Jump to content
DBMusic

Second Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Being a disgruntled Sonar user for a few versions now I've been considering a switch to Samplitude for several months. I have to say though, after registering to the forum and reading of some of the significant issues users like Bob Katz and many other advanced users are having, that my enthusiasm has come to a screeching halt!

I am by no means a power user as most of my work revolves around recording and editing audio, midi recording and editing, the use of a few plugins (including UAD-1), a couple of soft synths, and several pieces of external gear. I currently master in WaveLab so I am interested in using Samplitude in that regard also. I'm primarily looking for stability, ease of use, and the seamless integration of external gear (Sonar's external inserts feature is an absolute mess). What I'm NOT looking for is installing new DAW software and spending the next month or so trying to get it to work correctly. My DAW is an older model (Athlon 64 X2 4800+, XP SP2, 2 GB RAM, RME AES-32) but it is fine tuned to perfection. I have no issue with DAW performance in Sonar (just issue with shoddy implementation of a few fundamental features).

I really have no interest in investing $1000 just to trade one set of problems for another. Before coming to the forum I was ready to install the downloaded version, give it a spin, and make the purchase of what I thought was top of the line DAW software. But when I find people with the technical proficiency of someone like Bob Katz complaining about the performance and the all the convoluted hoops one might need to jump through to get it to work, I'm having a serious case of second thoughts.

Can anyone offer any encouragement as to why Samplitude is still the way to go?

Best regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DB,

I'm a Sonar user as well, or I was. I'd been using Cakewalk stuff since Pro Audio 9. But since about Samp 10.0 I stopped using Sonar for much. I stopped at Sonar 6, didn't bother to upgrade to Sonar 7 or 8. I just haven't needed Sonar in any significant way, even for midi (Sonar still has a feature edge here but for all the basic stuff Samp is more than capable now and the editor just keeps getting better and better). That's not a knock against Sonar, it's just that Samp does everything I need now and I prefer working in one application whenever possible.

I worked in Sonar several years before trying Samp and when I first demoed Samp I was instantly struck by the sound quality. I purchased Samp as a crossgrade a week later. That was back in '03. To this day Samp still sounds better. I know that's a highly debatable, subjective issue but that's my reality. I later switched to Samp for rent, economical and free upgrades. If your hesitant about the initial costs to migrate to Samp you may want to consider the Samp for rent option, quite painless.

As for performance and stability Samp has always been at least as stable as Sonar if not more so. If your system is functioning well already you should have little or no issues with Samp. I used an Athlon 64 x2 4600, 2Gb Ram, Lynx2 interface on WinXP SP2 and SP3 for several years with both Sonar and Samp. Samp ran very well on this platform. You didn't specify your motherboard but I've been using Gigabyte boards and they've been very stable. I just last week upgraded my entire system, new motherboard (Gigabyte again), new cpu, new heatsink, new RAM, new video card, new PS and after updating a couple of drivers I ran Samp and it behaved as if nothing had changed, except it was using about half the cpu it was using before. ;)

I'm not a business/production user of Samp, I do mainly my own stuff and tracking, mixing, quasi-mastersing for friends and locals. But I do push my system and Samp hard at times. I use UAD-1s and UAD2, drum tools like Superior 2, Addictive Drums, synths like Stylus, Atmos/OmniSphere, Trilogy, Kontakt, etc. and anywhere from 10 to 60 tracks with numerous aux. I do all my projects at 96k/32bit and on many projects I'm right up to the edge in cpu usage, 85-90%, and Samp still keeps ticking. If I worked at 44.1k Samp could probably do my stuff with one hand tied behind its back. I have used the hardware insert function a few times and it has worked for me, although on a few occasions I've had to slide tracks a bit for perfect synch but it does work more or less as advertised. Definitely better than Sonar's implementation which I tried a couple of times and then left it for dead.

With a well functioning system you shouldn't have to spend too much time getting basic things going like recording/playback, editing, synths, mixing, etc. but there is definitely a learning curve to Samp and all of its features and tools.

Samp's implementation of object level functions and tools is one of its biggest advantages. It just has a great workflow and once you get the hang of it I think you'll find it both speedy and logical.

Although Samp doesn't come with quite as many addon features, synths, plugs, etc. as Sonar the extras that are included are mostly top notch. Sascha's AM plugs are first class. I haven't really played with Samp's addon synths or drum plugs as I don't need them.

On a subjective note I just greatly prefer Samp's interface. Whenever I need to open Sonar to migrate old projects into Samp I always cringe for a moment when I see the track view and the console view. I know there's plenty of options and power under Sonar's interface but I have never really warmed to the visuals and the layout. Samp has some excellent skins available done by third parties by the way.

Now I don't work like Bob Katz and I'm certain he doesn't use my workflow :P So I can only speak for my experience with my gear. As with all software Samp has things that should be fixed, things that should work better, features that should be added. I have found Sonar to be mostly the same in this regard except Sonar seems to have more items that should work better. Samp will need to be configured for you specific environment and hardware, things like ASIO settings, buffer settings, VST settings, etc. will need to be optimized for you and the way you work or you may find the default settings work great. Samp has a lot more flexibility when it comes to system configuration. And, of couse, you'll have a great resource here at the Samp forums as well with a lot less "noise" than the Sonar forums ;) Download the demo if you haven't already and check it out.

Let me know if you have any specific questions and I'll try to answer. I don't use all of Samp's features or tools so you may need to search the forums to find more info on specific functions, tools, bugs, issues, etc.

That's it, that's my sales pitch. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've personally specifically stuck with Samplitude for years now due to it's excellent core technology, good professional knowledgeable community, and responsive developers.

Have I checked out other hosts? Sure, but I always come back, because I don't see the evolution or sense of 'ground-breakiness' with the other developers that Samplitude has provided over the years.

I think what you'll find when people have issues (and this is not a criticism of Bob or anyone else - including myself), is when they carry over expectations from other hosts, (oftentimes relative newcomers to Samplitude), that many times are actually already implemented in Samp. in one form or another, but perhaps lurking somewhere where the user isn't expecting them. This comes down to workflow more often than not.

What is still expected now, I think, is all the little extra nitty gritty higher-end features that cater to i.e. video post vs. high-end MIDI user vs. live performance, vs. live recording vs. production studio vs. sound design, etc. etc. I really think Samplitude strikes a strong balance between all these market areas without ignoring them. Is there room for improvement - always? But, the devs. also have to be concerned about 'keeping up with the Jones' syndrome, and work hard to maintain the integrity of the core program.

Just know that, for me Samplitude has been the most reliable, fast, transparent, workhorse of a program that I've ever used. I've worked in busy studios in LA that are obviously ProTools or Nuendo, or whatever-based, and find myself sort of snickering inside when I see to what degree the engineers sometimes have to wrestle with the programs to get it to do anything. Is Samplitude impervious to this same criticism? No, because people get used to workflows and hotkeys, and screen colors, and whatever. This will never end.

Where it stands now is a very powerful, diverse host that yes, has great external hardware integration (working great with external effects here - with adjustable sync by the way), very deep MIDI implementation that is IMO about 90% up to par with the Cubases and Logics out there that are YEARS ahead in MIDI development, quick freeze, hybrid engine, the infamous object editing, and of course full front-to-back record-edit-mix-master-burn within one tool.

Now, I may come off as a 'fanboy', but believe me that the beta team beats the crap out of this program (I love to try to do things it may not be designed to do), and then go for stability and ruggedness, and then all the little items and tweaks fall into place soon enough.

V10.2 is now the main core of my studio - using 'heavy' synths/ROMplers such as Omnisphere and Superior2 as well as external effects, hardware control via Yamaha 01V92V2 mixer, and, of course the native plugins are very good - especially Ammunition, which IMO is worth the price of admission alone ;)

I think you should grab the demo and throw everything you can at it - on your system - with your desired workflow, and see what it can do.

There are crossgrade deals available, so I don't think a switch-over won't cost you as much as you think ;) .

Keep posting questions here as you go, and have fun.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samplitude/Sequoia cover an incredibly wide spectrum of applications, and two users chosen at random may use the program in entirely different ways. The fact that it is the DAW of choice for so many diverse users should count for a lot more than the fact that any particular user can find something about the program that they wish were better, or at least different.

Bob Katz is a high-profile mastering engineer who is rather new to the platform. Like all of us, he arrived with some biases and ways of working that were shaped by years using other platforms (Sadie and Sonic Solutions, in his case). He's been quite forthright in saying what he does and doesn't like about Sequoiatude. Sometimes more experienced users are able to teach him a new trick or two. Often his criticisms have merit. It's not a bad thing that Bob complains about certain aspects of the program, it's a good thing. Rest assured the development team is paying attention, and Sequioatude will get better as a result. The same sort of thing happened when Husky Huskolds chose Sequoiatude as his preferred mix engine. He gave the developers a lot of really crucial information about what was needed by an A-list mix engineer. That resulted in really significant improvements the platform's automation features.

But what about the present features? Should you worry that Bob is occasionally annoyed by how things stand today? Probably not. Based on what you've told us about your work, eight of ten randomly chosen Sequoiatude users will have workflows which are more similar to yours than yours is to Bob's. If you want to guess whether you'll be happy on this platform, spend some time talking to users who do the same sort of work that you do.

David L. Rick

Seventh String Recording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the intelligent, thoughtful, and encouraging responses (quite refreshing after years of plodding through the adolescent rantings of the Sonar forum). ;)

What gave me such pause when I first read through some of the forum posts was not so much idiosyncratic workflow issues but rather the severe CPU usage issues a large number of experience users were seeing with 10.2. Then as I read through all these suggestions of assigning UAD-1 and various plugins to a single CPU core, wiping out .ini files, reverting back to previous versions, etc., I started to get this strong "Do I really want to deal with this?" feeling. Back to CPU spiking and plugin issues?

Though a somewhat aged Athlon 64 X2 4800+ machine running on an ASUS A8V Deluxe board, 2 GB if high performance Kingston memory with specific timing set in the BIOS, 2 UAD-1 cards, a Matrox P-650 video card pushing dual 24" monitors, I treat this system like gold. Nothing...and I mean NOTHING...gets installed on this system that isn't related to audio and/or system stability.

I expected a learning curve with Samplitude, that doesn't bother me. I would expect that from a professional app and welcome the challenge. I do realize that all DAW software have issues and features that could be improved. None of this intimidates me. But I need it to be rock solid...and CPU spiking and UAD-1 issues don't bode well. Sonar 7 runs perfectly on my machine, barely breaks a sweat, and has no plugin issues. But as my studio has grown and my DAW needs expanded, Sonar just comes up glaringly short in a few important areas. The entire application begins to feel like software developed for non-professional use. I really don't care about all the bells, whistles, and free doo-dads. I have all I need.

I think I'll go ahead and install the downloaded version of Samplitude and give it a spin for a few weeks. Can't hurt...right? ;)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very refreshing here, indeed ;)

If/when you decide to make a switch, be sure to call Tom before he heads off to NAMM.

Have fun!

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I have mistakenly been under the impression that Samplitude had the option for dongle or challenge/response activation. As of version 10.1 in appears as if dongle activation is required. Am I correct?

If so, that's really unfortunate.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems I have mistakenly been under the impression that Samplitude had the option for dongle or challenge/response activation. As of version 10.1 in appears as if dongle activation is required. Am I correct?

If so, that's really unfortunate.

Regards,

DB

I used to be afraid of dongles BUT now would not have it any other way. The Codemeter and Ilok are so convenient when you work with multiple computers like I do.

I agree with everything that was said in the previous replies. Samplitude is the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems I have mistakenly been under the impression that Samplitude had the option for dongle or challenge/response activation. As of version 10.1 in appears as if dongle activation is required. Am I correct?

Samplitude 10 DLV (download version ) uses challenge response . Samplitude 10 Pro uses a codemeter dongle .

Regards

Kraznet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the dongle networked so that I can share it across 3 computers running Samplitude.

I don't have a problem with using dongles - including recording live sessions on a laptop.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have been very thoughtful and helpful in your responses so I don't want this to degenerate into some dongle rant. Suffice to say I don't purchase software that employs external hardware and/or third party software installations for activation/protection schemes.

Thanks again for your responses.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'll go ahead and install the downloaded version of Samplitude and give it a spin for a few weeks. Can't hurt...right? ;)

Yes, that's right. In fact Samplitude is the only Windows program I know which doesn't write anything to the registry. So just delete the Samplitude program folder and your system is like before. There is really no risk in giving Samplitude a good check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys have been very thoughtful and helpful in your responses so I don't want this to degenerate into some dongle rant. Suffice to say I don't purchase software that employs external hardware and/or third party software installations for activation/protection schemes.

Thanks again for your responses.

Regards,

DB

Hey, it's a shame to hear that the dongle would be a deal-breaker.

I use both the Samp Pro codemeter dongle and an ilok. They happily coexist and I have attached them inside my PC so there are no dangling dongles!

The Codemeter requires a system process but not a program to be running. The process takes 3,600kb RAM.

It's a question of pros and cons. I have used extensively Logic (for PC), FL Studio, Audition, Acid and Project5. I have also demoed Reaper, Podium, Sonar and probably others that I can't remember. Of those Logic is the only one that was dongled (at the time) and the dongle itself caused no problems. The dealbreaker with Logic was obviously that it stopped being developed for PC!

With each of the other hosts I've tried there's always turned out to be either: (1) at least one show-stopping and stupid bug that the developers show no interest in fixing; or (2) lack of a crucial feature that I didn't think to test during the demo period because I would have thought it was obvious. One example here is the lack of sustain pedal support in earlier versions of FL Studio. Another is the MIDI timing delay in Live.

Keep in mind too that Cakewalk products have no dongle but don't allow license transfers, which is arguably more inconvenient in the long run.

Samplitude is the only host I've tried where I never bump up against a limitation, or discover a bug that isn't promptly fixed by the developers. To me, a dongle is only a very small 'con' relative to the huge amounts of 'pros' that come with Samp. Indeed the dongle arguably has its own 'pro' in that it makes software installation/activation faster. Forum threads show that Magix are very fast and helpful when a dongle fails. It's a completely different atmosphere to the Cubase forums, for example.

Anyway, as you say, this isn't meant to be a 'rant', and I hope my post doesn't come across as one. I would just say: I used to hate the idea of a dongle, but when I put it in perspective as just one thing to weigh up against everything else, rather than some kind of bogeyman that was going to eat my PC, I felt the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

Good luck with your decision

Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's right. In fact Samplitude is the only Windows program I know which doesn't write anything to the registry. So just delete the Samplitude program folder and your system is like before. There is really no risk in giving Samplitude a good check.

SAWStudio is also practically invisible to the rest of the machine.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DB,

a couple of points here...

I used my first dongle back in the old Sequencer Plus II days. There is nothing inherently wrong with a dongle. They just fell out of favor due to some dongle companies being poor at their jobs. Sonar and SAWStudio are pretty unique in that they don't require serious security. I know Greg, and I've always applauded his position. But it is not shared by many other manufacturers.

I was a beta tester for Greg, way back in the Cakewalk 3.n, 4.n days. I'd always used SAWStudio for the bulk of my work, but I have at times either been a tester for or tried most of the major audio applications available. So I may be able to help you with a few suggestions.

First, Bob's workflow does not mimic yours. I guarantee it. He has been a guide and a font of information to me over the years. I'm sure that you are not doing what he does in the way that he does it.

The hardest part of changing softwares is to get over the fact that you already know how to do something. Because chances are, in the new software, you don't. This is very frustrating. There are still times when I have to ask how to do something in Samp/Sequoia (I use Sequoia now, and have for several years...). One of the great strengths to Sonar is that it has tried to be everything to everybody, and has a very full-featured set of tools from which to work. Samplitude is similar, in that it can do many, many things. It differs in that it started life as an audio application, not a MIDI application (yes, I know that Sonar started as a hybrid, but it's roots are still in Cakewalk) so it is audio-centric. Easier for me, an old tape/audio guy, to grasp.

Most major softwares do the job. Some are better in some areas than others, others have different strengths. I compare them to running shoes... you like Rebocks, I like New Balance, the next guy prefers Nikes... it is a 'fit and feel' issue. But at the end of the day, we all manage to get down the road. I found the 'fit and feel' of Sequoia to suit me rather well once I got over the fact that it did not look and feel like SAWStudio, Sound Forge, Vegas, Wavelab, or Sonar, and allowed it to be what it is, instead of trying to force it to be one of those other products.

I'm not going to lie to you... there are some quirks, and some bumps. But I don't confront them daily, they only show up occasionally and do not usually interfere with workflow. The conveniences and things that I -can-do in the interface that I could not with other softwares far outweigh the occasional PITA that most all audio softwares seem to have.

And the dongle? Has not been a problem in any way that I can tell, and has allowed me to load the sofware onto several machines (my studio amchine and a couple of laptops) and use whatever is convenient and appropriate for the job at hand.

Anyway, good luck whatever you decide. But to be successful at any major change, you have to be open to the differences. If you are, then you will eventually find 'your' software. If you are not, you'll never be happy with any product.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Codemeter doesn't disrupt your system like the reputation of other dongulators in the past.

Samplitude doesn't suck itself into your registry or glue itself to your machine ID.

You can run Samplitude on multiple machines.

There was another thread recently re: embedding the codemeter in a localized file, but I'm not sure what became of it - I will have to re-read the thread ;)

Nevertheless, I think the DLV should give you a good taste of what's possible.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

I understand each manufacture has a right to protect their investments as they see fit...and I, as a consumer, have every right to say "No, the way you conduct your business is unacceptable to me so I'm not purchasing your product". We all know the pros and cons of the dongle protection approach. Personally I reside more in the con side. I find the whole approach offensive as it places unnecessary burden and risk on the consumer who has just made made significant financial investment. If your customers like dongles and the benefits they provide, then an option to use one should suffice. If they are offensive to your potential customers (and they are to many), why on earth would you insist? You've just lost a sale. And that lost sale is the consumer's problem? I don't think so. For adequate software protection they are simply unnecessary. This comes from my own perspective as a software developer who has made a very good living in the past 13 years having developed a product that uses a heretofore uncompromised protection scheme I designed that requires only an activation code. Again, why would you insist on a unnecessary protection methodology that alienates a significant customer base and cost you sales? Put the blame on me for not feeling as you do, but in the end the sale is lost. I don't get it.

As for the original issues that prompted this thread, they had nothing to do with Bob Katz's or anyone else's workflow. They had to do with significant CPU spiking and plugin issues (for example, UAD) that experienced users where having with the 10.2 update that were rendering some of these systems unusable. As a potential customer this gave me serious pause as to the stability of the program, which is a very important issue for me.

I have no issue with change or differences. I fully expected a steep learning curve with Samplitude and welcomed the challenge. Sonar is good DAW software. But having invested in several important pieces of external gear this past year, their dismal implementation of external inserts coupled with their continuing lack of acknowledgment of reproducible issues by many of us has given me a bad feeling about the company. Add to that the fact that they keep throwing free toys and doo-dads with each new upgrade while ignoring fundamental features that don't work. Well, obviously, this approach has me looking elsewhere.

Well, I did what I said I wouldn't...degenerated into a rant. I hope I haven't offended anyone. It's encouraging to see such support for Samplitude. Unfortunately, this no-option approach to dongles just rubs me the wrong way.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the original issues that prompted this thread, they had nothing to do with Bob Katz's or anyone else's workflow. They had to do with significant CPU spiking and plugin issues (for example, UAD) that experienced users where having with the 10.2 update that were rendering some of these systems unusable. As a potential customer this gave me serious pause as to the stability of the program, which is a very important issue for me.

Regards,

DB

Hi DB,

I was one of the guys who had problems with 10.2 (performance) . In the meantime I located what caused the problem (synth edit plug ins in hybrid mode).

Everything works smooth and stable now. Had a 5 days session and not one crash (with a lot of elastic audio and spectral cleaning). Not bad.

Never had problems with UAD-1. And last but not least every VSTi/VST works.

The only thing I'm missing is multiple midi output recording/routing and midifx. For that, I'm using the VST version of Usine (a routing monster) and Ableton Live in Rewire mode. Usine is very good for live performance (in stand alone mode) too.

Lacroix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill,

I understand each manufacture has a right to protect their investments as they see fit...and I, as a consumer, have every right to say "No, the way you conduct your business is unacceptable to me so I'm not purchasing your product". We all know the pros and cons of the dongle protection approach. Personally I reside more in the con side. I find the whole approach offensive as it places unnecessary burden and risk on the consumer who has just made made significant financial investment. If your customers like dongles and the benefits they provide, then an option to use one should suffice. If they are offensive to your potential customers (and they are to many), why on earth would you insist? You've just lost a sale. And that lost sale is the consumer's problem? I don't think so. For adequate software protection they are simply unnecessary. This comes from my own perspective as a software developer who has made a very good living in the past 13 years having developed a product that uses a heretofore uncompromised protection scheme I designed that requires only an activation code. Again, why would you insist on a unnecessary protection methodology that alienates a significant customer base and cost you sales? Put the blame on me for not feeling as you do, but in the end the sale is lost. I don't get it.

As for the original issues that prompted this thread, they had nothing to do with Bob Katz's or anyone else's workflow. They had to do with significant CPU spiking and plugin issues (for example, UAD) that experienced users where having with the 10.2 update that were rendering some of these systems unusable. As a potential customer this gave me serious pause as to the stability of the program, which is a very important issue for me.

I have no issue with change or differences. I fully expected a steep learning curve with Samplitude and welcomed the challenge. Sonar is good DAW software. But having invested in several important pieces of external gear this past year, their dismal implementation of external inserts coupled with their continuing lack of acknowledgment of reproducible issues by many of us has given me a bad feeling about the company. Add to that the fact that they keep throwing free toys and doo-dads with each new upgrade while ignoring fundamental features that don't work. Well, obviously, this approach has me looking elsewhere.

Well, I did what I said I wouldn't...degenerated into a rant. I hope I haven't offended anyone. It's encouraging to see such support for Samplitude. Unfortunately, this no-option approach to dongles just rubs me the wrong way.

Regards,

DB

Hi DB,

I don't think it is appropriate to call the user or buyer of Samplitude a "consumer". Taking the attitude of a guy just buying a TV at Walmart is a wrong starting point, as a whole. Strictly speaking, you don't own any thing after obtaining the license, apart from the right to use software, that happens to be a tool for professional purpose, and the services that come with that. Ok, still you are a customer, and still you want to have trust in your provider. You don't seem to have trust. Fair enough.

Your main point is that license management poses a risk to the licensee, specifically the use of hardware based license management. If that is your estimation be it so. But for the record: you don't know if that is a substantial claim, as long as you haven't checked out yourself. My claim, based on using different dongles, is that all dongles have very specific risks. Any license management poses risks. The question is if there is a commercially acceptable solution or exit scenario.

Taking other side's perspective, I don't think that MAGIX or any other provider should care about such remarks. The decision to impose hard license management schemata has not only to do with selling. In professional audio, the amount of professionally used software that is unlicensed exceeds the 30% margin even in the OECD countries, let alone emerging markets like China or Russia, where the rate is close to 100%. Professional Audio is the most affected sector of license issues. This is not only affecting the manufacturers of commercially licensed software, but also the fair competition among the users of these professional tools.

So, for your own record with license management: that rather wasn't related to professional audio, or it was that bad that nobody was interested to crack it, or in case either assumption is wrong, you are damn bad in marketing your excellent idea. (Ah, and then you certainly won't mind to explain why your method poses less risk to the licensee than a hardware dongle, i.e. by pointing out how an issue that the licensee might have, but you haven't thought unless it occurred, could be fixed without your contribution by the licensee, i.e. as you provide the source code.)

However, if you have such fundamental concern, there is no business case for either side. You should stay away from it. Last, not least there is of course the question why that comes up as a "second thought", if it is that substantial.

Best regards,

Sebastian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a disgruntled Sonar user for a few versions now I've been considering a switch to Samplitude for several months. I have to say though, after registering to the forum and reading of some of the significant issues users like Bob Katz and many other advanced users are having, that my enthusiasm has come to a screeching halt!

Please don't put my name on the list of "disgruntled users". There are certain areas of Sequoiatude that don't work well for me, but day in and day out, it is my go-to program for preparation and processing of masters for replication. You have to decide if the same areas of the program are necessary for you, and besides, if you encounter the same problems in there as I do. There are many happy users of Sequoiatude that do not encounter problems in the same areas of the program as I do. Not that that makes me any happier, but I think that it's come to the point where EVERY DAW has some area that doesn't work as well as others. If you look at it one way, you're ALWAYS going to be trading off one set of problems for another----but I prefer to look at it the other way: You're ALWAYS going to be trading off one set of advantages for another!

And remember, there are things that Sequoiatude does (like powerful object-based processing) which are not available in every other program.

I have a client who uses Sonar who is very happy with the program. Maybe he doesn't exercise the areas where you see problems, or those problems don't concern him. The point being that DAWs are a personal fit and I feel you should seriously consider Sequoiatude. If you would like to talk with me about the areas where I have my doubts or concerns and the areas where I am happy, write me offline at bobkatz[atsign]digido.com.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi DB,

I don't think it is appropriate to call the user or buyer of Samplitude a "consumer". Taking the attitude of a guy just buying a TV at Walmart is a wrong starting point, as a whole. Strictly speaking, you don't own any thing after obtaining the license, apart from the right to use software, that happens to be a tool for professional purpose, and the services that come with that. Ok, still you are a customer, and still you want to have trust in your provider. You don't seem to have trust. Fair enough.

Your main point is that license management poses a risk to the licensee, specifically the use of hardware based license management. If that is your estimation be it so. But for the record: you don't know if that is a substantial claim, as long as you haven't checked out yourself. My claim, based on using different dongles, is that all dongles have very specific risks. Any license management poses risks. The question is if there is a commercially acceptable solution or exit scenario.

Taking other side's perspective, I don't think that MAGIX or any other provider should care about such remarks. The decision to impose hard license management schemata has not only to do with selling. In professional audio, the amount of professionally used software that is unlicensed exceeds the 30% margin even in the OECD countries, let alone emerging markets like China or Russia, where the rate is close to 100%. Professional Audio is the most affected sector of license issues. This is not only affecting the manufacturers of commercially licensed software, but also the fair competition among the users of these professional tools.

So, for your own record with license management: that rather wasn't related to professional audio, or it was that bad that nobody was interested to crack it, or in case either assumption is wrong, you are damn bad in marketing your excellent idea. (Ah, and then you certainly won't mind to explain why your method poses less risk to the licensee than a hardware dongle, i.e. by pointing out how an issue that the licensee might have, but you haven't thought unless it occurred, could be fixed without your contribution by the licensee, i.e. as you provide the source code.)

However, if you have such fundamental concern, there is no business case for either side. You should stay away from it. Last, not least there is of course the question why that comes up as a "second thought", if it is that substantial.

Best regards,

Sebastian

Hi Sebastian,

I'm sure we could endlessly debate the whole dongle/licensing/ownership/protection ideology, but we would just end up where we started: two people with different opinions.

As for your comments on my "own record with license management", I see no reason to condescend. Though I do not market the licensing methodology, per se, I am very successful in what I do. In 13+ years we've had no licensing hacks, complaints, or issues that could not be quickly resolved by support staff.

Actually, your entire response feels a bit condescending. If I've touched a nerve, please know that wasn't my intention. I fully respect Magix's or any other company's right to market and license their products anyway they see fit and ignore any dissenting ideologies. I am not so grandiose in my self-perception that I believe I am anything more than a single voice with a single opinion. Perceived issues that prompted "second thoughts" arose prior to my knowledge of precise licensing methodology (I believed there was an option of dongle versus activation code).

If you desire to discredit me, so be it. I came here only to evaluate what I believed was one of the best professional DAW software solutions available. From the feedback I have received, I have no reason to believe anything to the contrary. This isn't the first time I've encountered a licensing methodology for which I take issue. I don't assume this to be anyone's problem but my own.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a disgruntled Sonar user for a few versions now I've been considering a switch to Samplitude for several months. I have to say though, after registering to the forum and reading of some of the significant issues users like Bob Katz and many other advanced users are having, that my enthusiasm has come to a screeching halt!

Please don't put my name on the list of "disgruntled users". There are certain areas of Sequoiatude that don't work well for me, but day in and day out, it is my go-to program for preparation and processing of masters for replication. You have to decide if the same areas of the program are necessary for you, and besides, if you encounter the same problems in there as I do. There are many happy users of Sequoiatude that do not encounter problems in the same areas of the program as I do. Not that that makes me any happier, but I think that it's come to the point where EVERY DAW has some area that doesn't work as well as others. If you look at it one way, you're ALWAYS going to be trading off one set of problems for another----but I prefer to look at it the other way: You're ALWAYS going to be trading off one set of advantages for another!

And remember, there are things that Sequoiatude does (like powerful object-based processing) which are not available in every other program.

I have a client who uses Sonar who is very happy with the program. Maybe he doesn't exercise the areas where you see problems, or those problems don't concern him. The point being that DAWs are a personal fit and I feel you should seriously consider Sequoiatude. If you would like to talk with me about the areas where I have my doubts or concerns and the areas where I am happy, write me offline at bobkatz[atsign]digido.com.

BK

Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if I've used your name inappropriately as a point of emphasis.

I'm keenly aware that every software solution has it's good and bad points and those things are frequently a matter of how those solutions fit the needs of the user. I came here not to point out deficiencies in Samplitude but to gather encouragement. I've been impressed by the eloquence and thoughtfulness of the responses. I have been a satisfied Sonar user for several years. But as my own needs and investments have grown, issues have begun to surface to the point were I'm searching better solutions.

Regards,

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×