John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 16:25:07
(permalink)
Not true. The VS700 is always pictured with designed to interface with Roland Video Editing hardware. Cakewalk is aggressively marketing to the video market.
I think you missed the point. Also the video edit market is not the same as the film scoring market.
|
vanceen
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 814
- Joined: 2003/11/08 08:55:56
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 16:35:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Waldemar Brisk
ORIGINAL: vanceen
I just don't expect recording software to have comparable depth to dedicated notation software
Neither do I, but if Sonar were only a piece of "recording software", I would never have bought it.
Kind regards,
wb
I'm curious, how would you describe it? I regard audio and MIDI both as recording... True, I use them both in the composing proces, but that's only because they, well, record. Not being contentious, just curious.
SONAR Platinum Windows 10 ASUS X99E WE Core i7 5960X 32 GB Corsair DDR4 2133 C13 Fireface UFX USB driver 1.098 GeForce GTX 950
|
papa2004
Max Output Level: -10.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2005/03/23 12:40:47
- Location: Southeastern U.S.
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 16:42:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Waldemar Brisk
...but if Sonar were only a piece of "recording software", I would never have bought it. Has it "really" ever been advertised as anything more? Yes, it has notation "features" but it isn't a notation "program"...It's "recording software"...Always has been and, probably, always will be...What's the beef? 
|
Waldemar Brisk
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 198
- Joined: 2004/03/11 12:53:50
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 17:41:39
(permalink)
When I bought Sonar 3, at least I thought I was buying a "sequencer". I had earlier worked with Notator for the Atari ST, and I knew nothing about digital recording - actually, I didn't even know what "DAW" meant. Perhaps the word "sequencer" is a dinosaur by now, but at least on Tweakheadz it's still used: http://www.tweakheadz.com/Sequencer2.html To me, "recording software" sounds like something intended for studios and musicians, but not necessarily for composers. And, indeed, isn't that Sonar's dilemma: it satisfies most needs of most user groups, except the notation needs of the composers? Kind regards, wb
Miracles done while you wait; the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 18:22:37
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: papa2004
ORIGINAL: Waldemar Brisk
...but if Sonar were only a piece of "recording software", I would never have bought it.
Has it "really" ever been advertised as anything more? Yes, it has notation "features" but it isn't a notation "program"...It's "recording software"...Always has been and, probably, always will be...What's the beef?
Yes it has. You are quite wrong. Go to the Sonar product page and it says "Create, Record, Edit, Control, Mix, Master". http://www.cakewalk.com/products/SONAR/English/default.asp These are all very different functions. For example I have done a solo gig with backing tracks for the last 5 years. I buy the MIDI files and edit, mix and master without ever recording anything. To say that Sonar is "recording software" is like saying that Soundforge is an MP3 ripper. That is only a small part of what it does.
post edited by vintagevibe - 2009/05/28 19:14:51
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 19:35:22
(permalink)
I think Sonar, and CW in general, are facing an identity crisis.
|
vmw
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 140
- Joined: 2003/11/17 00:56:06
- Location: Australia
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 21:50:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: papa2004
ORIGINAL: Waldemar Brisk
...but if Sonar were only a piece of "recording software", I would never have bought it.
Has it "really" ever been advertised as anything more? Yes, it has notation "features" but it isn't a notation "program"...It's "recording software"...Always has been and, probably, always will be...What's the beef?
Cakewalk says: "SONAR 8 Producer gives you what you need for recording, composing, editing, mixing, and mastering." If you see composing as recording then many composers would assume that the composition would be "recorded" by notation.
|
InstrEd
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1276
- Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/28 22:16:51
(permalink)
Its just those triplets and dotted notes that get me most. Man to have the PRV and Staff view linked graphically by toggle switch would be awesome. On another front. Finale 2010 is taking pre-orders. Guess they are scared of Sibleus 6. Finale looks interesting with new chord entry and a few other goodies. look here for forum members who already have Finale. Disappointed that no mention of integration with other DAW hosts. I know probably to much to ask  Ed
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 04:43:53
(permalink)
Has it "really" ever been advertised as anything more? Yes, it has notation "features" but it isn't a notation "program"...It's "recording software"...Always has been and, probably, always will be...What's the beef?
MIDI recording can mean notation. Sonar has notation but its nearly useless. What I have been trying to point out is that it is way behind its competitors in this area. There is no way to argue that it can't be done because its done in the other products. They see the connection between MIDI recording and scoring as intrinsic to to a modern DAW. I don't see how this is so hard to conceive of or understand. If the others can do it then there is no excuse for CW not to offer this same functionality in Sonar. Right now scoring is the weakest part of Sonar. This needs to be addressed as the others continue to improve their scoring ability. This leaves Sonar further behind.
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 06:38:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
MIDI recording can mean notation. Sonar has notation but its nearly useless.
True.
What I have been trying to point out is that it is way behind its competitors in this area.
Nobody here needs this pointed out to them. It's obvious: Open Sonar, open Staff View, and it hits you over the head.
There is no way to argue that it can't be done because its done in the other products.
I'm pretty sure I've read this entire thread and I don't recall anyone saying that "it can't be done." What are you referring to? The only thing that *even remotely* lends itself to such a MISinterpretation is what CW's Alex said. I'll get back to that in a sec, after one more quote from you.
They see the connection between MIDI recording and scoring as intrinsic to to a modern DAW.
I don't see how this is so hard to conceive of or understand. If the others can do it then there is no excuse for CW not to offer this same functionality in Sonar. Right now scoring is the weakest part of Sonar. This needs to be addressed as the others continue to improve their scoring ability. This leaves Sonar further behind.
I think it's you who is missing something. Of course it can be done -- others are doing it, as you point out. What Alex said was far more significant, and informative, than that "it can't be done." It was also more subtle. He said, in effect, that even though they know they're behind, AND even though they know that many of their users want it, AND even though they have some "ideas and designs" on how to do it, the state of Sonar's codebase, combined with (and no doubt colliding with) ROI considerations, limits their ability to do it in any near-term development cycle. (I think that's a fair reading of what Alex said.) That's not, as you put it, an "excuse" for CW to not offer the same functionality as its competitors. It's the REASON that they're not. It might be an unfortunate reason, but it's a sound and valid one -- and a necessary (and not always easy) one to recognize. You say that scoring is the "weakest" part of Sonar, and that continued improvements by the others "leaves Sonar further behind." That might be true -- although HOW true it is will somewhat depend on how highly you value notation. Here's the thing. The reason notation isn't going to be addressed -- let's refer to that as "the codebase factor" -- was obvious, at least to anyone who gave it any real thought, before Alex said so in so many words. You don't need to be a programmer either. You only need to be a reasonably experienced software user who's not romantically involved with a brand or a platform to know when a program is going... what's the word I'm looking for...?... sclerotic. Notation is not what's leaving Sonar "further behind." It's a bunch of things, many of them almost certainly related to the same codebase factor that is tying the hands of Sonar's development. It's a legacy thing. It's in some ways a victim-of-success thing. Notation is probably an especially tricky thing, for all kinds of reasons. But, from markers to regions and playlists to envelope creation/editing/management to variable play back rate to plugin chains to asset and project management to drum maps to macros and keyboard/toobar customization to post-hardware-model routing to modern dialogs to advanced comping tools to other things -- NONE of which will be important to EVERYONE, ALL of which will be "just fine as is" to SOMEONE -- Sonar is behind (and not just the other "leading DAWs" but at least one upstart I can think of which doesn't have any notation, not even the "nearly useless" notation that Sonar's got (sometimes less is more), and whose users regularly have the same discussion.) If Sonar 9 were to be released this October with world class notation (and we know that it will not be) PLUS any two or even three of the things I just mentioned also updated to uber-uber awesomeness, it would be a MAJOR upgrade and absolutely "the best Sonar ever" -- and Sonar would STILL be behind. And it would probably STILL not have key bindable clip envelopes. (I had to get that in there. :p ) I don't see how this is so hard to conceive of or understand. Me neither.
post edited by Marah - 2009/05/29 07:16:10
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 07:15:27
(permalink)
Marah this is an on going issue. Not everything I say is directed to this thread alone. Other threads have argued that it can't be done in Sonar. That a better way is to have XLM export and so on. As for this Nobody here needs this pointed out to them. It's obvious: Open Sonar, open Staff View, and it hits you over the head.
I think it does need pointing out. I think it's you who is missing something. Of course it can be done -- others are doing it, as you point out. Too bad you think so. What Alex said was far more significant, and informative, than that "it can't be done." It was also more subtle. He said, in effect, that even though they know they're behind, AND even though they know that many of their users want it, AND even though they have some "ideas and designs" on how to do it, the state of Sonar's codebase, combined with (and no doubt colliding with) ROI considerations, limits their ability to do it in any near-term development cycle. (I think that's a fair reading of what Alex said.)
That's not, as you put it, an "excuse" for CW to not offer the same functionality as its competitors. It's the REASON that they're not. It might be an unfortunate reason, but it's a sound and valid one -- and a necessary (and not always easy) one to recognize.
You say that scoring is the "weakest" part of Sonar, and that continued improvements by the others "leaves Sonar further behind." That might be true -- although HOW true it is will somewhat depend on how highly you value notation.
Here's the thing. The reason notation isn't going to be addressed -- let's refer to that as "the codebase factor" -- was obvious, at least to anyone who gave it any real thought, before Alex said so in so many words. You don't need to be a programmer either. You only need to be a reasonably experienced software user who's not romantically involved with a brand or a platform to know when a program is going... what's the word I'm looking for...?... sclerotic.
Notation is not what's leaving Sonar "further behind." It's a bunch of things, many of them almost certainly related to the same codebase factor that is tying the hands of Sonar's development. It's a legacy thing. It's in some ways a victim-of-success thing.
Notation is probably an especially tricky thing, for all kinds of reasons. But, from markers to regions and playlists to envelope creation/editing/management to variable play back rate to plugin chains to asset and project management to drum maps to macros and keyboard/toobar customization to post-hardware-model routing to modern dialogs to advanced comping tools to other things -- NONE of which will be important to EVERYONE, ALL of which will be "just fine as is" to SOMEONE -- Sonar is behind.
If Sonar 9 were to be released this October with world class notation (and we know that it will not be) PLUS any two or even three of the things I just mentioned also updated to uber-uber awesomeness, it would absolutely be "the best Sonar ever" -- and Sonar would STILL be behind. And it would probably STILL not have key bindable clip envelopes. (I had to get that in there. :p ) Very little of my posts are aimed at Alex. Nothing can be said to CW as long as they maintain its not going to happen this time around. I am not posting in a vacuum. This topic is not new. Thus some of my points have developed from other threads. Read this thread Here. I do feel a need for urgency here. I don't have any idea what Sonar 9 will have but I am sure nothing will be as important as a reworked staff view. I really don't see what else is left. I don't buy the Alex argument that it can't be in 9. This is not a new feature request. Nor is CW unaware of it. If they have not already started doing something about this it will most likely never get done. Without us pushing it will be placed back on the back burner as it has been for so long now. The last parts of your post are diversionary and off topic. What other features are wanted in Sonar is not a part of this thread. I am not sure what your motive is in finding faults in my posts here. Unless you think I weaken the pro argument for better notation. Then that is a reason but to argue against me here seems odd if you do wish for the same things we do. Then, maybe you don't.
|
pianodano
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1160
- Joined: 2004/01/11 18:54:38
- Location: Va Beach Virginia
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 09:13:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Marah
I think Sonar, and CW in general, are facing an identity crisis.
I think you nailed it. Sonar has been touted/sold by CW as the end all be all to all people wizbang package instead of being properly (imo) positioned as a true top shelf professional sequencing and recording application for accomplished musicians and writers. That was a serious mistake imo. The implementation alone of a feature such as input quantize and what is implied by it's very description should clearly show this. In nearly 50 years of music I have never run across a player or musican that would expect or make demands of any recording device to record anything differently from what he or she actually played.
post edited by pianodano - 2009/05/29 09:24:16
Best, Danny Core I7, win XP pro, 3 gig ram, 3 drives- Lynx Aurora firewire- Roll around 27 inch monitor, 42 inch console monitor- Motif xs controller - Networked P4's and FX Teleport for samples- Muse Receptor VIA Uniwire for samples and plugs- UAD QUAD Neve - UAD 1- Sonar X1 but favor 8.5 GUI - Toft ATB 32 - Vintage hardware - Tascam MS-16 synched via Timeline Microlynx -Toft ATB32 console
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 09:20:53
(permalink)
I think you nailed it. Sonar has been touted/sold by CW as the end all be all to all people wizbang package instead of being properly (imo) positioned as a true top shelf professional sequencing and recording application for accomplished musicians and writers. That was a serious mistake imo. The implementation alone of a feature such as input quantize and what is implied by it's very description should clearly show this. In nearly 50 years of music I have never run across a player or musican that would expect or make demands of any recording device to record anything differently from what he or she actually played. Good point. It was a vocal group that lobbied for that and I believe it was a relatively easy feature to implement. I realize that proper notation will require a major rewrite of Sonar. I do think it has to be done and the sooner the better.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 11:28:26
(permalink)
In nearly 50 years of music I have never run across a player or musican that would expect or make demands of any recording device to record anything differently from what he or she actually played. Then you've never used or run into anyone who uses an Akai MPC series machine - they quantize by nature. For that matter, I think most/all all drum machines do? Granted, you may not care for the genres associated with the MPC, but that doesn't lessen the impact it's had, or the need (and use) for this type of functionality. And on some level it seems the polar opposite of this thread... Just like Input Quantize helps to make things more efficient for creating music in certain genres - not that this is all it's good for - improved notation could/would do the same for those that compose & edit using more traditional methods. Like composing to film, as John mentioned. Not that I'd have a clue, but I wonder how many people that compose for film use the PRV, whether in SONAR or other DAWS...  John said... but I am sure nothing will be as important as a reworked staff view. Aside from enhancing/improving envelopes, I wouldn't argue that point. There's a lot of little things that could use improvement, but envelopes sit near (or at) the top of the list for me, particularly since they're definitely not "little things". But then again, neither is notation.  PS... If and when notation is improved, like handling triplets (or any other -ets), I'll probably begin using it again. It's suprising how often I'll write out stuff with pen and paper, but revert to using the PRV in SONAR.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 11:33:14
(permalink)
Aside from enhancing/improving envelopes, I wouldn't argue that point. There's a lot of little things that could use improvement, but envelopes sit near (or at) the top of the list for me, particularly since they're definitely not "little things". But then again, neither is notation. You're right about this. There are a few things that do need attention. No two ways about it. But notation is one area that we have been waiting on for ever. One of my personal pet peeves with Sonar is it track inspector for MIDI tracks. Audio tracks get everything listed on its track inspector. Thus you don't have to enlarge the track header in order to see its parameters. This is not the case with MIDI tracks. The things one would need to see are only in the track header. This destroys the whole function of the track inspector for MIDI. Also they are just widgets that should be easy to program to show on the track inspector. But this thread is only about the laughable Staff View.
post edited by John - 2009/05/29 11:52:17
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:12:01
(permalink)
But this thread is only about the laughable Staff View.  Yup... But at least in this TI case you can make the adjustments you need. It's not as efficient having to jump back and forth, but is doable. Triplets in notation, on the other hand...
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
Susan G
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12016
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:49:26
- Location: Putnam County, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:27:59
(permalink)
But this thread is only about the laughable Staff View. Triplets in notation, on the other hand... Is there such a word as "cryable"?  I've memorized this: You can't tie into or out of a triplet, nor can there be any rests. -Susan
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:31:29
(permalink)
|
pbognar
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 720
- Joined: 2005/10/03 16:22:03
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:36:12
(permalink)
I am just as frustrated with the Sonar staff editor as the next person, having come from Emagic Logic and seeing what C5 and PT8 have. The idea that Cakewalk recognizes that improvements are needed, but are not to be expected in version 9 is disappointing and will cause me to do some soul searching to see if it is time to consider a move to C5. I do, however, understand the situation which Cakewalk is in, from a business and software development standpoint. I understand that the staff editor code probably hasn't been looked at since the dawn of man, and there is a good chance that it might be a development resource pit to improve it, but you'd think some programmer could fix the triplet thing... You'd think Roland could go and buy Aspire and gut the code from Music MasterWorks... (or some other stand alone notation program) Here are the things I must consider before making any sort of switch: - How do I use the staff editor? For me, mostly to edit MIDI data in a notation context. Musically, some things stand out more for me in notation than piano roll. I have never printed notation for anyone, BUT if I did, I'd certainly want triplets, etc. to be represented properly. - Is Cakewalk going to blow us away with some other features in version 9 which will allow me to live another year with the current staff editor, such as P5, or Live-like features which help me make better music? Or perhaps features which up until now have only existed in Band In A Box. - What if Cakewalk were to add more MIDI clip content along the lines of Apple Instrument Loops? - What if Cakewalk were to add MIDI effects, like C5's chorder? - Could I live with a product which requires a small dongle (C5), or a large dongle (Apple Logic) ? - Would I miss this forum community? - Would I miss the the intimate knowledge which Cakewalk seem to have of the Windows OS platform? I guess for me it's not just about the staff editor, although it's very easy to focus on that, look at the other platforms, and scratch your head. The fact that the staff editor needs major improvement won't / can't force Cakewalk to pull a rabbit out of it's hat in 4 months. It is nice that Alex has communicated to us that they know that there is work to be done - it's just a matter of time and resources. My job is to determine if I like the direction which Cakewalk is headed with Sonar, and determine if it fits my needs. To reiterate, for the purposes of this thread, I could live for another year with the staff editor the way it is, if I knew that Cakewalk were working on other features which were going to blow me away. Sorry to drone on...
|
pianodano
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1160
- Joined: 2004/01/11 18:54:38
- Location: Va Beach Virginia
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:42:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: stevec
Then you've never used or run into anyone who uses an Akai MPC series machine - they quantize by nature. For that matter, I think most/all all drum machines do?
Actually you have driven my point home better that I could. Again, here is what I said. In nearly 50 years of music I have never run across a player or musician that would expect or make demands of any recording device to record anything differently from what he or she actually played.
post edited by pianodano - 2009/05/29 12:54:11
Best, Danny Core I7, win XP pro, 3 gig ram, 3 drives- Lynx Aurora firewire- Roll around 27 inch monitor, 42 inch console monitor- Motif xs controller - Networked P4's and FX Teleport for samples- Muse Receptor VIA Uniwire for samples and plugs- UAD QUAD Neve - UAD 1- Sonar X1 but favor 8.5 GUI - Toft ATB 32 - Vintage hardware - Tascam MS-16 synched via Timeline Microlynx -Toft ATB32 console
|
Jaybee
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 423
- Joined: 2005/07/19 09:29:59
- Location: Dayton, Kentucky
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 12:58:50
(permalink)
Several years ago (Sonar 5 year) I realized the uselessness of the staff view and re-invested in Finale for my notation purposes. I've never regretted it and it saves me from the frustrations of having to deal with Sonar's staff view.
I do understand that this is not necessarily financially feasible for many people today. The staff view needs to be completely re-written if CW wishes Sonar to be the "complete" DAW it purports itself to be.
Jerry Dayton, KY. Sonar 8PE, Project 5v2.5, Music Creator 5, Dimension Pro, Akoustik Piano, Battery 3, B4 II, Kontakt 2 & 3, GPO, JABB, CoMB, VDL 2.5, Garritan Authorized Steinway Model D, True Piano AMD 64 3500+, 2GB RAM, Audiophile 192
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 13:48:38
(permalink)
Actually you have driven my point home better that I could. Well... something like an MPC still requires human interaction to 'play" its pads. So in that respect it can be treated as a MIDI instrument, like playing electronic drums. But yes, it's recorded data is quantized to some extent and not *exactly* as inputted. However, a lot of people seem to like the slight "swing factor" it adds, even though it's a modified version. But back on topic... it would be nice if the notation view did something similar by default. IOW, play "free form" but display quantized, per some predefined settings, without any other user interaction required.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 14:23:47
(permalink)
But back on topic... it would be nice if the notation view did something similar by default. IOW, play "free form" but display quantized, per some predefined settings, without any other user interaction required.
Actually is does that. You can set the display resolution without changing the data.
|
Marah
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 975
- Joined: 2009/02/04 21:56:41
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 14:26:53
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: pbognar
....but you'd think some programmer could fix the triplet thing...
You'd think some programmer could make clip envelopes keybindable (considering the commands themselves, and the keybind system, already exist.) Oops, I mentioned something that isn't what this thread is about. ORIGINAL: John
But this thread is only about the laughable Staff View. I solemnly swear to try my darnedest to not be diversionary in the the future. (Or to always put divertissement in parentheses.) So help me god.
post edited by Marah - 2009/05/29 14:37:18
|
flatpicknut
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 270
- Joined: 2003/11/26 22:15:27
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/05/29 14:30:49
(permalink)
I just found Alex's input earlier in this thread. Thanks, Alex. It is nice adding a dose of reality to all this speculation.
I was going to hold off till SP9 to see if notation was addressed before I decided whether or not to spend the bucks on Cubase 5. Now I know that there is no reason to wait (except for the need of the $499).
A recent project involved a CD worth of composition and arrangement. I managed it in SONAR despite all the frustrations with the notation capabilities. I liked SONAR's instruments and effects and routing capabilities and so forth. However, I promised myself not to go through that kind of project again without a DAW that sported decent notation. The extra hoops I had to jump through were wearisome and fought against the creative impulses.
|
loydb
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14
- Joined: 2007/05/04 18:35:07
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/01 18:28:07
(permalink)
Alex's response makes me sad. I've been using Sonar since before it was Sonar (starting with MS-DOS). It has only been relatively recently that *finally* computer hardware has caught up with the demands of running a decent orchestral library on a single computer. I knew that SV sucked, but since the whole "compose for orchestra on my computer" thing sucked as well, it didn't really bother me that much. In the last couple of years, I've tried to use Sonar, and ended up buying Overture as a stopgap, thinking that surely, now that the other major players are implementing decent SV, Cakewalk would be too.
I'm a software dev. Were my boss to make the same statement that Alex did, I know exactly what it would mean -- "Don't hold your breath, Skippy."
Part of the reason that I upgraded to 8 Pro recently was not that there was any new compelling feature, but because I know that upgrade fees feed directly into continued development. Apparently, however, that development is effectively *never* going to be pointed toward the one feature that I care about nowdays (2+ years == never in internet time).
I do appreciate the honesty, it at least gives me a heads-up that I need to bite the bullet and consider a new DAW.
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/01 19:16:52
(permalink)
I still don't understand how it could still be on the back burner. It seems incremental improvements could have been happening all along.
|
soens
Max Output Level: -23.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5154
- Joined: 2005/09/16 03:19:55
- Location: Location: Location
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/01 23:09:07
(permalink)
... besides, just how much do you want to pay for this already awsome software? $879? $1500?? Whoa! $1,999.99??? At that price it better wash my dishes and floss my teeth too.
|
Susan G
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12016
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:49:26
- Location: Putnam County, NY
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/01 23:35:56
(permalink)
Hi Steven-
Why assume that incremental improvements to the SV would hike up the price any more than improvements to other features?
-Susan
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
Waldemar Brisk
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 198
- Joined: 2004/03/11 12:53:50
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/02 05:29:54
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: loydb
Alex's response makes me sad. I've been using Sonar since before it was Sonar (starting with MS-DOS). It has only been relatively recently that *finally* computer hardware has caught up with the demands of running a decent orchestral library on a single computer. I knew that SV sucked, but since the whole "compose for orchestra on my computer" thing sucked as well, it didn't really bother me that much. In the last couple of years, I've tried to use Sonar, and ended up buying Overture as a stopgap, thinking that surely, now that the other major players are implementing decent SV, Cakewalk would be too.
I'm a software dev. Were my boss to make the same statement that Alex did, I know exactly what it would mean -- "Don't hold your breath, Skippy."
Part of the reason that I upgraded to 8 Pro recently was not that there was any new compelling feature, but because I know that upgrade fees feed directly into continued development. Apparently, however, that development is effectively *never* going to be pointed toward the one feature that I care about nowdays (2+ years == never in internet time).
I do appreciate the honesty, it at least gives me a heads-up that I need to bite the bullet and consider a new DAW.
This is pretty much the way I see it as well. In fact, I've already started looking for new solutions, and I will visit a Cubase demonstration this very evening. But I'm not particularly happy or enthusiastic about it. Rather sadly curious. In the other ongoing SV thread "(Staff view - how many users seriously use it") Alex wrote yesterday that "it's more a matter of scheduling and prioritizing on our side". Whith a small portion of friendly irony I comment: "Yes, we have had plenty of time to notice that". - Why, oh why have you waited so long? We've been whining, nagging and praying for years, and only now you show that you're really listening. But the road from listening to implementation is long. Cakewalk is known as a company that's listening to their customers. Strange, then, that they've been so hard on hearing in this particular matter. Kind regards, wb
post edited by Waldemar Brisk - 2009/06/02 05:40:52
Miracles done while you wait; the impossible takes slightly longer.
|