Best windows based recording soft ware

[hackerburn90]

Hi I just got a new windows PC and i dont know what the best Recording software is. I had a mac before this and DP4 is the best bur what is the DP4 for the windows platform.

[uptoolate]

I use Sonar 3. I think it is great.

[StrykeBack]

I haven't tried Sonar since the old cakewalk proaudio 9...
But I have Cubase SX2 and love it
If you go for sonar 3 make sure to get the producer edition for those extras effect plugins and eqs....

[Vocal Legend]

I would get Nunendo 2.0 if anything....
the prices run up a little high for that so the next best thing is Cubase SX2 from what i know...

[xstatic]

Or if you are just doing basic stuff, Cubase SE for not much money:D

[elsteve9]

CUBAAAASE!
Not Cool Edit. Or audition, it is now.
I'm convinced that Cubase itself actually sounds better.
Convinced!

-Stephen

[danhazer]

To me, it is clear that Cakewalk has taken a definitive lead over the rest of the pack with the release of SONAR 3. Additionally, SONAR continues to pull away from the competition with its unparalleled customer support and colossal user base.

Get SONAR 3PE.

Thanks,

Dan

[xstatic]

Cakewalk has taken a lead? I have yet to see Sonar in ANY major studios. Not to say it isn't cool, but I don't think they have made it to where Steinberg is yet with Nuendo. Steinberg (between Wavelab, Cubase and Nuendo) has a VERY large user base as well. Once again, not to bash Sonar, but to say it has "taken a definitive lead over the rest of the pack with the release of SONAR 3" seems kind of unfounded to me.

[danhazer]

but to say it has "taken a definitive lead over the rest of the pack with the release of SONAR 3" seems kind of unfounded to me.
Unfounded? Not at all. Simply look at what the industry folks are saying about SONAR when compared against its competitors. Frankly, I agree with them when they say that Cakewalk has leveled the playing field with the release of SONAR 3.

To address your point about SONAR not being in any major studios; I'll grant you that but only because Cakewalk only recently entered the market as serious digital audio product. The studio business is well known for being very hesitant about moving away from established standards (and for good reasons), and SONAR is not there, yet. But given time I think it will eventually be as accepted as the products you mention. Especially since Cakewalks commitment to excellent customer service has always been one of its major strong points.

Thanks,

Dan

[xstatic]

The thing is, there is a huge difference between saying "leveled the playing field" and "taking a definitive lead". Like I said before. I have no problems with Sonar, and maybe it has come a long way, but Nuendo hasn't been around much longer if at all than Sonar. There is actually a huge difference between the first release of Nuendo and Nuendo 2.whatever , just like there is between the different versions of Sonar. Sonar may make it into the major studio business, but thats a complete speculation. Nuendo has however made that break as a viable alternative. I guess I really can't say what Steinbergs commitment to customer service is since I have never had to utilize it.

There are all sorts of "industry folks" out there touting the praises of all sorts of gear. Some of it is tried and true, some of it is concerning new gear, and some of it is concerning what I feel to be some pretty shabby products. To me, "leveling the playing field" is very subjective. That really depends on the end users ability and expectations, which is different for every person. Not only that, but i never outright say that one program overall is really a whole lot better than another. It really depends on each user, what they expect to do with it, what they are already familiar or comfortable with, which features they need, and how advanced their work needs to be. I don't blindly reccomend Steinberg programs. If a person was already using Cakewalk and is thinking about Sonar, then thats the way they should go. At the same time, if a person was already used to Cubase and needed to upgrade, then Cubase SX or Nuendo is the way they should go.

The only real problem I have with your statement Dan is the "definitive lead over the rest of the pack with the release of SONAR 3". That is a very subjective statement. I guess i would actaully agree (based on my own experiences with other programs) if this statement were made excluding Cubase SX and Nuendo. In your defense though, having re-read your original post, I completely missed your opening the sentence with, "to me", which does mean that the statement was intended to have been an expression of your opinion, and not intended to be made as a statement of fact.

Have you really spent anytime using Nuendo2.x? I have used Sonar 3 a little bit, but I really prefered the layout and familiarity of Nuendo. But, I have used it for so long that the likelyhood is that a program would really have be an incredible program to convert me.:smokin:

[danhazer]

Reading head-to-head comparisons of SONAR and the other products you mention, the reviewers conclude that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately that they do about the same things in different ways. Prior to SONAR 3, this was not the case. SONAR 1-2 was still considered a mid-shelf product with many short comings to its competitors. Hence with SONAR 3 comes the level playing field. That plus a strong commitment to its customer service = definitive lead, IMO.

I have limited experience with the other products you mention. I have some colleagues that use them and are pretty adamant about how good they are.

I think you are exactly right when you talk about getting the best product for your needs. For many SONAR could be the right choice. For others it may not.

Thanks,

Dan

[Diego E]

Hi, I was a Sonar 2 user until some time ago, then switched to Cubase SX 2 which I love, mostly because I use a lot of VST plug ins, which I couldn't use with Sonar 2 ....
Now I have Sonar 3 PE ready to give it a try ... hard to think if there will be a winner or not ... I guess I will be working out my projects between the two of them until I can make a final decision ... and by the time I do it, we will have Cubase SX 3 ... Sonar 4 .... and so on ...
I'm sure that with any of the two you will be able to make great music, and if you can not make great music, none of them will be able to help you ....

Tks,
D

[phill2796]

If you are used to ANALOUGE stuff go with cubase or nuendo.

[InmateBlues]

I used Sonar2 for quite some time on a P3 500mhz machine with 300mb of ram and a Hammerfall 96/52 pci under W2K . A very limited and fragile system when getting too creative. Then tried Nuendo2 in the same system and noticed a dramatic improvement in overall efficiency. A much more stable application. Plus a 32bit floating point processing that not even Pro-tools TDM can crunch. And keep in mind that Nuendo2 was totally re-coded, a more intelligent application with less dependability on system resources.

[danhazer]

I used Sonar2 for quite some time on a P3 500mhz machine with 300mb of ram and a Hammerfall 96/52 pci under W2K .

SONAR 2 on a PIII 500 = unhappiness. Of course that other product you mention would be better! Additionally, you are daft to try to run SONAR 2 on that system as it barely meets the recommended minimum requirements. I ran SONAR 2 on a PIV 1.6 512 RAM system all day long with minimal interruptions (about two-three crashes a month).

SONAR 3 is even more stable, extremely flexible and very intuitive.

I have tired that other product that you mention and I have friends who swear by it. SONAR 3 can get the same results and it can do it in a manner in which I am comfortable and familiar. Is it perfect? Not by any means. But you can be assured that it is able to compete with other products and that Cakewalk is devoted to its support and advancement.

Thanks,

Dan

[InmateBlues]

I never said Sonar2 didn't work. If you read carefully, I said that with the same system, under the same load, Nuendo2 outperformed Sonar2.

[danhazer]

I never said Sonar2 didn't work. If you read carefully, I said that with the same system, under the same load, Nuendo2 outperformed Sonar2.

And I did not say you said SONAR 2 did not work, either. ;) But your implication of SONAR's inferiority to the other product was fairly clear. This might cause someone who is pursuing recording software to be biased toward your suggestion. So I thought it was a good idea to point out that the system you were running SONAR 2 on almost did not meet the minimum requirements laid out by Cakewalk.

SONAR 3 is a different story, all together. I believe quite strongly that SONAR 3 is able to keep up with its competitors and seekers should not shy away from SONAR 3.

[MtnMixer]

Is there something wrong with me? I use Samplitude 7.1 on an AMD 3.0 system with 1.5 gig of ram and a UAD-1 card and I'm happy as a clam. Most of my projects are less than 20 tracks, but my system has run very smoothly with over 20 tracks and lots of plugs and such running. If I max out the UAD-1, I just use the FREEZE function on a few of the denser tracks and go forward. Am I a lone voice crying in the wilderness? I tracked a cd project on a protools system and got very familiar with it but I still like my Samp more. Am I ok?

[InmateBlues]

I think made my point clear. But I do agree Dan, Sonar3 is a different ball game.

[xstatic]

Actually, I prefer Samplitude to Sonar. Mostly because I like the layout better. It seems a little more intuitive (at least to a guy that has been using either Cubase SX or Nuendo 2 for a while). In the end it really only matter what each person feels the most comfortable using.

Where in Utah are you?

[danhazer]

This much is clear Xstatic, you are biased against SONAR. You articulate very well and I appreciate your writing skills, but lets face it; you just don't like SONAR too much. And not that there is anything wrong with that, either. Ultimately, like you have said, it comes down to what software you feel comfortable with.

Thanks,

Dan

[elsteve9]

?
Dan,
have you ever used cubase?
I mean, compared SX to Sonar?

I have.


-Stephen

[danhazer]

have you ever used cubase?

Yes I have. It is installed at one of my friend's studios. I have to admit, I felt lost on cubase SX. For me, the interface was not intuitive. The only product I felt more helpless on than Cubase was DP4. On that platform, it took me hours to get a simple mix from it. I have also used Nuendo on a limited basis and found its interface better than Cubase's. Admittedly, I have the most experience with SONAR and that's where I feel at home and know how to be the most productive.

Thanks,

Dan

[xstatic]

Biased? Because I said I liked Samplitude? This is silly. I have used Sonar, and Cubase, and Nuendo, and Vegas, and Cool Edit Pro, and Logic. I really don't have many biases. Those that I do have, I am the first to admit. I could just as easily say that you are biased against anything other than Sonar, but I won't. To tell you the truth, Samplitude offered a lot of features that Sonar didn't, long before Sonar did. I have used it before, and I liked it alright. I always felt it was pretty underrated. I really haven't said anything bad about Sonar. In fact, I even gave reasons to validify my responses so that they would not be construed as Anti-Sonar banter. Granted I can be very opinionated, but this case is not the one.

[lbanks]

I used to use Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro until I installed Win XP. And the new version is useless. Too bad; I used to have a lot of fun with DOP...:evil:

[danhazer]

Biased? Because I said I liked Samplitude?

Well, no. Not because of that. But rather because based on the HISTORY of your opinions in this thread, one MIGHT deduce that you have an anti-SONAR bias. That's all. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I'm just making a simple observation.

Kind regards,

Dan

[xstatic]

Thank you Dan for expounding a bit more on that. Now I feel like the previous statement was a little less of a personal attack. personally, I feel like I have no bias against Sonar. And yes, I am tilted a little towards Nuendo, but that is because its what I use daily and what i am the most familiar with. I always try to mention that as well. Whereas I can't really reccommend Sonar to anyone because I am not that intimate with it like I am with Cubase SX and Nuendo, I am not aware of ever having said anything bad about it. Basically, anytime I see anyone blindly reffering one thing (be it hardware or software) I always try and chime in. I love to point out the positive and negative things about any piece of gear. Thats the only way to learn about it. Typically, I am more prone to not buying something for its faults rather than buying something for its benefits. This is only because so often, 1 bad quality will outweigh several good qualities. At least with gear. I actually even went out and tried Sonar 3 after the first couple of posts on this thread.

Please understand that I do try and be unbiased about things, and purely realistic. If I had to say I was biased against any certain piece of software, it definately wouldn't be Sonar. Hands down it would be Pro Tools. However, I do have a Pro Tools rig specified for my new studio. :confused:

[MtnMixer]

Where will your new studio be xstatic?

[xstatic]

Cache Valley somewhere. My current one is in Smithfield (just outside of Logan).

[groovnmf]

I've used Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 - Sonar 2.2 and it's all I know, and I'm buying a upgrade.

I'm definitely open to using something else other than Sonar if it's going to be better. I've read some people mention Nuendo being stable, which Sonar never seemed to be. I thought Pro Audio 9 was more stable. (I don't have a crappy system...)

I only record audio (partly because recording audio & midi together is horrible on the Sonars I've used)

Is Sonar 3 REALLY that much better than the previous? If it's not a big improvement, I'm definitely not going that route again.

How is Nuendo and Cubase with live audio?

I need to make a decision soon, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hmmm... Or should I just go a different route than PC based recording all together? :confused:

[xstatic]

I run Nuendo in my studio about 60 to 80 hours a week. If I ever have a crash, I never lose more than 3 minutes of work and no more time than a reboot. I don't really take my rig out live so I can't say how it handles live recordings. However , I have done some dumps of 20+ tracks that were at 24 bit 44.1khz and were an hour or more in length with no problems. Hope that helps.

[StrykeBack]

Getting a dedicated DAW such as one of the yamahas or rolands or korgs are going to be more stable but they can't check your e-mail for you....
I'm a cubase sx2 user and i'm very happy with mine on PC. I also have the yamaha aw2816 (anyone want to buy it??) and I was very happy with the audio quality I got minus the annoying frustration i sometimes get with my pc setup. A DAW is very stable and reliable, however, it isn't very flexible...just sliding a track over a bit could be a chore compared to dragging with the mouse on pc....its all a bit of taste and how you like to work...I'm doing film scoring now with a lot of audio and midi mixed together so i had to leave the little daw behind.

Which ever one you choose i'm sure will be better then your cakewalk 9 and everyone i've heard from says that sonar 3 is a huge improvement over the earlier versions.

Daniel

[InmateBlues]

groovnmf,

I really thing you should give Nuendo 2.0+ a shoot before you move to whatever Sonar you're thinking about. Try to run it with Windows 2000. If you have high speed internet connection, I can hook you up. And don't worry, Macs are no better than today's PCs. Later.

[danhazer]

SONAR 3.xx has been very stable. I have maybe 1 or 2 crashes a month with very heavey use (120-140 hours monthy). I have never needed to reboot my system due to a SONAR related problem. Then again, I never had problems with SONAR 1 or 2 either, although V.3 has been more stable than the previous ones.

Thanks,

Dan

[groovnmf]

Thanks for the ideas guys.

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I'm really leaning towards getting the Digi002 and start using Pro Tools. :lick:

I'm think I'm going to go either Pro Tools or Sonar 3. To me, I'd rather spend $1200 on the Digi002 than just Nuendo, though I don't know much about Nuendo...though it sounds like it's worth the money. A friend has been using the Digi001 for a while now and I like what I've seen with it.

The good thing to me if I were to get Sonar again would be the price and cause I'm familar with it. I could definitely use the extra money for gear, even though I saved a decent amount today when I found a PAIR of KRK V6s for $400 :smokin:

So I'm really flipping back and forth between the Digi002 and Sonar & more gear. :confused:

[xstatic]

Just be aware of the track limit with the DIGI002:)

[InmateBlues]

See, with the ProTools option you put $1200 for the 002 and you're limited to 18 mono tracks if you're tracking external instruments. With the Sonar option, you can get the Motu core 2408MkIII ($900) or the core 24 i/o ($1200) and get a 24-channel system expandable to 96 channels. Yes, you would have to buy Sonar but if you look at the bigger picture, if your funds are tight, you won't need to worry if you ever decide to expand your original configuration. To get a 96-channel system with ProTools you're talking about no less than $20,000 if you're buying brand new (for me: waisted money). If you go with Sonar, it won't be more than $5000 and you'll be accomplishing the same. Computer recording is not rocket science anymore.

[xstatic]

18 mono tracks is a large number of tracks to be recorded simultaneously and will provide for most all band recordings. I definately don't think a full blown Pro Tools HD rig is a waste of money at all, assuming it is within your scope and your budget. There are advantages that Pro Tools offers that no other system can truly match. On the other hand, with a little more effort, a non Pro Tools DAW (one of many different software and hardware configurations) can be put together that is still very powerful. One of the big advantages of Pro Tools is the full hardware compatibility, but it comes with one of the big disadvantages as well, price. If an end user is absolutely positive they will be able to live comfortably within the limitations of the smaller Pro Tools environment, than there is no real reason not to do so. If however future expansion is an issue, than I definately would reccomend consider an alternative solution. MOTU's specs look great, but there are constant compatibility issues with MOTU hardware. I would be extremely hesitant to rely on a 96 channel Motu rig.

[xstatic]

18 mono tracks is a large number of tracks to be recorded simultaneously and will provide for most all band recordings. I definately don't think a full blown Pro Tools HD rig is a waste of money at all, assuming it is within your scope and your budget. There are advantages that Pro Tools offers that no other system can truly match. On the other hand, with a little more effort, a non Pro Tools DAW (one of many different software and hardware configurations) can be put together that is still very powerful. One of the big advantages of Pro Tools is the full hardware compatibility, but it comes with one of the big disadvantages as well, price. If an end user is absolutely positive they will be able to live comfortably within the limitations of the smaller Pro Tools environment, than there is no real reason not to do so. If however future expansion is an issue, than I definately would reccomend consider an alternative solution. MOTU's specs look great, but there are constant compatibility issues with MOTU hardware. I would be extremely hesitant to rely on a 96 channel Motu rig.

[Darnold]

I agree with Xstatic on the last post. Protools is definately an expensive system to run and may not be what everyone needs. But those of you who havnt experienced using Protools should try it sometime. It really does take alot of stress off your shoulders. Not having to worry about latency and buffering is one of them.

Now if you are running a 64 channel SSL Board, i guarantee i wont feel right running it through 3 Motu 24i/os.

However, for most of us, Native is definately the way to go. I have been running a Protools HD2 with Protools 6.2 and Control 24 and decided that for me, it wasnt worth the money and i could do just as well with a Motu and Nuendo 2 system. I especially didnt feel like the Control 24 was worth the $7000 or so you pay for it new since your just getting a big fancy keyboard that does nothing for the sound. The preamps wernt all that great in it either. So i am currently re-equipping the studio.

I will go back to the Protools system when i have to run a giant SSL or Automated Neve console.

Danny

[InmateBlues]

For band recordings maybe, but for someone whose tracking stereo tracks from hardware samplers, synths, drum-machines or stand-alone Gigastudio and who knows what else, 18 mono tracks won’t be sufficient at all. I have a full 96-channel Motu setup in a PC with Nuendo; I also have a G4 with two 2408s running Digital Performer 4 and have yet to experience a problem with either system. In must of my projects I track simultaneously no less than 48 channels. And with the latest drivers for my Motu system, hardware compatibility has never been an issue for me.

Darnold: Thanks for sharing your experience with your Pro Tools HD system.

[Darnold]

Hey no problem.

Yah thats true that 18 tracks wont cut it for sampler stuff. Ive had DJs come and do that stuff in the studio and they would use around 64 tracks per song. I have not had to do that with my motu setup yet but i have successfully done 34 tracks of 24/96 without any problems. It just seems to me that its a little more difficult to rely on a motu system recording 32 tracks at a time, but it seems possible.

Right now my combination is going to be a Motu 2408mk3 and a Motu 24i/o. Im extremely excited for the new setup i will have getting back into the Analog mixer realm.

The best part of it all is im spending about half of the money that i was before which is making me happy. Although i no longer have the DBX 165As, Urei LA4s, White Series EQ, Neumann U87s, Soundelux U95s, 4 channel John Hardy M1, i feel my new system will kick the old ones trash.

Danny

[Darnold]

Xstatic did you happen to get my email?

I was down south in Utah for the weekend in your area so i was trying to get ahold of you. I would really like to gab check your studio now after 5 years. Your recordings were excellent back then so i can only imagine what your pulling out lately.

Drop me a line.

Danny

[InmateBlues]

Yeah Dan and you know what, I think that at the end of the day, we the consumers will end up winning cause of the nature of capitalism. Smart companies like Steinberg and Motu know there is a market out there willing to spend on smarter and cheaper new technology rather than outdated expensive technology. There is no need to spend $20K on a system based of PCI cards full of 16-bit Motorola processors when now you can buy a 64-bit systems with processors that can crunch easily whatever come across them with less than $3K. The G5 has set the rude awakening and IBM has much, much more. Computers are getting faster and cheaper. Windows and MacOS are more reliable than ever and cheaper too. Storage and RAM.... come-on! I just built a state-of-the-art dual Xeon system with less than three grands. I think ASIO would get better and better and at the end of the day, Digidesign would have no choice but to get in the boat, drop their ridiculous prices or get out of the way. I believe it all depends on how fast folks at MOTU, Steinberg, RME pick-up.

[xstatic]

Danny, i did get your emails, i also sent a reply. If you want you can give me a call at 435-764-9443. I may be closing my studio later this year depending on what happens with a client of mine who may have an extremely large sum of money, a good chunk of which he wants to use to build a new studio. Since he wants to build a 3300 square foot facility and drop ALOT of money in gear, and pay me what I currently charge hourly, just to engineer an manage his studio, it makes sense to me:D

[Darnold]

Rob, thats weird i didnt get your email.

I will give you a ring a little later today probably. Ive got a Soundcraft Ghost coming in that im eager to get my hands on and it should be here within the next half hour.

Where you located now? I drove past your old facility while i was in Logan (at least i think it was the same place) but it has been so long i cant remember where it was. Heh, last time we talked you said you were moving into a new facility. Its funny that i looked everywhere in the Yellow pages for Xstatic but couldnt find it, then you showed up twice by accident in the same day on the forums.

That sounds like a great deal if it works out. Where will the new facility be? Maybe you could slide some room for some engineer work down there for me ;). Im re-equipping the Rock House right now as you can tell but its hard to say where thats going to be in a year. The studio went dormant for 6 months after Trent left so its not as in great of shape as it should be.

Anyway, try dropping me a line again at slowrecords@hotmail.com . Im not sure why i didnt get it.

Later,

Danny

[Darnold]

Inmate, I think your right. There will no longer be a need for the Protools systems soon, which is another reason why i thought now was the time to get out of it. Dont want to invest 20k on something thats going to depreciate to a couple thousand later on. I was really feeling depressed about getting rid of everything but it has turned out to be a very good decision.

Also the microphone collection that was in the studio before wasnt that great. It had too many really expensive microphones that gave close the same colors and not enough mid level to capture a variety of colors. I decided it was more worth it to have a few Audio Technicas, Blue's, and a larger variety of other instead of owning two U87s. The one im really sad about is the Soundelux U95 but it was just too expensive. Then the outboard gear, i found that i didnt use it often enough to justify the cost of it even though i would have loved to keep it. The Tascam MS16 didnt have a very efficient way of tracking to it with the Control 24.

Overall i feel i have built a better system for $25,000 then the $50,000 (used cost) it was going to cost for my to keep the other equipment.

Which one would you pick?

Danny

[InmateBlues]

I have spent like around 20K in my studio and I think at the end of the year I'll end up in 25K at most. It just feels great to know you can start a project without worrying about having any kind of limitations. I have friends telling me they accomplish so much without all that gear, but at the same time, they always complain about computer crashes and other limitations. I think at the end, it’s all about how serious you are about your craft. Yes, I use ProTools, but the low-end version, in case I have to leave the studio.

Later, Alex