Harpo
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 544
- Joined: 2004/08/13 17:14:52
- Location: Boston, Ma. / Long Island, N.Y.
- Status: offline
Why Not Re-Name It??
Hi All
This is just a blurb.
I have been following this XI forum for months now. Listening and sharing empathy to all the many Sonar users who continued to have frustrating experiences with this new DAW.
I haven't made the leap from Sonar 8.5.3 to the X1 DAW specifically because I've learned a long time ago ........."If it ain't broke, Don't try to fix it"!
IMHO This is precisely what Cakewalk has done!
They tried to fix a perfectly (or near perfect) DAW that millions of users were very satisfied with, invested countless hours of their time to learn, and also developed an allegiance around not only the DAW itself, but the Cakewalk company as a whole.
With this in mind, I find it baffleing why Cakewalk would decide to develop an experimental DAW and name it the same thing as a DAW that has already made its mark!! Why not call it something else other than "Sonar"?? (i.e. Honda has a Civic, an Accord, Odyssey and so forth) It's okay to have more than one "top of the line" DAWS, correct??
This would have given them a whole new customer base, and those who were commited to the original Sonar DAW would not feel (as I do) "forced" into buying a product that they might not feel the need to buy.
Cakewalk could have continued to upgrade the original Sonar DAW and in the meantime still work on the deficiencies of the new one without losing any of thier customer base!!
To me, that sounds a whole lot more practical.
I won't spend a dime on this DAW until I feel 1) It Works!! 2) I feel I "need" it because my original DAW is not giving me what I need in relation to the progression of my workflow. and 3) I see a more aggresive approach from Cakewalk to the needs of those experiencing problems with the new X1 DAW.
As I said, I empathize with those who are frustrated around this DAW, as well as those who are continuing to work with 8.5.3 and are wishing that there could have been more attention spent on the development of this wonderful DAW.
Well, Hopefully Cakewalk will learn a thing or two from this experience.
That's it for now.
The wonderful world of (not so) Big Business! You gotta love it!
Harpo
*Sonar PE 8.5.3 - Sonar X1 & X2 Producer Expanded
|
HumbleNoise
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2004/01/04 12:53:50
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 09:50:48
(permalink)
Harpo
Hi All
This is just a blurb.
I have been following this XI forum for months now. Listening and sharing empathy to all the many Sonar users who continued to have frustrating experiences with this new DAW.
I haven't made the leap from Sonar 8.5.3 to the X1 DAW specifically because I've learned a long time ago ........."If it ain't broke, Don't try to fix it"!
IMHO This is precisely what Cakewalk has done!
They tried to fix a perfectly (or near perfect) DAW that millions of users were very satisfied with, invested countless hours of their time to learn, and also developed an allegiance around not only the DAW itself, but the Cakewalk company as a whole.
With this in mind, I find it baffleing why Cakewalk would decide to develop an experimental DAW and name it the same thing as a DAW that has already made its mark!! Why not call it something else other than "Sonar"?? (i.e. Honda has a Civic, an Accord, Odyssey and so forth) It's okay to have more than one "top of the line" DAWS, correct??
This would have given them a whole new customer base, and those who were commited to the original Sonar DAW would not feel (as I do) "forced" into buying a product that they might not feel the need to buy.
Cakewalk could have continued to upgrade the original Sonar DAW and in the meantime still work on the deficiencies of the new one without losing any of thier customer base!!
To me, that sounds a whole lot more practical.
I won't spend a dime on this DAW until I feel 1) It Works!! 2) I feel I "need" it because my original DAW is not giving me what I need in relation to the progression of my workflow. and 3) I see a more aggresive approach from Cakewalk to the needs of those experiencing problems with the new X1 DAW.
Totally understand your beef and it's easy to ignore all the users who are happy with the change and all the users who are having no problems at all with X1b and if you're happy with 8.53 why would you change? I totally get it. Not sure what would get you to 'feel' that it works, but if you keep reading this forum, whose sole purpose is to field and solve technical problems, you may never feel that it works.
As I said, I empathize with those who are frustrated around this DAW, as well as those who are continuing to work with 8.5.3 and are wishing that there could have been more attention spent on the development of this wonderful DAW.
Again many people aren't frustrated at all and many are very happy with the new direction. Just sayin, and again there's no reason for you to change or upgrade and it is possible you'd like X1 too but you may never know which is cool. More than one user has moved on because of the change, more than one user has switched to X1 because of the change.
Well, Hopefully Cakewalk will learn a thing or two from this experience.
+1000 on that
That's it for now.
The wonderful world of (not so) Big Business! You gotta love it!
Harpo
Humbly Yours Larry Sonar X2 x64 MAudio 2496 Yamaha MG 12/4 Roland XV-88 Intel MB with Q6600 and 4 GB Ram NVidia 9800 GTX Windows 7 x64 Home Premium
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 10:13:48
(permalink)
Larry another great post. I agree with all you say.
Harpo many of us like X1 a lot more then 8.5.3. If you base all you know on what you only read here and disregard all those of us that have had no or very few problems with X1 then all you are doing is getting a very biased view and not the reality that X1 offers.
So many posts here are about really not having read the manual or finding that something doesn't work as it did in the old Sonar. Things like the smart tool is not working when it is they just don't know yet how to use it.
It is not the huge learning curve some say it is either. Yes many things have been changed but X1 still does all that 8 did and some things more.
As to you saying X1 is experimental I think you are dead wrong there. You have no evidence to back that up or even suggest it. So why apply that to X1?
One thing is for sure you really have no way to know just what X1 is really like without using it.
|
celius
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 106
- Joined: 2004/09/06 10:48:13
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 10:37:21
(permalink)
I strongly agree with Humble Noise. Reading this forum would discourage anyone to use Sonar. It really seems an extremely buggy and poor DAW, while, in my opinion and experience, this is simply not true. As Humble noise pointed out, most of the satisfied customers, simply don't access the forum to say "Hey, Sonar matrix view never crashed" or "Sonar ACT worked fine for me". What's more, I feel that reading through the manual before posting "This feature doesn't work" or "Not possible to...:" would be really a honest behaviour.
I use Sonar extensively for my music production and I have to say that it is very stable and usable. I have used many other DAWs (and it was a big mistake, because now, when I use Sonar, i find myself missing that Cubase or Ableton Live feature and vice versa) and I can honestly say that Sonar doesn't crash more than the others and it doesn't offer less than the others.
What seems strange to me is that this forum seemed plenty of happy users with Sonar versions that were years late with respect to other DAWS such as Logic and Cubase (if you compared Sonar 2 with Cubase SX 2.2 it was ridiculously late. No vst integration, no freezing of the tracks and many other missing features...), while now, that Sonar is on pair with those, it seems that anyone is not satisfied.
So, if you are in search of a fair sonar review, simply don't look at this forum.
obviously all that could be solved immediately if Cakewalk posted a trial version.
I'm not saying that Sonar is perfect, and I think that it could be improved in many areas, expecially with respect to some really hurting strictness (for example having only a global snap to grid, instead of having two: one for clip view and the other for the piano roll, or having to choose"tempo effect" it an effect has to be synchronous with DAW, or having to configure an effect as a synth to make it receive midi)
|
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13146
- Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 10:41:56
(permalink)
harpo..im from boston mass as well and i can tell you this..this is sonar..no way around it..like every product things get better..it would be unfair of you to try and decribe what you think of this daw without owning it and using it on at least a everty other day basis.thought i know youve listened to the empathy..have you also opene your eyes to the rave reviews by other users?..this daw is one of the best products out right now..although it has a few kinks in the hose..it is very powerful with many usess. i might be tourched by saying this but imo i believe the users who loved 8/5/3 so much just out right refuse to except this daw so they will just complain about anything untill they feel cake will discontinue x1 and bring back a daw that came out over 2 years ago.ive herd some of the most ridicules things.ive also seen users blame x1 for there troubles and then a few days later realize they didnt update their soundcard drivers.i think sonar went out on a limb to produce a groundbreaking into the future daw..that takes ballz..and i love it.it has some real issues no doubt.but for me half the problems i read i have no idea what they are talking about.and id like to think i use a very broad veriety of things in x1.audio,midi,autosnap.exc. what more could they have done to 8/5/3 that would have made us awww.they looked into the future and delievered imo. i was over my drummers house this weekend who has the new cubase.hes having all kinds of issues..me and my guitarist both use x1..he replied..i wish i was too.so we all think the grass is greener somewhere else..well its not always that way.x1 is like a women..you get out of it what you put into it.. i also think your post is very narrow as to you wont spend a dime on it till you know it works..how do you know what works?you dont own it...and if you continue to live in that world youll be living in the past not the future. there are many..many accounts of happy users here with little to none for problems..maybe your just choosing to read the posts that are telling you otherwise.take a listen to people songs done on x1..mine are all done in x1..you know how many crashes??..none.
post edited by chuckebaby - 2011/04/05 10:46:57
Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64 Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GBFocusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 11:15:27
(permalink)
What's in a name...the original X1 (and X1a, X1b, X1c and X1d).
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 12:41:51
(permalink)
celius
What seems strange to me is that this forum seemed plenty of happy users with Sonar versions that were years late with respect to other DAWS such as Logic and Cubase (if you compared Sonar 2 with Cubase SX 2.2 it was ridiculously late. No vst integration, no freezing of the tracks and many other missing features...), while now, that Sonar is on pair with those, it seems that anyone is not satisfied.
To be fair there are still areas in which Sonar is quite inferior to Logic an Cubase such as notation, video, VST3...
|
celius
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 106
- Joined: 2004/09/06 10:48:13
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 13:25:17
(permalink)
vintagevibe
celius
What seems strange to me is that this forum seemed plenty of happy users with Sonar versions that were years late with respect to other DAWS such as Logic and Cubase (if you compared Sonar 2 with Cubase SX 2.2 it was ridiculously late. No vst integration, no freezing of the tracks and many other missing features...), while now, that Sonar is on pair with those, it seems that anyone is not satisfied.
To be fair there are still areas in which Sonar is quite inferior to Logic an Cubase such as notation, video, VST3...
I know. In my opinion Cubase is better for: 1. Midi editing (expecially with the per note editing possible in version 6) 2. overall look is more professional and clean with respect to the great greyness 3. working with video 4. notation 5. VST3 Sonar is better for: 1. Matrix view (and this is a really great plus, it allows experimenting song structure in real time, à la Ableton Live) 2. Pro Channel 3. Bundled content 4. the new UI is really a time saver. You expand, collapse drag every window.... 5. CPU usage is smarter. In any case what counts is that you can produce a professional sounding song in both Sonar and Cubase. What's more I think that looking too much at what DAW is better really prevents me from sitting at my keyboard and making music, that's what the daw is for.
|
simpleman
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 262
- Joined: 2009/05/16 01:20:33
- Location: Down to Earth
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/05 14:19:16
(permalink)
According to that non-authorized (but very believable) survey which a forum member ran a few days ago, most users are positive about the Sonar X1 product. Quite a few users are truthfully upset but it boils down to LOUD SHOUTING more than anything else. Why be so condescending asks why Cubase didn’t change its name; because it is so “superior” in your opinion?
I think calling it Sonar X from Sonar 8 was quite a rebranding effort enough.
|
Harpo
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 544
- Joined: 2004/08/13 17:14:52
- Location: Boston, Ma. / Long Island, N.Y.
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/06 17:41:19
(permalink)
I'll try to keep this short. On the contrary.... I think people using this forum can gain a lot of information about the status of a particular piece of software. Also, Just because someone has an issue with the software doesn't mean it's because they didn't read the manual, or are otherwise not properly informed as to how to use the software. Sometimes the software is extremely "buggy", as you guys have already pointed out. I personally like to wiegh the experiences of "all" those that post comments on this forum about the pros and cons of the software. Then and only then do I make my decision. Some people might have the money to "take chances" and just "go for it". I do not. And......Of course it's "experimental"! Like all the bold moves made by Cakewalk with their products, they have been on an experimental basis. You see one feature in Sonar 4, and it's no longer available in 6, for example. Sometimes it's because they've improved that feature and sometimes it's because they (or we) didn't find a need for it. Either way it was still "Experimental" If the sales of X1 did not live up to the expectaions of the "boys upstairs", do you think it would still be on the shelves after say 1 or 2 years of Cakewalk not making any financial gains?? Not! I do not own this version of Sonar correct, but that's why I research. I check out all the videos, read reviews, listen to people on this website who have first hand experience, and then make my decision. This has been my process since about Sonar 3, and guess what? I've never been dissapointed when I chose to buy or not to buy a specific version of Sonar! Never!! I don't have to own a product in order to have an idea of it's strengths and weaknesses. I can successfully base it on other peoples experiences, whether it be Cakewalk's, Sound on Sound Magazine, Scott Garrigus, or Joe Schmoe who's a member of this website. "Information is information" in my book. Finally, as I said. If Cakewalk would've named this product something other than Sonar, I believe a lot more people would be open to it and it's deficiencies if they didn't feel like they were "forced" into buying a new product. What I mean by that is simply this. There will not be a Sonar 8.5.4! And personally I would love to see it! Sonar X1 is a different beast, period! I might at some point check out the XI, but as I said before, not before the level of complaints diminish somewhat. So if it means that you people who just love XI so much it tickles the hair on you butts have to start posting your experiences more on this website, then by all means Please Do!! That helps people like myself get a less bias view of the product, and would encourage me personally to maybe take the leap a little sooner. (Maybe) Harpo (Not so short, huh? Sorry)
post edited by Harpo - 2011/04/06 17:42:32
*Sonar PE 8.5.3 - Sonar X1 & X2 Producer Expanded
|
BEATZM1D10T
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 285
- Joined: 2009/05/22 12:43:50
- Location: Mid-West
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/06 17:48:11
(permalink)
celius
vintagevibe
celius
What seems strange to me is that this forum seemed plenty of happy users with Sonar versions that were years late with respect to other DAWS such as Logic and Cubase (if you compared Sonar 2 with Cubase SX 2.2 it was ridiculously late. No vst integration, no freezing of the tracks and many other missing features...), while now, that Sonar is on pair with those, it seems that anyone is not satisfied.
To be fair there are still areas in which Sonar is quite inferior to Logic an Cubase such as notation, video, VST3...
I know. In my opinion Cubase is better for:
1. Midi editing (expecially with the per note editing possible in version 6)
2. overall look is more professional and clean with respect to the great greyness
3. working with video
4. notation
5. VST3
Sonar is better for:
1. Matrix view (and this is a really great plus, it allows experimenting song structure in real time, à la Ableton Live)
2. Pro Channel
3. Bundled content
4. the new UI is really a time saver. You expand, collapse drag every window....
5. CPU usage is smarter.
In any case what counts is that you can produce a professional sounding song in both Sonar and Cubase. What's more I think that looking too much at what DAW is better really prevents me from sitting at my keyboard and making music, that's what the daw is for.
Really VST3 makes it better? I guess I missed where VST3 was an awesome huge big thing we all needed. It's just Stein/Yamaha flexing it's muscle. There's really no benefit to the end-user either as everything can be done in VST2.4 for the most part. Maybe in 5 years it'll be a bullet point, but right now, nah.
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/06 23:57:48
(permalink)
Harpo
or Joe Schmoe who's a member of this website. I wish I had used that forum name. BTW, I am happy with X1/a/b and have been a Cakewalk user (and own every version) since PA4. But hey, maybe I'm too easy to please. 
|
mattox82
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 173
- Joined: 2011/03/29 04:28:09
- Location: Perth, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 00:17:18
(permalink)
Harpo
Hi All
This is just a blurb.
I have been following this XI forum for months now. Listening and sharing empathy to all the many Sonar users who continued to have frustrating experiences with this new DAW.
I haven't made the leap from Sonar 8.5.3 to the X1 DAW specifically because I've learned a long time ago ........."If it ain't broke, Don't try to fix it"!
IMHO This is precisely what Cakewalk has done!
They tried to fix a perfectly (or near perfect) DAW that millions of users were very satisfied with, invested countless hours of their time to learn, and also developed an allegiance around not only the DAW itself, but the Cakewalk company as a whole.
With this in mind, I find it baffleing why Cakewalk would decide to develop an experimental DAW and name it the same thing as a DAW that has already made its mark!! Why not call it something else other than "Sonar"?? (i.e. Honda has a Civic, an Accord, Odyssey and so forth) It's okay to have more than one "top of the line" DAWS, correct??
This would have given them a whole new customer base, and those who were commited to the original Sonar DAW would not feel (as I do) "forced" into buying a product that they might not feel the need to buy.
Cakewalk could have continued to upgrade the original Sonar DAW and in the meantime still work on the deficiencies of the new one without losing any of thier customer base!!
To me, that sounds a whole lot more practical.
I won't spend a dime on this DAW until I feel 1) It Works!! 2) I feel I "need" it because my original DAW is not giving me what I need in relation to the progression of my workflow. and 3) I see a more aggresive approach from Cakewalk to the needs of those experiencing problems with the new X1 DAW.
As I said, I empathize with those who are frustrated around this DAW, as well as those who are continuing to work with 8.5.3 and are wishing that there could have been more attention spent on the development of this wonderful DAW.
Well, Hopefully Cakewalk will learn a thing or two from this experience.
That's it for now.
The wonderful world of (not so) Big Business! You gotta love it!
Harpo
Sonar X1 has worked perfectly for me since I bought it last week, no crashes, no issues. Already finished a few songs which I'm going to test out when I DJ this weekend, initial feedback from some of my mates have been that my new stuff sounds a lot better. If the interface had stayed as it was with 8.5.3 I would have never bought X1. The 8.5.3 GUI was a mess and I rekon it would have scared off a heap of potential customers. Software evolves and changes if 8.5.3 works perfectly for you then stay there, is there even a need to upgrade? For all the complainers on the forums there are probably 10x more people making music without a problem.
|
Somerset
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 634
- Joined: 2004/10/20 06:07:27
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 00:17:31
(permalink)
bitflipper
What's in a name...the original X1 (and X1a, X1b, X1c and X1d).
So if the original Bell X-1 was nicknamed "Glamorous Glennis" (from your link it was named that by the test pilot after his wife) what is the nickname for Sonar X-1?
|
Somerset
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 634
- Joined: 2004/10/20 06:07:27
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 00:23:34
(permalink)
Harpo
I'll try to keep this short.
On the contrary.... I think people using this forum can gain a lot of information about the status of a particular piece of software.
Also, Just because someone has an issue with the software doesn't mean it's because they didn't read the manual, or are otherwise not properly informed as to how to use the software. Sometimes the software is extremely "buggy", as you guys have already pointed out.
I personally like to wiegh the experiences of "all" those that post comments on this forum about the pros and cons of the software. Then and only then do I make my decision.
Some people might have the money to "take chances" and just "go for it". I do not.
And......Of course it's "experimental"!
Like all the bold moves made by Cakewalk with their products, they have been on an experimental basis.
You see one feature in Sonar 4, and it's no longer available in 6, for example. Sometimes it's because they've improved that feature and sometimes it's because they (or we) didn't find a need for it. Either way it was still "Experimental"
If the sales of X1 did not live up to the expectaions of the "boys upstairs", do you think it would still be on the shelves after say 1 or 2 years of Cakewalk not making any financial gains?? Not!
I do not own this version of Sonar correct, but that's why I research. I check out all the videos, read reviews, listen to people on this website who have first hand experience, and then make my decision.
This has been my process since about Sonar 3, and guess what? I've never been dissapointed when I chose to buy or not to buy a specific version of Sonar! Never!!
I don't have to own a product in order to have an idea of it's strengths and weaknesses. I can successfully base it on other peoples experiences, whether it be Cakewalk's, Sound on Sound Magazine, Scott Garrigus, or Joe Schmoe who's a member of this website. "Information is information" in my book.
Finally, as I said. If Cakewalk would've named this product something other than Sonar, I believe a lot more people would be open to it and it's deficiencies if they didn't feel like they were "forced" into buying a new product.
What I mean by that is simply this. There will not be a Sonar 8.5.4! And personally I would love to see it! Sonar X1 is a different beast, period!
I might at some point check out the XI, but as I said before, not before the level of complaints diminish somewhat.
So if it means that you people who just love XI so much it tickles the hair on you butts have to start posting your experiences more on this website, then by all means Please Do!!
That helps people like myself get a less bias view of the product, and would encourage me personally to maybe take the leap a little sooner. (Maybe)
Harpo
(Not so short, huh? Sorry)
OK - I like Sonar X1. I'm not sure if it's the best name, but I guess now it is what it is. To me it still feels a lot like Sonar of old in many respects. It's been quite stable for me. I miss the color customisation, but thanks to Panu and his mods I am relatively happy with the way it looks. A number of users have had some serious issues, but hopefully most of those issues have now been resolved (maybe not quite yet, but getting close).
|
DeeS
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 228
- Joined: 2009/09/16 12:29:37
- Location: Deep South Mississippi
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 00:35:32
(permalink)
Somerset
bitflipper
What's in a name...the original X1 (and X1a, X1b, X1c and X1d).
So if the original Bell X-1 was nicknamed "Glamorous Glennis" (from your link it was named that by the test pilot after his wife) what is the nickname for Sonar X-1?
Inglorius Basdurd
Vista Business x64 Service pack 2 - Intel Xeon X5472 @ 3.0 GHz processors (2) Quad Core - 8.0 GB ram - Creative SB X-Fi - Nvidia Quadro 5600 - Sonar 8.5 & X1a Producer The problem with perfection is that it has no limits. Normally, once you obtain perfection, you realize how it could be better. David Gibson - The Art of Mixing
|
Somerset
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 634
- Joined: 2004/10/20 06:07:27
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 00:53:17
(permalink)
That seems a little harsh - although some would no doubt see it that way.
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 01:51:44
(permalink)
For the user who's software is the tools of trade rather than a hobby I find that I've over the years formed what I call alliances with the companies from whom I purchase software. I tend to buy all or most of their products as it is a way of supporting that company's future existance. It also means that I generally get to use tool sets that have similarities in GUI's and paradigms that give you a big legup in the learning stakes.
I generally buy all the updates too; even the paid ones. that's just the way it works best for me and helps me keep up with the advances in technology. With some exceptions most software is generally affordable for the user for whom audio/multimedia work is their livelihood. compare that cost to the top of the range hardware of years ago and I'm sure that many will agree.
My experience with X1 has been a night mare for 3 months now and I wish it had been different. I spent a lot of time at a signioficant cost both financial and frustration I still see this as a developmental cost that's part of my business and my personal choice. No one twists my arm to operate my business as I do.
knowing what I know perhaps I may have skipped X1 as I've not used it for one minute of money earning work but if I get stability out of it in this incarnation I will be familiar enough with its new ways of working that those changes wont be what stops me from using it as a regular tool of my work.
Currently SONAR 8.5.3 allows me to do much of what I need my DAW to do. I've always been one to use any new update of a program in parallel with the current working version until I'm satisified of my ability to use effectively in my work and that the version offers what I need and performs reliablly as a tool that may need to be used at any time. anything that doesn't meet those criterisa doesn't make it into my toolkit.
SONAR X1 has now made it into the role of "Tools in Parallel Development" with the view to using it fulltime. At the time it meets my established criteria SONAR 8.5.3 will be relegated to the "Previous" version and sit on the shelf.
So as to renaming SONAR X1 to something else I think (to the Original Poster) you need to understand that on the surface it seems llike a very new program but every where you look you see X1 connecting to the old codeprevious versions in a new "more efficient" way. Of course whether it is better is very subjective but certainly requires hands on experience to judge. I don't think that can be gleaned from other's posts and experiences.
Would I recommend X1; being honest I'm not too sure that I would. My experience has been atypical in its extreme and of course like and dislike of the GUI is subjective in part. Musos seem to have a lot of emotional attachment to tools that get used in work. I feel that with instruments but not so much with tools other than those from Cakewalk. I've invested a lot into user community and in turn it makes an atypical connection to the company which whle its hard to quantify does tug at your emotions especially when things go wrong.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
jabdo56
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 203
- Joined: 2004/02/25 18:44:48
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 01:52:23
(permalink)
My beef with X1 is that well documented, long standing bugs have once again been ignored in favor of adding more "features". The greatest workflow feature/improvement any application can boast is stable, bug-free operation.
|
grayzer
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 254
- Joined: 2003/11/07 07:12:09
- Location: IRELAND
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 02:41:23
(permalink)
I gotta disagree with you there on the documentation. I've made the move to X1, and I've found the reference guide to be excellent in helping me over the bumps in the road, andI also invested in Sonar X1 power with I've only dipped into. They are both comprehensive and very helpful (if they are used).
My personal xperience with X1 has been positive so far..but that's just me!
Please listen to my band's new (post-prog rock?!) songs at www.reclaimmusic.com all produced using sonar X1!!
|
garrigus
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8599
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:23:21
- Location: www.garrigus.com
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/07 11:36:54
(permalink)
|
Harpo
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 544
- Joined: 2004/08/13 17:14:52
- Location: Boston, Ma. / Long Island, N.Y.
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/09 04:07:02
(permalink)
Thank you all for your comments and your insight.
I just have to point out one of the purposes of forums like these is to share or acquire information (is it not?), whether you make is a decision to use that information is solely up to the individual, but the purpose remains.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Cakewalk basher. I feel that this is one of the best DAWS out there (and I own a few).
I thought it would be helpful to share my point of view on a couple of topics that could once again get me the feedback I needed to move (or not move) forward in my decision making process.
I'm continuing to reap rewards.
Thanks!!
Harpo
*Sonar PE 8.5.3 - Sonar X1 & X2 Producer Expanded
|
subtlearts
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2200
- Joined: 2006/01/10 05:59:21
- Location: Berlin
- Status: offline
Re:Why Not Re-Name It??
2011/04/09 06:12:27
(permalink)
Just to add another voice to this... not sure if it's needed, but so it goes.
I watched this release from the sidelines for a few months, I was working pretty well with 8.5 (been on board since Sonar 5) so I wasn't in a hurry even though the upgrade fee seemed very reasonable. I was kind of wary because of all the furor, and I wanted to try a demo first - the demo which has still not appeared, I'm really not sure why - how do they hope to get new users to fork over $400 without a test drive?
So I waited and gleaned what I could from the forum, and at a certain point it seemed to me that the people objecting to things were in large part saying the same things over and over again - which does not mean they do not have legitimate complaints, only that there was a lot of noise coming from that quarter but it wasn't necessarily because the thing was a terrible mess, just that those people were very vocal about those particular things. I wasn't sure if those things would affect me all that much, and it was hard to know without seeing it in action on my machine. Meanwhile, however, many other users seemed to be getting along just fine, so it struck me that it was likely not as much of a trainwreck as some were saying.
Then I saw a post about an LE version being distributed in a german-language keyboard magazine (KEYS). Since I live in Germany, I figured it was worth €5 to get the demo which CW for whatever reason still had not released into the wild, so I did that, and much to my surprise X1 turned out to be a really nice environment for me and my particular approach. I didn't find the learning curve so terrible, mostly it felt logical to me, and beyond the first layer of the interface it was very much still SONAR underneath. So I knew how those things worked, I just had to learn how to get to them. Contrary to what a number of users felt, to me many of the new ways of getting to things made more sense and it was worth ingraining them into habit. Again, this is not to belittle the concerns of those to whom the new interface is not a wonderful thing, but to me it is. I genuinely like it.
So I'm not necessarily saying I wish I hadn't waited, only that it really is impossible to come to a conclusion about this thing without giving it a whirl personally. I'm glad I did, but I realize that the LE version doesn't seem to be in many magazines, so it might not be possible for others to try before they buy. It seems like CW is making a real push into the market over here with this release, I hope it goes well for them, but it mystifies me that they would bother to spin up this trial version and not try to get it a lot more play. It did the trick for me.
|