Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 07:39:47
(permalink)
I'm curious -- do you think his comments are untrue? Or do you think his comments warrant some attenion on the part of CW? I'm not going to dismiss the OP's comments... But I just wanted to point out several things (off the top of my head) that *have* improved since Sonar 5. They're "small/simple" things that make using Sonar much nicer. - Native VST plugin support (no VST>DirectX wrapper)
- ASIO support that allows changing buffer sizes/settings without having to close Sonar
- Ultra low latency playback is a whole lot more robust (running heavy loads at 64-sample ASIO buffer sizes or smaller)
From here on out, I don't think we're going too see many "revolutionary" DAW features. Rather, there will be small changes/improvements. IMO, You can examine most of the major DAW apps (and plugins) and say that the last several upgrades have been a little "lite/lean" or not all that exciting. ie: Look at the last two Komplete upgrades.  I like Komplete... and I bought the upgrades... but (for existing users) they're not a major change. Small refinements on an existing theme... Look at ProTools 10. 32Bit Float support??? Welcome to the year 2000!
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 07:51:48
(permalink)
There's also AudioSnap that was new in Sonar 6, that was a pretty significant new feature.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
A V Man
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2005/10/26 21:00:41
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 07:58:53
(permalink)
Thank you John and Jim for reminding me that there ARE real improvments in X1 over Sonar 5.
Now if we could also have back those features that will be missed and others that I have wished for for years now. Perhaps I should have mentioned them sooner but I was too shy to ask.
John you are correct - the file size problem had nothing to do with audio being stored in the project file but it was a real problem that has made some of my first hours using X1 sheer hell, and still nobody has yet suggested how such an issue might be fixed without resorting to an older version of Sonar to de-clutter the project file.
|
trimph1
Max Output Level: -12 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6348
- Joined: 2010/09/07 19:20:06
- Location: London ON
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:05:58
(permalink)
I'd be thinking of submitting the file to CW to see what they could make of it.
As it is, there are some big improvements in X1 that really make things a lot easier for me...screensets being one of them. I found reading Scott Garrigus' book as well as some of the Groove3 vids really helped me understand the program...
The space you have will always be exceeded in direct proportion to the amount of stuff you have...Thornton's Postulate. Bushpianos
|
A V Man
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2005/10/26 21:00:41
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:21:36
(permalink)
I don't think i need to submit the file to CW, the problem is easily reproducible. Just follow the steps I mentioned above and see for yourself. Then then try and make the file smaller again! Maybe Scotts book or the vids mention a way to do it?
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:22:58
(permalink)
A V Man
Thank you John and Jim for reminding me that there ARE real improvments in X1 over Sonar 5.
Now if we could also have back those features that will be missed and others that I have wished for for years now. Perhaps I should have mentioned them sooner but I was too shy to ask.
John you are correct - the file size problem had nothing to do with audio being stored in the project file but it was a real problem that has made some of my first hours using X1 sheer hell, and still nobody has yet suggested how such an issue might be fixed without resorting to an older version of Sonar to de-clutter the project file.
Do any of those projects use audiosnap? If not I would contact CW. Something is amiss. I hope things turn out OK for you.
|
A V Man
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2005/10/26 21:00:41
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:36:00
(permalink)
*** Do any of those projects use audiosnap? If not I would contact CW. Something is amiss. I hope things turn out OK for you.
LOL it was audiosnap that was causing the problem, the crucial thing was though that the projencs aren't using audiosnap, just that it was turned on for a second and then turned off again. Result... a hideous monster file!
I am pleased to report that after cleaning the file by opening and saving in Sonar 5 my problem is fixed, my project file is now under 1MB and saving it takes approximately 0.3 seconds.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:36:50
(permalink)
don't think i need to submit the file to CW, the problem is easily reproducible. Just follow the steps I mentioned above and see for yourself. Then then try and make the file smaller again! I would suggest making a copy of the CWP, bouncing down all audio tracks with transients to new tracks, then removing those original tracks (with transients). Is this new version with just the bounced down versions a lot smaller? I believe transients are stored in the CWP, and if you have roughly 20 hours of audio that would be *a lot* of transients!
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
A V Man
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2005/10/26 21:00:41
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:45:05
(permalink)
Steve, I'm sure a bounce down version of the CWP with transient clips deleted would be much smaller but I am not ready to bounce down anything in this project yet. Opening the proj with Sonar 5 cleaned out all the transient data. I lost the clip grouping data too but that'll only cost me an hours work to fix.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:49:24
(permalink)
A V Man
*** Do any of those projects use audiosnap? If not I would contact CW. Something is amiss. I hope things turn out OK for you.
LOL it was audiosnap that was causing the problem, the crucial thing was though that the projencs aren't using audiosnap, just that it was turned on for a second and then turned off again. Result... a hideous monster file!
I am pleased to report that after cleaning the file by opening and saving in Sonar 5 my problem is fixed, my project file is now under 1MB and saving it takes approximately 0.3 seconds.
See, stick with us and your problems will go away. Sort of. LOL  I'm glad you have it working as it should. If you ask questions here we can answer. I say this because I went back to reread your posts and its hard to respond to all the issues you are encountering. However, you ask a question and its much easier to answer. That is what we do here. If I can't answer it there will be others that can. Any rate, good going for getting that file size fixed.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 08:54:45
(permalink)
Steve, I'm sure a bounce down version of the CWP with transient clips deleted would be much smaller but I am not ready to bounce down anything in this project yet. Opening the proj with Sonar 5 cleaned out all the transient data. I lost the clip grouping data too but that'll only cost me an hours work to fix. Yes... that's because SONAR 5 doesn't include AudioSnap - introduced in v6 - which is what generates those transients. This is actually a fairly normal SONAR behavior, where opening a project in an older version that doesn't have new feature, and saving it, will effectively remove whatever that feature does. In this case it's transients. I'm not currently at my DAW but I think you can disable the transients within any version since v6. But if so I'm completely drawing a blank how... 
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 09:03:31
(permalink)
AudioSnap does indeed generate some extra data, but 410mb's worth would be unusual.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
A V Man
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2005/10/26 21:00:41
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 09:26:28
(permalink)
Yes... that's because SONAR 5 doesn't include AudioSnap - introduced in v6 Correct! AudioSnap does indeed generate some extra data, but 410mb's worth would be unusual. Also correct but perhaps not so unusual for a very large project. To put this into perspective the audio folder for this project contains 53.4GB of recordings.
|
trimph1
Max Output Level: -12 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6348
- Joined: 2010/09/07 19:20:06
- Location: London ON
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 09:30:12
(permalink)
That is good that you cleaned that up though. I have seen audiosnap play hob with some files here but nowhere near as big as yours got.
The space you have will always be exceeded in direct proportion to the amount of stuff you have...Thornton's Postulate. Bushpianos
|
Jon Con
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 275
- Joined: 2006/04/17 06:37:07
- Location: South Wales
- Status: offline
Re:FEATURE REQUESTS - Unimpressed with X1 - Where is the Upgrade?
2012/04/23 11:24:03
(permalink)
Over the last year or so I had Sonar files generate a similar thing with file size tumours. THere were a couple of projects that were up the 100-200 mb region that, at the time I could not explain at all. Looking back at the sessions, these files were usually the ones where I had done a lot of drum editing, manually going through the kit and replaced certain hits with a sampled hit taken from the players file or had to do extensive editing due to poor playing (sometimes sessions become salvage operations). I had used audio snap from time to time but found it to be a massive waste of time when it came to processing the edits when I can be just as effective with, split, move and crossfade.
The way I had sonar setup was that I had autosave enabled every 5 or 10 minutes and also had previous versions of Sonar so on one instance where the session wasn't loading correctly, I was able to call up an autosaved session or an earlier saved session file from the previous edit point.
|