Re: Sonar 8
Ricky Hunt
what more do we really need? We all have a few little tweaks that we'd like
but the days of the "big upgrades" are over IMO. They need to move to an
update (and lower price) model IMO. This is the first one that truly seems
to be an "extras only" package. I wonder how many (or few) Sonar Studio
users will upgrade? There can't be much of an incentive. And I can't see
them changing the price for upgrades. I'd like to have some of those plugs
(the upgrade to Dimension Pro from LE is about the same price as upgrades
usually are) so this might be one of those "wait until right before the
next release and buy v8 w/free upgrade" years.
"Glennbo" <vdrumsYourHe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B1579F21B718Br...@207.115.17.102...
>
> From an ad in EQ Mag. Looks like the same old crap with, new plugins
> *WOW*
> and new softsynths *WOW* and LE versions of other people's plugins *WOW*.
> If you took away the plugs, what's really there? Varible speed recording?
> Super stable ultra low latency? The ability to arm and disarm tracks
> while
> rolling? "Integrated synth Tracks"? Does this mean they are going to do
> softsynths like everybody else does finally? Where the plug, the midi
> track, and everything related is all on one track. I'll still wait for
> the
> official list, but FX and softsynths are pretty hohum IMO.
>
> Innovations That Matter
> The Production Tools You Want
> The Best Audio Quality In The Industry
> Beatscape Loop Instrument
> Dimension Pro
> TL-64 Tube Leveler
> TS-64 Transient Shaper
> True Pianos Amber Module
> Integrated synth Tracks
> Guitar Rig 3 LE
> Lower Latency - High Track Performance
> New Loop Explorer View For Audio & MIDI
> Channel Tools Plug-in
> Numerous Workflow Enhancements
> More
>
> --
> Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email
> ________ __
> / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____
> / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \
> / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ /
> \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo
> Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits
> Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
Steve Corr
Apparently the ad was released too soon.
The ad only tells part of the story. Please don't jump to any conclusions
and try to be patient for official information from us.
Sorry about the confusion/mix-up with EQ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above is a response from Alex Westner of Cakewalk to the add in EQ mag.
So that seems to suggest there's much more to come.
Steve
"Ricky Hunt" <rhu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f31yk.337081$yE1.214402@attbi_s21...
Rick Paul
to do justice to an entire software release's feature set. Also, in the
highlights that were listed, I noted a few items that, reading between the
lines a bit in at least one of the cases, might well be key enhancements. I
also noticed one notable lacking item, which I think would have made this
level list if it was being added, that would be yet another bummer on my
biggest, most longstanding wishlist item.
Of course, the not-listed feature I'm talking about is a notation view
overhaul, and it would definitely be a major bummer to have that overlooked
for yet another major release.
As for the ones that could make it worthwhile, even without the toys, the
"New Loop Explorer View For Audio & MIDI" is my second biggest, most
longstanding wishlist item, despite it's being alleviated to some degree by
EZ Drummer (i.e. since I mostly use MIDI loops for drum parts, and, at least
these days, mostly use EZ Drummer for drums). Also, the "Lower Latency -
High Track Performance" is something I'd expect would sound good to most
anyone. "Numerous Workflow Enhancements" is always something that sounds
like it could be of interest, too, but that's too generic a description to
say anything useful, so definitely needs to wait for the elaboration. The
"Integrated synth Tracks" could also conceivably be a workflow enhancement
if it works similar to how they do things in Project5. However, it would
also remain to be seen how that relates to multi-timbral synth modules.
As for the toys, full Dimension Pro could definitely be nice to have, though
my sample library disk space is getting really low at the moment. It's not
one of those "must have" things for me in that I've already got so many more
dedicated alternatives for sampled sounds, but I do know I've really liked
some of the specific bits and pieces from the original Dimension (i.e. from
Project5 -- not all of those were included in Dimension LE) such as they way
they handle the programming on many of their guitar patches, so more of
those could be nice, and Dimension Pro is definitely something I'd look
forward to checking out in more depth, thinking it might well be something
I'd end up using a fair amount, though it's probably not something that
would heavily influence me on the upgrade in and of itself. I'm not sure
what a Transient Shaper is, and I've already got plenty of tube-type
plug-ins with the PSP stuff. Not that it hurts to have additional options.
Can't say the TruePianos thing excites me given I've already got several
dedicated piano modules. I've already got the full Guitar Rig 3, so LE
doesn't do anything for me. For anyone who doesn't, though, and doesn't
have other high-end amp simulator packages, this could be a reasonably nice
one as the Guitar Rig quality is very good IMHO. I have no clue what a
"Channel Tools Plug-in" would be. Can't say a "loop instrument" excites me.
I see a further response from Alex Westner in the Cakewalk Forums thread on
this says, "Here's the thing: that particular ad was designed to introduce
SONAR to new customers. It doesn't necessarily list or describe the kinds of
features that our current customer base would appreciate. That's why I'm
saying the ad only tells part of the story." So maybe there is hope for
massibel improved notation since new customers wouldn't know how the current
stuff works? ;-)
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
"Steve Corr" <stev...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6is128...@mid.individual.net...
BobF
I'm a Sonar bigot, but see below:
Glennbo wrote:
> In news:f31yk.337081$yE1.214402@attbi_s21 the killer robot "Ricky Hunt"
> <rhu...@hotmail.com> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio
> and pressed these buttons...
>
>> What more can these programs really do?
>
> Here's 10 things I can think of right off the top of my head.
>
> Cakewalk could,
>
> 1. Add variable speed recording/playback.
This one sounds kool, but I honestly can't think of how I would use it.
> 2. Add the ability to punch in/out while the transport is running.
That would be a nice addition!
> 3. Add FX chains where you can save multi-FX as one insertable thing.
Track templates sort of allows this. You just have to know which
'chain' you want when you add the track
> 4. Fix the uneven core allocation on multicore machines.
> 5. Fix ultra low latency so it isn't so unstable.
> 6. Fix the loop problem that has existed since Sonar 5.
What's the loop problem?
> 7. Add multiple sends and receives per track so you can do complex
> routing without having to use multiple tracks.
I just added 3 sends to an audio track in 7.0.2, with no apparent limit
> 8. Make Sonar able to run from a flash drive so you can take it to other
> studios.
> 9. Make it so double clicking a wave in track view brings up the tool you
> want, like Soundforge, rather than the stoopid looper tool.
I remember being able to select a clip and then edit with my tool of
choice from the tools menu. Not a double-click though ...
> 10.Make the GUI skinnable, rather than just simple color schemes.
>
> Reaper already has all of the above, and more and is much more reasonably
> priced that Sonar. They don't include a bunch of third party plugins that
> you don't really need either. A full commercial license for Reaper is
> closer to the upgrade price of Sonar. $225.00 commercial or only $50.00
> for a personal license. Cake needs to quit leaning on third party stuff to
> try and fluff up their yearly realeases.
I LIKE the add-ons. Some of them anyway ...
> If you took all the third party
> stuff away, it's still the same old Sonar, with the same old problems it's
> had from one release to the next release underneath.
>
Release-to-release it seems slow moving. However, if I compare S7 to
PA9, the difference is pretty dramatic!
BobF
> In news:6is128...@mid.individual.net the killer robot "Steve Corr"
> <stev...@tiscali.co.uk> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
>
>>
>> Apparently the ad was released too soon.
>>
>> The ad only tells part of the story. Please don't jump to any
>> conclusions and try to be patient for official information from us.
>>
>> Sorry about the confusion/mix-up with EQ.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>>
>> Above is a response from Alex Westner of Cakewalk to the add in EQ
>> mag.
>>
>> So that seems to suggest there's much more to come.
>
>
> http://boxstr.com/files/3477983_dlljh/picresized_th_1221113645_th_86f5633629c4ed6dc63252dd224f6ac5.jpg
>
What about "More"? You gotta' admit, the color is awesome!!
polymod
> In news:gab85m$11n$1...@aioe.org the killer robot BobF
> <noth...@spamfree.world> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
> cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
> >
> >
> > Glennbo wrote:
> >>
> >>> What more can these programs really do?
> >>
> >> Here's 10 things I can think of right off the top of my head.
> >>
> >> Cakewalk could,
> >>
> >> 1. Add variable speed recording/playback.
> >
> > This one sounds kool, but I honestly can't think of how I would use
> > it.
>
> down for recording that track. Do the pro trick of stacking background
> vocals, each time at slightly different speeds, so has a richer timbre,
and
> doesn't sound like stacks of the same voices. Slow your favorite song
> down, retain the pitch so you can pick the solo out. Etc.
>
> >> 2. Add the ability to punch in/out while the transport is running.
> >
> > That would be a nice addition!
>
>
> >> 3. Add FX chains where you can save multi-FX as one insertable thing.
> >
> > Track templates sort of allows this. You just have to know which
> > 'chain' you want when you add the track
>
> limiter on the bottom of an FX bin. I can add that chain with a click.
>
> >> 4. Fix the uneven core allocation on multicore machines.
> >> 5. Fix ultra low latency so it isn't so unstable.
> >> 6. Fix the loop problem that has existed since Sonar 5.
> >
> > What's the loop problem?
>
> deteriorate, start sputtering, and either crash, or have the now pointer
go
> past the loop point, not stop the counter, and become totally
unresponsive.
>
> >> 7. Add multiple sends and receives per track so you can do complex
> >> routing without having to use multiple tracks.
> >
> > I just added 3 sends to an audio track in 7.0.2, with no apparent
> > limit
>
> send on a track through a compressor and EQ set to brighten 100% wet, and
> bring it back into the same channel, so that no subs are needed at all,
and
> the entire vocal trick of compressed brightening lives on one track?
>
> >> 8. Make Sonar able to run from a flash drive so you can take it to
> >> other
> >> studios.
> >> 9. Make it so double clicking a wave in track view brings up the tool
> >> you
> >> want, like Soundforge, rather than the stoopid looper tool.
> >
> > I remember being able to select a clip and then edit with my tool of
> > choice from the tools menu. Not a double-click though ...
>
> of a waveform either bring that up or do nothing does nothing for me.
>
> >> 10.Make the GUI skinnable, rather than just simple color schemes.
> >>
> >> Reaper already has all of the above, and more and is much more
> >> reasonably priced that Sonar. They don't include a bunch of third
> >> party plugins that you don't really need either. A full commercial
> >> license for Reaper is closer to the upgrade price of Sonar. $225.00
> >> commercial or only $50.00 for a personal license. Cake needs to quit
> >> leaning on third party stuff to try and fluff up their yearly
> >> realeases.
> >
> > I LIKE the add-ons. Some of them anyway ...
>
> plugins that I either already have, or could find better ones of myself.
> Cake needs to concentrate on Cake's stuff. Not on how much junk they can
> include from third parties.
>
> >> If you took all the third party
> >> stuff away, it's still the same old Sonar, with the same old problems
> >> it's had from one release to the next release underneath.
> >
> > Release-to-release it seems slow moving. However, if I compare S7 to
> > PA9, the difference is pretty dramatic!
>
> And features like "hold control, grab the end of a waveform in track view,
> and drag it longer or shorter", *retaining* the original pitch (and with
no
> artifacts) are the kind of things that get added between point releases.
Well, I'll add my 2 cents.
Reaper wouldn't work on my system. I wasted an entire day trying to get it
to work.
I'm sure it has everything to do with my soundcard's drivers, which aren't
the best in the world. No setting would work so I gave up. I gots better
thangs tadoo!
I'm very, very happy with Sonar 7. It has been by far the most stable app
I've ever used. The one time that it did crash (once since last
December...that's pretty dang good), it asked me if I want to try and save
my work which it did flawlessly....... and since I went from Sonar 2 to
Sonar 7, my next upgrade will be Sonar 12 :)
This has been a Cakewalk/Roland presentation dahlink.
Poly
Sue Morton
having experienced several crashes, and I don't care for some of the
workflow aspects and the bits of files it leaves scattered all over my
disks, but mostly Reaper works on my systems.
I too am tired of Cake's software model. I don't use 5% of the plugs and
synths that come with Sonar. I said Sonar 7 was the last upgrade for me and
it is. Bugs I found, reported and were CONFIRMED BY CAKE AS BUGS still
exist from Sonar 3, 4, 5. I stopped reporting them in 6 and 7.
I do need stronger MIDI support than Reaper currently provides, but it is
coming along. I won't have time this year, but next year I plan to become
active in the Reaper community and see what direction it is going to take.
If the MIDI support were beefed up and some of the workflow aspects
tightened up, I'd have no problem changing to Reaper. For what I've paid in
the initial price of Sonar (2.2) and every upgrade since then, I could buy
the synths and plugs I always use outright, pay Reaper folk for a
*commercial* license (not that I need one), and still have money left over.
Finale is another one I probably will stop upgrading, I've got 2009 and
that's it for me...
Shouldn't have gotten me started!!!!
</rant>
--
Sue Morton
Glennbo wrote:
> In news:48c93fbf$0$26955$607e...@cv.net the killer robot "polymod"
> <pol...@optonline.net> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
> cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>> I'm very, very happy with Sonar 7. It has been by far the most stable
>> app I've ever used. The one time that it did crash (once since last
>> December...that's pretty dang good), it asked me if I want to try and
>> save my work which it did flawlessly....... and since I went from
>> Sonar 2 to Sonar 7, my next upgrade will be Sonar 12 :)
>
> Hey if it works, don't fix it. I'm just personally tired of the Cake
> doods bundling a bunch of pluging they didn't even write, with
> essentially the same core product, over and over again and trying to
> milk me for either $179, $229, or possibly even more as I get farther
> behind on versions. I'm mostly concerned with ultra fast audio
> engine performance, because I input monitor everything I record, and
> never screw with changing latency for tracking vs. mixing. Cake
> would rather add a loop explorer and a bunch of plugs I don't need to
> try and justify the upgrade price.
>
> You can put lipstick on a pig . . .
>
>> This has been a Cakewalk/Roland presentation dahlink.
>
> And it's still Arnold the pig!!! ;)
BobF
> Although I haven't enjoyed the blazing success with Reaper that G'Bo has,
> having experienced several crashes, and I don't care for some of the
> workflow aspects and the bits of files it leaves scattered all over my
> disks, but mostly Reaper works on my systems.
>
> I too am tired of Cake's software model. I don't use 5% of the plugs and
> synths that come with Sonar. I said Sonar 7 was the last upgrade for me and
> it is. Bugs I found, reported and were CONFIRMED BY CAKE AS BUGS still
> exist from Sonar 3, 4, 5. I stopped reporting them in 6 and 7.
>
> I do need stronger MIDI support than Reaper currently provides, but it is
> coming along. I won't have time this year, but next year I plan to become
> active in the Reaper community and see what direction it is going to take.
> If the MIDI support were beefed up and some of the workflow aspects
> tightened up, I'd have no problem changing to Reaper. For what I've paid in
> the initial price of Sonar (2.2) and every upgrade since then, I could buy
> the synths and plugs I always use outright, pay Reaper folk for a
> *commercial* license (not that I need one), and still have money left over.
>
> Finale is another one I probably will stop upgrading, I've got 2009 and
> that's it for me...
>
> Shouldn't have gotten me started!!!!
>
> </rant>
:-))
If any aspect of my music hobby had to make financial sense, I would
prolly still have my astronomy equipment and a bass boat INSTEAD of
guitars, amps and software <g>
Rick Paul
> In news:ZaydnVwYX5effFXV...@earthlink.com the killer robot
> "Rick Paul" <rick...@earthlink.net> grabbed the controls of the
> spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>> likely to do justice to an entire software release's feature set.
>
> plugins and what's left?
Well, see my other post for a few biggies, but where I expect the meat to
come from is in the stuff like fleshing out what the "workflow enhancements"
mean. Those things may not be meaningful to new users, and too plentiful to
included in a high-level bullet list for an ad, but they can end up being
the things that make the most difference in actual productivity, which is
really the bottom line, at least in terms of my reasons for upgrading or
not.
For example, the Loop Explorer's including MIDI (assumedly with previewing
hooked in, and hopefully in some reasonable manner with respect to the
target track, not just some generic GM "preview instrument") would be huge
for productivity for anyone who is using MIDI loops in their productions and
not already using something like EZ Player Pro to deal with that. I'd also
expect it would be a boon to productivity compared to something like EZ
Player Pro due to the tighter integration with SONAR. However, that's the
sort of thing that remains to be seen as it comes down to the
implementation.
kitekrazy
>so this might be one of those "wait until right before the
> next release and buy v8 w/free upgrade" years.<
I doubt it.
kitekrazy
>Also, the "Lower Latency -
> High Track Performance" is something I'd expect would sound good to most
> anyone.<
I think it would be interesting if there a test to see which version of
Sonar produced the lowest latency.
>
> I see a further response from Alex Westner in the Cakewalk Forums thread on
> this says, "Here's the thing: that particular ad was designed to introduce
> SONAR to new customers. It doesn't necessarily list or describe the kinds of
> features that our current customer base would appreciate. That's why I'm
> saying the ad only tells part of the story." So maybe there is hope for
> massibel improved notation since new customers wouldn't know how the current
> stuff works? ;-)
>
> Rick
I would imagine the target market is always going to be geared to new
customers. The annual $179 upgrade is becoming a waste of money for me.
I'm not thrilled about paying more for skipping a version.
10-1 they left out those who want improved scoring.
kitekrazy
> In news:f31yk.337081$yE1.214402@attbi_s21 the killer robot "Ricky Hunt"
> and pressed these buttons...
>
>
>
> Cakewalk could,
>
> 1. Add variable speed recording/playback.
> 5. Fix ultra low latency so it isn't so unstable.
> 6. Fix the loop problem that has existed since Sonar 5.
> routing without having to use multiple tracks.
> studios.
> 9. Make it so double clicking a wave in track view brings up the tool you
> want, like Soundforge, rather than the stoopid looper tool.
The GUI seems to be more cluttered since S5.
>
> Reaper already has all of the above, and more and is much more reasonably
> priced that Sonar. They don't include a bunch of third party plugins that
> you don't really need either. A full commercial license for Reaper is
> closer to the upgrade price of Sonar. $225.00 commercial or only $50.00
> for a personal license. Cake needs to quit leaning on third party stuff to
> try and fluff up their yearly realeases. If you took all the third party
kitekrazy
>
>>
>> Glennbo wrote:
>>>> What more can these programs really do?
>>> Here's 10 things I can think of right off the top of my head.
>>>
>>> Cakewalk could,
>>>
>>> 1. Add variable speed recording/playback.
>> This one sounds kool, but I honestly can't think of how I would use
>> it.
>
> down for recording that track. Do the pro trick of stacking background
> vocals, each time at slightly different speeds, so has a richer timbre, and
> doesn't sound like stacks of the same voices. Slow your favorite song
> down, retain the pitch so you can pick the solo out. Etc.
>
>> That would be a nice addition!
>
>
>> Track templates sort of allows this. You just have to know which
>> 'chain' you want when you add the track
>
> limiter on the bottom of an FX bin. I can add that chain with a click.
>
>>> 5. Fix ultra low latency so it isn't so unstable.
>>> 6. Fix the loop problem that has existed since Sonar 5.
>> What's the loop problem?
>
> deteriorate, start sputtering, and either crash, or have the now pointer go
> past the loop point, not stop the counter, and become totally unresponsive.
>
>>> routing without having to use multiple tracks.
>> I just added 3 sends to an audio track in 7.0.2, with no apparent
>> limit
>
> send on a track through a compressor and EQ set to brighten 100% wet, and
> bring it back into the same channel, so that no subs are needed at all, and
> the entire vocal trick of compressed brightening lives on one track?
>
>>> other
>>> studios.
>>> 9. Make it so double clicking a wave in track view brings up the tool
>>> you
>>> want, like Soundforge, rather than the stoopid looper tool.
>> I remember being able to select a clip and then edit with my tool of
>> choice from the tools menu. Not a double-click though ...
>
> of a waveform either bring that up or do nothing does nothing for me.
>
>>>
>>> Reaper already has all of the above, and more and is much more
>>> reasonably priced that Sonar. They don't include a bunch of third
>>> party plugins that you don't really need either. A full commercial
>>> license for Reaper is closer to the upgrade price of Sonar. $225.00
>>> commercial or only $50.00 for a personal license. Cake needs to quit
>>> leaning on third party stuff to try and fluff up their yearly
>>> realeases.
>> I LIKE the add-ons. Some of them anyway ...
>
> plugins that I either already have, or could find better ones of myself.
> Cake needs to concentrate on Cake's stuff. Not on how much junk they can
> include from third parties.
>
>>> stuff away, it's still the same old Sonar, with the same old problems
>>> it's had from one release to the next release underneath.
>> Release-to-release it seems slow moving. However, if I compare S7 to
>> PA9, the difference is pretty dramatic!
>
> And features like "hold control, grab the end of a waveform in track view,
> and drag it longer or shorter", *retaining* the original pitch (and with no
> artifacts) are the kind of things that get added between point releases.
>
>
You can even network PCs for VST effects like FX teleport.
kitekrazy
> Although I haven't enjoyed the blazing success with Reaper that G'Bo has,
> having experienced several crashes, and I don't care for some of the
> workflow aspects and the bits of files it leaves scattered all over my
> disks, but mostly Reaper works on my systems.
>
> I too am tired of Cake's software model. I don't use 5% of the plugs and
> synths that come with Sonar. I said Sonar 7 was the last upgrade for me and
> it is. Bugs I found, reported and were CONFIRMED BY CAKE AS BUGS still
> exist from Sonar 3, 4, 5. I stopped reporting them in 6 and 7.
>
When Tracktion came out with v3, you had the option of 3 upgrades. You
could by the app for $69 or the other 2 with bells and whistles.
> I do need stronger MIDI support than Reaper currently provides, but it is
> coming along. I won't have time this year, but next year I plan to become
> active in the Reaper community and see what direction it is going to take.
> If the MIDI support were beefed up and some of the workflow aspects
> tightened up, I'd have no problem changing to Reaper.<
Reaper is always updated like Glennbo said and there's always
something updated in midi.
For what I've paid in
> the initial price of Sonar (2.2) and every upgrade since then, I could buy
> the synths and plugs I always use outright, pay Reaper folk for a
> *commercial* license (not that I need one), and still have money left over.
>
> Finale is another one I probably will stop upgrading, I've got 2009 and
> that's it for me...
I just ordered that today. I could justify the $99 for what was
offered in that version. It will probably be my last.
>
> Shouldn't have gotten me started!!!!
>
> </rant>
It could be worse. Imagine upgrading to Gigastudio 4 and it not work
and in 3 months it will no longer exist and you're out $200.
Image Line offers free lifetime updates for Fruity Loops users. Their
support is excellent via their forums. They plan to get income off of
their plugins. I do like some of their synths and they have a small
footprint unlike many synths that are now sample based.
Frank l
mainly plugs, I still have hope. I don't like reaper. I don't like the flow,
well, I'll leave that there. I have no doubt my needs are much less than
most. I already own Dim Pro and Sonar 7 Producer. I use all the plugs and
have no 3rd party plugs so it works for me $$. But, I do not need any more
plugs so........................For the first time since CWPA6 (yeah, I
know, dumb) while I am sticking with Sonar I won't be upgrading unless I see
a bunch of things from GB's, RickP and SueM and other's here "List of
enhancement and bug fix's".
Frank L
"Sue Morton" <867-...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:FJbyk.8$eb...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
kitekrazy
> In news:Zphyk.32$Ei...@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com the killer robot kitekrazy
> <kite...@sbcglobal.net> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
>
>>> using it. And features like "hold control, grab the end of a
>>> waveform in track view, and drag it longer or shorter", *retaining*
>>> the original pitch (and with no artifacts) are the kind of things
>>> that get added between point releases.
>>>
>>>
>> You can even network PCs for VST effects like FX teleport.
>
> PCs to do a real elaborate thing with networked FX, but the truth is, I
> don't exhaust the CPU in my single machine DAW, even running at ultra low
> latency, so I've never been prodded into trying it. Can you run both
> instruments and audio effects at a remote machine, and what's the latency
> like?
>
I haven't gotten that far in Reaper yet. I was thinking that with it's
audio engine, how much could you bog down a quad core to where it needs
networked FX? I guess you would have to find 100 of the worst developed
plugins.
I would think with a network involve (especially wireless) there's
quite a bit of latency added.
Still it's pretty cool function for a $50, $250 app.
Rick Paul
> I can run Sonar 5 at 1.5ms latency and feels nice and tight there. The
...
> running. I can't trust setting loop points in Sonar, because the odds are
> at least equal that it will go to sleep or crash on me, so I had gotten in
> the habit of just manually clicking to run a section again for practicing
That is old news, and a result of your being 2 versions (and I guess soon 3
versions) back. I'm guessing Reaper also was nowhere near where it is today
2 versions ago. ;-)
Glennbo
news:bZ-dnekEJvRBlFfV...@earthlink.com:
>> I can run Sonar 5 at 1.5ms latency and feels nice and tight there.
>> The
> ...
>> running. I can't trust setting loop points in Sonar, because the
>> odds are at least equal that it will go to sleep or crash on me, so I
>> had gotten in the habit of just manually clicking to run a section
>> again for practicing
>
> That is old news, and a result of your being 2 versions (and I guess
> soon 3 versions) back. I'm guessing Reaper also was nowhere near
> where it is today 2 versions ago. ;-)
Shall I go find the two or three theads over at the official web forum
where folks running Sonar 7 are reporting this *exact* same behavior?
They are there, and I could dig them up. Version doesn't matter, because
stuff like this isn't being fixed.
--
Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email
________ ____
/ ____/ /__ ____ ____ / __ )____
/ / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ / __ \
/ /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ /
\____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_____/\____/
BobF
OK, I've had enough. :-) I just downloaded/installed Reaper to try it out.
It's funky, but I'll give it an honest go before I pass judgment ...
BobF
> In news:R4KdnftHO9w981fV...@centurytel.net the killer robot
> BobF <noth...@spamfree.world> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
>
>> out.
>>
>> It's funky, but I'll give it an honest go before I pass judgment ...
>
> do. It's like they don't want to see a fifty dollar program outperform
> their "beloved Sonar", so they spend an hour looking for things to not like
> about it.
>
*Some* of the things not to like slap you in the face though.
- Like WDM support for my Delta66 ... but ASIO is OK so far ...
- DX/DXi shows up in the FX list ... but they don't do anything
BobF
> In news:Xns9B174D3118C18Br...@194.177.96.26 the killer
> robot Glennbo <vdrumsYOURHE...@cox.net> grabbed the controls
> of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>>>> The
>>> ...
>>>> running. I can't trust setting loop points in Sonar, because the
>>>> odds are at least equal that it will go to sleep or crash on me, so
>>>> I had gotten in the habit of just manually clicking to run a section
>>>> again for practicing
>>> That is old news, and a result of your being 2 versions (and I guess
>>> soon 3 versions) back. I'm guessing Reaper also was nowhere near
>>> where it is today 2 versions ago. ;-)
>> Shall I go find the two or three theads over at the official web forum
>> where folks running Sonar 7 are reporting this *exact* same behavior?
>> They are there, and I could dig them up. Version doesn't matter,
>> because stuff like this isn't being fixed.
>
>
> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1195416&mpage=15&key=�
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I still have problems looping in SONAR 7 and a too a lesser degree in SONAR
> 6 causing an infinite stutter that requires a reboot of the computer to
> clear. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not have this problem.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Funny, I NEVER have a looping problem. Yes, I use looping a lot!
BobF
> In news:GrOdnR9QUox87lfV...@centurytel.net the killer robot
> BobF <noth...@spamfree.world> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
>
>>>
>>> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1195416&mpage=15&key=�
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> I still have problems looping in SONAR 7 and a too a lesser degree in
>>> SONAR 6 causing an infinite stutter that requires a reboot of the
>>> computer to clear. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not have this problem.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>> Funny, I NEVER have a looping problem. Yes, I use looping a lot!
>
> until I started running low latency. Then problems began to show up pretty
> regular. I run Reaper at lower latency than I run Sonar and my very first
> test with Reaper was to record about 10 tracks, at 1ms latency, and then
> loop a 4 measure section for a couple hours.
>
I've always had (after initially setting it up) my delta set to 256.
This equates to ~5ms one-way. Since I have the Omni to go with the '66,
all of my monitoring is done via external hardware.
John Braner
It depends what plugins etc you're running. I think a lot of it has to
do with the delay compensation etc. When it happens to me, I just stop
the loop and then play it again ;-)
--
===========
John Braner
jbr...@NOblueyonderSPAM.co.uk
http://www.soundclick.com/johnbraner_music.htm (that's an underscore)
BobF
> In news:z9ednfA_Nonj6lfV...@centurytel.net the killer robot
> BobF <noth...@spamfree.world> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
> cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>>>>> Here's one. Shall I find more?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1195416&mpage=15&key=�
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> degree in SONAR 6 causing an infinite stutter that requires a
>>>>> reboot of the computer to clear. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not have this
>>>>> problem.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>> Funny, I NEVER have a looping problem. Yes, I use looping a lot!
>>> Do you use looping at 1.5ms latency? I never had any problems with
>>> Sonar until I started running low latency. Then problems began to
>>> show up pretty regular. I run Reaper at lower latency than I run
>>> Sonar and my very first test with Reaper was to record about 10
>>> tracks, at 1ms latency, and then loop a 4 measure section for a
>>> couple hours.
>>>
>> I've always had (after initially setting it up) my delta set to 256.
>> This equates to ~5ms one-way. Since I have the Omni to go with the
>> '66, all of my monitoring is done via external hardware.
>
> monitor that on external hardware? Cake has set themselves up by including
> that plugin, because people are so used to increasing latency to increase
> stability with Sonar, and you can do that with a plug like Guitar Rig or
> you'll have slapback delay happening. I too used to use hardware
> monitoring, until I found out that I really could do input monitoring
> through the DAW. When I record a guitar part, I'm hearing it through EQs,
> Vintage Warmers, reverbs, etc. Just like it's going to really sound in the
> final mix. I find it to be quite inspiring to have the golden tone while
> recording.
>
GR 3 doesn't excite me much. That may change. For guitar, I record it
the way I want it. I don't use ANYTHING in Sonar to tweak the tone.
If I do get hooked on GR 3, or processing dry guitar in general, then I
may or may not end up latency-bound for what I want to do.
Your point is NOT lost on me, G. Sonar doesn't perform the way YOU need
it to, so you've found an alternative. If/when I reach the point that
Sonar's performance is too sluggish for me, then I'll have to rethink
things.
Maybe I'll get lucky and Sonar's performance will stay just ahead of my
humble needs <g>
Sue Morton
--
Sue Morton
Glennbo wrote:
> I
> just really don't have the time or patience to mess with that stuff,
> as I tend to write and record at the same time, and a crash, or
> unresponsive DAW not only loses me time, but also potentially loses
> me a take that I won't be able to recreate, because I was making the
> part up on the fly, and once it's gone, it's gone if it takes five to
> ten minutes to get back where I can record again.
polymod
"BobF" <noth...@spamfree.world> wrote in message
news:GrOdnR9QUox87lfV...@centurytel.net...
Ditto here. I've tried and tried but it just won't crash <G>
Poly
Rick Paul
> In news:gadvn4$mfa$1...@aioe.org the killer robot John Braner
> <m...@myhouse.com>
> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these
> buttons...
>
>>>>> where folks running Sonar 7 are reporting this *exact* same behavior?
>>>>> They are there, and I could dig them up. Version doesn't matter,
>>>>> because stuff like this isn't being fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Here's one. Shall I find more?
>>>>
>>>> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1195416&mpage=15&key=�
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> I still have problems looping in SONAR 7 and a too a lesser degree in
>>>> SONAR 6 causing an infinite stutter that requires a reboot of the
>>>> computer to clear. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not have this problem.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>> Funny, I NEVER have a looping problem. Yes, I use looping a lot!
>>
>> It depends what plugins etc you're running. I think a lot of it has to
>> do with the delay compensation etc. When it happens to me, I just stop
>> the loop and then play it again ;-)
>
> that Sonar won't be letting me stop it. The symptom I saw most often was
> that I'd loop a section, to practice a part before recording it, and after
> 10 or so loops, the sound would start to deteriorate, and if I didn't
> catch
> it quick enough and stop it, Sonar would become totally unresponsive, with
This is the specific sort of thing I was talking about that I used to see
quite frequently in earlier versions of SONAR, specifically SONAR 5 (and
possibly as far back as SONAR 4.0.3) and SONAR 6, but which I have not seen
in SONAR 7. (Also the stuff about moving the now time while the thing was
playing and having subsequent problems, though I'm not sure I saw that in
SONAR 6, either.) You don't mention if you saw this while playing MIDI or
audio tracks, but I only saw it with MIDI tracks, and, further, mostly when
playing softsynths that used multiple continuous controllers in parallel,
such as pitch bend and mod wheel (e.g. on a typical Roland pitch-mod level),
though it could be any CCs (e.g. I expect a V-Drums high-hat control would
qualify). My theory on this was there was some sort of thread
prioritization issue that ended up starving one of the key threads. While
it wasn't necessarily specific to using low latency, it tended to happen
more frequently the lower your latency went. I think it also happened more
frequently with graphics-intensive softsynths (e.g. some I saw it with
included Cameleon 5000, NI KONTAKT 2 Player, and NI Absynth 2, but I
couldn't get it to happen with TTS-1), in my theory this is because of
putting greater demands on the UI thread, thus increasing the overall
pressure in balancing that with the audio engine and MIDI input threads and
whatever else might be relevant. It was also something I saw with much
greater frequency on my old Athlon XP 1600+ system, as opposed to my newer
Core 2 Duo E6600 system, and another part of my theory (before I even got
the dual processor, as I was comparing notes with others who had problems
that sounded to me to be similar) was that having an extra processor might
also help cut down the frequency of the issues due to being able to balance
multiple threads across two processors, and it might even be that having two
slightly slower processors could be better than having one fast processor.
I also believe, though, that drivers, both driver efficiency and driver
reliability, can come into play, and I've noticed that a number of issues I
used to have on the general reliability front went away when E-MU updated
the 1820M drivers to V2.
The one isolated comment you reference in the forum thread really doesn't
have enough information to say anything meaningful. There is no reference,
for example, to what kind of system he is running, how much RAM he has, what
softsynths and plug-ins may be in use at the time, or anything of that sort.
It could, for example, be as simple as he is thrashing RAM, which can
massively slow down any application, and would be deadly in the case of the
audio engine running at low latency. That is an extremely important
consideration with large softsynths like EZ Drummer, most anything based on
KONTAKT 2 or 3, and various others.
polymod
> In news:48ca95b2$0$29517$607e...@cv.net the killer robot "polymod"
> <pol...@optonline.net> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
> cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
> >
> > Ditto here. I've tried and tried but it just won't crash <G>
>
> engine is getting a real workout.
Done.
>Load up a song with 20 or so tracks, and
> 30 or 40 plugins, then loop a 4 measure section for a while.
OK. It's been running for over 15 minutes now. Can I stop? ;)
>I can make it
> get stoopid almost on demand to the point I should produce a video using
> Reaper to illustrate the issue. <g>
That sucks big jigunas :(
Poly
BobF
Uh-oh. This might be a Reaper show-stopper!
Apparently, you have to PLAY your instrument yourself with Reaper. This
can't be right!
<just kidding>
polymod
> In news:48cab67b$0$29520$607e...@cv.net the killer robot "polymod"
> <pol...@optonline.net> grabbed the controls of the spaceship
> cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
> >> 30 or 40 plugins, then loop a 4 measure section for a while.
> >
> > OK. It's been running for over 15 minutes now. Can I stop? ;)
>
going
> to be able to make it do it.
I can only get down to 10ms. That's as low as my soundcard will let me go!
Poly
BobF
>
> ... even 5.8ms feels laggy on the drums.
Just a suggestion here, but you could quit slicing up the beats so
darned much. Your drums would prolly be easy to play too!
<VBG>
Rick Paul
complexity of plug-in delay compensation calculations and adjustments
between applications like Project5 and Ableton Live, which basically have a
fixed bus structure, and SONAR, which allows arbitrary levels of buses with
different levels feeding into almost any level, and being able to be
adjusted on the fly.
Also, depending on what plug-ins he is talking about in his "good sized
project", some plug-ins, in and of themselves, can have enough plug-in delay
to make for noticeable audio effects if you do something as simple as bypass
them then bring them back on-line. One example is PSP Neon HR when using
all its heavy duty options. When I bypass that in one of my 96kHz mastering
projects, it is not uncommon to hear the transport go forward or backward (I
forget which off the top of my head) and then the reverse when it is
reenabled because its delay compensation is higher than even the latency I
have set in my audio driver.
Most of the squeals/honks/spurts-type stuff I've seen seem to be related to
these types of considerations, and seem to happen most frequently in the
presence of a few specific plug-ins with either complex routing
considerations (e.g. sidechain, which has impact on bus structure) or very
high latency (e.g. the FAT circuit in some PSP plug-ins). Those sorts of
considerations wouldn't affect Project5 since, for example, Project5 doesn't
even support real sidechains, and it has a fixed bus structure. Oh yeah,
and Project5 happens to be a Cakewalk audio engine, too. In fact, Project5
did the no glitch thing before those kinds of changes were incorporated into
SONAR. But there are certain physical limitations that come into play at
some point, especially as audio card driver latency gets very low.
I certainly don't dispute that some applications will be more efficient with
low-level, low-latency timeslicing than others. Some applications have less
work to do than others because they don't support the same level of
functionality and complexity. That can mean that, while the simpler
application can run just fine at 1.5 ms, the more complex one may need to go
to 2.9 ms (or some other latency level) before it can be expected to behave
similarly for the simple reason that it has more it is doing. But that
stuff it is doing, such as providing full plug-in delay compensation
throughout with an arbitarily bus structure that is configurable on-the-fly,
may well be things the users of that more complex application want or even
need, and would not give up just to be able to run with slightly lower
latency.
Again, my comments were specifically directed toward improvements I myself
have seen because I did have frequent problems in the area of looping and
MIDI tracking with SONAR 5 and 6, and I don't have those in SONAR 7. That
suggests something has been improved in that area. I can't vouch for
whether it would definitely affect your specific situation, or that of
anyone else in the world of SONAR users.
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
"Glennbo" <vdrumsYourHe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B178404071C7Br...@207.115.17.102...
> In news:Xns9B177CB1E69E8Br...@207.115.33.102 the killer
> robot Glennbo <vdrumsYourHe...@cox.net> grabbed the controls
> of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>> Are you really going to make me go dig up some of the other posts from
>> the web forum? The problem still exists, and there are more than a
>> couple posts over there referencing it, but unfortunately their search
>> function on the forum is totally whack, which makes finding anything
>> over there a chore.
>
> Not looping, but stemming from the same "audio engine" root problem IMO.
>
> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1482963
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> when I'm mixing a good sized project, and I start adjusting plugins and
> jumping to different points in the song without stopping the audio engine,
> I often get horrid sounds when I make the jump... spurts/squeels/honks
> that
> are loud and last about 1 second, then the audio engine kicks in and plays
> like normal. Also, if I don't stop the engine, the plugins will start to
> get a delay to them that will stay until I stop the audio engine. When I
> press stop and then press play, everything is back to normal.
>
> This happens ALL THE TIME. It happens so much that I've come to ignore it
> to the point where I forget it even happens. I just stop/hit play
> religously. I've ignored this issue so much that I would even describe my
> system as 'stable'.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Audio engine glitches soloing/muting instrument tracks, or
> selecting/deselecting clips, even @ 1024 buffers.
> Actually, audio engine stability/efficiency is one of the
> reports/complaints I read about with Sonar quite often, and is frequently
> mentioned as one of the things that needs fixed.
>
> I'd cash it off to something with my system, except that it's consistent
> with Sonar (5, 6, & 7) on 4 systems now, with 4 different audio
> interfaces,
> where the system was also shared with Ableton Live and Project5, neither
> of
> which give me this behavior. Back in the day, one of the systems was also
> shared with Cubase, which didn't exhibit this behavior either.
>
> I'll add that now I've even used bootcamp on two Macs, with Logic Pro on
> the Mac side and the same audio interfaces, and Logic Pro doesn't exhibit
> this behavior.
>
> I mention the other DAWs not to say they're better or anything like that.
> Simply that on the same systems, Sonar for me has been the odd-man-out...
> all other things being equal.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email
> ________ __
> / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____
> / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \
> / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ /
> \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo
> Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits
> Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
kitekrazy
> of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons...
>
>>>> The
>>> ...
>>>> running. I can't trust setting loop points in Sonar, because the
>>>> odds are at least equal that it will go to sleep or crash on me, so
>>>> I had gotten in the habit of just manually clicking to run a section
>>>> again for practicing
>>> That is old news, and a result of your being 2 versions (and I guess
>>> soon 3 versions) back. I'm guessing Reaper also was nowhere near
>>> where it is today 2 versions ago. ;-)
>> where folks running Sonar 7 are reporting this *exact* same behavior?
>> They are there, and I could dig them up. Version doesn't matter,
>> because stuff like this isn't being fixed.
>
> Here's one. Shall I find more?
>
> http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1195416&mpage=15&key=�
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I still have problems looping in SONAR 7 and a too a lesser degree in SONAR
> 6 causing an infinite stutter that requires a reboot of the computer to
> clear. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 did not have this problem.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I like this one.
"I would like to see Sonar 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 BEFORE 8"
kitekrazy
>
>> out.
>>
>> It's funky, but I'll give it an honest go before I pass judgment ...
>
> Well don't do the stoopid one hour evaluation like so many people seem to
> do. It's like they don't want to see a fifty dollar program outperform
> their "beloved Sonar", so they spend an hour looking for things to not like
> about it.
>
WEll if a person works a lot in midi, they aren't going to like it right
away.
Rick Paul
news:LKByk.114$be...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
I don't even have to try it to not like it because lack of notation is an
absolute showstopper for me. SONAR's notation needs enhancements, but at
least it's there and provides basic capabilities for seeing the arrangements
to quickly find and fix issues. (Where SONAR's notation falls short for me
is on being able to use the notation for actually creating the arrangements
in the first place -- I have to go out to my regular notation program for
complex arrangements.) Stuff like Reaper, ACID, Live, Project5, and some
others are dead in the water for my needs on real projects.
BobF
> On 11-Sep-2008, "Ricky Hunt" <rhu...@hotmail.com> had the unmitigated gall
> to write:
>
>> What more can these programs really do? They're running out of ideas and
>> what more do we really need?
>
> What we really need is for marketing to get out of the way and let the
> developers fill in the blanks on features the program already has. I don't
> want another soft synth. Especially Dim Pro. I already have it. They need
> to go with a core application that is lean, mean and able to take anything
> you throw at it. Then add everything else ala carte.
A year or so ago I went through official channels and suggested they
develop a model based on the Eclipse software development environment.
Very much what you've described above. This kind of model would also
allow third-parties to add things like notation, tab/fretboard views,
various piano rolls, etc. in addition to MIDI and audio effects.
Sue Morton
is unlikely to change the model anytime soon... :-(
--
Sue Morton
BobF
> Sorry guys. As long as they're making money (and it appears they are) Cake
> is unlikely to change the model anytime soon... :-(
I get that, Sue, AND I completely understand it. OTOH, a truly
visionary leader of a company such as Cakewalk ... <VBG>
Ted Perlman
I love Reaper, but it messed with Nuendo in some weird ways so I took it
out. It doesn't seem to be "other program friendly". But it's VERY powerful.
--
Regards,
Ted Perlman
www.tedperlman.com
www.myspace.com/tedperlman
Ted Perlman
I never was able to get any version of Sonar to work - I've been tired of
their software model for many years.
However, I use EVERY other software out there, MAC or PC, without a hitch.
(Except, of course Sampli-shit, which is #1on my "truly hated" list)
It's constantly amazing to me that all of you use Sonar easily yet myself, a
long time Cakewalk user from 1990 thru 1998, have never been able to use it
at all for anything. I installed a copy of Cakewalk Windows Pro 8 recently
in order to convert some old wrk files, and I had it up and running in 5
minutes, no problems. Sonar? No sounds or movement in 5 years. Even
converting .wrk files is a pain in Sonar.
Other than Sonar, I can figure out ANY music software easily and quickly.
Rick Paul
news:48cbd559$0$23892$2318...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> What we really need is for marketing to get out of the way and let the
> developers fill in the blanks on features the program already has.
Like that's going to ever happen! Marketing people have to justify their
jobs somehow. ;-)
A quick aside for perspective:
I worked in marketing in the computer industry for the largest portion of my
15 years there. Because I had a very technical background (BS/MS in
Computer Science), I was generally the person who did the most dealing with
the engineering crowd. However, because most of our customers were also
very technical (e.g. system administrators at places like large law firms,
large government organizations, some Fortune 500 corporations, etc.) I also
got sent out to customer sites a fair amount, most often when there were big
technical issues holding up revenue. In a few notable cases, I also got to
play product designer, or at least a coordination role in that, trying to
rationalize all the bullet items that customers and "real" marketing people
said they wanted with what was feasible to do from an engineering
standpoint, what the engineers could do/were willing to do/thought they
should do, and various other constraints that impacted what could be
achieved.
Based on that experience, I really wouldn't want product evolution to be
steered solely from any one group (i.e. customers, marketing, engineering,
customer service, finance). The thing is, customers mostly know what they
want, but the ideas they have on how best to do it are generally
shortsighted, and, if implemented, would result in a hodgepodge product that
gets more and more confusing to use over the years. Also, to add to the
confusion there, customers are generally represented by salespeople, only
some of whom actually have a decent handle on their customers' needs, and
most of whom have short term quota interests that tend to get weighed much
more heavily than long term product and market interests. Engineers tend to
know what would be easy, or cool, to build, but are usually (except in the
case of engineers who are major users of their own product) the most out of
touch with how that product is used of any of the groups, and the worst case
inclination there tends to be to make something that is theoretically
wonderful, but impractical to use in real life, often with a horrible user
interface. Customer service tends to have good experience to bridge the gap
between those two groups, but mostly on what is breaking, not on what is
really needed to move forward (though, obviously, fixing what is broken
would be of highest priority -- perhaps a good strategy, though not always
as sometimes a new feature can make an old broken one a moot point if
workflow changes). Marketing is a much harder group to get a handle on
because it seems to be a hodgepodge group that gets all types, from the
ex-sales person who wants to cut down on travel, to the techie who doesn't
want to write programs and prefers to speak English to technospeak (which is
basically how I got into it), to MBA types who just see marketing as a
stepping stone toward CEO or some such thing. Marketing could, and really
should, be the right place to manage product evolution, by trying to
optimize what can be done versus what should be done from all perspectives,
including fixing what is broken, filling real customer needs, and
positioning the product for needs that may not be crying at the moment but
which will be important in the future. But it takes sufficient exposure to,
and depth in, all the areas to do that job, which might be ideally described
as a product architect, well. And that is where it usually gets down to a
committee decision, with all the politics inherent in such things.
This is one reason I tend to think some of the most effective companies
(e.g. Microsoft when Bill Gates was still actively at the helm, Apple under
Steve Jobs, etc.) tend to have one more or less visionary type who has
enough of a say in things to get things done, but is enough of a hands-on
type to want to get involved at all levels of the company's business.
>I don't
> want another soft synth. Especially Dim Pro. I already have it.
I don't mind that one. ;-)
>They need
> to go with a core application that is lean, mean and able to take anything
> you throw at it. Then add everything else ala carte. They could
> release
> a module every quarter and if a customer wanted it, they could add it to
> their modules.
The problem with this is that, to get things seamlessly working together,
and maintain adequate performance, you just can't get modular enough.
Various features have to interrelate to one another and to common,
cross-module functionality. Take the simple example of copy and paste, for
example. You want that to apply anywhere any type of object can be copied
and pasted, whether that is a MIDI note, a bunch of MIDI notes, an audio
clip, a partial audio clip, a bunch of audio clips, a combination of MIDI
and audio data, lyrics, etc. Furthermore, you really want to have standard
interfaces, such as right click on the object and have copy be in the popup
menu if the object is copyable, that cross most everything. Separating
things out, other than obvious things like plug-ins and certain menu choices
(e.g. what dithering options are available wherever they appear), is
generally not just as easy as checking off which features you do and don't
want from a Chinese restaurant's menu.
I do generally agree, however, that most, if not all, softsynths, and many
other plug-ins, should be optional, or bundled with "megapack" type options
that provide all the options available at a good discount that makes them a
good buy for someone who does want all, while not forcing someone who just
wants "the basics" to have them. However, with the diference between Studio
and Producer Editions, for example, even if I didn't care about all the
plug-ins and synths in Producer, I'd want the Pow'r dithering (actually
that's less important ot me now that I have PSP Xenon, but I still see that
as being something that should really be core functionality, not only
available if you buy the extra synths). I guess I'd probably be more
inclined to have at least three tiers, where one was whatever the basics are
for all audio/MIDI/looping (not loop instruments, but basic built-in
functionality)/UI functionality, then anything could be added as options
from there for someone who truly wants to pick and choose. A second tier
might be adding all the audio plug-ins, such as for mastering, effects, etc.
that anyone who doesn't already have something like Waves Diamond could
likely use. That second tier would seem to me to be more of a "Producer
Edition", but that's just a naming quibble. (I suspect the Cakewalk use of
"Producer" comes from how that term is used in the hip-hop and electronica
communities, where a producer is someone who "makes beats", as opposed to
what we think of as a traditional record producer.) Then the third tier
(which would be independent of the second tier in terms of bundling options,
except that the two tiers could be combined for a megapack-type discount)
would be the instrument bundle -- not sure what I'd call it.
> I could have what I want instead of another Hip Hop - Dance
> beat mutilator. And the folks that want that could have it and not a
> silly
> feature that I would like as in an integrated pop up rhyming dictionary
> and
> phrase database to tie in with the lyric scratch pad.
Did I miss the lyric scratch pad in the EQ list? ;-) I do agree, though,
that preferences outside the DAW basics would be nice to be able to pick and
choose quite a bit more. As much as I like having new toys to play with, it
is actually fairly rare for me to end up using ones I don't think I'm likely
to use when I first hear about them. I always hope I'll find hidden
treasures, and that does occasionally happen, but it's definitely the
exception, not the norm.
> It looks like they finally got around to finishing the Loop Explorer. Too
> bad it took several drum synth companies to show them how to do it. Now,
> I
> don't need it like I did back in S4.
Same here. However, I think implementation will be key. If it turns out
its integration with the rest of SONAR improves workflow significantly, it
could mean the drum synth-based browsers will end up being the ones that
aren't needed. That is definitely something I'm looking forward to checking
out with SONAR 8 as I do think the best place for the functionality is in a
general loop explorer, not in individual synths. At least EZ Player
provides a cross module capability, but before those modules, it was
generally a different loop explorer interface for every module, and having
one interface would sure have been nice. On the other hand, I suspect
SONAR's Loop Explorer can't answer all the needs in this area. Perhaps it
might do just fine for EZ Drummer and other drum modules, and it certainly
shoudl be good for stock third party MIDI loops (e.g. Groove Monkee,
DrumTrax, Twiddly Bits) for use with arbitrary sound modules. But I'm
pretty sure it won't help at all for Stylus RMX as just one example, and I
imagine there are other loop-oriented modules for which that will also be
true, so it still won't be possible to have one streamlined Loop Explorer
that covers all situations.
> Pattern Paintbrush - needs a way to preview the patterns. Now I do it
> with
> EZplayer's kit pieces feature. CW is a day late and a dollar short.
Yeah, Pattern Paintbrush seemed like such a cool feature back when it was
announced, but, without the preview capability, it was just too
trial-and-error-intensive, and thus made for horrible productivity.
> Notation - I need a way to print a nice set of rhythm charts for session
> musicians. Nothing fancy. Chords, lead line and maybe lyrics. Sure it's
> possible now but it looks so unprofessional. I learned a long time ago
> that
> a musician will sight read a nice looking chart much better than a sloppy
> one.
My interest on notation is more being able to enter things in a much more
friendly manner, for example accounting for rests rather than having to have
mouse position just exactly right. I'd also love to be able to print quick
charts and have them look cleaner, though that is less important to me as I
tend to play all my own parts anyway, so am using the notation more as crib
notes than to actually tell me what to play. Whereas, when I'm actually
arranging something, being able to accurately, and quickly, enter my ideas
can be critical, especially with complex arrangements, such as when adding a
string quartet to a pop or country piece. Of course, if I actually got to
use real string players for that, I'd definitely want to have nice
printouts, but I'm thinking that may be the point at which I wouldn't mind
going over to my notation program to make final tweaks. And I really don't
expect SONAR (or any DAW) to totally replace the need for a notation
program. (I think using one that way would slow down the notation process.)
> Audio Snap - the audio to midi converter can be used as a drum replacement
> tool. But you need to be able to save your settings as presets so that
> you
> don't have to reinvent the wheel the next time you want to set up to
> replace
> a kick drum.
Did I miss something with AudioSnap? The Audio to MIDI converter I'm aware
of is the one in V-Vocal (which didn't work very well last time I tried it),
and which I didn't really expect to be appliable to drum replacement so
never would have even thought to have tried it for that. Is there something
in AudioSnap for this, too?
> And please, I don't care one iota about backwards compatibility. I can
> easily deal with an inability to reopen a CW project from six years ago.
> If
> it's six years old, it's about as "done" as it can get and I don't need to
> revisit it. If I do, for some reason, I can reinstall any number of
> versions and finish the project. I have to wonder how much code is
> dedicated to kludging old projects into new versions of SONAR. Stop it
> already.
Here's one where I have to strongly disagree, perhaps because I fairly
frequently do remix old projects, and the though of having to keep 8 (so
far -- I started with CWPA9, and am assuming I will upgrade to SONAR 8
relatively soon after it is available) extra versions of my DAW around for
backward compatibility is daunting, especially when you consider CWPA9 was
out way before WinXP was available, and I have no clue if it would run on
WinXP. And there is no way I'm going to keep a Win95 (or 98 or ME) system
around for old project purposes.
I wouldn't mind if it was an import filter, rather than being able to open a
project directly, but, for all I know, that may be how it happens under the
hood anyway. I don't even mind if it sounds different when I open it
(after all, I'm going to remix it, and usually that is because I think I can
make it sound significantly better with my newer toys and techniques). But
I do want to be able to get at all the MIDI and audio data, including things
like tempo maps, timelines, track names, etc. And the more I can get at,
and the closer to how it sounded originally, the better, since that will at
least be a familiar reference point. There are some places where I could
handle compromises, though. For example, bus routing probably isn't all
that important. I'm on the fence about envelopes, because how critical they
are depends on the use. Stuff like mix automation moves that are just
finessing something probalby aren't super important because that is part of
what I'm likely to be redoing in the remix. On the other hand, if
automation was used as a form of non-destructive editing (e.g. for muting
parts of tracks to refine the arrangement), it could end up being a fair
amount of work to get back to some sort of milestone point if the automatoin
wasn't restored.
I'll also note that I'd have no problem with having to use some sort of
external conversion utility to convert the project from one form to another
before opening the converted version in the newer version of SONAR. After
all, that is a one-time effort at the start of any remix, not something that
needs to be done every time you open the project. What could be really cool
there, in fact, is if there were such a facility that not only allowed
reading old Cakewalk projects, but also stuff like Cubase projects, Logic
projects, ProTools projects, and so on -- in all directions -- to make it
much easier to work on projects started by other people (and to make it
easier for others to work on projects I'd started).
Sue Morton
they made a utility, heck a utility per format change, that would open the
project read-only with whatever it could find (maybe the plugs and synths
are gone, maybe not, but the presets might still be there, as well as the
MIDI, Audio, and the routings). Audio of course is already accesible, but
once I had an old project open read-only I could copy/paste midi tracks and
could refer to any other settings such as plug names that were used (even if
the plug is gone) and the presets if any. If anything needed to be
recreated in the new project, it could be done by hand. A little tedious
but definitely worthwhile to be able to view a project as it appeared in
Sonar at the time it was saved.
--
Sue Morton
kitekrazy
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:41:07 GMT, Glennbo
> <vdrumsYourHe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like something Jan Hammer would do. Rhodes through a guitar amp.
>> Just add wah-wah! ;)
>
> That's exactly what I was talking about. I was thinking live
> Mahavishnu Orchestra and the Hammer distorto-Rhodes. (Nasty, I love
> it)
>
> I'm sort of doing real guitar and bass with fake amps for now. But I
> do admit to some curiosity about the Line 6 Spider Valve. It seems
> like it might offer the benefits of both camps.
>
> Ben N. Moore
>
I don't own any mics. Amps take up living space. I'm not indicating I
prefer it this way.
kitekrazy
> <I too am tired of Cake's software model>
>
> I never was able to get any version of Sonar to work - I've been tired of
> their software model for many years.
>
> However, I use EVERY other software out there, MAC or PC, without a hitch.
>
> (Except, of course Sampli-shit, which is #1on my "truly hated" list)
>
Same here. Very awkward to use.
> It's constantly amazing to me that all of you use Sonar easily yet myself, a
> long time Cakewalk user from 1990 thru 1998, have never been able to use it
> at all for anything. I installed a copy of Cakewalk Windows Pro 8 recently
> in order to convert some old wrk files, and I had it up and running in 5
> minutes, no problems. Sonar? No sounds or movement in 5 years. Even
> converting .wrk files is a pain in Sonar.
>
> Other than Sonar, I can figure out ANY music software easily and quickly.
>
Even Sampli-shit?
Ted Perlman
Oh, I figured it out all right. I just hate it. The way it handles external
hardware and VST instruments is ass-backwards.