ba_midi


If I had to guess/speculate, I would say that "some" of the market they might be targeting are those who don't like MACs but do like some of the MAC DAW software.

A friend of mine (big MAC head) told me to look at his Logic's latest release.   I didn't know it already had "Screensets" and some of the other things that we're now seeing in X1.

So I would say it's probably a smart move to attract the non_MAC lovers into the Sonar camp.
There definitely were a lot of similarities with Logic more so than some of the other DAW hosts I'm aware of.

I actually ran screaming away from Logic 8 (haven't seen Logic 9 yet).  Screen sets in Logic have  been around for years, but the "new" (as of 2008) interface of Logic 8 was almost like the old Windows 3 or DOS-style SDI (single document interface) where one project was locked into a single window; the screensets were basically a workaround for that sort of thing.  Now that I can see that this is the future of DAWs (this is the direction of Presonus Studio One, as another example) I guess I'll just adjust to it with Cakewalk.  :-/

>>The only drawback to multiple lanes -- if you can call it a drawback -- is that it occupies more screen real estate.
 
I'm famililiar with how lanes are represented its not rocket science :). Perhaps I am an exception but to me the above aspect is a dealbreaker. Vertical real estate is a premium on even large screen displays and the lane approach is a huge pig in that regard. To my eyes the SONAR compact representation feels more natural but I realize thats personal taste.
There is another deterrent in my mind - again this is my opinion alone. Its a hefty investment in time to implement lanes and personally I see a ton of other features that a lot more users would benefit from before having the "niceness" of having yet another way of editing envelopes. So be careful what you wish for :)
Regarding the clutter we could with much less effort hide ghosted envelopes with a modifier so you would only see a single envelope while editing to address that concern of yours.

Been there seen that.

In X1? I haven't seen that in X1. The edit filter works quite nicely for me so far, and is light years beyond previous Sonars.

pdlstl


eratu,

Another good, well thought out post. With many good points.

Let's delve a little deeper for just a moment.

First, you are very correct, the end product is the absolute most important thing, above all else. The client really could care less at the end of the day what software made their dream a reality. Now, I have, as I'm sure you do, clients who are initially under whelmed when I answer SONAR after being asked, "What do you use?" I have always been able to mollify them fairly quickly by letting them hear the results I get. So, once we get past that step, it's all about my workflow and the most efficient way I can help them realize their end goal.

For me, SONAR has always filled the bill. As I continue to read post after post after post from forum members I know to be power users regarding the issues that have cropped up in this release, I am not feeling confident that SONAR can/will continue being my main tool of preference. If indeed it has become something that hinders workflow, I will need to look elsewhere.

My recording education was garnered in the studios of Nashville. As a session player of eight years there, I was always being recorded, but...I watched closely what the fellows on the other side of the glass were doing. And it was education money could not buy. And the cold, hard truth was Pro Tools.

When I initially opened my facility, full blown Pro Tools was not in the cards for me finacially . So I did as I do with everything whether it be golf clubs or pedal steel guitars. I bought into Cakewalk and learned to use it to my advantage. Utilize the stuff that works for me while shying away from the few negatives. And it's been good to me.

While I'm not feeling confident with these new changes with X1, I do feel confident that Avid is and will be continuing to develop software capable of holding its own in the commercial environment. IOW, if Avid knows its targeted end user and develops towards that market, and Cakewalk is shooting for something different, then what are our options?

Until now, SONAR has served me well and I can truthfully say that I have never had to resort to another DAW software to meet my needs. And I also believe that studios using Pro Tools generally are able to get it done entirely in PT. I may be wrong but I think that is accurate. I would be surprised to learn a studio running PT needs to pull up Reason, Cubase, Logic, whatever, to get 'er done.

I think if Cake had released a more highly sophisticated product (ie: more glitch and bug free) based on the wonderful 8.5, I would have already dropped my $99.

There is no way to know this but I would give anything if there was source that could tell me what DAW software was used on every song in Billboards Top 100. I think it might be interesting.

Cheers,

Earl

Edited for speeling

Hi Earl (aka pdlstl) --

The best way I can respond to your serious queries is with pictures:



In the top image with Sonar X1 vs Sonar 8.5, I try to show what Sonar X1 is compared to Sonar 8.5. Basically, Sonar X1 is essentially everything that was in Sonar 8.5 only reorganized, tweaked, enhanced, made better (in theory), with more features, streamlined for the future, with a basic all-important theme of workflow. In a nutshell, that's all there is to it. The audio engine itself, from what I can tell, is essentially the same. [ EDIT: Looks like there are some enhancements under the hood -- see Noel's Mind Map! http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2159516 ] The only issues I can see so far are the several rough edges that need to be polished up, and a few omissions that might leave you scratching your head a little...  that's represented by the tiny red sliver on the Sonar 8.5 side of the first image above. WHY Cakewalk did that is a mystery, but my guess is that there were a few oversights and it's going to be part of the polishing process with the first few patches. I expect that Cakewalk will correct those minor X1 oversights soon.

But basically, if your projects worked great in Sonar 8.5, they will theoretically work great in Sonar X1, but you may have some initial adjustment and frustration as the rough edges are worked out. In my mind, someone who has built their studio specifically on 8.5 should obviously upgrade to X1. It's a no brainer for $99. You may need to wait a while and go through a learning curve, but I think in the long term it will be worth it.

In my opinion, Sonar 8.5 took the old interface as far as it could go... and it was about time that a solid pass of workflow-oriented thinking came in and reorganized the various "modules" of Sonar so that it could grow comfortably into the next generation. You may rightly question some of the design decisions that Cake made here and there -- but for the most part, I think they nailed the basic heart of the matter... now it's time for refinement and polish.

HOWEVER, I wanted to respond to your other query with another image. The second image showing Sonar, Pro Tools, Cubase and Reaper is an attempt to show the basic process that I have adopted, by looking at the project type and then choosing the tools. This is a VERY SIMPLIFIED example -- there's a lot more to it -- but this shows the general principle.

Each DAW is represented by a colored circle which shows its area of focus and/or features. Each DAW overlaps with the other DAWs in different ways. Again, this is a simplistic representation, I'm not trying to imply one is better than the other. It really boils down to what types of projects are ideal for each type of DAW.

Let's say you have "Project Type 1" -- which is a basic recording and mixing job. Nothing crazy, just lay down the tracks, and mix that baby till it sounds like a million bucks. That is represented by the black circle in the middle, and note how all the DAWs shown easily overlap to accomplish that project type. Truth is, any of those apps will do the basics very well now, so it boils down to your personal preference for the most part. Again, this is a simplistic example. :) My point here is that you will gain little to nothing by switching DAWs if your projects fully reside in the "overlapping" areas.

"Project Type 2" could represent a type of project that includes much more MIDI, for example. Well, in that case, note that a MIDI project will benefit more (in my opinion, again, this is just a simple example), from using Sonar or Cubase. Yes, you can get the project done in Pro Tools and Reaper, but note how the Project Type 2 brown circle extends beyond the range of Pro Tools and Reaper -- this is an attempt to show that (based on my experience), you will likely run into limitations for a more heavily-oriented MIDI project in Pro Tools and Reaper than you would in Sonar or Cubase. Some people may disagree with this specific assessment, but that's been my experience as an owner and user of all these apps. YMMV. The point here is that some types of projects may be more effectively executed on a different DAW.

"Project Type 3" is an example that focuses on the strengths of just one DAW. In this case, it could represent a free-form multi-track dialog-editing job such as a complex podcast or audiobook. The DAW that covers the dark green circle of Project Type 3 most effectively in this simple example is Reaper... which can currently handle that type of project far more quickly with its streamlined ripple editing, than any of the other DAWs at this time.

I hope that all makes sense.

So I simply have changed my perspective about DAWs... instead of saying, "I will use DAW x -- how will I accomplish this project in DAW x?" ...  I now say "I have Project x -- what DAW (or tool) will help me more effectively accomplish Project x?"

In other words, I'm now project-focused, rather than DAW-focused.

With regard to PT9 and X1, you have a business decision. The truth is, PT9 is a watershed moment for certain types of people. We'd all be foolish not to admit that. Sure, it's laughable that the two biggest features of PT9 is that Avid opened it up to 3rd party interfaces, and also that it has delay compensation. Whoopdeedoo as we might say... Most of the other DAWs have had that for a long time. However, that simple change will have a big effect on some people, and it opens some new equations for their studios, for better or worse.

Personally, I have to own the basic PT9 software as part of my business model. I simply look at it as a tool among other tools, and apply a matrix to my projects to determine what tools I use for them. Again, I look at these tools as complimentary. You will have your own project and client needs (your own decision matrix), plus your own personal preferences. And on top of that, I'm happy to admit that my approach may simply not work for you.

And as for Sonar X1? $99? There's no real downside I can see. Just short-term learning curve and waiting for some patches... that's all. Overall, X1 will most likely improve your workflow. Think about it -- collapsable, dockable, far more flexible interface poised for future enhancements, fx chains, automation improvements, media browser, etc... those are not trivial improvements, although they seem simple on paper -- they'll ultimately save you time and money for projects. At least $99 worth. :) As for the rough edges, and a few omissions, that's just a matter of time.

Now, whether or not Sonar's approach covers all the types of projects you need it to cover, that's a tough question and could take you some time to figure out.

Hope that all helps!

Fom all the X1 videos I have seen so far, the edit filter is move in a right direction. But I am also a fan of envelope lines for the same reasons as Eratu stated above.

On the other hand, I would like to see bigger envelope nodes so they are easier to click on and also a clearer color distinction of selected and non-selected nodes in Sonar X1. Just a few pixels bigger and it will be great. Besides, I think envelope lines could also use some graphic anti-aliasing. It is clearly visible from the screenshot above, how "steps-like" the X1 envelope is.  

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

>>The only drawback to multiple lanes -- if you can call it a drawback -- is that it occupies more screen real estate.
 
I'm famililiar with how lanes are represented its not rocket science :). Perhaps I am an exception but to me the above aspect is a dealbreaker. Vertical real estate is a premium on even large screen displays and the lane approach is a huge pig in that regard. To my eyes the SONAR compact representation feels more natural but I realize thats personal taste.
There is another deterrent in my mind - again this is my opinion alone. Its a hefty investment in time to implement lanes and personally I see a ton of other features that a lot more users would benefit from before having the "niceness" of having yet another way of editing envelopes. So be careful what you wish for :)
Regarding the clutter we could with much less effort hide ghosted envelopes with a modifier so you would only see a single envelope while editing to address that concern of yours.

I totally understand it's matter of resources re: whether or not to develop a certain feature. And since we can't possibly know the internal cost for you all to develop any specific feature, you have a tough decision on your hands. :)

For me, it was difficult to edit envelopes in Sonar before X1 when automation data built up to many streams. I'm more than happy to admit the new method is a big improvement. So again, thank you for that!

And YES, if we could "hide ghosted envelopes with a modifier so we would only see a single envelope while editing" -- that would help out even more. But sometimes we need to see at least one or more of those other envelopes as reference... so if we could easily/quickly toggle on and off what specific envelopes are ghosted in the background, this would be even more helpful. If all this is indeed doable with much less effort, I'll take that tomorrow, please. ;)

Also, don't forget clip automation in all of this, those extra clip envelopes can add to the spaghetti affect.

Also, as a purely visual thing, is there any way you can anti-alias the lines in automation? This is obviously minor, but cosmetics can help with eyestrain. Perhaps consider an optional semi-transparent fill under the line as well? Again, preference, but I do think those options can help with visual appeal and eyestrain issues. Currently, the ghosted envelopes are hard to see.

Also, how about this: instead of a drop down for the envelope filter (and in addition to the SHIFT + Left Click) feature, can we have a little persistent dialog or collapsable box that lets us move, toggle, manage, view and filter easily between automation envelopes? I have no idea re the development time, but if the LANES are what takes so much effort, how about take the best of lanes and give us something like this:



Please note I'm not pretending to be a graphic designer... but the basic idea is some easy persistent filter box (perhaps in that big open space?) that lets us toggle what envelopes are visible, ghosted, have data, etc.... this would go a long way to doing some of the best parts of envelope lanes, cleaning up the clutter, etc... while keeping it inside one overlay... this, along with the visual enhancements (anti-aliasing, fill options), would be quite powerful.

Not to be downer on the envelope filter as it is right now, but currently, it requires clicking or waiting just to see what envelope is which... (sometimes we forget). If we had some box that showed everything persistently, color coded like the above example, that would really speed up the workflow. :)

Just some thoughts. Again, I'm still a fan of the lanes approach, but if we could have an enhanced multi-toggle persistent filter similar to the above, I'd have to say, it would be much harder to argue for lanes...

EDIT: in fact, looking at that simple mockup again, I'm realizing this would be a perfect way to easily mute an automation data stream as well. :) The more I think about it, I'm getting excited to see what can be done with an envelope filter box matrix like that... I'm sure you could come up with improvements... but think of the power we could have over our envelopes with something like that? Very similar to lanes, but extremely compact, built right into the track. :)

On another note, I think it's very helpful when you share with us which types of features "cost" more, development-wise. I mean, if we knew which features we're asking for would "cost" the most and if there are clever approaches to reduce that cost, it might really help the community help you prioritize. I realize that's unlikely to happen... but I find it fascinating that the development of lanes would take so much time versus enhancing the filtering options... So if it's a question of waiting for a very long time for lanes versus getting a really deep filter much, much sooner, I for one would gladly take the enhanced filter sooner.

Also, how about this: instead of a drop down for the envelope filter, can we have a little persistent dialog or collapsable box that lets us move and toggle easily between automation envelopes? I have no idea re the development time, but if the LANES are what takes so much effort, how about take the best of lanes and give us something like this:

 
This can be done in X1 already - albeit a little differently.   If you read the new X1Mind thing Noel put online, you'll see there are some cute /quick ways to toggle envelopes.
 
 

eratu

ba_midi

Also, how about this: instead of a drop down for the envelope filter, can we have a little persistent dialog or collapsable box that lets us move and toggle easily between automation envelopes? I have no idea re the development time, but if the LANES are what takes so much effort, how about take the best of lanes and give us something like this:

This can be done in X1 already - albeit a little differently.   If you read the new X1Mind thing Noel put online, you'll see there are some cute /quick ways to toggle envelopes.

Right, I was not clear in my initial statement... I've changed the text to be more clear. :) I assume you're referring to the SHIFT+Left Click feature (which is indeed helpful), but I'm talking about a filter box that can toggle which envelopes are active, ghosted, muted, etc., with color coded highlights to make reading/identifying everything clearly. That comes pretty close to what lanes would give us...

I like automation lanes as well ... having used them in Live for awhile now.  Very handy.  But a lot of the new approaches in X1 are also handy-er (handier) now.   So I want to spend more time.
 
There are some auto scroll functions for choosing edit filters and toggles between last-used, etc.   I'm still learning about them but it does seem there are a few techniques there that may be slipping by us for awhile as we get to know X1 better.
 
The mousewheel plays a bigger role now too, in a few areas.
 
The thing I like about lanes, however, is the sheer "visibilty" of it.  I keep wondering why X1 can't just "roll out" a child-window, so to speak (also ala Live and some others) when that info is needed (a little like layers, but not quite).
 
Not unlike how we can toggle the Inspector (though that's a bit vertical), it'd be nice to toggle lanes horizontally.
As well as some other info (like in the track headers, etc).
Ah, but I dream ;)
 
 

Because, if they all are dark, and you can't tell which is which, I guess we ll be spending a lot of time shift-clicking on lines to get the one we want?

 
This is where the new Edit Filters come in.
 
I haven't spent a ton of time working through every tidbit yet, but overall it is a lot easier than before in most respects.
 
 

Ok thanks for the replies....Still patiently waiting for the trial version and then you can all get rid of my silly questions! ;)

Thanks eratu!

Your clear, concise explanation certainly has given me fodder for consideration. And really this is good because I think I've slowly locked myself within a 'box' over time. Your post has me thinking in a completely new direction, leaving my circle of comfort so to speak.

I'm sure I'll probably go ahead and update after the Dec. 20 update and I've given the current users a chance to finish the ongoing beta testing.

Thanks again,

Earl

PS -Bub, it's all good. Just a little information exchange on a forum. Cool?

I still think Automation Lanes are much better than anything I've seen so far.  The reason I say this is because even Eratu's enhanced Edit Filter requires too much clicking.  Automation Lanes, on the other hand, requires one click to hide/show the lanes and you're off to edit whatever you need to edit, done!  No Shift-clicking, or selecting from a drop-down menu, or clicking multiple options to hide/show envelopes.  It's all readily available and with minimal clicking.  Imagine if Cakewalk could combine the Edit Filter with Automation Lanes! Now THAT would be awesome :-) 

A good example of what I mean is when you have a track where there are several envelopes with the exact same shape, but you only need to edit one of them.  In this case, SHIFT+Clicking will obviously not work, so I'd have to open the Edit Filter's drop-down menu to find the envelope I want to edit.  However, using Automation Lanes on the same example would find me working on any given envelope with a single click.  Not a single click per envelope.  A single click, period!  Automation Lanes would also get rid of the spaghetti clutter problem mentioned earlier.  BTW, that Reaper 3 screenshot looks awesome!  Justin did a great job there.

RE: vertical space.  As Eratu mentioned, there's virtually no loss of vertical space when using Lanes.  Don't need them?  Just click to hide them and you gain all your vertical space back.  I'm gonna be zooming in when working with envelopes anyways, so what's the hold up?  I can show them when I need them and I can hide them when I don't.  If you ask me (I know nobody did :-P) I rather wait for an awesome implementation of anything (any feature) then a half-baked one. 

That's just me I guess ;-)

But that would make the existing Track layers a "huge pig" as well no? They exist in X1 currently and one can easily show / hide with a simple command "Show Layers".

 
There is a fundamental difference to the layers argument. You have to show multiple layers to comp audio since there is no other way to edit overlapping layers or slip edit them. Also you need control over per layer mute controls etc all the time while comping. The same constraint doesn't really apply to envelopes editing since the comp paradigm doesn't apply there.

Cakewalk could combine the Edit Filter with Automation Lanes! Now THAT would be awesome :-)

 
More stuff is always awesome from a user's viewpoint. However if you had to trade between this and 5 other arguably more useful features, would you and other users really feel the same way about asking for this? Thats the point I'm making here. Everything is possible in software but it all comes with a development cost so cost benefit analysis is important to keep in mind.
Our current implementation of the edit filter with envelopes is unique and and space efficient, but certainly not half baked. Try using lanes on a laptop with less space and see how far you get with editing! Im pretty sure you will have a lot more clicking than with our approach.
 

eratu

Jose7822


A good example of what I mean is when you have a track where there are several envelopes with the exact same shape, but you only need to edit one of them.  In this case, SHIFT+Clicking will obviously not work, so I'd have to open the Edit Filter's drop-down menu to find the envelope I want to edit.  However, using Automation Lanes on the same example would find me working on any given envelope with a single click.  Not a single click per envelope.  A single click, period!  Automation Lanes would also get rid of the spaghetti clutter problem mentioned earlier.  BTW, that Reaper 3 screenshot looks awesome!  Justin did a great job there.

Alright, already. You just re-sold me on lanes. :) @ Noel -- please throw out my prior responses about keeping things overlayed on the same track -- advanced filter matrix notwithstanding -- Jose nailed this one... I had completely forgotten this scenario of envelopes with the same (or similar) shape! YIKES! This has happened to me many times, when I automate filters/cutoffs/etc... just using a series of plugins for sound design alone will result in massive spaghetti at best, but then this same-shape issue will rear its ugly head at worst. Yes, there really does not seem to be a way around this. I guess lanes is the only way! If someone can come up with something better, please post your ideas! :)

 
 
Yeap!  This happens to me frequently. 
 
Just throw in the Sonitus Delay in the FX Bin and start automating the Mix slider while it's Linked (L+R).  Both L and R envelopes will be exactly the same and a chore to edit afterwards if you change your mind or want to offset them slightly.  Then, to give you yet another example, think about ALL the envelopes created from a single FX like an EQ or a Filter when you automate them.  It becomes a jungle pretty fast and a nightmare to edit.  Automation Lanes for me please :-)