Is there anything cubase can do which ableton live cant?

Might as well address that now. The bottom line about how well-suited Live is as a DAW depends totally on what kind of music you make.

There is no question that Live started out as a niche program. However, as it has evolved, it has become better suited to more mainstream applications. If I walked into a studio, was asked to record a rock band, and all they had was Live, I wouldn't have any problem. So, why did I reference Sonar?

It's because of the work I do. Here are some Sonar features that are crucial to me, but not covered by Live.

* Video window. I often need to do an arrangement against existing video (when I'm creating a video, I use Vegas).
* Surround. I hardly ever do surround projects, but have done a couple.
* Loop recording. Live can do it, but the way Sonar (or Cubase, for that matter) creates separate "lanes" is more convenient than stringing everything into one long sample (the same approach used by Acid, FYI). Also, Sonar's "mute" tool is great for making quick work of choosing the right takes.
* Metering. I like to know exactly how many dB a track went over or under. "Hot" masters are a fact of life, but I don't like to overcompress. So it's important to me to see if any tracks are contributing major peaks that I can reduce, in order to get a higher average level. (Incidentally, Sonar 5 flags "overs" and peaks so you know exactly where the signal levels are "bunching up.")
* Acidization editing. I use Sonar as a tool for developing Acid-compatible libraries. For acidized loop creation, it's the only option (along with Acid, of course). And, the ability to customize marker positions can sometimes yield better sonic results with "beats" than Live's beats mode.
* The Prosoniq MPX time-stretching algorithm. It's exceptionally good for offline, destructive stretching...it sounds great.
* Pow-R dithering. I often need this to bring a 24-bit file down to 16 bits.
* Track folders. Actually I find this more essential with Acid than with Sonar, but it's still very handy to be able to put lots of sounds on their own tracks, then stuff them into a folder when you want to reduce screen clutter.
* Multiple controller support. Sonar has plug-ins for several controllers I use. What is particularly helpful is GNX4 compatibility, so I can do hands-free recording...this saves hours when developing a sample library. This isn't just "play-stop-record," there's a degree of intelligence built-in with respect to creating new tracks, undoing, etc.
* Multiple view options. On really complex projects, Sonar is very customizable for how you view the project, what tracks you show/hide, and so on.
* OMF import/export. It's a Pro Tools world, and this lets me bridge Sonar to PT (as well as to Digital Performer, the main Mac program I use).

These are the biggies for me. Guitar tab, and the guitar neck view (which I use as a "pseudo-MIDI guitar) are nice but not essential. I also find the tempo editing to be more fluid, and although Live can do multiple undo/redo, Sonar's undo history is helpful. But these aren't deal-breakers.

So you can see that's a fairly specialized list that doesn't apply to everyone by any means. I mean, how many people create Acid-compatible sample libraries and do audio-for-video? And if you're not heavy into loop recording, Live does just fine; it's just more awkward than, say, Sonar or Cubase.

BUT I would NEVER use Sonar live. Live has completely taken over that space for me. The unstoppable audio engine, the session view, the ability to record performances, the easy tying of parameters to shortcuts and general-purpose MIDI controllers, the simplicity of doing on-the-fly MIDI editing, etc. etc. all make Live one of my favorite programs. I also really like the clean interface (also essential when playing live to minimize pilot error); Live has a great workflow to access what it does (although to be fair, Sonar has a great workflow for its type of program).

It all boils down to use the right tool for the right job. Live can certainly fulfill the basics of what people want from a DAW, and it's possible to use Sonar live. [color=red]But if you are into specialized DAW applications, I still feel you need a specialized DAW.[color]

Does that help or just confuse things further?

On 2006-11-28 20:04, FREGLE wrote:
well, first of all, cubase has a lot of tools to sync audio with video, then you have the fact that cubase can make surround sound projects, ableton is only stereo. And there are a lot of smaller extras that you hardly ever use, but they are there, and ableton doesn't have them...

On 2006-11-27 16:07, bukboy wrote:
A opinion I found

...

Dont know about any1 else but this seems like nitpicking to me.

On 2006-11-28 04:57, Jikkenteki wrote:
I've been a live user since 2 and have heard the sound quality issues before. However when 5 came out I think those basically went away (Ott has been quoted in an interview somewhere with the same comment and it seems he's making most of his new album with Live if I recall quickly).