I've been getting back into music since finishing my degree, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Along the way, I've discovered some interesting things. For example, I've found that I have much less trouble with my Presonus Firestation than I did with a Mark of the Unicorn 828 mkII, and, as such, I recommend the former over the latter. I've also discovered subsequently that a PCI card solution from RME is even better. Most recently, however, I've come to a firm conclusion regarding the current "big three" of music production for the PC, namely, Cubase SX v1.x, Logic v6.x, and Sonar v2.x.
Lord I am sad to say it, but folks using PCs need to write off Logic altogether as a viable option. And that stinks. I used Logic many years ago, when it was still a wholly inscrutable application compared to Cakewalk for Windows. At that time, Logic had the most power of any sequencing application, it had the most flexible and wonderful layout scheme, and though its interface was a cast-iron bitch to learn it still managed to be more usable at the end of the day than other programs.
Unfortunately, the folks who make it have decided that they're going to focus solely on the Apple side of the computing fence. Gee, let's see. All Mac platforms combined have never enjoyed more than a handful of percent of the overall computer market. So it really does seem like a good idea to exclude, oh, about 90% of the computers out there, doesn't it? Sheesh. Seriously, I haven't a bloody clue what they're thinking. I like the Mac too, especially now that OS X gives Macintosh users a real operating system, but completely ignoring the vast majority of the market is just nuts.
Still, if that's the way they want to play the game, that's their choice. PC users with Logic will eventually be forced to switch platforms or adopt one of the other alternatives. I suggest the latter as quickly as is feasiable.
Speaking of which, Sonar v2.x is a very interesting product. It's a huge step forward from the old Cakewalk, which I've been using on and off since 1990, when it was still a DOS-based product. Sonar does just about everything one could want. It handles MIDI and audio data with aplomb, hosts all sorts of effects and instrument plug-ins, provides powerful editing features, and—for those who want the ultimate rush in music-processing power—even lets one use Cakewalk Application Language (CAL) scripts. The list of features in Sonar is pretty darned impressive.
Unfortunately, I think it inherits several fundamental problems from all the old versions of Cakewalk. Maybe it's just me, but despite my having used Cakewalk on and off for roughly 13 years I still have a tough time accomplishing simple tasks. The transport controls have always been a part of the standard toolbar, but they've always felt more like toolbar buttons than transport controls—if you know what I mean. I cut my recording teeth working with tape on a bunch of then-ancient TASCAM decks at the University of Michigan Electronics and Recording Service (EARS) back in the late 1980s, so toolbar buttons just don't cut the mustard for me. I'm not sure why.
I also don't find the interface to have a "solid" feel to it. Sonar doesn't feel like a digital-audio workstation (DAW) to me. It feels like just one more Windows application with a CUA interface. I understand completely why the CUA standard is usually a good thing, but I don't think it's helpful for a DAW. A DAW should have a more "solid" feel to it. It should feel more like a machine than a piece of software, if that makes any sense. Suffice it to say that I haven't liked the Cakewalk way of doing things over the years, but until recently I've never had the opportunity to try anything else.
That is, until I had a chance to try Cubase v1.x. When I started getting back into music a month or so ago, I started looking into the current state of the art in music-production software. Cubase jumped out at me pretty quickly. You know it's the darndest thing: even though I've been using Cakewalk on and off for more than a decade, I immediately felt more at home in Cubase than I have ever felt in Cakewalk. The transport controls are great, the project display is just what I want, the MIDI and audio editors are very intuitive, the mixer is spot-on, etc.
Frankly, my only beef to date with Cubase is that it keeps forgetting my VST instrument names. If I go to the trouble to load up a big panel of VST instruments and give each of them names for ease in assignment and routing, Cubase promptly (and stupidly) "forgets" them as soon as I close my project. I find that irritating as heck, and I'm told that it's been a bug with Cubase for years. Here's a personal note to Steinberg: fix the bloody thing before I lose my mind! There, I'm glad I got that off my chest.
Still, that's not a major bug, and I haven't run into a major bug since I've been using Cubase. The best part, in my view, is that because I purchased my copy of Cubase SX after August 1, 2003, I'll be receiving a complimentary upgrade to the new version, Cubase v2.0, as soon as it ships. It's supposed to fix a host of bugs, add a virtual ton of new features, and provide even more amazing stuff. To say that I'm looking forward to it is something of an understatement. I've loved what I've seen of Cubase v1.x, and I'm hoping Cubase v2.x will be even better.
If you're going to purchase software to turn your PC into a DAW, then I strongly encourage you to try the demos for both Sonar and Cubase. Maybe you'll have a better time with Sonar than I did; maybe the whole Cakewalk way of doing things will click with you in a way that it never did for me. At the end of the day, however, I'd be willing to bet that you find Cubase to be the more intuitive package, and possibly the more powerful package as well, for I think it's the clear winner among the current "big three". The only thing I miss is the lack of a scripting language of some sort, though its logical editor is pretty powerful. If nothing else, take my advice and give Cubase serious consideration. You'll be glad you did.
10/09/2003