Saw Studio vs. other software

[marty]

Hi

I was just about to consider which sequencer software to move to in the next weeks - after having worked with the pc versions of Logic and Cubase for the last years -when I stumbled over a post in another forum. Now there seems to be real hype about Saw Studio among its users. And since I am always open for new ideas I thought I might ask a couple of questions here right away.

First of all I understand that Saw Studio is being developed and updated by only one person. Is that correct? If so, what happens if he were to stop doing it for whatever reason? (...the code must be awfully difficult to understand for non assembler coders).

Then I read quite a few comments on Saw Studios' audio quality. Now I did a quick test myself and recorded a few seconds of guitar in cubase and Sawstudio demo (24 bit, dithered to 16 at mixdown). But I could not here any difference - I almost found the cubase file to sound a bit fresher. Could be though that my ears were already too tired to hear any difference after a long work day.

Finally my last question: I understand that Sawstudio was designed for audio recording purposes with some midi functionality added only recently. Since most of my work is composing I use a lot of midi - external and virtual devices. Has anyone had considerable experience with Sawstudio as a midi sequencer yet?

Ok, sorry for asking so much right at the beginning and for my not-so-perfect-English. Thank You!

Martin

[Sam C]

Hi Marty.

Yes, SAW is being developed by one person. I don't know any details as to what will happen if he stops.

If your test showed cubase sounding better than SAW, I am not sure why you need to go further?

If you are still undecided, play with the demo a little more and see if you find the benefits of SAW. I did!

Good luck.

[Yura]

Hi

First of all I understand that Saw Studio is being developed and updated by only one person. Is that correct? If so, what happens if he were to stop doing it for whatever reason? (...the code must be awfully difficult to understand for non assembler coders).



Very nice question!
not to miss to note: the developer of SAWstudio HAD done his development many versions before that covers many relative market innovations on many years for the future.
many of experienced SAW users could prefer to work, say in version 2.6 of SS instead of jumping to any other newast DAWs. That's reality.
As for MIDI, IMHO SAW's midi implementation is on the way to higher improvements.

[Mountain Media]

First of all I understand that Saw Studio is being developed and updated by only one person. Is that correct? If so, what happens if he were to stop doing it for whatever reason? (...the code must be awfully difficult to understand for non assembler coders).

Then I read quite a few comments on Saw Studios' audio quality. Now I did a quick test myself and recorded a few seconds of guitar in cubase and Sawstudio demo (24 bit, dithered to 16 at mixdown). But I could not here any difference - I almost found the cubase file to sound a bit fresher. Could be though that my ears were already too tired to hear any difference after a long work day.

Finally my last question: I understand that Sawstudio was designed for audio recording purposes with some midi functionality added only recently. Since most of my work is composing I use a lot of midi - external and virtual devices. Has anyone had considerable experience with Sawstudio as a midi sequencer yet?

Ok, sorry for asking so much right at the beginning and for my not-so-perfect-English. Thank You!

Martin'Perfect English 'is not a problem in this forum - it is my native language and mine is not so perfect, either! :)

My opinions --
As for one person development team. If the current capabilities of SAWStudio do what you desire, then if there is never anymore development you still have a good product for today's environment. There is never any guarantee that there will be future updates to any product on the market. I've had far more disappointments with products developed by large teams, than by Bob's SAW family of products. Bob's history of support and continued updates to his products is, I believe, one of (if not THE best) in the industry. The SAW family longevity is greater than MANY other products that have come and gone, in the audio world! I feel most of the folks on this forum will agree!

I have seldom used Cubase, so I am not a good 'judge' but SAWStudio output has convinced two associates, who are studio owners, that for them, SAWStudio gives a more full, richer sound. Just their opinions, though educated opinions.

I'm not a Midi person, but from associates that are (again, the same two Cubase users mentioned above) Midi Workshop (MWS) is a feature rich Midi environment, though Bob is, I believe, continuing to develop it into a more full-featured product. There are tasks MWS does that the current Cubase users like, and some tasks they prefer the way Cubase does them. These observations are from using my setup of MWS, so they have not done a lot of production work with MWS, though.

After all of this -- my suggestion, as others have said, would be to spend some time using the SAWStudio demo and the MWS demo, listening to significant amounts of audio output (not just a few seconds of guitar), after applying some of the many dynamics available in SAWStudio. Also, read the manual, view the online videos at the SAWStudio Web Site, check out the online tutorials available at the same web site, and THEN decide what you prefer to use. The most important thing is, ultimately, what pleases you and gives you the best working environment.

Personally, I've used the complete line of SAW products from the early 1990's and have never felt I needed any other products, though I've looked at a LOT.

Good luck with your decision! :) Lots of folks here to help answer questions!

[Craig Allen]

Hi Marty, I'll add a couple of comments to the answers you've already been given.


First of all I understand that Saw Studio is being developed and updated by only one person. Is that correct?
True - Bob Lentini is the developer of SAW.


If so, what happens if he were to stop doing it for whatever reason? (...the code must be awfully difficult to understand for non assembler coders).
The single developer issues isn't an issue for me, and I really don't know why it is with others. Any software platform could be abandoned by the company that develops it at any time. Companies go out of business, are sold to groups that don't have the same goals, etc. Bob is not unique in this respect. With this in mind, I try to buy something that works for me needs today. And SAW does that exceptionally well.


Then I read quite a few comments on Saw Studios' audio quality. Now I did a quick test myself and recorded a few seconds of guitar in cubase and Sawstudio demo (24 bit, dithered to 16 at mixdown). But I could not here any difference - I almost found the cubase file to sound a bit fresher. Could be though that my ears were already too tired to hear any difference after a long work day.
SAW's dither (while good) may not sound as good as the Apogee dither in Cubase. I do not have experience with the dither in Cubase, so I can't really offer an opinion. Steve Bernson has compared a lot of different dithering plugs, so he can probably comment about the quality of the different options out there better than me. I would record and try SAW's channel EQ's and compressors - they are very good and what really makes this program shine. Take the dither out of the equation, mix down to a 24 bit file (in both programs) and see how the results stack up. There are many other dithering options (including some free) that might sound better to your ear.


Finally my last question: I understand that Sawstudio was designed for audio recording purposes with some midi functionality added only recently. Since most of my work is composing I use a lot of midi - external and virtual devices. Has anyone had considerable experience with Sawstudio as a midi sequencer yet?
I own the add on Midi WorkShop, but do not have a lot of experience with it yet, so I can't really help here. Other can offer opinions on this aspect of the program, I'm sure.

[tomasino]

Hi

after having worked with the pc versions of Logic and Cubase for the last years

I understand that Sawstudio was designed for audio recording purposes with some midi functionality added only recently. Since most of my work is composing I use a lot of midi - external and virtual devices. Has anyone had considerable experience with Sawstudio as a midi sequencer yet?

Hello Marty - welcome to the house of SawStudio,

I'm repeating myself a little bit here but I don't mind --

I too spent YEARS working with Logic and Cubase (and CalkWalk) trying to get my midi sequences to synch up with digital audio in those environments - the synch drift problems were maddening and never went away. That's a very stressful way to work, knowing the evil drift monster is going to pop up at one place or another or another or another....

Those other environments do the sequencing job well and have lots of nice bells, whistles n' happy gui stuff. Add a few stereo audio tracks with a couple of effects and no telling what will happen.

I've been using MidiWorkShop in SawStudio for more than a year now and I haven't experienced ANY synch drift problems whatsoever. N' that's in projects with sequenced drums, bass, horns, synths etc... and stereo AND mono digital audio tracks at a variety of resolutions (44.1K-16bit/48K-24bit/96K-24bit) all in the same project (and sometimes on the same track!). I've had projects with 20 midi tracks and 15 digital audio tracks, both in record mode and playback mode - no drift. Those other environments can't even come close (from my experiences).

I'll take the rock solid synchronization with the digital audio multitracker over any amount of midi bells and whistles any day. After all, at some point you gotta roll off those midi sequences to audio tracks...

What soundcard are you using?
What resolutions did you test at?
Most people think SawStudio provides superior audio quality. That's usually the point that wins them over. Even if it "sounds the same" to you, SawStudio is the best way to go.

I wouldn't worry about the number of programmers on staff or the stability of the company. Get SawStudio and stay more focused on making your music.

You said you're looking to make a switch, go with SawStudio and MidiWorkShop and you will never look back.


p.s. N' ya know, I just wanna give a shout out to WinJammer. I never hear anybody ever mention WinJammer and I had more success synching midi and digital audio with WinJammer via the synch plug in SawPro than I did in any of those other environments. Also, I thought the WinJammer dude was a stand up guy. I hope he is doing well.

[Oz Nimbus]

Hi



Then I read quite a few comments on Saw Studios' audio quality. Now I did a quick test myself and recorded a few seconds of guitar in cubase and Sawstudio demo (24 bit, dithered to 16 at mixdown). But I could not here any difference - I almost found the cubase file to sound a bit fresher. Could be though that my ears were already too tired to hear any difference after a long work day.

Finally my last question: I understand that Sawstudio was designed for audio recording purposes with some midi functionality added only recently. Since most of my work is composing I use a lot of midi - external and virtual devices. Has anyone had considerable experience with Sawstudio as a midi sequencer yet?


Martin


Welcome to the forum, Marty. If you're really interested in how SAW sums a mix, try the same test using multiple tracks. Instead of simply converting one guitar track down to 16 bit, try 4-8 or so.
Or for a REAL test, try a multitrack mix in Cubase using whatever plugs you normally use, then try the same mix in SAW with the channel EQ's & compressors instead of plugins. This is where the strengh lies, IMHO.

As for SAW being developed by one person, believe me, if Bob called it quits tomorrow, I'd still be using SAW for the next 10 years in it's present state. It's that good. Not to mention, Bob has to have the best tech support I've ever encountered. Problems usually get fixed very fast.

As for the alternative, didn't Logic abandon it's PC users a while back? How many people are still using Logic on the PC?


Keep playing with the demo, and keep those questions coming!

-0z-

[AudioAstronomer]

Well All I can say is there are hundred of people still using saw versions from 5-10 years back... and development hasnt stopped!

I will be using saw, no matter what for as long as I possibly can. In it's present state it does everything I could ever want... no special EQ or new crazy editing feature is important enough for me to compromise my work by using another peice of software.


As of this morning I am finishing my first entire project in saw. Cd burning, metering (I turned off my external meters and used just the sonoris), midi, and even monitor switching! among various other things... Entire project done with a computer, 2 monitors, a soundcard and my collection of speakers :) No external gear, no other software (Except burrrn to burn the cue).

I dont care if tommorow someone come sup with some crazy new invention that supposedly makes audio life a million times better. I get work done with saw... that's it. And that's what really matters, not having 500 features that I never use, but just like to have so I can brag.

[Westwind]

Marty,
Wie Geht es Ihnen? Regarding the MIDIWorkshop, I can tell that, at present, it is still not at the same level as Cuebase as far as features, however, more and more enhancements are being added all the time. Like you, most of my work is MIDI based these days, and it has been a concern. But being able to render your VST tracks directly to an audio track in absolutley perfect sync, and then use the extremely powerful mixing capabilites of SAW outweighs any other considerations. Remember, you can always continue to sequence complex pieces in Cuebase, then export them as .mid files for the MIDIworkshop. This is what I do, though I 've have been doing more in more directly in MIDIWorkshop. There are a few features, like step-entry, which keep me from completely abandoning my old software, but I heard it from a little bird that step-entry will be coming very soon. In any event, one doesn't negate the other. My advice, move up to SAWStudio /w MWS, and wean yourself off Cuebase at a comfortable pace. It may take a year, but the power of SAW is inescapable, and, on balance, Cuebase simply can't compete.
As far as audio quality, I think that has as much or more to do with your hardware as anything else.
Good Luck

[AudioAstronomer]

Ill add my native language isnt english either... for quite a few people here it isnt :) So you're in good company!

[marty]

Wow, thanks everyone for answering so fast and your warm welcome. Sam asked why I would consider changing my app if I was happy with the sound it delivers. The answer is that I wanted to go back to the mac platform after a few years now because I have always liked the ease of working with it. Since I wasn't sure yet wether I would return to Logic or stay with Steinberg I wanted to see what the situation in the audio app market is today. I am a usability junkie when it comes to software, so who knows, maybe over the next couple of days I will find out that it is even more rewarding to work with Saw.

Thank you for your support, when I have made my way through the material provided on the website I might have a few more questions that someone can help me out with.

This seems to be a great forum anyway, thanks!

[Sam C]

Marty, if you are going back to a mac, SAW is PC only. (If I read your comment correctly)

[Kurt Garehime]

Marty,
Another essential consideration. I've been using SAW for 18 months and I'm as thrilled with it as the rest withinin this thread are. But my uses differ greatly from yours and am not qualified to offer advice specifically about your comparisons.
However, this forum itself, is a major reason to enter the SAW world. Even though I've been working in SAW for awhile I did not take advantage of the forum. I never even entered it until a couple of weeks ago and BOOM!!!
This forum is world of endless support and helpful advice! :D


Wow, thanks everyone for answering so fast and your warm welcome.Everyone else here jumps to your aid seemingly immediately, as you have already learned. Bob Lentini personally answers your questions. When is the last time the code writer took the time to answer your support question?
If nothing else, I've learned that this forum, and the selfless support it provides is reason alone to enter the SAW world. :) And believe us all, there are plenty of reasons to own SAW Studio....

Great luck, give our President a kiss for us while he's visiting your home! Isn't he just a peach?!;) ;)

[conleec]

Marty,

I'm a film and video guy, so I am coming at this from a little different perspective than some/most of the others on this list. I liked the fact that SAW provides direct output of video via firewire. I liked even more the fact that it is in rock solid perfect sync. Because of the way Bob programmed it, there is no way for the sync to slip.

As far as superior audio quality goes, I've seen Bob himself downplay this notion on more than one occasion, saying that he does nothing to "color" the sound or give SAW a "signature" sound. However, the idea persists, and MANY believe that SAW does sound better when judged by various criteria. It's good enough for me that SAW sounds dang good. Certainly it sounds as good as anything else on the market.

The speed and efficiency of the software is phenomenal. Bob's coding is really something special, if you ask me. When was the last time you had professionally useful software with less than a 4Mb download? Amazing.

Lastly, as far as being coded by a single person, well, to me that's a major benefit. As others have said, any software at any time can have development discontinued. But so long as it is being developed, Bob's support is absolutely second to none. Witness another current thread:

http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1423

The problem hasn't been solved yet, but the DEVELOPER is looking into it on a one-to-one basis. More importantly, he's not denying that there's a problem in Pieter's case. Man, if other vendors worked that way it would be a wonderful world.

The software marches to it's own drummer, so play with the demo a couple days and get a feel for it. Once you get accustomed to it, it's a tremendous amount of fun.

Oh, and you're right. This forum is one of the best communities I've ever found online. That alone is almost worth the cost of the software. It's refreshing that a bunch of professionals and hobbyists alike can get together and ask and answer questions without a bunch of ego. On many other forums your question would have drawn instant scorn and lots of mud-slinging about why your app sucks and our app is better. It seems here that people just genuinely believe SAW is better, and they're comfortable with that. They also know that other software exists and for many uses its as good or better. No worries. If you like the software, welcome aboard. If not, best of luck. I like that attitude.

[mghtx]

Marty,
I have Sonar and Cubase SX (both are older versions). When I tried the SAW demo it was more or less a blind test. That is to say I had no idea what to expect. This forum wasn't here at the time. I found out about SAW through another forum and decided I'd check it out myself.

I went to the SAW website and started watching the videos and really liked what I saw. When I tried the demo I loaded up some tracks I had already worked on and was amazed at the difference in depth and clarity of the sound. I'm not trying to sell you here I'm telling you the truth.

Lately I've been trying out some MIDI stuff. I am new to the MIDI world so I've been playing around in Cubase. It's a blast, this MIDI stuff. So I'm now playing with the MIDI Workshop add-on for SAW. Hope to get it sometime this year.

One other thing. Having the comps and gates and eq's that come built in with SAW is outstanding. These are the effects I use the most and I don't have to add them in since they are there already. And they sound great. And any plugins I want to try I can do so "on the fly."

I could go on and on........but couldn't we all?

You people that use in it Live mode, tell Marty about that.

[SoundSuite]

As for SAW being developed by one person, believe me, if Bob called it quits tomorrow, I'd still be using SAW for the next 10 years in it's present state. It's that good.

You know, I thought about this when the fire happened...
I thought, 'what if the source is all gone up in smoke'...
Then I opened SAWStudio, and cooked some tunes with the same realization that Glenn stated.

Even if worst case scenario happenes and Bob doesn't do one more thing in SAW, it still is my choice as the fullest, best overall production software.
It does literally everything I need in it's current state, and will continue into the next decade without question.

Now, enter the MWS addon.
I've been using it since it's pre-release.
There is no other software that has the rock-solid sync between Audio and MIDI.
As mentioned, it doesn't have the bells and whistles of the MIDI apps that added audio capabilities, but it doesn't have the drift of those guys either.

Definately load up the demos, and compare mixes.
You should not have a better sound in the summing bus of Cubase by comparison to SAW's.
In your test, tracking one guitar track at 24bit, then dithering down to 16bit, you were testing the dither, not the mix engine and summing bus.