SilkTone


OK, it's it kinda late now for new ideas but here is something that has bothered me for quite a while now...

Let's say you have a VSTi with both an audio and a MIDI track. While playing back, you mute the audio track. Now when you unmute the same audio track again, what often happens is that the MIDI becomes out of sync because the MIDI stream of notes was also muted. Sonar muted both the audio and MIDI signal paths. This is not ideal because in a complex song, if you solo any track for instance, it means all other MIDI signal paths to other VSTis are muted as well, and once you unsolo, more often than not things get out of sync. Sometimes it is just because the MIDI track was unmuted after a "Note On" event was sent (so it is not playing the remaining part of that note at all), or because some VSTi plugins just get completely confused about their current playback position, like RealGuitar, RealStrat, etc, which then play back completely wrong cords for a while.
 
The solution is extremely simple: Do not mute the associated MIDI track when an audio tack is muted. Only mute the audio track. Similarly, when soloing a track, mute only the audio tracks of all other tracks that are not soloed while keeping the MIDI tracks unmuted.

Basically, there is no need to mute MIDI tracks at all (unless I am missing something here), since we can't hear MIDI anyway, we only hear what comes out from the VSTi that it feeds into. By keeping the MIDI notes flowing, even while muting the output of the VSTi, it means that the instant that the audio track is unmuted, what you hear coming out of the VSTi will be absolutely the correct output since it has been processing the correct stream of MIDI notes all along.

On the other hand, if I really wanted to mute a MIDI track, I can click on its own mute button, after all.

There could even be an option, something like this:

    [x] Do not mute MIDI tracks when I mute or solo audio tracks.

It can then default to unchecked, which would be the same as what Sonar does right now (but for the life of me I can't think of any reason why anyone would actually want that behavior...)

I couldn't agree more ... this is a real PIA for me too.  Especially when relevant Note-Off's are missed by muting, and when you unmute you get a whole lot of "stuck notes" (they're not really stuck !) which are screaming for a Note-Off message somewhere ...
Thanks SilkTone for reminding me of this.  I've been avoiding the Audio mute button as much as possible, but it's not a workaround.
 
Edits made. 

Jose7822

3 - Envelopes and Automation

Envelope Lanes: Envelopes can either reside on the Main Track Lane or they can have their own dedicated, individual Envelope Lanes. Right click context menus allow moving an Envelope from the Main Track Lane to the dedicated Envelope Lane and back. In addition, a Button on every track to expand all Envelopes to Envelope Lanes and back. See also the Track Inspector¹ for more details. Automation modes³: (Touch/Latch/Offset with Merge/Read/Write), Global Automation Suspend (suspend/enable all volume/pan/mute/send/other automation read/write). See the Track Inspector ¹ for more ideas. Fast and easy envelope editing/management tools that would enable us to highlight parts of an envelope and vertically move these sections vertically with automatic node creation. Ability to copy envelopes via CTRL+drag (like you currently can with Audio/MIDI clips). A precise and intuitive Envelope Draw Tool that draws straight lines and other complex shapes with more accuracy. The ability to treat the project's Tempo Envelope as if it were a normal envelope to which one can freely add nodes and even assign it to a Continuous Controller of your MIDI keyboard for easy tempo drawing. This Tempo Envelope would live in its own Tempo Track, as well as in the Tempo View. Clip envelopes should allow +24 dB of gain.

The above is missing three crucial bits that will make dealing with envelopes a breeze.

1. Envelope Solo - this will make managing synth automation envelopes for editing a pleasure.
2. Node thin out. - goes without question and explanation as to why this is needed.
3. More accurate node selection at any zoom level. - currently I need to zoom right in to be able to select a node as what will usually happen, another node on the envelope below will be selected. It is more of a bug, I think, than anything else.


Otherwise, please add my name to the list of all undersigned.

LJB

It's nice to know my DAW of choice LISTENS and RESPONDS to the users, unlike some other big DAW names we won't bother mentioning!  

But do they?!

A few weeks ago I abandoned Sonar.  The metronome bug finally got the better of me.  I spend a whole day just trying to move back from 6/8 to 4/4.  I know I've done it before, even quite recently.  But this time, in this project, nothing would work.  And I knew others had had this issue.  We're on version 8.5, and the metronome doesn't work.  The METRONOME.

For me it's a job, it's work.  I have deadlines.  I bought Cubase.  They've sorted a large number of basic things that Sonar still hasn't.  But guess what?!  A whole ton of basic other things are buggy / just aren't there instead.  So I'm back on Sonar, using a dodgy workround using an external metronome (which has its own problems, but there we are).

I've just written this on another forum, but here's where I'm coming from.  I use a program in broadcast TV called SpotOn, which is specially designed for playing out audio files. It's a stunning, stunning piece of software - very simple and quick to use, but you can set up incredibly complex scenarios as well. I honestly can barely think of any way it could be improved! I think the world of the DAW, however, is very different. I use Pyramix, Sonar and now (a little) Cubase. A lot of colleagues use Protools, so I know a bit about that. IMHO none of them are really even close to being what a DAW should be. And I think the common link is that the developers simply don't listen to the end users enough. 

The SpotOn software is written by a genius called Dave Markie, who has spent hours patiently listening to the people who use his software. Sometimes he's come up with an update within hours of a feature request! Obviously he cannot do every single thing every person asks, but the software is clearly the result of the entire Broadcast Sound community's wisdom - it's totally centred on the user. Certainly in the UK it has replaced pretty much every other competitor for that reason alone. There was a similar piece of software that pre-dated it called Quickfire, that cost a lot of money, and the devs just sat with their arms folded while people had problems. Nobody uses it any more. 

I don't understand why DAW makers don't have the same attitude as Dave Markie, as it is totally in their own interests. Basic operational issues and bugs in some cases seem to go on and on from version to version, while all too often flashy but useless new features are added (of course I recognise and welcome the bug fixes that have been made in Sonar - I'm certainly not saying that Cakewalk is idle, just that the focus is wrong - for example, why on Earth aren't THEY asking "what would you like to see in the new version?!"). The moment a developer comes on the scene with a stable intuitive DAW that is compatible with a very wide range of VSTs, and puts customers first, they should clean up.  Sure this market is more diverse that that for SpotOn (and therefore harder to have something that will be universally liked), but this thread shows that there is a broad consensus that can be really helpful.

Jose and Eratu have done stunning work at putting this together.  I don't agree with everything on the list, but it's a really solid effort that would put Sonar a long way forward.  And yet we don't have one single official (or even unofficial as far as I can see) comment from Cakewalk to even acknowledge the time and effort that's gone into it, or the voices of the people who use their products.  Of course they shouldn't drop everything and do every item on the list, but is it so unreasonable to expect a polite acknowledgement, even?

As I say, it's totally in their own commercial interests.   I'm on the lookout for developers who listen and respond, who aren't afraid to say "we hear you" or "whoops, sorry we got that wrong, we'll fix it ASAP" when required.  I want a DAW, effectively, built by the users which is robust and quick to use.  I've no doubt that it will happen... but will it be Sonar?

EDIT - sorry about the formatting.  I've tried to fix it, but this forum software still seems buggy to me....

I would love to have the capability in Sonar to make the "large" transport... well, LARGE.  It's nice as is, but having it be twice as big would be wonderful.  I assume that this wouldn't be hard to do, just upsize the graphics? Thanks for listening. 

I don't know if this is where one is supposed to post a request or not, but here goes. 
When using V-Vocal, it would be nice if the preset parameters could be modified and then saved such as the right-click view menu where I could turn off both the wave form and tool presets overlays as well as the pitch follow control which I like to have set at zero.  Maybe there is a way to save them as a preset, but I haven't seen it yet.

Thanks

Noiseboy: Let me try to compose a fantasy Cakewalk response

No, no, no, this is what Cakewalk is more likely to say,

WOW!!! The Cakewalk staff (include Mrs.Baker the tea-lady) are all very impressed, we cannot believe the incredible efforts put into this. Totally awesome, so awesome in fact we're all drooling and could not wait to get into this.  

The exceptional detail, the presentation, the layout, everything so perfectly well done!  We cannot begin to explain how grateful we all are. The glaze ham and potatoes were particularly absolutely delicious and the cake was like pure heavenly joy, totally awesome, incredible.  We are all very grateful of this outstanding effort!!  Thank you all so very, very much :-)


Oops! Wrong letter, wrong thread.

Speaking of workflow, it is complicated at a more basic level then a lot of users realise.

Examples:
'Show and Fit Selection (Shift-S) is either broken or not implemented correctly. Why ? If I select a clip in my midi track ( in a VSTi folder), and then click Shift-S, it will also affect the folder clip! Why ? I have selected the midi clip and that is what I want to see enlarged.

'Fit Project to Window' (Shift-F) does not fit the project if it is more than 30 minutes long ? Surely this is also wrong ?

However the big issue is the way managing the Track View is implemented.  Without Track View Zoom level memories it is a slow and clunky process closing, opening, resizing tracks. For example, I like to have a predefined track height. If I decide to see as many tracks in my project as possible I will click the 'F' key or 'Shift-F'.  It will collapse all tracks and will give me a nice overview. But, if I then decide to open one of the tracks to my predefined height, I won't be able to do it, as now, the track will simply close ! So, using the F or Shift-F keys will delete my previously set track hight! For this reason, I don't use these shorcuts, even though I want to, as it mean that I need to re-do the track hight for any given track!

Yes, I could always click through all undo memories to find my view with the correct track hight, but wouldn't it be faster and more elegant to have a few memory settings to have your own pre-defined zoom levels ? This would also get rid of the need to have to scroll to a finer level, as we could have a sample level zoom memory. Fast and elegant, which is what a good workflow is all about.

Since it requests a track arrangement like Studio One's, I'm in. The other requests are nice too.

planist


Good one. Even though i have other priorities it is important to have such requests.

May I refer to the Sonar Feature Request List for a lot of ideas.
Some of them go way back, but are still quite actual.

Please see
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=105821

 
 
Your thread was actually one of the sources for the features brought forth in this one.
 
I definitely agree that, even though yours dates back to 2004, it still has a LOT of great ideas in it.
 
 
Take care!
 
 
 
 

eratu


But as for a written response, I'm positive a good one will eventually arrive. Basic Business Practices 101. And PR 101. And Marketing 101.

I don't know. In my Basic Business Practices 101, PR 101 and Marketing 101 it didn't take more than a month for a simple thank you note! Unless they surprise us and go into details but I don't expect that. I only expect a thank you note and I expected that within a few days. Not more than a month. The real proof will be in the pudding of Sonar 9 and not in any response they give now but still, the lack of a timely response does not bode well IMO.

UnderTow

I like to see a "S" fade option for the clip autofades.  Only linear and slow/fast on offer.


Also envelope automation updated 

Add a Bo McKenzie (aka Space Cowboy).  

UnderTow

eratu


But as for a written response, I'm positive a good one will eventually arrive. Basic Business Practices 101. And PR 101. And Marketing 101.

I don't know. In my Basic Business Practices 101, PR 101 and Marketing 101 it didn't take more than a month for a simple thank you note! Unless they surprise us and go into details but I don't expect that. I only expect a thank you note and I expected that within a few days. Not more than a month. The real proof will be in the pudding of Sonar 9 and not in any response they give now but still, the lack of a timely response does not bode well IMO.

UnderTow

I'd like to maintain optimism, although by about this time I would have thought an acknowledgment would have shown up. As you may have seen from my prior post a few minutes ago, I haven't received anything yet.

Just as a reminder, I mailed individual packages to Greg, Noel, Alex, Brandon, Carl and Steve back on December 7th, 2009. According to the USPS delivery confirmation, the packages arrived December 10th, 2009. (More details on the 9th page of this thread, post #249.)

I agree that the real "response" will be in the pudding of Sonar 9, but I want to keep a "glasses half full" approach myself that they'll respond very well with a written response soon. Yes, it has been more than a month, and all the holiday madness is behind us now... let's see what happens in the coming weeks.

planist

Your thread was actually one of the sources for the features brought forth in this one. I definitely agree that, even though yours dates back to 2004, it still has a LOT of great ideas in it. Take care!
planist: Thanks for the link over to that great thread! Like Jose said, that's one of the threads we all mined for ideas. It's amazing the number of things in that thread that people have been wanting for years and years. I sure hope Cakewalk is brainstorming right now how to best make use of all these ideas!

Hi Jose! Hi eratu!

Thats nice to hear. I just read your requests in detail again . They are greatly explained!!  A nice effort!
Its good that you have requested all of them via the proper channels (official FR page and / or maybe also via beta tracking (you better not answer this ;-) ), and even mail).

If you haven't already you should put me on your signature list, of course ...

If you like, see mig sig for my stripped down workflow requests (or click here).
Maybe you can implement some in your list also, or you can send me your stripped down (short) requests - and i'll implement them in my thread. In my opinion there can't be enough workflow requests threads because you get more and more good ideas while you are compiling them, right? ;)

Best regards, planist

Hi planist! Thank you for your support -- I've added your name! I never want to presume that someone wants their name on the letter, so I only do it if someone specifically asks for it. I've been blown away by the support of the forum members across the board! Your name takes us up to 83 signatures!

Yes, we submitted the letter through the "formal" channel, via email, via hard-copy printed version sent to Greg, Noel, Alex, Brandon, Carl and Steve, etc.

As for the main list (in post #2), it was initially collated and refined by Jose Cabrera (Jose7822), Alistair (UnderTow), Marah, David Baay (brundlefly), Rod (nPrime), Ted (SONARtist) and myself after much discussion. They are great folks to collaborate with! We reviewed many awesome posts/threads by a lot of great Sonar users (including your epic thread) with an eye on workflow, to come up with our list. It's by no means perfect or exhaustive, obviously, but just covered what we thought were a good balance of features that the majority of Cakewalk users seemed to want, based on the threads and our own personal experiences and conversations.

So the current form of the list is there "for the record," which is the text we formally sent to Cakewalk in hard copy letters. We realize not everyone would agree 100% with everything, but in our letter and emails/requests, we reference this thread as one of the places that continued discussion and ideas is taking place if they want to check it out. So everything in this thread is part of the "message" to Cakewalk. That's why we're encouraging anyone to continue to add their ideas, comments, support to this thread if they want to. In theory, Cakewalk will be monitoring this and similar treasure-trove threads, so please add any other workflow ideas here in addition to your thread!

For the record, the distilled-down version of our list is simply the category headings of the larger list:

Workflow Feature Request List

1 - Arrangement and Editing Environment
2 - Command Access and Customization
3 - Envelopes and Automation
4 - Plug-in Management and Access
5 - Project and Media Management
6 - Video Post and Scoring Enhancements
7 - Universal Track Architecture and Routing Matrix
8 - Synth Rack and Freeze Improvements
9 - Staff View Improvements
10 - Various GUI Enhancements

Heavy duty NAMM prep mode huh?

Have a bump!