I personally would take new Automation Lanes (whilst keeping the Edit Filter) over any of these features easily...

"next generation comping, take management, asset management and engine routing improvements." 


Asset Management would by my pick of the 4 but IMO and for me personally none of them (as useful as they most surely will be) are as important as Automation Lanes for X1 IMHO. :-)

mgh


John - are you like Mike's evil twin brother?

Now that's a disturbing thought.

When someone's just complaining by default so incoherently that the things they say they want and don't want are the same thing, it can't be anything other than simple bellyaching. Really, it's gotten truly silly of late, this has.

Great ideas and comments going on here, wow! Very inspiring to read this morning.

@Scott - I like the tabs idea but as cmusicmaker pointed out, we run into trouble if there are more lanes than tab space for the screen size. Also, I don't see how that solves the "same envelope" issue that Jose pointed out. Perhaps your idea combined with some of the others could cover more bases -- perhaps with frankandfree's example?

@cmusicmaker - agree with key points, especially about no one needing to lose anything with the addition of lanes.

@frankandfree - great example, I think perhaps with that type of same-track exploding overlay feature, plus Scott's and/or an enhanced envelope filter, it might cover Jose's "same envelope" scenario. If that greatly saves on development resources for Noel, maybe he'd consider something like that?

I don't yet see a more comprehensive solution better than lanes, though, but I love the ideas emerging! I understand it's a balancing act with development resources. I do strongly agree with the idea that Cake focus on refinement and developing the best of the existing features rather than adding new ones for a while.

But I guess it comes down to what type of project and user that Cakewalk is targeting with Sonar... which brings me to Noel's comments --

-

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
 
ahem how about next generation comping, take management, asset management and engine routing improvements. To me all of those with benefit a LOT more users than this one feature.
And don't say I want all of that plus this since it won't happen :) In case its not clear I'm not questioning that lanes have some benefits visually and some folks like that paradigm. I'm questioning priorities in the evolution of this product. I personally see other areas that would benefit the overall application more than this one since with X1 envelope editing is very usable and a huge improvement from earlier versions. But thats just me!

-

Italics and bold added liberally to Noel's quote above :) -- those phrases really jumped out at me and made me realize the big picture questions here:

What is the target market and type of project that Cakewalk is developing for? Indeed, what is the set of priorities guiding the evolution of this product? I would love to know, since that would help us understand what Cakewalk will do with these types of requests, why they've chosen certain areas to focus on, and the degree to which they've focused on those areas.

Because everyone might answer Noel's list (i.e.: next generation comping, take management, asset management and engine routing improvements, etc.) quite differently. Even Noel used terms like "I personally see" and "that's just me!" in his response... so in a way, he's a customer too! :) After all,  he is an accomplished musician and uses his own product, so he often eats at the same table as us when it comes down to it. :)

If the target project/market includes people who work with video and film, for example, then one of the things at the top of the list would be video improvements (hint-hint). I won't get into the weeds on that one -- ahh, damn, it's too tempting: 23.976 support! :) There, I couldn't help myself. ;)

If the target project/market includes people who spend a lot of time recording with multiple takes, then take management might be near the top. I can see many recording musicians and studios who might love that.

If the target project/market includes people who spend a lot of mixing, tweaking with lots of plugins and automation, then envelope lanes (or some advanced permutation we haven't come up with yet) would be at the top of the list.

...And so forth...

I know the above is a gross simplification, and we all know we can't get everything we want. So Cakewalk has tough priorities to determine where to invest resources.

Additionally, there's this philosophical question to deal with:

They can A) try to add relatively many features to try to appeal to many customers/projects. --or --

They can B) focus on a smaller number of features and make them extremely deep and comprehensive

I would personally prefer they go with philosophy B as much as possible. I would rather have  the best of a certain tool in Sonar... rather than a bunch of tools that are not as focused and effective as they could be.

I recognize that I, as a customer, might actually be on the fringes of their general target market. I accept that possibility. But at least I hope they could tell us clearly -- synthesize their philosophy into a clear, guiding mission statement and share with us who they're focused on...

Heck, if they've simply decided to take a little from column A, a little more from column B, some from column C, etc., and spread around the love to everyone out there, just knowing will help us understand where the product is going.

When Noel mentioned "next generation comping, take management, asset management and engine routing improvements" I don't see an emphasis on people who do a lot of composing, for example.... Perhaps he listed random examples just pulled out of a hat, but if his examples *do* suggest some insight into the future of Sonar, I don't see things like notation, lanes, more video support, etc... listed there. So it *might* suggest a certain market Cakewalk is (and is not) pursuing?

Either way, I'd love to know.

As for me, I listed what I would love to see in Sonar in my first post:

A) A little more refinement with the great start of the new interface.

B) Better video support.

C) Magnificent things like ripple editing.

D) That Cakewalk take more time between releases to get features implemented to their full potential.

and I should also add:

E) Envelope lanes (or something that solves all the problems that lanes solve, including the dreaded "same envelope" problem)

When I read Noel's list of "next generation comping, take management, asset management and engine routing improvements", I personally would trade all of those for items A-E above. Next gen comping, etc., are much lower on my priority list. And naturally, I understand other people will feel differently about their own needs/priorities.

Respectfully, Eratu

John T

mike_mccue

PS I know some folks here think I am being a hard nosed jerk... but In my mind what I am doing is providing CONTENT for the employees of Cakewalk to take to the leadership so that management can clearly see what the user base is thinking.

Well, slow down there, cowboy. This is what YOU are thinking. You aren't "the user base".

I agree with Mike and mgh. That's makes 3 of us non user base people who agree.

Sat he didn't mention Staff view. Which I'm sorry James, I would take over automation lanes.
You  guys can wait until X3. I think I waited long enough for Staff view improvements to come along.

yes but the consensus is 'improve what already exists' which would include the staff view...

mgh


yes but the consensus is 'improve what already exists' which would include the staff view...

Don't get me started 


I would love to have seen even some minor improvements, but with the giant effort on the UI and other stuff in X1, now is not the time to **** and moan.


Brandon has indicated that they are aware of the deep desire by many users for improvements in this area.  I have to believe our time will come.  For me, just some tweaking for tuplets, embedded rests... well I don't have to repeat what everyone already knows. 

My own gut feeling (however little that may be worth) is that eratu may well be right regarding CW's direction, particularly concerning composing.

As has been stated, if we had a better idea of the intended focus of CW, it would help with our own decisions.  OTOH, that is information that CW really cannot give us as it would also disclose strategic intent to competitors.

Ultimately, IMO, if one tries to be "all things to all people" one ends up being "nothing to anyone".  It almost seems that in some ways CW is somewhat trapped in the middle between Reaper and Cubase (sheer speculation on my part), and having to combat potential market erosion from both sides.

Bub

John T

mike_mccue

PS I know some folks here think I am being a hard nosed jerk... but In my mind what I am doing is providing CONTENT for the employees of Cakewalk to take to the leadership so that management can clearly see what the user base is thinking.

Well, slow down there, cowboy. This is what YOU are thinking. You aren't "the user base".

I agree with Mike and mgh. That's makes 3 of us non user base people who agree.

Oh, well, I take it all back if there are three of you. That's enough to stage a coup, I'd get yourselves down to Cakewalk HQ right away.

noldar12

Ultimately, IMO, if one tries to be "all things to all people" one ends up being "nothing to anyone".

Wholeheartedly agree. If Cake decides to focus on just x, y, or z feature, even if I am personally left out in the cold, I just hope they give it their all and take the time they need to do it thoroughly... After X1's polishing, they have a great foundation to build on. But it would be helpful if we had some idea of the future direction... you're right Cake is unlikely to disclose much info simply due to the competition, but maybe a few hints here and there?

On the other hand, maybe we can take a look at the trajectory of Sonar over the last few years and try to extrapolate. Seems like they tend to have a theme with each development cycle. This one seemed to be to create a new, future-oriented architectural/interface paradigm with a strong emphasis on workflow improvement.

Based on Noel's example list (which I admit is kind of reaching pretty far to extrapolate from), it seems the emphasis next round *might* be more traditional recording/producing? Not one mention for composers and vid/film or post folks... seems like they *may* not be on his mind as much. But again, that's a lot to read between the lines.

ba_midi

Beatscape, AudioSnap, The Matrix (don't get me started), and a myriad of other 'unfinished' features.   Not all are unusable, of course .. but it's like the cow that gives milk and then kicks the bucket over.
 

I'm starting to bore myself now constantly objecting to points, but this just doesn't hold up. Both Matrix and AudioSnap have had multiple revisions.

They're not perfect, sure, but that's a whole lot different from the suggestion that Cakewalk just release things and abandon development of them as a default position. This appears to me to be simply untrue.

You could argue that perhaps some things get left static for longer than is desirable, but that's not the same thing at all.

 

Sure. But again, that's a different objection to the one stated.

John T


Sure. But again, that's a different objection to the one stated.

If you say so, John

eratu

windsurfer25x


I'd rather them charge more money and get more of the things we want done, I would've paid $200 for update that included everything Eratu listed previously

Heck, I'd happily pay more just for the better video support and ripple editing... but there may not be enough of us to warrant the expenditure of resources on Cake's end. Although, I do hope so.

Well... Video support is only relevant so some people, though I'd imagine quite a lot, but Ripple Editing strikes me as something that pretty much anyone could get good use out of.

John T


You could argue that perhaps some things get left static for longer than is desirable, but that's not the same thing at all.

John, the point is get it right the first time.  Then there is no need to revisit/tweak/revise.