mike_mccue


Hi Brandon,

I find this forum has been invaluable for me with regards to learning SONAR. Personally, I try to *trade* for help with SONAR by offering tips and advice about audio production. Info which I have learned from a lifetime of experience. The forum works like a big pay forward circle for me and the forum is vital to me as I continue to learn SONAR.

I sincerely hope you will consider this the next time you are speaking with someone who is advising you too dumb down and simplify SONAR while they remain unaware of the vast amount of help that they may receive here at the forum.

By my estimate it takes at least 3 years to master SONAR and that must seem humbling to seasoned musicians or engineers that are simply new to SONAR.  I sincerely feel that placating requests to make everything seem simple is a disservice to the potential that SONAR has always represented.

I hope this message finds you in an open minded mood and that you enjoy a great spring season.

very best regards,
mike

This is truth - anytime I have a question or have a brain lapse reference SONAR use I come to the forum and : bippty, boppy, boop - question answered; problem solved.

mike_mccue


Hi Brandon,

Thank you for you reply and for your having shared some insights with us.

Your comment, that many users you speak with are unaware of the forum, struck a nerve... and I would like to share an response with you.

You have mentioned to me previously that you have met many users, new users, and prospective users, who claim they find SONAR too complicated or too confusing.

I would like to suggest that there may be a correlation here.

Personally I know of no other program that requires as much knowledge to master and fully understand. I guess your direct competitors may be similar... but I don't anything outside of DAW environments that require so much knowledge and experience. A competent DAW operator must know music, acoustics, electronic audio, and basic sound production skills. Furthermore the operator has to have a mind suited to creating something from constituent parts. That's a serious list of qualifications.

I can hack my way around 3D Studio Max and Maya and produce video animation and game interiors. I can edit video in just about any editor. But, honestly I can't think of any other type or category of program that requires so much knowledge to utilize effectively as a DAW. I don't mean that to seem like a bad thing... I think it's great that Cakewalk and a few competitors are pushing the absolute limits of what we may regard as a single "Workstation" application in any field of endeavor.

And so, I wonder if the very people whom you speak to who claim that SONAR is too confusing, cluttered, or complicated are the very people who are not taking advantage of the opportunities to learn here at the Cakewalk forum.

I find this forum has been invaluable for me with regards to learning SONAR. Personally, I try to *trade* for help with SONAR by offering tips and advice about audio production. Info which I have learned from a lifetime of experience. The forum works like a big pay forward circle for me and the forum is vital to me as I continue to learn SONAR.

I sincerely hope you will consider this the next time you are speaking with someone who is advising you too dumb down and simplify SONAR while they remain unaware of the vast amount of help that they may receive here at the forum.

By my estimate it takes at least 3 years to master SONAR and that must seem humbling to seasoned musicians or engineers that are simply new to SONAR.  I sincerely feel that placating requests to make everything seem simple is a disservice to the potential that SONAR has always represented.

I hope this message finds you in an open minded mood and that you enjoy a great spring season.

very best regards,
mike

Hi Mike. Lots of good stuff here and I agree that mastering a DAW takes a very special skill set and actually makes it much easier to get by in other kinds of applications - as they often just require a subset of what you need to know to successfully work with a DAW.

I find myself espousing the virtues of the forum to practically every user I meet as an invaluable resource of information, help, and sometimes pure entertainment (or distraction?). Many times a user could have saved themselves long periods of frustration had they found their way here and just asked the community and tapped its collective wisdom.

But I would suggest some separation between this and the goal of making the user interface more streamlined, more immediate, and less overwhelming. I'm personally of the philosophy that clutter is not conducive to prolific creativity. Now sure everyone is different, but I think overall a clear, organized environment is the best starting point for any creative endeavor (and perhaps even in general).

Now in doing this, some will suggest that we have "dumbed down" the interface by removing some functionality. Some of these points are probably valid and some less so. The intent was never to dumb down the interface to appeal to newbs but instead to give creative poeple a more modern, organized and prolific workspace. Sometimes certain options and functionality are no longer relevant in the new paradigm. This can simply take some getting used to. Having said that there are valid points where perhaps too much customization is taken away in the first iteration of the design.

For instance:

1) I think it's arguable that perhaps we should build back some flexibility/customization into the Control Bar.
2) We should re-implement at least some of the color options.
3) Some customization of how the Smart Tool works would be nice.

These are just off the top of my head. I just want to assure everyone that Cakewalk does not have some master plan of making SONAR into a DAW-lite, of making it for the lowest common denominator and sacrificing power for the experienced user. What we strive for is to build an environment that has just the right amount of customization for the power user - in places where it matters - but to also offer a welcoming environment to new users and basically for anyone looking at the blank "canvas" and thinking, "okay I need to get this inspiration down while I'm in the moment".

Personally I think power and simplicity can co-exist in harmony and X1 is the stake in the ground towards that goal.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

Monkey23



I know that my current Cakewalk dealer has decided not to stock X1 (Producer, Studio, and Essential) but will order it for a customer as a "special order".

Who is your local dealer?

I wish development paid attention to bugs in the forum like you do sales opportunity Brandon.  ;)

A1MixMan

For instance:
 
1) I think it's arguable that perhaps we should build back some flexibility/customization into the Control Bar.
 
2) We should re-implement at least some of the color options.
 
3) Some customization of how the Smart Tool works would be nice.

 
Hey Brandon, those are my top 3 as well. . . . 
 
 
 

These would be great enhancements ... glad to hear you're thinking this way. If there was also some sizing considerations for us laptop users, that would be awesome!

@ Brandon

We appreciate it and are looking for it to happen with CW...

rscain


Well said, stratman, I'm in the same situation almost exactly and I think that's a major reason for my lack of problems with X1; I also was lucky enough to be able to install it on a brand new dedicated pc with nothing else to interfere with the operation. And with the exception of Izotope Ozone and the bbe maximizer I'm using only the plugs that shipped with SONAR. I really feel for all the folks having critical issues and I hope X1b brings them good results. Having clients who depend on you , facing a deadline, and dealing with a lot of crashes and such would be a nightmare, I'm sure.

And thanks for the input Brandon, nice to know you guys are thinking about us.

I have Ozone, Alloy and Kontakt-pretty common plugs-otherwise all CW also. And still my old relieable M Audio AP2496 (2 synced together) But that will change very soon :-)
I too feel bad for the folks that have issues. I hope all gets fixed for everyone- I deal with other software and networks all day (still freelance as a M$ Cert Tech)-and their is nothing worse than show stopping issues, or just issues period.
I remain optomistic.

I think we don't represent most Sonar users at all.  As an example I have a piece of photography software and regularly visit 3 forums about using it.  The 3 forums all have different personalities and offer everything from tips to answers to requests for fixes/features to the hysteric rants (Why did *** ruin my pictures? This software is ****  actual title.)  So at a recent day-long training about the software, with about 40-50 people I asked 8-10 what they thought of the software and everyone said it was great software.  In my photography club several people use the same software I do and they love it as well.  BTW as to Cakewalkites being "more knowledgeable" the photographers in my club and at the training are very serious.  I would call them photography "nuts" (in a good way) with several being professionals and about half of them making at least some money from photography.  If you think it is hard to sell music, try selling photos when everybody has a digital camera.  So I think the majority of people who use Sonar like it and do not bother with this forum. 

rjt


I think we don't represent most Sonar users at all.  As an example I have a piece of photography software and regularly visit 3 forums about using it.  The 3 forums all have different personalities and offer everything from tips to answers to requests for fixes/features to the hysteric rants (Why did *** ruin my pictures? This software is ****  actual title.)  So at a recent day-long training about the software, with about 40-50 people I asked 8-10 what they thought of the software and everyone said it was great software.  In my photography club several people use the same software I do and they love it as well.  BTW as to Cakewalkites being "more knowledgeable" the photographers in my club and at the training are very serious.  I would call them photography "nuts" (in a good way) with several being professionals and about half of them making at least some money from photography.  If you think it is hard to sell music, try selling photos when everybody has a digital camera.  So I think the majority of people who use Sonar like it and do not bother with this forum. 

I taught the zone system as a student instructor at my university because my photography professors thought it was too difficult to explain. Luckily 20-30 extra people left the university with knowledge of the zone system. I learned the zone system in high school from a person who enjoyed teaching photography.

Recently I made some inquiries about T factor for SLR lenses and learned that the vast majority of photographers don't acknowledge it's existence.  The subject had come up while I was conversing with a stills guy on a film set... I've personally known that person to be a professional photgrapher, (who owns a 5,000 sf studio) for 15 years but he didn't know about T factor and I was trying to find some reference material for him to review.

What I learned is that many photographers think they know a whole bunch... in a field where there's not that much to know... and are still mesmerized by the idea that the craft is complicated.

IMO, Photography is a very simple craft compared to audio production.


best regards,
mike

mike_mccue


Brandon,
You the best!!!

best regards,
mike

And just what am I McCute? Chopped liver?
 

Crg


We are only bits and peices of a whole we have never seen.

That's true on a cosmic scale, as well, I think.  Maybe.  Could be.  Probably not.  Forget it, the analogy sucks.

mike_mccue

IMO, Photography is a very simple craft compared to audio production. 

At first I thought "nah that can't be right", but the more I think about it, the more I agree.  In terms of cost of gear, they can be similar, but in terms of the mechanics of it, that's most likely very true. I'll leave the "artistry" alone, though I think it takes less effort to "do" photography as well.  

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

10Ten



1. Make Audio Snap do what it did in 8.5.3

This should be in X1b

2. Give us back the superior 8.5 quick grouping

What's better about the 8.5 QG functionality?

3. Give us back the tools that used to be in the TV headers

Which tools do you miss?

4. Make the AE more gapless

Considering the discussion in another thread I'd be surprised if this isn't something we'll be looking at.

and if you have time:
clip archiving.

Can you explain?

Then....
give us some actual modern tools so we can collaborate with people over the internet. Versioning, a "check out" system, ability to look a t a folder, see what is missing and just add those files. You get the picture.

Would definitley be cool.

QG in 8.5 was easy and persistent. Once the group was created nothing else had to be done to use the groups controls. YOu also cold select and work with other tracks as the group stayed. All better than X1.

Clip archiving: Let's say you are recording drums and you do 4 takes. Now you have 4 lanes of recording sitting on 15 tracks. That is 60 wav files in your memory. In previous Sonar versions the only options available were to delete or move things to archive takes and remove them from memory until they were edited comped. I would like to see the ability to just right click on a take/clip or even a selection group and archive it. Should be easy to do as the functionality already exists in Sonar and it would allow the removal of unneeded clips from RAM making the audio engine run smoother and be less prone to drop outs. Two birds. One stone.

Then when that is done....
Remove muted clips from RAM like every version of Logic has done.

10Ten

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

10Ten



1. Make Audio Snap do what it did in 8.5.3

This should be in X1b

2. Give us back the superior 8.5 quick grouping

What's better about the 8.5 QG functionality?

3. Give us back the tools that used to be in the TV headers

Which tools do you miss?

4. Make the AE more gapless

Considering the discussion in another thread I'd be surprised if this isn't something we'll be looking at.

and if you have time:
clip archiving.

Can you explain?

Then....
give us some actual modern tools so we can collaborate with people over the internet. Versioning, a "check out" system, ability to look a t a folder, see what is missing and just add those files. You get the picture.

Would definitley be cool.

QG in 8.5 was easy and persistent. Once the group was created nothing else had to be done to use the groups controls. YOu also cold select and work with other tracks as the group stayed. All better than X1.

Quick Groups only require you to hold CTRL when using them and selecting QGs in 8.5 required using those very tiny and very fiddly corners on the tracks, that most poeple had no idea were even there. Slecting them us much easier in X1 IMO. And QGs were never really intended to act as permanent or semi-permanant groups. However, we can probably find a way to create a happy medium that will satisfy the best of both worlds.

Clip archiving: Let's say you are recording drums and you do 4 takes. Now you have 4 lanes of recording sitting on 15 tracks. That is 60 wav files in your memory. In previous Sonar versions the only options available were to delete or move things to archive takes and remove them from memory until they were edited comped. I would like to see the ability to just right click on a take/clip or even a selection group and archive it. Should be easy to do as the functionality already exists in Sonar and it would allow the removal of unneeded clips from RAM making the audio engine run smoother and be less prone to drop outs. Two birds. One stone.

These files would be streaming from the drive and not in RAM unless they are Groove Clips.

Then when that is done....
Remove muted clips from RAM like every version of Logic has done.

Muted clips still play (albeit unheard) but they stream from disc and shouldn't reside in RAM.

Either way, archiving clips could be a cool thing, but I think as drives and computers are faster it makes less reasonable sense to do so as time and technology marches on.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

10Ten

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

10Ten



1. Make Audio Snap do what it did in 8.5.3

This should be in X1b

2. Give us back the superior 8.5 quick grouping

What's better about the 8.5 QG functionality?

3. Give us back the tools that used to be in the TV headers

Which tools do you miss?

4. Make the AE more gapless

Considering the discussion in another thread I'd be surprised if this isn't something we'll be looking at.

and if you have time:
clip archiving.

Can you explain?

Then....
give us some actual modern tools so we can collaborate with people over the internet. Versioning, a "check out" system, ability to look a t a folder, see what is missing and just add those files. You get the picture.

Would definitley be cool.

QG in 8.5 was easy and persistent. Once the group was created nothing else had to be done to use the groups controls. YOu also cold select and work with other tracks as the group stayed. All better than X1.

Quick Groups only require you to hold CTRL when using them and selecting QGs in 8.5 required using those very tiny and very fiddly corners on the tracks, that most poeple had no idea were even there. Slecting them us much easier in X1 IMO. And QGs were never really intended to act as permanent or semi-permanant groups. However, we can probably find a way to create a happy medium that will satisfy the best of both worlds.

Clip archiving: Let's say you are recording drums and you do 4 takes. Now you have 4 lanes of recording sitting on 15 tracks. That is 60 wav files in your memory. In previous Sonar versions the only options available were to delete or move things to archive takes and remove them from memory until they were edited comped. I would like to see the ability to just right click on a take/clip or even a selection group and archive it. Should be easy to do as the functionality already exists in Sonar and it would allow the removal of unneeded clips from RAM making the audio engine run smoother and be less prone to drop outs. Two birds. One stone.

These files would be streaming from the drive and not in RAM unless they are Groove Clips.

Then when that is done....
Remove muted clips from RAM like every version of Logic has done.

Muted clips still play (albeit unheard) but they stream from disc and shouldn't reside in RAM.

Either way, archiving clips could be a cool thing, but I think as drives and computers are faster it makes less reasonable sense to do so as time and technology marches on.

If all that is true why do Sonar projects take up 500 and 600 MB of RAM for audio only projects? Whereever they are being streamed from, there is no reason for them to be there if they are muted. CPUS and Drives are fast enough to find them and stream them from a disc after they are unmuted. I don't think anyone would complain about a couple of ms of lag on unmute. If muting took the clip out the stream (which makes sense on a DVD or Bluray because there is no ability to seek the additional file) there would be no need to "archive" them as they would already be "archived" from a streaming perspective. All I know is that even on a powerful computer as you get 3 or 4 drum takes done, Sonar becomes more an more fidgety. If the clip group could be right clicked and archived (or simply auto muted as the new takes was started) it would expand the usability of Sonar as a tracker by 100%.

Brandon,

I just want to say something to you (it might sound like a backhanded compliment and maybe that is as it should be)... but I want to commend you.. I am in the process of learning another DAW and have said as much on this forum but you and you alone are the only one I see from Cakewalk that even remotely reminds me of what a great company Cakewalk has been and what a great piece of software Sonar has been up to this point..

It is very cool to see you interact with this board - WITHOUT SEEMING TO BE IN A DEFENSIVE POSTURE REGARDING X1 and whatever criticisms/ praises it is receiving..

I for one think it is very refreshing regarding this release...might I suggest your colleagues take a look at how you are interacting with people on this board and maybe glean a little bit from it? In my opinion... if they did so we might see a little more patience and less "emotion" from some quarters of the user base...

Understand how hard you guys have worked.. just think you are taking the right approach (passionate but open minded) with your communications and you should be "publicly" commended...and maybe your colleagues should take notes ;0)

Peace 

3. Give us back the tools that used to be in the TV headers
Brandon: Which tools do you miss?

-The invert polarity button.

-The interleave button. why do I need to pop open the inspector to access those buttons? More steps, more eye moving, reduced 'flow'.  What was so wrong about them being in the header? Sure, leave them out if you must to reduce 'clutter' for the new user, but give me the option to have them if I want them. Isn't that what the widget/track control manager is for?

-Enough room in the text fields and FX bin to see the info.  See the difference: