe Cakewalk was even concerned with users who primarily compose with midi. Sonar didn't even have input quantize until then, which is a joke. I went on a crusade on the forum to get them to include it in Sonar 6 as that (Sonar 5) was my main program back then.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=819211&mpage=1&key=
When Sonar 6 was released, it didn't have it. They came out with a points release a few months later that included it, and Sonar 7 has a few more midi editing tools, but the bottom line is, it's still cumbersome to compose with. I just want to get ideas down as quick as possible, and I can do that best with Live.
I believe part of the problem is that they are carrying Project 5. Project 5 is a lot easier to get ideas down very quickly compared to Sonar, but personally, once I discovered Live, P5 appeared to be Cakewalk's own scaled down version of Live. The Groove Matrix is just a copy of Live's Session View. It seemed like Live is what P5 would be if Cakewalk chose to develop it, but at this point, it doesn't seem like that's happening. P5 took 2 and 1/2 years to go from 2.0 to 2.5, and P5 users were promised another free update before the end of last year, and it still hasn't happened. Cakewalk hasn't developed P5, so to try to keep competitive, they've slashed the price of P5 to nothing. When it was first released they wanted $299, now I think you can get it for $99. Hardcore P5 users have been completely pissed of about not getting the second free update like Cakewalk promised. I believe Cakewalk wanted it's users to have to use two programs to be able to compose with midi and then mix as well. That's why they came up with the Cakwalk Suite which included Sonar 7, and the underdeveloped P5. Sonar is cumbersome for composing, and P5 doesn't have a mixer with decent metering.
I think you will see a change over at Cakewalk. In a few months, they will be announcing/releasing Sonar 8. I think they will add more features to Sonar and end up dropping P5. They will make it so that you won't need P5. Everything that P5 does will be incorporated into Sonar. At least that's what I think they should do. That could make Sonar a much better program.
Even Digidesign is trying to make Pro Tools a lot more user friendly when it comes to working with loops, beats, and midi. Version 7 included a lot of new midi features, and now they are developing a new plug in that will almost make it so that you won't need any other software for composing at all.
http://www2.digidesign.com/transfuserpreview/index.cfm?ref=transfuserpreview-m
All in all, it's a great time to be into computer software for music. We are all benefiting from the competition among the different companies. Fall will be here before you know it. Let's watch them fight it out and see what happens when the dust settles.
neverenoughfunk said:basically, i think all DAWs (ie applications ==>cubase, live, logic, sonar, et) are the same. they all record midi and audio data and are able to manipulate that data. the same way microsoft word, word perfect, etc work. you type in your report, edit the layout, spell check and grammer check and you are done. the way the data is manipulated may differ from DAW to DAW but the actual function is the same, just as word processing software. microsoft word does not produce better papers than other word processing software and vise-visa. the actual content of the paper indicates if the paper is well written or not.
all DAWs have tranport bar, punch in/out, loop recording, piano roll, etc the workflow may differ be the functions are the same.
the only differents between different DAWs is the terminlogy they use for the different functions. like live has the session view but there is a function (not sure of the name) in cubase that acts like the session view in live.
it is not about which DAW is better but which DAW has one mastered because they all do the same thing.
neverenoughfunk said:in my post above i talked about a recording/manipulating midi and audio data therefore i was not considering reason a DAW.
no disrepect your post is very wordy but the fact still remains that all of these apps (cubase, live, fl studio, digital performer, sonar, logic, etc) do the same thing, that is record/manipulate midi and audio data, period.
if a "good" song is in a person that is familiar with DAWs and thier capabilities he/she could use any application whether is fusion, jazz, hip hop, reggae, classical, blue grass, soul, funk, etc to write that song.
the bottom line is the recording/manipulation of the midi and audio data, that is all a DAW does. nothing more or less.
therefore, the question is which DAW's audio/midi recording and manipulation functions fits "me" best because they "all" do the same thing.
f a "good" song is in a person that is familiar with DAWs and thier capabilities he/she could use any application whether is fusion, jazz, hip hop, reggae, classical, blue grass, soul, funk, etc to write that song.
SmooveMode said:Why Ableton Live is so effective is it really can "creep" in the the #3 category as well. I would not use it for classical, opera or Jazz. But, pretty much everything else is fair game. It can do any form of dance music. The biggest weakness it may have over the "Studio" DAWs is the lack of "in house" acoustic plugins vs the electronic plugins. That's why it gets pushed into the #2 Spot.
neverenoughfunk said:in my post above i talked about a recording/manipulating midi and audio data therefore i was not considering reason a DAW.
no disrepect your post is very wordy but the fact still remains that all of these apps (cubase, live, fl studio, digital performer, sonar, logic, etc) do the same thing, that is record/manipulate midi and audio data, period.
if a "good" song is in a person that is familiar with DAWs and thier capabilities he/she could use any application whether is fusion, jazz, hip hop, reggae, classical, blue grass, soul, funk, etc to write that song.
the bottom line is the recording/manipulation of the midi and audio data, that is all a DAW does. nothing more or less.
therefore, the question is which DAW's audio/midi recording and manipulation functions fits "me" best because they "all" do the same thing.
kb420 said:That's true, but it's how they go about it that makes the difference. I come from a backround in hardware sequencers. Most hardware sequencers were pattern based instead of song style linear based. Live's session view is closer to a pattern based way of programming than most linear based DAWs. I don't think Sonar or Cubase have anything like a pattern base style of programming. They are both linear.
Drum racks is another difference. I don't know about Cubase, but Sonar doesn't have anything like that. I don't think either program has a function that would allow me to drag and drop a sample into a drum pad style grid and have it automatically give it it's own audio track and sample parameters instantly.
You are right when you say this:
That's true, but what's wrong with enjoying the software you are making it with. Shouldn't making the song be a fun experience, and not a headache. Workflow is everything.
Really?
Check this out:
http://www.ableton.com/oic
kb420 said:I don't know much about Trackion, but actually, I just bought another Mackie mixer and it came with a free version of Traktion. I haven't installed it or played with it yet. When I do, I'll let you know what I think.
kb420 said:I haven't had the chance to check out Tracktion. Been real busy doing some other things. Here is a review of Tracktion that you may find interesting:
http://www.musicradar.com/gear/all/computers-software/digital-audio-workstations-daws/tracktion-3-21042/review
The new system is running great. No problems whatsoever.