Hey John, hehe yeah I'm aware of the obvious. I also see the urgent need for thread blocking functions here in the forum but you don't see me spamming the topic day after day.

While you are boring posting one each other ;) , can anyone try to give me an opinion about this?

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!

ORIGINAL: marce

While you are boring posting one each other ;) , can anyone try to give me an opinion about this?

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!

Hi Marce, FWIW, these Google searchs turn up some stuff on notation as a VST, including a thread from this forum from last year. There are more hits if you remove the quotes from the query, but they're a lot less focused.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&q="notation+plugin"+vst
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=100&q="notation+vst"

ORIGINAL: John

BTW Boring has nothing to do with it. I was not saying it was at all boring nor did use that term.

Perhaps I was reading more into what you wrote than you intended. If so I apologize and retract "boring." Although, really, don't you find it at least a little boring? I sure do.

I was saying that this thread has more authority if more people post to it from a CW point of view.

Do you mean if more CW employees post to the thread? What more would you expect them to say? If that is what you mean, are you saying that non-CW shouldn't post to it? What kind of "authority are you looking for?

Also if what Alex says is true, fine as far as that is useful info to a small degree. It still has no importance as far as the stated need is concerned. The more CW sees this as urgent the better off we will be.

Nice of you to find some "small degree" of usefulness (though still no relevant importance) in Alex's comments, which made me wonder (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) if he'd still be working for CW after he posted them.

But you did bump it. At 4:54:05 this afternoon. I'm confused (nothing new there.)

Where did I do this Marah?

Every time someone replies to a post it gets bumped, even if the post wasn't strictly speaking a "bump."



Oh ya, this is definitely boring.

Do you mean if more CW employees post to the thread? What more would you expect them to say? If that is what you mean, are you saying that non-CW shouldn't post to it? What kind of "authority are you looking for?

I don't know I have often thought I do write well enough to be understood. What I mean is just what it says. People are forum members not CW employees.

Nice of you to find some "small degree" of usefulness (though still no relevant importance) in Alex's comments, which made me wonder (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) if he'd still be working for CW after he posted them.

I have been here a long time. I have read many posts from CW on this forum. Some are more useful then others. Sorry if that shocks you but its true. Bet you didn't know that I have found errors in posts by CW. Could it be that they are human just like the rest of us?

UnderTow,

I agree there are quite a few directions that Cakewalk/Roland can take Sonar.
My problem is that they advertise the staff view / notation view as working. If it can't do basic notes like triplets than it ain't working - IMO.
At least the Sonar users that want/need better notation/staff view know that in won't be in Sonar 9.

Ed

Basicly the whole feature set and feel of Sonar needs to be improved to even be considered in that market. It starts with something as simple as creating a new project: There is no proper project dialogue. You can't even specify the sample rate of a new project when you create it! This on it's own would make any post house ditch Sonar as a contender.

How is this an issue? Isn't it hardware that determines this? What I mean is even though Sonar can have a project that is not the same as ones hardware is this the best approach anyway? Really I would prefer Sonar to match what the hardware is and not require the user to change this no matter what the project is set at.

I don't agree. I don't think it is in the least bit urgent. I would even go so far as to say that even if notation was completely revamped to the level of one of the stand alone packages, I doubt it would increase sales significantly, if at all.

It seems to me that its only a difference of what we see as a priority. I see it as urgent because its never been upgraded, ever.

The arguments have been clearly stated why we want this. You can argue against this if you like but I believe we have very compelling arguments for the Staff View being improved. I see no reason to oppose this.

I do want other improvements in Sonar too. That has no impact on this issue.

Space Cowboy had a feature request posting where I offered some things I thought could be improved in an upcoming Sonar release. So I have a track record that goes back a long way in asking CW to improve all sorts of things in Sonar. Many of which have been done.

You know that this is not the only issue I note with Sonar nor will it be the last but I believe its the one that has come to the forefront because of developments in other software. It is time for CW to take a long hard look at the pitiful state the thing called the Staff View is in.

ORIGINAL: John

You can't even specify the sample rate of a new project when you create it! This on it's own would make any post house ditch Sonar as a contender.

How is this an issue? Isn't it hardware that determines this? What I mean is even though Sonar can have a project that is not the same as ones hardware is this the best approach anyway? Really I would prefer Sonar to match what the hardware is and not require the user to change this no matter what the project is set at.

My hardware matches whatever I set Sonar to and that is how it should be. I can load any project at any sample rate and bit depth and the sound card switches to the right setting. This is how all the sound applications I have ever used work.

The problem comes when you create a new project. Instead of just selecting the right settings you first have to go to the global settings and change things there and then create the new project. This is very silly considering that Sonar takes over whatever setting you have in existing projects. This really isn't a global setting. It shouldn't be there. It should only ever come up when you create a new project.

Cakewalk should improve the very first thing any new customer sees: Project creation dialogue. That is already more important than notation IMO.

UnderTow

My hardware matches whatever I set Sonar to and that is how it should be. I can load any project at any sample rate and bit depth and the sound card switches to the right setting. This is how all the sound applications I have ever used work.

The problem comes when you create a new project. Instead of just selecting the right settings you first have to go to the global settings and change things there and then create the new project. This is very silly considering that Sonar takes over whatever setting you have in existing projects. This really isn't a global setting. It shouldn't be there. It should only ever come up when you create a new project.

Cakewalk should improve the very first thing any new customer sees: Project creation dialogue. That is already more important than notation IMO.

UnderTow

Make a feature request for this if its so important to you. I wont oppose it either. So why are you opposed to better notation? How is it going to harm you or curtail anything you now do in Sonar?

There are lots of neat things in Sonar I don't use am I opposed to them being in Sonar? No not at all. The argument that Sonar needs other things improved too is good only as long as those things have any meaning for you. It should not stop CW from improving those things that many want improved because there may be other things too.. Notation is one very important area that we want improved there is no reason why we can't have your feature as well as this one. I will support your wish why can't you support ours?

Oh leave the melo-drama out of this. The fact that I so or do not use notation is besides the point. Sonar has gained the market share it has with the notation it has and, as the serious composers amongst us have clearly pointed out, it is far from complete. Improving it would be great for those few serious composers that use Sonar but I really don't see it as the best way for Cakewalk to improve sales.

There are features I would love to see added to Sonar but I am realistic enough to realise that it would only be useful for a tiny niche of the customer base. Tough luck for me. There are other things that are much more important that do need improving. And no notation isn't in that list.

UnderTow

I just saw this.

You have no clue about how many are serious composers that need a good notation ability in Sonar. Nor can you have any idea how many would choose Sonar if it did. You really need to know that Sonar is a MIDI sequencer first and foremost. It has always had notation where it didn't always have audio snap or V-Vocal or a bunch of other audio related things it now has.

Its roots are MIDI and its heritage is MIDI. It is not Sound Forge it will continue to be a MIDI and audio app. All we want is for the promise of Sonar to be fully realized. Notation is a big part of this. You really need to understand this point.

I did not come to Sonar for its audio when it first appeared I came for its MIDI ability. I already had audio programs that did better audio then Sonar. MIDI was its main draw for me. Later its audio got much better and it has improved this area for each and every version. It is time for CW to do the same with its MIDI area. The last part that needs this improvement is its notation.

Sonar should appeal to a broad section of the music producing public. It wont if it is perceived as only half complete. Notation is a major issue to those that would want to use Sonar but find it lacking in this crucial area.

John, with supporters like you, Cakewalk doesn't need detractors.

ORIGINAL: Marah

John, with supporters like you, Cakewalk doesn't need detractors.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

ORIGINAL: noldar12

It seems to me that those who prefer to use notation when composing tend to think in different thought patterns than those who do not - not better, just different. One of the things that has often struck me in these threads is the overall vehemence expressed by those who are against improved notation. Why be against something that is so basic, and a critical form of music transmission?

IMO, Sonar's SV language ability is stuck at 3rd grade level - not good for a "mature" software program. I am still on Sonar 6, and probably will upgrade to 9 for all the improvements in the last couple of versions. Long term, this could be my last upgrade - it is difficult for me to justify upgrading when such a critical feature remains fairly useless.

It is also worth considering that as Finale and Sibelius continue to improve their own playback options, they too could potentially begin to erode part of Cakewalk's customer base.

My own preference is to work in notation and then program far more detailed expression within Sonar. It would be nice to be able to do what I need to do within one program. Note that I am NOT talking about printing out high quality output, but rather having functional basic tools.

Outstanding post! You covered all the basic issues in a very concise way and I found myself cheering you on. Well done!

Oh look!

We're on page six!

I've always wanted to be on page six!

Yes, Jim (noldar12) has expressed my position very well. My only difference is that I will be unlikely to upgrade until there is improvement in the staff view. It's the only part of SONAR that forces me to go back and forth from another tool.

Just wanted to jump in here and mention that I would also like Cakewalk to improve the staff view. There's a lot to like in Sonar, but not having decent notation is seriously crippling to musicians.