Sonar X3 is featured in Computer Music Magazine April 2014 issue (202)

It seems like Sonar X3 has gained some attention and recognition from Computer Music Magazine based in UK. Back in issue 200 of CM magazine, CM had produced an article about Sonar X3 with 5 short tutorial videos. In this latest issue 202, Sonar X3 is featured again with a 5 page CM guide with 6 tutorial videos included. The article this time is of basic level that would be very helpdul to a Sonar X3 newbie. 
 
This is very exciting to me as a long CM magazine reader and Sonar user. I hope CM magazine will produced more advance level in depth tutorial in the near future.
 
For more info please check the link below.
 
http://www.musicradar.com/computermusic/computer-music-202-get-a-grip-on-dynamics-april-2014-595142
 
http://www.musicradar.com...tips-and-tricks-595517
 
 

Great. Sonar deserves a lot more positive attention :-)

When X1 was released CMM ran a great feature on it. Kept my interest up. That mag is still a superb ref for X3.
 
BTW loving every minute of X3!

Actually gentlemen, this article is a tutorial on Sonar X3. Which is actually very rare among music magazine and I thought this is worth mentioning. BTW, the only magazine that features Sonar tutorial on a regular basis is Sound on Sound magazine and it is written by our very dear Mr Anderton!

BJN
I don't want to be a kill buzz but mag articles are usually placed as the mag survives on Advertisement dollars isn't about to give any Advertising client a bad review. PESSIMISTIC!
 
But I will admit that I read reviews of products I have bought hopefully to reaffirm my purchase decision ! LOL
 
While it has been almost a year since I bought a mag. And about 30 years since my first over the years I observed a trend; last few years any review tended to be favorable.
 
Go back 10 or more years the reviews while still favorable would point out professional buyer shortfalls in greater detail and were a bit more choosey for want of a better term.
 
It is good X3 is getting a mention nonetheless !
 

 
This was an attitude I ran into often when my main work consisted of doing reviews. People would wonder why my reviews were generally favorable, even though there were often negative comments about specific features.
 
The answer is remarkably simple. Magazines don't pay all that well, so reviewers can often pitch particular products they want to review as a perq. Which scenario is more realistic:
 
"Hey, I just saw this really amazing plug-in at NAMM. I'd love to check it out. If you haven't slated a review for it, I want to do it!!"
 
or
 
"Hey, I just saw something at NAMM I thought was pretty stupid. Can I please spend a month of my life learning it and writing about it, only to likely never use it again?"
 
Another issue is that for me, reviews aren't about whether I like something or not. The object of a review IMHO should be to describe a product with such accuracy that someone can make an informed decision about whether it's something that would interest them or not. In that context, I think it's more helpful to identify good products and review why they're good in case their feature set would be useful for the reader.
 
I have done reviews where some people thought it was a really negative review (because I accurately described something that didn't fit their needs) while others thought it was a really positive review - because I accurately described something that did fit their needs. To me, that means I succeeded in writing a useful review.

 
 
Thanks for the plug !  Your timing is excellent. I just wrote my next column last night on some interesting applications for buses and sends. One of them relates to mastering and works very well in that context. I think it will probably appear in the June issue.




Will check it out. 

Anderton
 
The answer is remarkably simple. Magazines don't pay all that well, so reviewers can often pitch particular products they want to review as a perq. Which scenario is more realistic:
 
"Hey, I just saw this really amazing plug-in at NAMM. I'd love to check it out. If you haven't slated a review for it, I want to do it!!"
Another issue is that for me, reviews aren't about whether I like something or not. The object of a review IMHO should be to describe a product with such accuracy that someone can make an informed decision about whether it's something that would interest them or not. In that context, I think it's more helpful to identify good products and review why they're good in case their feature set would be useful for the reader.
 
I have done reviews where some people thought it was a really negative review (because I accurately described something that didn't fit their needs) while others thought it was a really positive review - because I accurately described something that did fit their needs. To me, that means I succeeded in writing a useful review.

What you say Craig seems to bare out.
 
I have read the occasional Audiophile mag and there are no holds barred in their reveiws.
 
Glad you have integrity with your critiques.