Honestly, most Cubase users are not Mac users, and folks running VEpro slaves are not running OSX for that.
 
The problems most folks complain about with Sonar are
 
1. No expression maps. Big problem.
2. Video handling.
 
Those two items are often cited for why folks do their mockups on Cubase and maybe mix down to protools if they need their project in that format for the production studio.
 
IMO, it is a conceit that these things are not important and that it is only  a Mac vs pc thing that forces a lot of pros and those aspiring to work on projects involving film, possibly working with a real orchestra for part of the final product, and so on ... to look to Cubase.  It is the DAw of choice in that market segment.
 
Chances are if they are using Cubase now, they are not coming to Sonar, but Sonar drives away film and game composers by not taking their workflow considerations seriously.
 
 

lingyai
I know he's revered, and does seem like a nice guy, but I get far less from his "lessons" than I do from, say, Graham at the Recording Revolution or the lesser-known but superb instructor Bobby Owsinski.  

Yes Graham at Recording Revolution is excellent, you always come away from his tutorials with something useful to think about. I especially liked his little series where he mixed an album with a DAW he wasn't familiar with on crappy headphones in a noisy Starbucks. 
 
Bobby Owsinski is also excellent, watched a couple of his courses on Lynda. There's another guy on Lynda who is well worth a watch, Brian Lee White. He's this kind of young nerdy hipster type but his courses on EQ and compression are fantastic, I watched those all the way through when I was just starting out and learned the foundations of mixing from them.
 
There's another couple of YouTube channels I like - MixbusTV with David G - a lot of his tutorials give you a completely different angle on familiar subjects and make you think about approaching things in ways you never thought of. He has some really unique ideas. And if you're into electronic styles, then Point Blank Music on YouTube has a number of extremely insightful videos on mixing EDM, some of which are upwards of an hour long. 

John T

John
I'm not sure what one expects. Is it that we want people to bow down when we mention the DAW we use?

I want people to bow before I've said anything. Just as soon as I walk in the room.

i ike to carry a bugle, and play a little riff before entering a room

So You Want a Little Respect While Using SONAR ?  
Just Go out and bust You're  A$$ and Win A few Grammys .  
that's what it's gonna take , 
 
Kenny 

Anderton
 
And Cakewalk has done tutorials in the past. This gives you not only a tutorial on mixing in SONAR, but the files needed to go through the tutorial and learn how to do by yourself instead of just watching someone else say how they do things.
 

 
Craig, I downloaded the files, expecting the guide would be included in the download, but it wasn't -- there are only the Sonar files and the audio files. Then I noticed that the page starts off by thanking for already having downloaded the guide. I googled "Mixing with ProChannel in SONAR X3 Producer guide from Disc Makers" but no joy. Is the guide itself still available? 

joel77
GearSlutz has it's uses: they're just few and far between.

That's what my wife's bird thinks every time we change the cage paper.

KPerry
I'd argue the 3 most important gaps for SONAR in terms of getting more credible are:

1 - Performance. It shouldn't be the be all and end all but, like cars having great 0-60 figures, it matters. SONAR needs a decent audio/VST performance boost so it can compare favourably with others (which it doesn't in the unfortunately commonly quoted performance tests).

2 - Compatability. There are issues with VST compatability still - it's not bad, but there do appear to be more issues with SONAR than other hosts from reading various forums, and SONAR's methods seem to be criticised (wasn't it Acoustica who recently said that SONAR's thread handling was just wrong which caused problems with their plug-in?). This then reflects in plug-in companies testing with SONAR, which reflects on its popularity which reflects on companies testing with SONAR which... Same applies to control surfaces: Cakewalk should bite the bullet and write the surface dll'ls, not expect the controller manufacturer to do (I'm pretty sure that it's usually the DAW manufacturer who does this).

3 - Reliability. This is a tricky one as - apart from the rare issue I've seen, usually due to plug-in compatability and the Bakers erring on the side of caution with dealing with errant plug-ins - SONAR is no less stable than anything else (hell, I get Windows Explorer crashing more than SONAR!). But there's a perception of it being more unstable, crashing more easily and being more picky about hardware than other platforms. On shared forums, I don't see reports of DAW x stuttering and glitching with one or two audio tracks: I do see these reports about SONAR. This probably ties in with performance above to some extent.

All of these are technical issues that have a direct impact on word of mouth marketing and advertising (especially point 2). They're non-trivial to solve or they would have been, but would need a technical, marketing and charm (money?) offensive to address - eg. Pick a big plug-in manufacturer who doesn't currently support SONAR and work with them to get is supported, learn from them why SONAR is 'difficult', pay for their testing/technical expertise and re-write parts of the code accordingly.

Financial investment in plug-ins is probably greater than that in the DAW itself (all of which are ridiculously cheap for what they offer), so a professional (in terms of making a living from recording/mixing) will choose to follow the plug-ins rather than the DAW, so getting that relationship and compatability right is probably the first step.

1) Link to quote please ?

2) Plugins apart from buggy plugins work perfectly well. Just because Acoustica says so (URL?) does to mean to say it is true. Frankly I doubt it when thousands of plugins work perfectly well..

3) Sonar is reliable. It's people's systems that are unreliable. What is Cakewalk going to do gag these people who scream at great heights crying wolf? Admittedly there are still very visible bugs that need addressing (how long must I go on about that) but they aren't stability issues.

As far as paying a plugin manufacturer to see what issues are, they are already in partnerships I suspect they would have got plenty of feedback, like in these forums, I doubt a financial incentive will make any difference.

Oftentimes I read these posts solely for their comedic content.  Some entertainment.  What I don't understand are some posters complaining about this or that.  All I know is that Sonar does everything I need a DAW to do.  Boom.  I have had no real problems I couldn't solve in the almost 20 years I've been using Sonar/ProAudio.  I have sat through every video on the web I think regarding mixing and mastering, and I just haven't found anything that someone else was doing on their DAW that was not possible in Sonar.  Maybe my lack of ****ing about Sonar is because I read the manual, all 1400+ pages?  I buy the Garrigus books; they make a good on-the-John read, too.  I study.  I have manuals for all my plugins.  And when I get stuck, I post for help.  I also keep a notebook.  I would HATE for anything bad to happen to Cakewalk because I have a tremendous intellectual investment in Sonar.

Doktor Avalanche

3) Sonar is reliable. It's people's systems that are unreliable. What is Cakewalk going to do gag these people who scream at great heights crying wolf? 

lingyai
You're a stickler for evidence, Doctor A. So where is the evidence for this?  What, you've checked everyone's systems before coming to this sweeping, unqualified conclusion? Pray do share your findings. This kind of reflexive, blame-the-pilot dismissal does nothing whatsoever to persuade people who run other software fine on their machines that they should stick with or even try Sonar. Your assertion does not make the problems they see with their own eyes simply vanish. It's like an errant member of a marching band protesting, "Everyone else was out of step but me". Gagging people crying wolf? Please. Ok, say what you wish, but I hope CW itself doesn't want to send this message out, otherwise it'll end up a very isolated product, blaming the market for its failure.  

The evidence is here in front of your nose. When Sonar has been unstable in the past we would have one thread every few hours saying it crashes with THE SAME symptoms, and similar steps to reproduce. The 64 bit precision issue was the last big one I remember. For a recent example check the number of start screen threads and posts in these forums, please note the start screen issue is NOT a stability issue.

What we do have here every so often are people posting about entirely different issues. 95% of the time we get to the bottom of it. The other 5% is generally because the OP might not be confident enough to follow diagnostic steps. At the end of the day there is generally always a resolution.. and Sonar generally is not the problem. Basically do the math...

Doktor Avalanche

Doktor Avalanche

3) Sonar is reliable. It's people's systems that are unreliable. What is Cakewalk going to do gag these people who scream at great heights crying wolf? 

lingyai
You're a stickler for evidence, Doctor A. So where is the evidence for this?  What, you've checked everyone's systems before coming to this sweeping, unqualified conclusion? Pray do share your findings. This kind of reflexive, blame-the-pilot dismissal does nothing whatsoever to persuade people who run other software fine on their machines that they should stick with or even try Sonar. Your assertion does not make the problems they see with their own eyes simply vanish. It's like an errant member of a marching band protesting, "Everyone else was out of step but me". Gagging people crying wolf? Please. Ok, say what you wish, but I hope CW itself doesn't want to send this message out, otherwise it'll end up a very isolated product, blaming the market for its failure.  

The evidence is here in front of your nose. When Sonar has been unstable in the past we would have one thread every few hours saying it crashes with THE SAME symptoms, and similar steps to reproduce. The 64 bit precision issue was the last big one I remember. For a recent example check the number of start screen threads and posts in these forums, please note the start screen issue is NOT a stability issue.

What we do have here every so often are people posting about entirely different issues. 95% of the time we get to the bottom of it. The other 5% is generally because the OP might not be confident enough to follow diagnostic steps. At the end of the day there is generally always a resolution.. and Sonar generally is not the problem. Basically do the math...

 
Yes, the evidence, via this Google search, is indeed right under my nose:
 
"sonar platinum crash 2015 site:forum.cakewalk.com"
 
I guess you see what you want to see.  

lingyai
 
I say without any sarcasm, I'm glad Sonar does all you need it to. But you should recognize that others might not be tempted by software which requires a 20 year intellectual investment, including reading all of the manual (now at 2,188 pages for Hopkinton) and Scott's book (X3 Power runs 400 pages), not to mention frequent monitoring of the forum to keep abreast of the latest version's bugs if they install every update. It does get to be a bit much sometimes.   

Uh... no. I've been using Sonar about 4 years now and have been able to use it semi-professionally over the past year. I also go into a lot more crazy crap than 90% of users will ever need to even touch on (nor want to).
 
This is coming from someone who had NO freaking clue when it came to recording, DAWs or even computers when I started. I used my last DAW as a glorified multi track recorder so I had a SLIGHT head start as far as basic transport and light editing but essentially when I started I started with NO knowledge.
 
AAAAND most of the past four years has more been learning about basic production stuff such as MIDI, mixing, third party software, wrangling with the technical aspects of computers, etc.
 
Sonar ain't easy to learn or use, that's for sure but let's not get carried away. It's not a 20 year education. It's an ongoing education maybe as the new features come out and as the user's needs change but if you can't figure out how to put together a tune after a year or so I gotta think there is something else going on.
 
Cripes. I had two simple songs put together and posted in the Songs forum within about a month of installing Sonar for the first time. They weren't anything special and it was brain busting but I did it.
 
Sonar may be slightly more complex than other platforms but if it takes you twenty years to learn Sonar it'll likely take you as long to learn any other DAW.
 
And the Reference Guide is exactly that... a REFERENCE. You learn to get around and do the basics, learn the terminology, etc (via the tutorials at the start and the infor here on the site) then REFER to the 2000+ page Guide to dig in deeper when needed.
 
I did attempt to read all the way through the RG at first and got to about page 750. Now I'm not a dumblef*ck about it. I do what I need to and if I get lost I research the problem (and ask the forum).
 
You don't NEED to know every godamned little corner of the program to be productive.
 
Hyperbole is useless.

Buy a groove3 subscription if you have issues learning Sonar. It is NOT unnecessarily complicated. I do agree there are areas of the UI that need simplifying but that's the same as any DAW. Sonar is a full recording facility for a reason , if you expecting to behave like a basic four track recorder you probably need to buy one of those instead. Sound engineering is a professional skill, same with any fullly fledged DAW, don't expect be an expert overnight, certainly do not expect plug and play... I tell you though it is much simpler than being in front of a real recording studio with a proper analogue desk.

Anderton

lingyai
But you should recognize that others might not be tempted by software which requires a 20 year intellectual investment, including reading all of the manual (now at 2,188 pages for Hopkinton)

 
Took me 20 years to learn a recording studio. I'm still learning...I don't think I'll ever stop learning, nor do I want to stop learning. 
 
ANY modern DAW is in the same order of magnitude of complexity as SONAR. Learning a program is not a digital process where you know nothing, and then 20 years later you know everything.
 
Learning is an accumulation of knowledge over time.
 
If you just want to use SONAR like a glorified ADAT and record and play back 8 tracks, you can do that in a day. If you want to know every nuance of every potential recording technique, virtual instrument, and plug-in, it will take a lot longer. If you want to learn how to apply those tools in a musical way, then you'll never stop learning. A piano has only 88 velocity-sensitive switches and three pedals, but learning how to apply them in a musical way takes a lifetime.
 

and Scott's book (X3 Power runs 400 pages)

 
It's up to you to determine the rate at which you accumulate knowledge. I've never read Scott's book. If I was just getting started and wanted to learn at a faster rate, I probably would. Or, I just might jump in, start using SONAR, and learn about new features only as needed ("Sure you be nice to save different mixes...hmm, time to learn about mix recall").
 
 

not to mention frequent monitoring of the forum to keep abreast of the latest version's bugs if they install every update. 

 
You're overthinking this. Just install the update. Odds are you won't run into a deal-breaker bug. If you do, roll back to the previous version.
 
SONAR is a virtual recording studio. Back in the day no one expected to walk into Record Plant and know how to do everything within a few weeks, or even months.

Just a few points, then I'll give the exchange a breather.
 
I'm not expecting to master Sonar overnight or even a few months, as the sheer number of features would preclude that. Nor am I even talking about "mastering" it -- rather I was responding to the post in which failing to read the full manual + Scott's book seemed to be deemed the culprit for the very many problems you can read about here each month.
 
I do in fact use these materials along the lines you suggest, i.e., when I've got a problem or get curious about something. Scott's excellent book is usually my first port of call, followed by the manual, followed by, if neccessary, this forum.
 
As for "overthinking" re the updates -- you've said that to me before, and I again I'll respectfully disagree. I've never been a bleeding-edge early adopter, as such folks often end up as unwitting / unwilling beta-testers. This is an IT fact of life -- just look at Windows 10 and El Capitan, to cite the two examples closest to the top of my head. And now especially, I have a shedload of projects I am working through right now, most of which involve relatively (technically speaking) straightforward tasks of audio comping and mixing. I've encountered some quirks, none of which are show-stoppers as I've either developed workarounds or just been able to tolerate them. Nothing I'm using my setup for is broke so I'm not about to tempt fate and "fix" anything; and none of the new features in the update since I subscribed are important to me, so I'll stay put for now, thanks.
 
Because -- well, you can read as well I can -- there are indeed problems aplenty reported, many by non-newbies, with Ipswich, including things like Sonar not starting, which would piss me off plenty. Please let's not minimise, dismiss or deny them. Even if the odds are slim that they would affect me (how would you know that, by the way?), I've nothing to gain at the moment by rocking the boat.  Yes, perhaps I could seek help here with any problems, and in the worse case, roll back. But these things take *time* which I'd rather devote to the tasks at hand. But I could easily see losing a morning, or a day, or two, getting to the bottom of whatever the jack-in-the-box has in store or me. No thanks -- not me, not now.
 
Truth be told, I'm not interested in constantly evolving software. Updates are optional. It would take a really killer feature, like a 21st century score editor, to get me to move from where I am. Call me a scaredy-cat or a non-True Believer, fine.  This is after all what I do for fun. My hobby is, as far as possible, music made with the help software, rather than music software.