keith


My comments were only to point out the obvious question: How could X1 be such a huge step forward for some (you, for example), and at the exact same time be such a big step in the wrong direction for others?

How could some people like the color purple and others hate it?

How could some people love the snow and others not so much?

How could some people like the city other prefer the country?

How could some people like rock and others hate it?

How could some people like Reaper and other hate it?

Should I go on?

The answer is pretty easy. We all see things a little differently. We approach problems differently. We solve them differently. Some of us are visual, others not. That's what I mean by X1 fitting some brains and not others. EVERYTHING fits everyone's brain a little differently.

The bakers knew this I assume and will lose those customers whose brains do not work in the way the new interface demands and gain others whose brains work in the way the new interface allows. Pretty simple.

Hey Keith,

It's not a big deal and I get the gist of your analysis.  I just think you represented my statements crudely.  In general I'm referring to the aesthetics of X1, which I prefer over 8.5, as I've said.  Functionally, and in particular, I like and consider the following to be an improvement in no particular order:
1.  Access to effects in the media bay area tab
2.  The new way they've handled track layers.
3.  I like the implementation of hot-keys (I'm using them more than ever and it's saving me time).
4.  smart tools
5.  multi-dock (it helps me keep track of recently used tools and allows me to easily locate them when I'm drunk-j/k)
6.  screen sets

Overall, it's just a more intuitive experience for me and therefore an improvement.  I have some issues with it, but I expect they'll be fixed soon.

keith

UnderTow

That flexibility might look like a good thing but ultimately, someone at Cakewalk should have spent some serious time on working out the most logical and intuitive menu structures and shortcuts so that the users would never even think of wanting to customize those menus.

Here's one of the big problems, as I see it. You assume cake didn't go through that process. From my perspective, they did, and what you ended up with is X1.

I'm sure they did to a certain extent but it was clearly not enough as my little example shows. This might relate to a different topic: The Sonar product life cycle. If Cakewalk don't give themselves enough time to do things properly, they will end up with a less than optimal application. In turn this means having to lower the price and then they have even less time and resources for the next cycle. Etc.

Another approach would be to add less new features per product cycle but to spend more time on each individual feature. Either way, I think more thought and time should go into each decision.

 
So it was either "someone" with or without some targeted focus group providing usability feedback. Based on my own experience, I'm guessing they hired one of them High Priced Consultant Types.

I think it had more to do with lack of time. I could be wrong of course. Sure the ability of the people making the final decisions might also be part of the equation... Clearly they didn't hire me.

I don't say this entirely in jest. I spent one afternoon with X1 and managed to compile close to 75 suggestions on how to improve it.  These are not big and difficult things to implement (like adding envelope track lanes) but rather things like the right click menu shortcuts I mention in this thread. Some would have even been easier to implement than the way Cakewalk did things!

For instance I don't believe there is much point in having both a Move Tool and a Select Tool. The Select Tool is nearly pointless. Just call both tools together the Grab Tool and have it select clip sections when on the upper half of a track (Just like the Select Tool does now).

Also the Timing Tool makes little sense. It doesn't work on MIDI clips. It is unlikely to be used very often on Audio Clips. (Seriously, how often does one need to Time-Stretch Audio?) And you can already easily Time-Stretch by pressing CTRL while using the Smart Tool. You can move AudioSnap Transients with other tools. In other words, this tool does nothing really.

So now the Split Tool can have it's own button without changing the Control Bar layout or size.

So to resume we have the following Editing Tools left:

SMART | GRAB | TRIM | SPLIT |  DRAW | ERASE/MUTE

This is just a tiny part of my suggestions. I have a whole page discussing just the editing tools in the Track View Pane. Together they form what I think is a more comprehensive and intuitive set of tools for editing in Sonar. I came to these ideas after using X1 for about four hours and I spent a couple of hours properly writing the ideas down. So I suppose Cakewalk should be able to do that too, no?

UnderTow

Hmm. Not exactly "evidence", really.

DeeS,

Auto CAD is hardly number 1 because you can customize it. That's a very complex market dominated by Auto CAD for a thousand reasons other than the ability to customize it.

PT domiates the audio world but it has been posted that the interface is not that customizable.

Is PT more evidence of the need for a non-customizable interface?

Sonar can (in the future) do both set a standard AND add custom features depending on how much you want/need.

So the question is how much do you need?

Do you need the interface of 8.53 back so you can customize at will? Ain't happening.

Would a simple, custom "My Tools' module be enough?

If not what are you (and all the thread posters looking for in customization?

HumbleNoise


DeeS,

Auto CAD is hardly number 1 because you can customize it. That's a very complex market dominated by Auto CAD for a thousand reasons other than the ability to customize it.

PT domiates the audio world but it has been posted that the interface is not that customizable.

Is PT more evidence of the need for a non-customizable interface?

Sonar can (in the future) do both set a standard AND add custom features depending on how much you want/need.

So the question is how much do you need?

Do you need the interface of 8.53 back so you can customize at will? Ain't happening.

Would a simple, custom "My Tools' module be enough?

If not what are you (and all the thread posters looking for in customization?

If X1 could do all of the things that 8.5.3 could do, I wouldn't give a damn what they called it.

HumbleNoise


So again, what is it you'd like to see in X1? A return to 8.5's interface? Childish and unproductive.

What can be done with X1 to satisfy your customization needs? Nothing? And it's a deal breaker? Good bye.

For those who would like to see X1 add some customization what would that look like?

Anyone?

I'd like to see X1 do all the same things, have all the same buttons, have the same level of customization, and work as well as 8.5.3. It really isn't my fault that you like shiny to your own destruction.

yorolpal


I, for one, am not clammoring for a return to 8.5.3 and the abandonment of X1.  First, like Larry says above...that ain't happening.  And second I think that Sonar is "evolving" with X1 and not, as some would have it, "devolving".  Do I like everything about the new look and functionallity?  Lord-gawd No!!  But can I see the promise of the new look and functionallity?  Yes, definitely.  That said, I want Cake to put in just as much user customization as they possibly can into X1, 2, 3, etc... AND to finally fix a slew of bugs and inconsistencies that have plagued users for 4 and 5 iterations.  I also don't believe for a second that Cake is not listening...and learning...and already implementing.  And I would caution everyone who comes to the forum with the attitude of "geeze, I love X1 and don't have any issues with it...would you negative nellies stop moaning and complaining all the time" to sit down, take a breath and try to understand that not everyone works like they do and there are folks here with many different levels of expertise who have valid criticisms of X1 and the new direction of Sonar.  At the end of day (I knew I could work that crappy phrase in if I just kept yammering long enough) everyones input is important to the development and further refinement of Sonar.  But for me...I want all the customization they can dish out.  YMMV.

Well, if they stop controlling how you work, it will cease to be X1 in all but name. This was done because they believed that people didn't want choices and were into looks more than function. I have never seen this much dislike for a version of Sonar. People that were previously Cake's biggest defenders are now not planning on using Cake's premiere product. I would be a little concerned.

HumbleNoise


PT domiates the audio world but it has been posted that the interface is not that customizable.

Finally! Thank you!
 
I have sat in on so many PT sessions (as a guitar player) and I have always felt that way. PT is an industry standard because of it's standardization and closed architecture. Just like a MAC itself, you don't get a lot of choice. Take it, or buy something else! I find Logic to be like this as well, yet leaning a little more toward customization.
 
With computers you have:
MAC: Standardization
Windows/PC: Customization
Linux/Unix: Chaos to most, but by far the most customizable/flexible if you can manage it.
 
To me Sonar 8.5 felt more like Windows/PC. X1 feels more like MAC.
So who's right? Nobody! Some will like it, and some won't!

Good post Dee, good ideas and I bet we agree more than not.

I'm not that familiar with Sonar 4-8.5's development but was customization always a part of Sonar or did it evolve over time?

codamedia

10Ten

HumbleNoise


So again, what is it you'd like to see in X1? A return to 8.5's interface? Childish and unproductive.

What can be done with X1 to satisfy your customization needs? Nothing? And it's a deal breaker? Good bye.

For those who would like to see X1 add some customization what would that look like?

Anyone?

I'd like to see X1 do all the same things, have all the same buttons, have the same level of customization, and work as well as 8.5.3. It really isn't my fault that you like shiny to your own destruction.

So that leads me to ask? If you want it to be 8.5.3, why not just use 8.5.3? Since you make money from your studio, X1 will just become a $99.00 tax write off. The way you go on, it's as if this thing cost you a few G notes!

Another rude, "shut up" post. Awesome.

Hey Dee: Great that you mentioned "Autolisp" & "Cal".
I think the real difference here is that the userbase of AutoCad will take the time to make the most out of AutoSlip - while I think CAL fell by the wayside because nobody was using it. (well, nobody might be harsh, but very, very few. I bet most people here have no idea what that is)
 
AutoCad vs Any DAW! It's a completely different type of user! Creative yes - but (oh - this is going to get me in trouble - LOL) our education is "generaly" a little lower :) 

10Ten

codamedia

10Ten

HumbleNoise


So again, what is it you'd like to see in X1? A return to 8.5's interface? Childish and unproductive.

What can be done with X1 to satisfy your customization needs? Nothing? And it's a deal breaker? Good bye.

For those who would like to see X1 add some customization what would that look like?

Anyone?

I'd like to see X1 do all the same things, have all the same buttons, have the same level of customization, and work as well as 8.5.3. It really isn't my fault that you like shiny to your own destruction.

So that leads me to ask? If you want it to be 8.5.3, why not just use 8.5.3? Since you make money from your studio, X1 will just become a $99.00 tax write off. The way you go on, it's as if this thing cost you a few G notes!

Another rude, "shut up" post. Awesome.

Not meant to be :) 
Look - we differ in opinions, but I certainly don't mean anything to be personal.

Lynn

HumbleNoise


So again, what is it you'd like to see in X1? A return to 8.5's interface? Childish and unproductive.

What can be done with X1 to satisfy your customization needs? Nothing? And it's a deal breaker? Good bye.

For those who would like to see X1 add some customization what would that look like?

Anyone?

Larry, I like the new look of X1 just fine.  However, in previous versions one could right click in the control bar and customize it as much or as little as needed.  There is a number of features missing from the control bar menu that were in earlier versions.  Why not bring them back and let each user determine for themselves what their control bar contains?  If CW wants to limit the height of the control bar for aesthetic reasons or for more track real estate, fine, but let us users determine what's in the control bar as we were able to before.  I don't see how this would be too difficult to implement, or too much of a compromise with their design philosophy.  Anybody with me on this?
Carry on,
Lynn

That seems totally reasonable and it also seems like they could combine the X1 standards (basic control bar config) with some custom, user defined modules. All the modules? Best of both worlds?

Standardization is great for those who want their thinking and choices made for them.

EDIT: I should add that standardizing is a good idea in many situations, but not for software with so many features. Most modern software that is very complex has customization to one degree or another.