Gee, even as I'm typing one post, the cards and letters keep pouring in. Look, this is turning into a classic fanboi gang-up. To anyone who says they have no problems with Sonar, I believe you and am pleased for you. I'm not even saying I myself have major problems. (I have the Groove3 stuff by the way, though this is irrelevant).
 
Others, however, do have problems. You can read as well as I do. Move in a fact-free zone or not, your choice, and not my problem.
 
But to then switch tack and say "Yeah, but all the other DAWs do too" is not only inconsistent, but an irrelevant, not very subtle diversion. My focus is this DAW, the one I paid for. This forum's focus is this DAW. And this DAW has bugs, including freezes and crashes, unless all the posts about them here are made-up. If Sonar lacks bugs, why is there a steady stream of bug-fixes? (Unfortunately accompanied by new bugs).
 
Software developers who charge for their product should not be so thin-skinned. Is stating the fact really so heretical?  Starting to feel a bit like Scientology in here. Pouncing, especially by a company guy, at the mention of problems helps no one any favors. Shame as there are some quite helpful, even-tempered folks on this forum.
 
Anyway. Have good weekends.
 

lingyai
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.

 
But you're missing the point. Unlike El Capitan or iOS 9 here's nothing either permanent or obligatory about a SONAR update. Problem? Roll back - takes a minute or so. No problem? Keep going.
 

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.

 
No one is, but to be fair, do not minimize, dismiss, or deny all the people who are not having problems. Problem reports in the forum are a very small fraction of the user base.
 

Even if the odds are slim that they would affect me (how would you know that, by the way?)

 
As I said - try it and see if you encounter a problem.
 

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.

 
No need to lose time, rolling back takes a minute or so. 
 

Truth be told, I'm not interested in constantly evolving software. Updates are optional.

 
Exactly! They are optional. You can update every six months if you want. Or never. I just don't think it's a big deal to roll back if you encounter problems. It's simple and you do not need a manual to do it.
 

lingyai...
 
In that last post you admitted that you are not interested in new stuff and you only want to use the program as a hobby.
 
So why the heck are you upset about the complexities? Do you expect Sonar to dumb it down and lose their professional/more adventurous customers to suit your hobbiest workflow? Why even update if you are more comfortable with past versions?
 
Most importantly... why, as a hobbiest who is uninterested in new things or creating on an advanced/pro level, do you choose to rag on Sonar seemingly all the time?
 
Really for people who just want to futz around a bit it's not that hard to get the basic workflow down. You can use the Tutorials at the start of the manual to get to that level in about an hour as a complete beginner.
 
All you REALLY need to know is
 
a) How to set up your audio (and MIDI if you have them) devices (covered in the tuts)
 
b) Learn how to use the transport controls and arm tracks (covered in the tuts)
 
c) Insert synths (covered in the tuts)
 
d) Do basic editing in/have a basic understanding of the Track View and editing (covered in the tuts... somewhat but easy enough to study further)
 
e) Have a basic knowedge of a mixing console/the Console View (Fader/Pan/Input/Output... which IIRC are covered in the tuts)
 
e) Export your track (covered in the tuts)
 
From there you can use the Step Sequencer or PRV and/or just record into the program.
 
It's not that hard especially if you are using the mountain of softsynths include (those things basically mix themselves... all you gotta do is choose a preset).
 
Only when you start digging into advanced stuff do things get complex. So if you want to be the next Zappa or whatever the equivelent to Zappa is in electronica terms do things get whacky. For just poking around and having fun it works out of the box... like INSTANTLY.
 
In a lot of ways I WISH I was just out to goof around and have fun because I know I could have churned out a mountain of silly crap at this point. I want more so I learn more and study more.
 
I only kvetch when there is a SERIOUS limitation that needs to be addressed (and boy do I kvetch when I do).
 
You don't seem frustrated with the program. You seem frustrated with yourself and projecting it on the tools.
 
And as far as you taking the whole "ya'll just fanbois" stance... that's bullsh*t and you know it. You started this and you've been ragging for a while now. With your statements here it is obvious you are simply too lazy to do the work needed to get the results you want.
 
That or you're just simply trolling.
 
Either way, get off your azz and do something more productive with your time whether it be music or finding a new "hobby" that's more enjoyable for you.

Doktor Avalanche

KPerry
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).

1) Link to quote please ?

This, I think:
http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm
It is old. They removed Sonar from their new benchmarks (because it does not support Mac).
But Sonar didn't become more efficient. I believe X-series is even worse.
You can confirm this test results, just install Reaper demo and compare.
The difference is not big, but it exists.

Adq

Doktor Avalanche

KPerry
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).

1) Link to quote please ?

This, I think:
http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm
It is old. They removed Sonar from their new benchmarks (because it does not support Mac).
But Sonar didn't become more efficient. I believe X-series is even worse.
You can confirm this test results, just install Reaper demo and compare.
The difference is not big, but it exists.

Without up to date results this is merely an assumption. Platinum is a huge improvement imho. I'd like to see benchmarks on next month's as there is an issue right now. People with slow Platinum speeds should try going into preferences and disabling arm recording during playback monitoring, a regression issue with the new synth recording functionality one assumes...

Adq

Doktor Avalanche

KPerry
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).

1) Link to quote please ?

This, I think:
http://www.dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm
It is old. They removed Sonar from their new benchmarks (because it does not support Mac).
But Sonar didn't become more efficient. I believe X-series is even worse.
You can confirm this test results, just install Reaper demo and compare.
The difference is not big, but it exists.

I did not click the link but unless they did a comparison from X3 onward the results are invalid. X1 and X2 were a mess (I was screaming bloody murder by the end of the X2 cycle... it got ugly). All major problems went away with X3.
 
However Reaper is definitely a much more system friendly DAW. I'll even go as far as to say that Sonar, even now that it's much more stable, probably isn't the most stable amongst the top three or so (but I have no reference point in the past 5 years).
 
HOWEVER... the Sonar package is far more robust (more bang for the buck) and it's workflow/toolset is more of an "artists" package. As in it's something a musician would use to create... not necessarily what a tracking/mixing studio would use (primarily).
 
Reaper is indeed solid and works on almost anything but I could never work with it on a creative basis. I used to use Nuendo which I'd like to own again (or at least Cubase) but again... that is a very dry and sterile environment. The type of thing I'd really only use if I had a tracking room or maybe for specific features/compatibility with other studios.
 
I've said this a million times on here. I looked at ALL the major DAWs when I was looking to upgrade my recording stuff. I was making the shift from a live artist with tons of bands/musician's around me and a bandroom I could track in to being a sh*tknob sitting alone in a dark room doing it all myself. I needed all the instruments (especially drums) and ways to make it all happen In the Box. Sonar was the best package to acheive this. Anything else and I would have had to shell out another grand for the synths, drum samplers, effects, etc on TOP of the DAW.
 
There were some rough times and there are some things abotu Sonar that still tick me off but overall, as a creative artist, it was the right choice and over time I've been vindicated.
 
Choose the best tools for your own workflow/needs.

I just -know- I'm going to regret this, but thought it might be interesting to finish up a small project started during the blizzards of 2015 in NE. This is offered SOLELY in the spirit of constructive contributions as championed by CA and a slightly more objective perspective on "real" DAW usage as opposed to forum posts.
 
Recording Magazine (http://www.recordingmag.com/) offers a monthly review/critique of 2-3 reader submissions which often include the gear used to make the recording. A panel with some level of industry expertise critiques and rates the arrangements/tracking/mixing for each song with 5 stars for the highest rating. To be clear, musical critique with hardware issues noted if they think it impacted the recording.
 
A script was used to extract the year/genre/rating and DAW mentioned for each submission to yield a total of 253 records running from 2008 - 2014. A DAW was noted in 216 of the 253 records. A few select results.
.......
 
ALL DAWs MENTIONED / % OF TOTAL:
Protools - 27%
Logic - 19%
Sonar (+) - 18%
Cubase - 17%
other - 5%
Digital Performer - 3%
Adobe Audition - 3%
Garageband - 3%
Presonus (+) - 2%
Reason - 2%
Nuendo - 2%
 
NOTES:
1. (+) indicates various versions from a single mfr.
2. Rock/pop style entries dominate with 67% of the total, followed by country @ 8%, jazz and blues @ 6% each.
3. Very heavily weighted on "traditional" instrument performance with only 2 entries -total- in the "electronic" category. (Where are all the loops?)
.......
 
5 STAR RATINGS / DAW (top 5)
26% of all entries received a 5 Star rating with 93% of those reporting a DAW (as if this might indicate which DAW was better... )
 
ProTools - 30%
Sonar - 20%
Logic - 15%
Cubase - 15%
Digital Performer - 9%
 
NOTES:
4. 100% of the Digitial Performer submissions received a 5 star rating.
.......
 
A few points/conclusions that -could- be drawn. Feel free to make your own.
 
5. For a really good rating, we should all be using DP. :-)
6. Higher ratings are not strongly correlated with a DAW. Makes sense to me, as music is a creative process and creative people can make music with whatever tools work for them.
7. Sonar has a greater positive representation in this data set than one might guess if they only spent time on forums.

just saying.

Doktor Avalanche

John
It has come to my attention that some posters to this thread are being a little coarse. Lets try to be civil to one another. We can disagree and still be civil.  

Host, unless you can point to what the exact problem is (i.e. a quote) this is a meaningless comment. It appears like you are teacher  telling the whole class to behave, even weirder you are doing it when another host is partaking in the discussion (is this aimed at him as well?). For what it's worth I don't see any big issues going on with this thread, but then again I have no idea what you are talking about.

I thank you for your input but I will handle things the way I think best. I have no wish to single out anyone for now because we are all adults and able to figure out what is meant. 
 
Thank you for your concern. 

Doktor Avalanche

Beepster
linDo you expect Sonar to dumb it down and lose their professional/more adventurous customers to suit your hobbiest workflow?

Well funnily enough...
https://www.cakewalk.com/Products/Music-Creator

@DA, 
 
A couple of years ago when I made the move from SONAR 6 PE to X3 e PE , i felt the learning curve was just so steep for me .
I honestly thought I might have to just pack it in ….
 
At the time Cakewalk had MC 6 going at a ridiculous price  ( $20 ) ?  I picked MC 6 up and wound up using it to learn my way around the new to me X style GUI a little bit …
A fella named Jim over at the MC sub section of the forum had recommended that I buy the Groove 3 vid on MC .. .
After taking Jim's advice , I can openly admit here on the forum that he didn't throw me a fish , he threw me a fishing pole 
 
One thing I do appreciate around here is when a few of the "more knowledgable posters"  chime in and remind us that SONAR is every bit as fully featured as a full fledged recording studio . Also that it is unrealistic to think that 
a person can just turn on their computer , open up SONAR and expect to create a musical masterpiece  ….
 
It may be possible that some of us here may have high expectations and we want to get our work done , but i can say every brick wall I ever hit was user error or a lack of understanding on how things work in SONAR. 
 
The gist of my whole thing when it comes to music is I'm a player first and everything else regarding music and music production is not second nature to me . Just like I had to spend time in the woodshed to learn my Axe , same approach goes for learning SONAR …
 
Would like to take this opportunity to tell a little story , the story is about my younger brother Kevin …
My brother K worked his way up the ladder old school , he first interned at a well know NYC recording studio and then he landed a gig w a company that I will not mention (the current company bears no resemblance to the company he worked for back then ) 
….all this took place a long time ago and started back in the late 70 's to early 80's
By 1988 he had travelled to an insane amount of locations and counties all over the world as an on location sound man and or boom operator…when our mom passed in 88 he was on location in China and couldn't get back to the US in time ….
Somewhere's back then the company he worked for moved from NYC to Cali and my brother made the move …
He also freelanced and one of his gigs was the original Saved by The B….
I get a chuckle every time I see his name in the credits as the boom operator ….he did a lot of episodes 
The first point I'm looking to make here is anybody who wanted to become an engineer back in those days had to intern and work insane hours for little too no money …
It was considered an honor and a privilege to have a studio allow you to learn the in's and out's of music production first hand under their tutelage .  In many ways the internship was like joining the Navy seals because the attrition rate and burn out factor that was involved was pretty high .
 
OK , fast forward …  my brother invited me numerous times to leave NYC and stay with in him North Hollywood …
I took him up and hit his couch until I landed my own place …in late 97 ….
now at this point i could tell a lot of story's of some of the things I was exposed to staying w my brother and I feel my second point needs to over ride that  
One day I was watching my brother on his computer and I asked him what he was doing …
He showed me that he was working on his flying skills using a software flight simulator …
I asked him how deep this flight simulator program was and he told me it was the real deal ….
Asked him how close and he told me as close as you can get to really flying a plane ….
Anyway ,  between all the lessons he took in a small plane with a pilot and that software flight simulator  , he wound up getting his pilot license ….
For his first solo flight as a pilot he took me , his girl friend , and a friend of mine up .
We flew out of Whiteman  airport to Santa Paula airport for lunch ….
When we landed my skin tone color was so freaking white I would have made a Geisha Girls face look like an Afro American's skin tone color by comparison   
The thought did cross my mind that I was sure happy when my boots hit the ground that he did a lot of practicing with that flight simulator software …
You get my drift ? 


Kenny 

Sadly, despite having invested money and much time with this product and apparently hoping in vain, like many before me I probably will have to bite the bullet and move on.
 
Not looking forward to a new learning curve, but based on this response alone I think I  going to have to toss in the towel because, as you have pointed out, it just is not ever going to happen.
 
Live and learn

kennywtelejazz
You get my drift ? 

Yup :)

konradh
OMG.  What is this thread even about?

The proper internal temperature for cooked salmon. The general consensus was that 130 degrees is best because the salmon won't dry out; but others believed 140 degrees is essential to cook the salmon through completely. There was also some debate about the best white wine to use for cooking with the salmon. Most agreed a good meursault would be fabulous except that it's way too expensive to use as cooking wine. So we're kind of split between sauvignon blanc and chardonnay, although a few people said it's possible to pick up a good albarino for under $10.
 
Fortunately, the big argument that started between Doktor Avalanche and Beepster about whether or not to rub the salmon first with olive oil was settled amicably offline. Eventually Beepster conceded that it would help hold in moisture, even though he wasn't wild about the subtle alteration to the taste.