X2b Status

I dont have any crashes with sonar X2a, but I agree on Take lanes, please remove this horrible function!

BluerecordingStudios


I dont have any crashes with sonar X2a, but I agree on Take lanes, please remove this horrible function!

going backwards is never progress.... Are take lanes perfect?..nope, can they be improved?.. yes.. Horrible?..oh please.

I jolly well hope they're working on automation as well, particularly the ability to custom label automation lanes (or at least label them correctly). Currently, if you're automating an effect in an FX chain, Sonar doesn't even label the lane with the name of the effect you're automating. Major hassle. 

It is certainly an exercise in patience. We're all aching for the next release or update, and I certainly hope X2 isn't simply abandoned for X3, until some of its own kinks etc are worked out. Surely they don't want X2 to be a black-eye release. X1d still has some issues, but you can't argue that at least it was worked on to that degree and relatively stable as a result.

I feel Lanes can fairly easily be improved without too much recoding. Colors and buttons are key here. I really like the idea of labeling each Automation envelope. That's a pretty neat idea. 

redbarchetta

brconflict


I feel Lanes can fairly easily be improved without too much recoding. Colors and buttons are key here. I really like the idea of labeling each Automation envelope. That's a pretty neat idea. 

I think having the ability to color code in general is key.
Would really like to be able to color code the entire fader strip. 

Totally. I listed my top recommendations for Lanes in the Topic: "Orientation: What I think is wrong with Lanes" 

brconflict


I feel Lanes can fairly easily be improved without too much recoding. Colors and buttons are key here. I really like the idea of labeling each Automation envelope. That's a pretty neat idea. 

I myself would like to think like this as well but with coding, we know very little of what is really going on because once you re-code one thing, 50 other things are changed.
and then those 50 commands need re-coding, and the chain just continues.
 
lets hope for the best on that one though :)

I'll tell you what: I'd love to get a bunch of folks who say they have problems and those who say they do not have problems in a lab. Just hard to determine if what problems are legit or not. So many combinations of hardware/software that it is just mind-numbing.

Being a software engineer for a software product and a consumer of software products, I can see this from both sides.  Sometimes you have to release software (and its new features) earlier than what you like in order to meet time to market demands.  Given this competitive reality, you must release software with some known bugs and some unknown bugs (that your testing in the lab has not yet revealed).  The goal is to introduce new features/functions, improve performance and minimize both known and unknown bugs.  All the while, not creating new bugs.  And meeting the release schedules on time.  It is challenging to say the least - balancing these tradeoffs.  Good software companies balances these tradeoffs qualitatively and quantitatively. 

Now on other side of coin, as a consumer, I would prefer new features that are great, great performance and bug free.  Knowing that is not possible, I still set the bar high.  I think Cakewalk, from my perspective has done a good job and managing the complexity releasing software, including not setting expectation of what will or will not be in a release too early - which always puts engineering into a difficult "box".

And my last point, with "software-only" applications (not turn-key), the software vendor has no control over the OS environment the software will be running in out in the "field".  I can tell you, in the software product I work on, 90% is problem/issue reports, once investigated turn out to be a Windows OS environmental problem - not the vendor software.  The best a software vendor can do is provide good documentation as to what the OS system / interface requirements are and explain implications of not having a solid platform on which your running the software.  Still, you have many customers that either don't or can't build and tune up an appropriate platform for the softwares "intended use".  And sometimes, these customers falsely blame the actually software, when in fact it is their platform that is messed up.  It drives up crazy, but we know this is not much we can do about it - out of our "control boundaries"

Sorry for long message....And I know "track lanes" is not a good example.  That feature should probably have never been released to the field.

Peace Out,  Dan

hockeyjx


I'll tell you what: I'd love to get a bunch of folks who say they have problems and those who say they do not have problems in a lab. Just hard to determine if what problems are legit or not. So many combinations of hardware/software that it is just mind-numbing.

ya i found that if i want to use X2 i go up to my kids room on his baby quad core. i call it.
 X2 runs flawlessly on the cheaper rig and hates my overkill home studio. so i have been out of the topic due to complete loss of brainmatter over why this is. so il just say,,IT IS WHAT IT IS<see ya on x3 forums,that better have nothing close to lanes on X2 and il buy it still,