papa2005


Herein lies the problem...Is it Eratu's top ten list or the other 360+ respondents that CW considers? Are my workflow needs any less (or more) important than any other SONAR user?

It depends on how you define "important."

Any thread that accumulates views and replies -- virtually all of them supportive -- at the rate this one has is arguably "more important" than one that doesn't.

Throw in the fact that the thread was both a call to all "interested Sonar users" (a self-selected group of more than casual observers) AND also an open letter to Cakewalk that addressed the important concerns of those users about Sonar's development -- and CWs non-acknowledgment of the thread (to say nothing of a substantive reply) is, um, notable.

Last week CW -- under the name of its legendary founder and CEO -- made a point of drawing attention to NAMM. I find it interesting that most of the products highlighted at NAMM incorporate Sonar into hardware formats that by their very nature make moot the software-oriented workflow issues addressed in this thread and in the unacknowledged open letter. A response of sorts?

The evidence of the last year, through today's NAMM, suggests that the future of Sonar is more as the brain in hardware devices than as a standalone piece of software.

For the record, I am NOT saying that CW should have announced a major Sonar update at NAMM -- Sonar's dev cycle can't be tied that closely to a trade show. But tea leaves are tea leaves.

Marah,

I didn't mean to imply that the idea of this thread wasn't a good one...You misunderstood the intent of my message...In all seriousness, what's "important" to me may not amount to a hill of beans to many other users (and vice-versa)...That's what I was trying to convey in the post...Who decides what the "top ten feature requests" should be?

Marah


The evidence of the last year, through today's NAMM, suggests that the future of Sonar is more as the brain in hardware devices than as a standalone piece of software.

For the record, I am NOT saying that CW should have announced a major Sonar update at NAMM -- Sonar's dev cycle can't be tied that closely to a trade show. But tea leaves are tea leaves.

I personally do not think that as a result of previous NAMM announcements (including this years NAMM) that Sonar will be little more than a "brain in hardware devices". Roland are primarily a hardware company so their closer relationship with Cakewalk IMO was always going to lead to a tilt towards hardware solutions that include Sonar (lite versions) and  integration with Sonar which I think is very good thing indeed. Does that take time away from developing the core app? Only Cakewalk can answer that but Sonars release schedule (whatever the product is called) does not appear to have changed at all, so perhaps the increase in hardware for Sonar or Sonar / Cakewalk related hardware has no bearing on Sonars development as standalone software. Just a thought ;-)

Cmusicmaker,

I have to say that I completely agree with you and share your thoughts.  IMO, the real answer will be in the next version of Sonar, which is why I'm not worried that we have not received an answer from them yet.  As I said before, that's not something I personally demand from them, but I would love to see results of course.  I trust the bakers, and I'm sure there is a good reason why they have not answered yet.  It could be as simple as them being busy preparing for NAMM 2010, as someone suggested earlier. 

In any case, I'll just wait until the next version is released.  That'll be my answer.


Take care!

Jose7822


Cmusicmaker,

I have to say that I completely agree with you and share your thoughts.  IMO, the real answer will be in the next version of Sonar, which is why I'm not worried that we have not received an answer from them yet.  As I said before, that's not something I personally demand from them, but I would love to see results of course.  I trust the bakers, and I'm sure there is a good reason why they have not answered yet.  It could be as simple as them being busy preparing for NAMM 2010, as someone suggested earlier. 

In any case, I'll just wait until the next version is released.  That'll be my answer.


Take care!

Cool yes Jose it might just be NAMM. Anyhoo great effort from you all and and I hope it all goes well!

UnderTow


Cmusicmaker,

You make some good points. It is certainly not my aim to demand a response from Cakewalk. I am just utterly amazed that they have not somehow responded. (Not least because Cakewalk in the past have responded to a similar, albeit off-forum, endeavour. Have things changed so much?). Remember this is not only a forum thread. It has also been posted by snail mail and emailed. A small thank you note, mainly to James that got the ball rolling and mailed the physical letters etc, is just something I would expect from a professional setup. Or any individual person for that matter. Just basic courtesy.

Some of your points do not address what I have been talking about because I don't expect Cakewalk to respond to any of the content of this thread. I only expected an acknowledgement of the effort itself. That's all.

Anyway, I will shut up about this now. Please carry on.

UnderTow

I hear you about the acknowledgement (would be nice definitely) but I still think it is really not necessary at all. (IMHO anyway). A nice to have but not a need to have for this thread, especially considering the huge view count already which must surely include Cakewalk staff. But yes I should stop talking about this as well heh...and let you all get on with it. I am really pleased you guys were not offended by my comments. I was not quite sure if I had just started a fire (eek!) ;-) No harm meant and no harm done. Good. :-)

John >> I Noticed something about Sonar 8.5.2 that pleases me to no end. Without fanfare or even listing it they fixed the MIDI meters dying after a solo of a track. I had sent a bug report on it ...

John, do you have the Bug Report # so I could take a look myself and not bother you more, or if not, could you explain the bug a little better ?  If it's what I'm thinking, I don't think it's fixed ... (but I could of course be wrong). 
Thanks very much.

Hi Guys,

I'm off prepping for one of the biggest gigs of my life so far, and look at the fun posts in this thread since my last visit! :)

I'm constantly blown away and impressed with the thoughtful, intelligent and overwhelmingly positive comments in this thread, and I'm grateful -- personally grateful -- to everyone on keeping a certain tone going in this thread. Cheers to the Sonar community!

As for some of the latest thoughts expressed in this thread, just a few thoughts of my own in response. Please ignore this post if not interested. It will probably be overly-verbose as usual! ;)

1) I totally agree that the most important answer to all this will be Sonar 9. I think most -- if not all -- of us would probably agree on that. In the end, that's what really matters, right?

2) This letter, this "list" was never intended to be the one-stop-perfect-most-awesome list ever created. Even the main contributors did not agree 100%, but that's okay, we worked through it as respectful people and came up with a compromise that I think works pretty well. The basic *intent* should have been clear and I think our hearts are in the right place. The message is a positive one, and I honestly think that's been reflected in the thread overall by anyone who has participated. Another thanks goes out to everyone who has participated in the thread and the forum in general -- a fine group indeed. If we were all in one location, there'd be a huge round of drinks on me.

3) I do think Cakewalk has read the letter, forum thread, etc., and I certainly hope (and just assume) they're considering it as a valuable contribution to a complex internal process they must have for determining the features of upcoming Sonar releases.

4) I do think Cakewalk will respond at some point soon, and I think it will be positive -- even if it's a just a short acknowledgment. I will be surprised if they don't respond in some way... but in the end, what matters most is still really #1.

5) No one is demanding anything from Cakewalk. I hope that's crystal clear. The whole approach, angle, attempt at the letter, etc... is definitely not "perfect" but it is also definitely not intended to be a demand in any way. It's a group effort and I think a lot of people's hearts were all in the right place, and I believe that has come through and hope it continues to come through.

6) I do think that enough time has passed that Cakewalk should "acknowledge" the letter as a general course of standard business practice, but again, no one here is "demanding" anything. I certainly don't think anyone should cross any bridges or assume anything for sure if they don't reply in some fashion (see #1 again), but in general, in the US, written letters like what we sent in are usually replied to at some point. Clearly, that point hasn't arrived yet, so I want to wait it out and continue to be positive. (See #1 again.)

7) Either way, I want to try to be as optimistic as possible and hope that we can encourage positive discussion and support here in this thread and then, let's all see what happens when Sonar 9 is announced.

8) If someone signs the letter, they're signing the letter only (which comprises, technically, the actual letter sent, which is the first two posts of this thread). A signature does *not* mean they are *personally* supporting me, or Jose, or UnderTow, or Marah, or David, or Rod, or Ted, or any ONE human being. I hope it's clear that this effort has nothing to do with individual personalities/egos.

A signature just means basic support for the basic idea of the letter only, as imperfect and well-meaning as it is. A signature does not mean you even support what's discussed in the rest of the thread, really, or that you support a certain philosophy.

Just to be clear, I could theoretically go insane at any given moment and start firing off crazy one-liners and I just hope people don't decide to take their names off the letter on account of me or any random comment made somewhere in this thread/forum. :)

9) As flawed humans, we are bound to get emotional and/or say something that will bother someone else. This thread *might* have passionate statements made by people from time to time, and that's human nature. I will confess to saying very passionate and sometimes very dumb things throughout my life, so I hope people here in this thread will not hold that too much against me. :)

Please feel free to call me out if I do say something dumb, and if we can both be respectful and perhaps a little forgiving of human nature, I can guarantee we'll accomplish a lot more together than apart.

10) Given all that, I'm still blown away how this thread has progressed. You all have my thanks and respect!

And if you made it to the end of this post, you deserve an extra drink on me!

Best, James

John


 
Because CW has not responded here means nothing. They often do but remember its never official. Its really a CW employee interacting with the forum. We have no right to demand any response from them here. I know that sounds like what the heck but they have no duty to answer anything here on this forum. They do have a duty to answer things that go through official channels that CW has set up. However unsolicited Emails or threads on this forum are not going to be answered unless as said an employee on their own decides to do so.

Of course CW monitors this forum from time to time. That in no way means they are obliged to interact with us. Its nice when they do but its not required. This is a user forum only that CW is kind enough to provide for our use. It is not and never has been a way for us to demand anything from CW.

The concern that CM Music maker has stated is a valid one but I believe that CW is sophisticated enough to know what is important and what is just noise.

I too was reluctant to have my name on this not because of the demands from some that came later but I didn't want to be associated with a small group of members that I often disagree with. Then it came to me that the authors of this thread are not in that group and further I respect them greatly. Thus it became clear that a coalition no matter who they were made of all backing the same things and for the same reasons was something I could not reject. Jose knows about this and he was always a true gentleman in dealing with me. Therefor I had no choice but to back this thread and the spirit in which it was created.

Good points John. Well said.

CM do as CW does and ignore those that are not to your liking and support the greater issues here. I did.  Sorry for the long post but sometimes view points can be useful for others to read.

I definitely want to make this clear. My concern is with the tone of this thread (a few recent comments) not with the people that made them. Big difference. At the end of the day its just my viewpoint and my aim was and is to help avoid a scenario where a very good thread that started out so positive starts to slide into an increasingly negative attitude towards Cakewalk because they have not responded or acknowledged this thread or the letters. That kind of attitude or misplaced level of expectancy is likely to decrease the possibility of getting any response or acknowledgement from Cakewalk who are under no obligation to respond anyway. I am really not sure where these expectations come from. But anyway just sharing my views on it to hopefully help not hurt the process here.

 I don't think the absence of my name on that list makes any difference to Cakewalk but the presence of it with comments being made that suggest Cakewalk should have responded by now is not something I want to take part in as I think it can be perceived as supporting the demand, requirement, expectation (or however one wants to put it) that Cakewalk should have responded by now. I don't agree with that at all. Indeed I am puzzled by it. Cakewalk have given no indication to warrant such expectation.

Believe me I have come up with and submitted some of the most elaborate FR's you have ever seen to Cakewalk (stretching back to version 2) and a high number of them over the years, so my lack of interest in adding my name should not be misunderstood please. I have just been supporting this same cause...work-flow... e.t.c (years before this thread was even started) in a different way through Cakewalks FR Requests channel and other threads on this forum over the years. So...we all want exactly the same thing a better, easier to use and more work flow friendly Sonar. I'm on your side (and those who organised and have contributed to this thread) but I am just going about it in a different way. No right or wrongs here (I'm nobody's judge) just my preference. ;-)

cmusicmaker

... <snip> great comments <snip> ...

At the end of the day my comments probably don't really matter at all in the grand scheme of things here. There are 50,000 other members here with a voice and right to express their views that IMO are every bit as important as mine. Just sharing some thoughts to help. Please do take it that way.

Hey C,

I appreciate your well-reasoned and respectful comments, and I, for one, certainly don't take anything you've said as anything other than helpful. No negative energy from here. I sound like a broken record when I say this, but I continue to be blown away by the caliber of people in this forum.

I think we strongly agree on most points -- especially the most important point that we want the same basic things in the upcoming release of Sonar. I totally respect that you have your approach and at the end of the day I know we're basically asking for the same core things in Sonar, so I want to thank you for your efforts over the years. I'm sure I've benefited greatly from more than a few feature requests that you've submitted!

We may have a different point of view of how a company should practice its basic customer relations, but I also agree that Cakewalk has its own business practices and in the end, what matters most is the big picture.

What we may respectfully disagree on is what we view this particular effort to really be. Personally, I don't consider this effort in the same light of how I normally view a feature request, a thread, or even a letter. I've submitted a number of feature requests myself in the past through the normal channels, and honestly, this just feels different to me. This is just my opinion, of course... I'll try to explain it, and if you disagree, I completely respect that.

Sure, it's all of those individual things -- a letter, a thread, a FR list -- but there's another component involved. Yes, we did the whole formal feature request thing, yes we emailed it, yes there were hard-copy letters mailed in to Cakewalk, yes there is a good, positive thread here. If we had just mailed in post #2 to Cakewalk, I'd be inclined to agree with most of your reasoning on this issue, since that's just a feature request (albeit a long one with many sub-components).

But what we mailed to Cakewalk was a combination of post #1 and post #2 as a group of Sonar users trying to share a broader message with the good folks at Cakewalk. Technically, the actual PDF version of the letter sent is located here: http://www.daw.me/SonarWorkflowTop10Letter.pdf (see post #249 on page 9 of this thread for more info).

For me, the difference is in the community aspect of the effort. I'm not saying other feature requests are less important for them to consider -- I hope they take every feature request very seriously -- but when a community comes together to support a basic concept ( the letter, post #1 ) and the actual list ( post #2 ) and then formats it in a physical "business correspondence" with XX number of signatures, then we send six hard copies via priority mail to Cakewalk executives, it becomes something slightly different in my mind. Yes, it's still a letter, a thread, a feature request list, but it is also a formal business exchange between a company and a group of its customers.

So in that sense, all I'm saying about an "acknowledgment" is merely within the common norms of business activity in any business when dealing with a formal business exchange/communication. I personally don't need one... has nothing to do with an individual. And I'm trying to be very clear that no one is "demanding" a response (I know, a tricky word, not meant negatively or as a misinterpretation of what you originally stated). But I don't find that it's a "strange or puzzling expectation" on anyone's part to receive standard business correspondence due to a formal business exchange/communication.

Sure, if we sent in a FR, and didn't hear anything back, I understand that's policy. Personally, I think Cakewalk should respond to every FR (even with a form email/letter) but again, I understand that's policy and I don't have a problem with that.

In the business world I'm part of, a *business letter* like this would be answered with another business letter -- basic business correspondence. That's all I'm saying. I'm not even saying they "won't" or "haven't" sent something. It could be in transit right now. In fact, I think they will send something, since Cakewalk appears to operate in many ways as a traditional business entity in the US. See my point #4 in my prior post. Again, if they don't reply to the business correspondence, then what really matters is still point #1, Sonar 9. That's all I'm saying. There are no negative feelings I'm trying to convey, and I'm not trying to be critical. It's an observation, coupled with an optimistic point of view that I think they'll respond soon. If they don't, I try to make clear in points 5, 6 and 7 that we should just see what happens with Sonar 9.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor this single point, since in the end, what really matters is what happens with Sonar 9. I'm not trying to change the tone from positive to negative at all (and I'm not saying you are saying that's what I'm doing), but I think we are now in the reasonable window of time for a "response" or an "acknowledgment" of some kind (even simply a "Thanks, guys, we appreciate the effort and we're seriously looking into it.") to the community in this particular case.

Now, if you and I see things differently with regard to this single point, I don't see that as a problem. We can simply disagree on this relatively minor issue and in the end will it make a difference? Not really, since we'll have all the response we could possibly ask for with Sonar 9.

So really, we're basically on the same page and we want the same things. Our perspectives and approaches have a few differences, but I believe that's okay. I completely respect if you see this differently. And like I mentioned earlier, I totally appreciate your comments and thoughts, and thank you for efforts of your own over the years. In the end I think this all makes for a better Sonar.

Best Regards,
James

CM;
I hope I can help sum up what Eratu is saying. Two things come to mind in context to the concern you have with your name being a part of this effort.
First its not the thread you are endorsing but the letter that is being sent. The ideas that it is proposing to be incorporated into Sonar only. This has nothing to do with what is written in posts here about other things. Also in a way you have already endorsed this by saying that you agree with what is being proposed. However, it is not, sort to speak, official because you wont allow your name to be placed among the other names on that letter. But your name is here on this thread.

Second we as members need to stick together as much as we can in showing solidarity when FRs are proposed. Together we have a strong voice that CW will listen to. But if we find that we can't support an FR for what ever reason then as part of this community we have a duty not to put obstacles in each others way.  I am not saying you are doing this but being passive is in a way when both Jose and Eratu have asked you to participate you in effect are being an obstacle. I know that is a very heavy thing to place on you and is also very unfair as well but I think you can see the connection in the logic.

What has been said here on this thread as far as mild bashing of CW has no impact on the letter what so ever. Those are the thoughts of people that no one here has any control over. They do not represent the letter or its contents. As I see it its a very separate issue entirely. You will not by allowing your name to go on that letter also associate it with what the posts of bashing are saying.

Maybe this doesn't sum up Eratu's post at all.

noiseboy


Put it this way - I'm still actively looking for a new DAW (tried and rejected Cubase) in part because I feel Cakewalk does not respond constructively to its community of users.  The silence in the response to this thread increases that feeling.  Obviously communication with their public here isn't a priority for them, and of course that's their call.  But I will be continuing to look elsewhere.

This post just makes me angry. This is a peer to peer forum that CW has said many times is not a means to communicate with CW. What is so darn hard to understand about this?

Just because a CW employee takes the time on occasion to interact is not a reason for anyone to think they are talking to CW when they post here. They are kind enough to come here but they are not obligated to do so. This is like talking to a friend thinking the President will hear.

Also demanding that they do is down right rude. We are in their house under their rules we need to be grateful that CW provides this place for our use. Demanding stuff as a guest in their house is not just bad manners but shows a real immaturity on the part of the poster.  Its bad behavior. 

You can demand all you want but no one need answer.

Jose I am very sorry if I took this thread off topic. That was not my intention. I don't care what a fellow chooses for a DAW. That is up to them. Its their money. I do however find it ridiculous when someone starts demanding things from CW. Asking yes demanding no.

Now back to the purpose of this thread which is to get as many Sonar users to sign up on the list as we can. 

BTW I too respect CM and his stance. He has every right to participate or not as he chooses. I also respect why he is reluctant as you Jose well know.

I am sorry for the interruption.

eratu

So really, we're basically on the same page and we want the same things. Our perspectives and approaches have a few differences, but I believe that's okay. I completely respect if you see this differently. And like I mentioned earlier, I totally appreciate your comments and thoughts, and thank you for efforts of your own over the years. In the end I think this all makes for a better Sonar.

Best Regards,
James

Cheers James. I agree "we're basically on the same page and we want the same things."  That is pretty much the best place to leave this particular discussion. :-)

You are a gentleman CM. Take care.

Whew! Gotta love social media! Where this thread goes, nobody knows!

Anyway, thank you all for handling the discussion with class and grace.

BTW, I'd love a floating event inspector too, or a keyboard-lock tool to allow me to attach keystrokes to a targeted window or tool, etc. One can mention a great macro recorder too. :) Anything to cut back dramatically on mouse usage! I often long for the old analog recording days when you could keep things simple and focus on the task at hand. Sometimes I'm overloaded with tools that require way too much clicking! Simplicity, efficiency, workflow!