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?
2009/06/02 09:28:00
(permalink)
I'm looking at pulling the trigger on C5 as well. Their expression integration looks really nice.
|
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?
2009/06/03 01:45:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Susan G
Hi Steven-
Why assume that incremental improvements to the SV would hike up the price any more than improvements to other features?
-Susan
Just a guess I guess. Or maybe simple math, really. For example, Finale goes for around $600 as does Sonar PE. Put them together and you've got $1200. As was mentioned in previous posts, fully implemented notation software is a whole different animal all to itself, so trying to integrate it into a MIDI/Audio recording platform would probably require a whole new staff (no pun intended) division and in the end could possibly cause the whole program to change completely making it more complex and thus... expensive. Of course, I'm not talking incrementally here. I'm refering to a full tilt feature set. It makes more sense to me to create Sonar to access an outside program rather than dump more resources into the existing platform. And in case I'm way off base here, read the disclaimer below:
|
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?
2009/06/03 01:58:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: soens
Just a guess I guess. Or maybe simple math, really. For example, Finale goes for around $600 as does Sonar PE. Put them together and you've got $1200. As was mentioned in previous posts, fully implemented notation software is a whole different animal all to itself, so trying to integrate it into a MIDI/Audio recording platform would probably require a whole new staff (no pun intended) division and in the end could possibly cause the whole program to change completely making it more complex and thus... expensive. Of course, I'm not talking incrementally here. I'm refering to a full tilt feature set.
It makes more sense to me to create Sonar to access an outside program rather than dump more resources into the existing platform.
And in case I'm way off base here, read the disclaimer below:
You need to read this thread. It has nothing to do with "fully implemented notation software".
|
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?
2009/06/03 02:24:07
(permalink)
That's why it's only "2cts". But in hindsite I was thinking of the eventuality of the matter. It seemed that in the end, full, or even substantial, implamentation will be the goal of these efforts.
|
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?
2009/06/03 03:01:25
(permalink)
Thing is, from a competitive and marketing pov, SV is so underdeveloped that by now a few incremental improvements wouldn't really close the gap, EVEN though they'd be welcomed for what they were. Even it wasn't a "fully implemented notation software" comparable to the standalone packages, it would still be a big job at this point. And drawing attention to new improvements, that would still not be enough, is probably not a good marketing move. Re: the incremental vs. total overhaul issue: One of the more interesting things in Alex's comments was that the current Sonar codebase makes it challenging to make needed changes "no matter how big or small."
post edited by Marah - 2009/06/03 03:47:50
|
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?
2009/06/03 04:25:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Marah
One of the more interesting things in Alex's comments was that the current Sonar codebase makes it challenging to make needed changes "no matter how big or small."
...my point zactly! I don't really use SV but I guess even a few changes is what would make these guys happy..er. And I can see that.
|
asimmd
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 375
- Joined: 2006/08/31 14:21:36
- Location: U.K
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/03 06:25:16
(permalink)
I would also like to thank Alex for His honesty but I can't halp
thinking He has rather shot Himself in the foot.
As has already been said,we have been asking for some sort of notation
update for a while,but now we know it's not going to happen.
Begs the question just what is going to happen,what's more important than
giving the loyal users what they ask for,well I should have known - ROLAND
Problem is that Cakewalks notation dosen't come near some other DAW's notation
(Cubase - Logic)
Enough,some will disagree de da de dum,we'll see.
Alan
Sonar Platinum - Intel i5 Quad Core - Win7 64Bit - 8 Gig Ram - Focusrite Saffire Pro 14 - Vox AC30HW2X - Torpedo Reload - Vox AC15C1 - MJW Custom Built Amp - Fender NOS56 Strat - Universal Audio and Waves Plugins - Softube - Redwirez IR's
|
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?
2009/06/03 09:16:18
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: soens
It makes more sense to me to create Sonar to access an outside program rather than dump more resources into the existing platform.
And yet many other DAWs manage to provide good SV functionality (C5, Pro Tools, and Logic, for instance) without requiring the purchase of a different program. It's both an issue of maintaining market competitiveness *and* throwing a bone to the folks that think "notation" rather than "loops". Since it appears that, no matter which way it breaks, I'm going to have to buy another program to do notational composition, I chose C5 over Sibelius and Finale, and ordered it yesterday. Their expression implementation and articulation tracks are *exactly* what I've been agitating in favor of for a couple of years. I'm pleased to see someone did it right. I'd be more pleased if that someone was Cakewalk, but oh well. It also means that a continuous upgrade cycle that started with Cakewalk 2.0 DOS will come to an end for me with 8 PE. Sonar remains a fantastic program for working with digital audio, but my work has moved from recording bands and singer/songwriters to scoring for games and video, and Sonar simply isn't competitive in that area.
|
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?
2009/06/03 09:29:48
(permalink)
And yet many other DAWs manage to provide good SV functionality (C5, Pro Tools, and Logic, for instance) without requiring the purchase of a different program. It's both an issue of maintaining market competitiveness *and* throwing a bone to the folks that think "notation" rather than "loops". PT only now that they own Sibleus. That is why I still think that having MusicXML support would really help. Finale Print Music is only around $100.00 and would do what 99% or us Sonar users are asking for. Right now it is clumsy to export MIDI to notation and back. Anyway, I'm glad that Alex did chime in here and comment. I have Project5, use it as a scratch pad .Tthe Project5 forum only now that the product is no longer officially being developed has Cakewalk employees answering some questions. So a BIG THANK YOU ALEX for opening up here. Even if it is not what we wanted to here. Ed
|
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?
2009/06/03 15:23:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: InstrEd
So a BIG THANK YOU ALEX for opening up here. Even if it is not what we wanted to here.
Ed
That is one thing that has always set Cakewalk apart from it's competitor. They've always presented a human face and interacted with customers on a level unheard of in most companies in any field. Having been a CW customer since the first Windows 3.1 MIDI only version I can safely say that is a direct result of Greg Hendershot's vision. You won't find that in Apple or Steinberg or Digidesign.
|
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?
2009/06/03 15:36:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vintagevibe
ORIGINAL: InstrEd
So a BIG THANK YOU ALEX for opening up here. Even if it is not what we wanted to here.
Ed
That is one thing that has always set Cakewalk apart from it's competitor. They've always presented a human face and interacted with customers on a level unheard of in most companies in any field. Having been a CW customer since the first Windows 3.1 MIDI only version I can safely say that is a direct result of Greg Hendershot's vision. You won't find that in Apple or Steinberg or Digidesign.
That's true, vintagevibe. I remember when Greg Hendershott used to come on to the Compuserve Cakewalk forum from time to time.
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
|
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?
2009/06/03 17:59:41
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vanceen
I remember when Greg Hendershott used to come on to the Compuserve Cakewalk forum from time to time.
Greg is a true American success story. He started programming his Cakewalk MIDI Sequencer when the whole concept was just getting started and built it into a worldwide enterprise.
|
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?
2009/06/03 18:40:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vintagevibe
ORIGINAL: vanceen
I remember when Greg Hendershott used to come on to the Compuserve Cakewalk forum from time to time.
Greg is a true American success story. He started programming his Cakewalk MIDI Sequencer when the whole concept was just getting started and built it into a worldwide enterprise.
True and indisputable. Yet...and this is a delicate thing to bring up without sounding disrespectful or dismissive... I wonder to what extent Mr. Hendershott is still actively involved in the development and design and evolution of Sonar. I ask because so much of Greg's original vision and design, and also (I don't know this for a fact-fact, but it's a reasonable assumption) his code, are still present in the most recent versions of Sonar. And because, even though the legacy of that vision and design have been great assets over the last two decades, the inflexibility of the current Sonar codebase becomes a liability with respect to how practically the code, and the product that IS the code, can be competitively updated and developed.
|
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?
2009/06/04 16:00:55
(permalink)
Hi Marah- And because, even though the legacy of that vision and design have been great assets over the last two decades, the inflexibility of the current Sonar codebase becomes a liability with respect to how practically the code, and the product that IS the code, can be competitively updated and developed. I don't think it's disrespectful or dismissive, but I have to say this whole "legacy" and "inflexibility" thing is getting a little old for me! To whom are your comments really directed? If to CW, I'm pretty sure they know where they stand and what they're doing, whether it seems to you like a good plan going forward or not. If to the Users, they can post FRs or switch DAWs if they're unhappy with SONAR. You've made it pretty clear for a while that you prefer REAPER, and that's fine, of course, but why keep posting here then if you're so entrenched in your position that SONAR is for all intents and purposes a dead or dying app? If you really feel that way then I don't get the point of posts like this. Thanks- -Susan
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
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?
2009/06/04 16:39:50
(permalink)
I have to agree with Susan on this, though I do like to read Marah's posts. They are always well written and thought out. If Reaper works for you then use it. Why keep on putting down Sonar because of legacy code. I really like the work flow of Sonar. So I won't be leaving, just won't upgrade to Sonar 9 at the beginning of the cycle. Of course this could change if there is some knock out new feature they put in.  Ed
|
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?
2009/06/05 17:39:12
(permalink)
Hi Susan and InstrEd. I don't think Sonar is a dead or dying app. It's not nearly as simple as that. What I think is that Sonar is a mature app, with both the pluses and minuses that come with an apps maturity. And I think Cakewalk is in a transitional stage, in part, yes, because of the limitations imposed on the product line because of the Sonar codebase. I could be wrong about that, but it's not an entirely groundless perspective. More to the point, I think this is the real issue in threads like this, that are about the desire for or speculation about upgrades, especially to existing features, and that question the app's competitiveness, and the dev's awareness of it. That's where my posts are coming from. I realize that at I probably overdo it at times. This "transitional" perspective on Cakewalk is I think a positive and forward looking one. I'm posting from the assumptions that the Cakewalkers are smart, that they want to continue their success, that they understand and have a vision of what they need to do, and have plans -- and the means -- to do it. Even when the opposite might appear to be true -- like when they don't update notation even though they know it needs updating and that their users want it -- I still make those assumptions. They're not ignoring their users, and there isn't something they don't get about the marketplace (which some here seem to think, including some of CW's and Sonar's biggest boosters; if I do "overdo" some things, it's most likely in response to that....) This is ALL just assumption and speculation on my part. But so is wondering how CW can just let these things slide for so long, and hoping that the next version will be different. Even if I'm all wet, it's a more positive and (I believe) realistic assessment of the situation. The alternative is thinking they don't know what they're doing, finding the situation inexplicable (I think it's quite 'splicable, really!) and setting yourself up for disappointment. I admit this probably isn't the most fun and cheerful point of view, but, well, maybe that's just my lot in life! The fact is, I am "bullish" on Cakewalk+Roland. I anticipate new and interesting and potentially game-changing things, including software, over the next, oh, 6 to 18 months. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And for the record, I am still using Sonar, though true, no longer exclusively.
post edited by Marah - 2009/06/05 17:51:02
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/05 18:13:51
(permalink)
Marah;
Mature app what does that mean? Is Photoshop a mature app? Is PT a mature app? What is a mature app? Could it be Notepad? Is that a mature app?
An app that evolves is never fully mature. Notepad on the other hand is the same as it was in Windows 3.1. Sonar will include new ideas more features and better performance. This is done to apps that are evolving not to apps that are "mature".
Some of the points you make are good ones. A consistent GUI is a major improvement that would be welcomed by many. You are not the first to point that out, though. But saying basically the same thing over and over again gets old very fast.
When CW and Roland first announced many years ago that they would be working closely together I was all for it for I saw that with Roland's hardwaere and CW's software a synergy could be reached that would benefit Sonar and Roland users in a way never before achieved. It really never happened as I hoped it would. Yes we got the Grove Synth and TTS-1 but the software control of Roland synths never came to pass.
Now we have a much closer tie between CW and Roland and we have seen some new collaborative results but none of the integration of hardware and software I was hopping for.
After I saw it wasn't going happen as I had hoped, I dropped it. It wouldn't help this forum to bring that up whenever I posted.
I pursue both getting new features in Sonar from the forum as a whole point of view and helping users when I can.
That makes the posting I make of some value and not so tedious that no one will bother reading them.
With your skills with writing you could be the most helpful person on this forum. Its a shame that isn't happening.
|
Mooch4056
Max Output Level: -0.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7494
- Joined: 2005/02/19 17:40:35
- Location: Chicago
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/05 18:14:01
(permalink)
Cakewalk use to have a program called "scorewritter" they sold it to Genie soft -- I used to own it -- and like it - then one day it stopped working -- I had a ton of scores on it I did for the horn section in my wedding band -- i was pissed as all hell to say the least I called them and got a hold of the actual person who wrote the notation software -- and had mentioned something along the lines of he didnt work for cake anymore -- he emailed me a patch -- and had me go into windows 98 (yeah i was using windows 98 back in 2000 or so ) and make some adjustments - i was so mad at the program losing all my hard work -- i was pretty rude to him -- anyway -- to this very day -- no matter what computer I purchase -- or if i do a clean install -- or replace my hard drive -- any info written on the notepad word processor -- has the genie soft logo on it --how did he tag me like that ?
my point is -- cakewalk USED to make software notation programs -- and for whatever reason -- dont seem to want to deal with it anymore --
CHECK OUT THIS LINK >>>>>> cakewalk score writter
From Now On Call Me Conquistador!
Donate to the cure Bapu Foundation Email: mooch4056@gmail.com for more info
|
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?
2009/06/05 20:23:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
Marah;
Mature app what does that mean? Is Photoshop a mature app? Is PT a mature app? What is a mature app? Could it be Notepad? Is that a mature app?
An app that evolves is never fully mature. Notepad on the other hand is the same as it was in Windows 3.1. Sonar will include new ideas more features and better performance. This is done to apps that are evolving not to apps that are "mature".
John, I don't believe for a single second that you don't know exactly what, in this context, I mean by "mature app." I don't believe for more than two seconds that too many others don't either. Puhleeease.  Would it be better if instead of saying "mature app" I went into specific details about exactly what I mean by that... with examples... maybe even some cool screen shots? Or would that just be another Marah post "so tedious that no one will bother reading"? After all, "saying basically the same thing over and over again gets old very fast." But ok... since you insist. An app that evolves is never fully mature. Notepad on the other hand is the same as it was in Windows 3.1. Sonar will include new ideas more features and better performance. This is done to apps that are evolving not to apps that are "mature". What about an app whose codebase and design, some of which goes back closer to two decades than to one, limits developer ability to make changes, however big or small, to a basic feature dearly desired by many users and (presumably, though I wonder) demanded by the marketplace? Is "mature" an acceptable way of describing that app? (And yes, at least as of the last version I've seen, I would consider Photoshop a mature app. I not familiar enough with PT to comment. I know that the Pro Tools name and line have been around for a long time. But age doesn't always equal maturity, as my mother used to tell me.) God. This reply was entirely unnecessary. But on the plus side, it added to my post count. So for that opportunity I thank you. As always.
post edited by Marah - 2009/06/05 20:38:29
|
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?
2009/06/05 21:03:47
(permalink)
One thing I have to agree with you Marah on is how fast the pace is over at Reaper. I have checked it out and love the audio engine but
I guess my mind is not easily adaptable at my age. For example, one user chimes in that Reaper 3.0 is out and limit on MIDI ports is still at 24. Guy needs I believe 28 or so for a reason. He is very detailed on why. Reaper 3.0.1 is out and they listened to his request. Got a
like that.
Ed
|
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?
2009/06/06 10:19:10
(permalink)
From a software engineering perspective, what you're talking about is a "legacy codebase" rather than a "mature app". Basically, once you get about three hiring generations away from the original coders (e.g. they're gone, and the people they trained are gone, and the people trained by the people that they trained are gone), software becomes a maintenance nightmare unless the original coders were *really* disciplined about their code. I've had more than one project where I've said "I can spend a month figuring out WTF is going on in this code, then try to fix it, or I can start with a clean slate and do it right, which will take X weeks." Having not seen the source code, I can't say for sure, but it's very possible that whole swaths of code are such a mess that nobody wants to sign on for the task of figuring out exactly how it works. From what I've gleaned from the public comments, they might be better off starting from scratch on the notation.
post edited by loydb - 2009/06/06 10:29:33
|
marce
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2006/10/03 13:53:23
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/06 19:09:37
(permalink)
I want to ask something related to this post, but a little OT. Since there are programmers and advanced users here, i would like to know if you believe that is an impossible task for Notation software makers (FINALE/SIBELIUS) to make their softwares as VSTi's. I ask this because i found this way more workable than the midiyoke/rewire thing.
What do you think?
Thanks!
|
k4ro
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 25
- Joined: 2006/08/29 11:47:22
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 09:38:47
(permalink)
Sad news from Cakewalk, but not surprising. I appreciate the honest communication. It is very disappointing to read that one of the oldest and most fundamental tools for making and sharing music is going to remain a forgotten step child in Cakewalk's flagship product. It's all been said here many times, for years. At least now we know to stop begging, and to start looking elsewhere for solutions.
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 13:55:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: soens
ORIGINAL: Marah
One of the more interesting things in Alex's comments was that the current Sonar codebase makes it challenging to make needed changes "no matter how big or small."
...my point zactly! I don't really use SV but I guess even a few changes is what would make these guys happy..er. And I can see that.
What Alex is saying is that small incremental updates are not and will never be a reality. To open up that code will require a huge expenditure, so they're either going to have to a) leave it alone for the time being or b) only open it up to make massive changes as part of a future update and right now b just isn't in the cards. It happens. The staff view could be so old that the folks who coded it could be long gone and the documentation left behind on it may not be great, then it's integrated with so many different things in the application that to open it and start tinkering could become a massive undertaking. It comes down to money, changes like that could cost in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to implement. If it's not going to generate enough revenue to cover the development costs, then it's simply going to have to wait and sit on the back burner while other features that offer better ROI get implemented. This is the reality of any software development cycle be it for commercial or enterprise software. It seems to me like Alex hinted that it may actually be cheaper to buy or license notation software and implement it into a new staff view than it would be to update the existing SV. If that's the case, then I would suspect this is what Cakewalk would prefer to do. Anyway, I'm all for improving the staff view (I actually do the bulk of my programming there), but there's still a few other features I would like to see ahead of that. And having a part in overseeing software development cycles for a small portion of a large company in my day-to-day job, I can sympathize with the reality of the situation which appears to be: we know it needs to happen, we just can't afford to do it right now.
post edited by Funkybot - 2009/06/07 14:08:21
Intel i7 4790k, ASUS Z97-A mobo, 16GB Kingston DDR3 RAM, Windows 10 x64, UAD2 Duo, RME Fireface 800, Sonar X1/X2 Producer
|
marce
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2006/10/03 13:53:23
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 14:10:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Funkybot
It comes down to money, changes like that could cost in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to implement.
I understand and agree with your post, but this portion is a "little" hyped.
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 15:11:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: marce
ORIGINAL: Funkybot
It comes down to money, changes like that could cost in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to implement.
I understand and agree with your post, but this portion is a "little" hyped.
It may not be, but in hindsight, I should have said "over a million" and not "millions," because the latter does make it sound obscenely high. For the record, I do NOT think it would cost in the tens of millions or anything, but more than one million isn't entirely outside of the realm of possibility. Consider this: we don't what Cakewalk pays their programmers (good ones tend to get paid a lot), we don't know if all programming is done in house or if some is done with third party vendors (I'm guessing in house, which means more money), we don't have any specifics as to how many programming resources would need to be devoted to an undertaking like this, and how long that undertaking may take. Cakewalk has done these estimates internally already, and we just don't know what those numbers look like. But, just off the top of my head: first they're going to need someone(s) to draft up very detailed specs that cover an insane amount of musical rules and how those rules need to be displayed/implemented. Right there that's going to be a few people working for several weeks just to draft the written requirements. Then you're going to need walk-thrus. These are meetings to hammer out the specifics, work-thru the "what-if's," etc. That's another few weeks for the meetings and the revisions before someone high up in the company "signs off" on the requirements and green lights the project. Then you need the programmers to actually code it (which will probably be a several man operation for several weeks or a few months), in house testers to do the initial QA, more coding, more in house testing, then a beta, then more coding/patching, etc., all while other resources work on different features that need to get added and enhanced as part of a normal cycle. In my experience, those kinds of things aren't cheap and costs add up quickly, so I may not be as off the mark as it initially seems. Just because the company may already have these guys on staff, they're still going to come up with a final cost estimate for a project like that, and several hundreds of thousands of dollars is probably spot on once you factor in all of that.
post edited by Funkybot - 2009/06/07 15:30:06
Intel i7 4790k, ASUS Z97-A mobo, 16GB Kingston DDR3 RAM, Windows 10 x64, UAD2 Duo, RME Fireface 800, Sonar X1/X2 Producer
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 15:19:30
(permalink)
And yes, the above post is based on an "all out" enhancement to the staff view as Alex has already said that smaller ones are prohibitively costly (the assumption being: "if we do it, we're going to do it big"). That's why I think they're far more likely to license or purchase some existing software and implement it. Believe it or not, that it could be cheaper.
Intel i7 4790k, ASUS Z97-A mobo, 16GB Kingston DDR3 RAM, Windows 10 x64, UAD2 Duo, RME Fireface 800, Sonar X1/X2 Producer
|
bmdaustin
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1114
- Joined: 2004/01/11 21:56:51
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 16:30:50
(permalink)
There was also an indication that ROI (Return On Investment) would not be substantial enough to warrant such an investment of money and manpower.
|
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?
2009/06/07 17:30:52
(permalink)
Expanding the focus a bit, none of this takes into account that updating features other than notation might present similar constraints. Notation could be a particularly nasty knot because of how it needs to interact and sync with so many other systems. But, for example, what would be involved in updating how envelopes work and are presented to the user for editing? How would you prioritize whether notation or envelopes should get attention first?
The difficulty in updating existing features is compounded not only because their code might run deep and obscure, but because from a simple marketing pov, these updates don't bring anything really NEW to the product and potentially look like part of a catch-up game: Sonar already has notation and envelopes, when is it going to get realtime variable play/record?
It's incredibly tricky.
And it's much easier being here on the outside, where speculation is free, than on the inside, where the meter is always running.
|
Richard Fey
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 650
- Joined: 2003/11/07 11:52:40
- Status: offline
RE: Cakewalk: Are you listening to our notation requests?
2009/06/07 19:43:40
(permalink)
Until we've relayed to Cakewalk the need for improved notation function, and heard a reasonable response from a Baker in the know, oh wait we already have. lol In that case, what the hell are we still going on about now?
post edited by Richard Fey - 2009/06/07 19:54:06
|