TW5011
I have to say, I like the way Cakewalk does it, so much so, that when the time to renew my yearly membership came up recently and there wasn't anything really exciting to me on the upcoming page, I renewed anyway, because I thought the past year was great in terms of what they delivered and I expect it to continue. 

FWIW, remember that if Cakewalk has something mind-blowing planned for later in the year, they're not going to mention it in the upcoming page just in case some other manufacturer thinks "hey, we should build that into our next rev, too!" They have to do a balancing act of not just that aspect, but of needing to be careful not to announce something that may require more time to complete.

The OP has every right to opt in opt out or just wait and see. I prefer paying up front so I don't have to worry about upgrading. I also like the anticipation each month of the new goodies that may come my way.  I do know that if one were to list all the new and improved features we received last year it would overwhelm us and make the old yearly update seem trivial.  
 
There is another reason I like this new model.  I feel more involved in the ongoing programing of Sonar. Its as if I'm in there with the team deciding what feature will come next.  I know that I have no control on it but because we have this forum and a very active CW staff coming here watching and listening I think we are all part of the process. The is a feeling of inclusion that is not present with any other DAW.
 
I think we underestimate the power the membership has. I also think as individuals we can choose how we approach the membership. We can embrace it or we can still refer to it as a subscription even though it isn't one.
 
Its all in the way one choose to look at things.     

As to VCA faders for DAWs that don't have the grouping and bussing  abilities of Sonar they are a nice feature. In Sonar I really don't see a good reason for them except for CW to say it has them too. I have two DAWs that do have them and I don't use them that much or wish Sonar had them too. There are so many other things those other DAWs are missing that to me are far more useful to me. Sonar has them thats why it remands my first DAW.  
 
 

Anderton

lfm
If it's automatic Tempo Detection it's cool.

 
It's not just tempo detection, it's tempo following. If you have a part whose tempo varies, the tempo map will  vary. For example, to test it out I played a rhythm guitar part where the tempo sounded like the guitar player was on tranquilizers, then the coffee kicked in, and finally the tempo fell off a cliff to really slow. I was shocked that SONAR (and therefore Addictive Drums) followed it perfectly, although it's important to set Melodyne to percussion mode on really wild tempo changes. If this isn't a major feature, I'm not sure what is 
 

No doubt, really cool and major for sure.
Thanks for pointing that out.
 

Anderton

 
As to VCA grouping, I believe the main reason for its introduction in other programs is for Pro Tools users. Pro Tools used to have several grouping limitations (not being able to group record and input monitor, not being able to group faders with separate outputs, etc.) and PT 7.2 addressed those by adding VCA grouping. However, SONAR doesn't have those limitations, and Quick Grouping took SONAR's grouping one step further. Also, SONAR has had the ability to group ratiometrically as well as linearly, AND do custom grouping curves, for as long as I can remember. 
 
There have been discussions of VCA grouping in these forums and it seems relevant only in specific situations with post-fader effects and busing. However, maybe I just don't "get" it (which is entirely possible) but I don't see anything that can't be done in SONAR with grouping, buses, and/or aux tracks/patch points. As most of the comments about the desirability of VCA grouping involve separate effect levels on drums, I think it might be possible to create a Track Template with all the bus and aux track assignments needed to do whatever VCA grouping can do. That would simplify matters even further.
 
 

Maybe we could continue usefulness of VCA on feature request forum - there is one such request by someone. 
I tried to explain some things regarding sends adjustments to accomodate how volume automation varies.
It's an intricate calculation of relative percentage adjustments of sends to make the portions of wet and dry signals to be maintained to make the total sum sounding the same.
 
To simplify a bit
Result1=dry1+wet1 and you want Result2 after automation to be -2dB level from Result1 - what should dry2 and wet2 be?
 
If you set a fader level and adjust send to be right how you want it - and this is never touched throughout the mix - no VCA is needed.
 
It's the relative movement that start to change how much wet you need. It's not easy and obvious to see - but normal sends don't fix that. Each fader movement needs a different percentage change of send to sound the same but different level.
 
If you route both dry and wet return to same bus and automate that bus fader - problem solved.
But as some level it really starts to be not so organized - thinking larger orchestral pieces.
 
But since the correct VCA implementations(not Samplitude) also allow nested grouping it is very powerful.
ProTools 12.2 reinstated VCAs again from ProTools HD not to loose out to competition. Reaper 5.0 introduced it, StudioOne 3.2 introduced it and Cubase Pro 8.0 introduced it. This all happend in last 1-2 years - so I guess you could say it is a trend in music industry.
 
As someone said, I think VCA originate from analog consoles and automation. And many prefer to call in DCA in the daw world instead.
 
Someone used to VCA and that way of thinking is probably more attracted to Sonar as an alternative if it exist.
I also recall someone used to VCAs that refer to soloing options that exist.

For as long as DAWs have been around VCAs have not been a feature of them. It is only very recently that some few DAWs have included them. How did we ever get along without them? 

John
For as long as DAWs have been around VCAs have not been a feature of them. It is only very recently that some few DAWs have included them. How did we ever get along without them? 

I forgot the link to feature request on it:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/NO-VCAS-YET-m3362542.aspx#3386640
 
The SOS article from Jeff's link is from 2008 - so it existed for some time in PT.
He also mentioned some things he never thought of before using S1.
Just that nobody bothered taking the competition with PT maybe.
 
More powerful computers with massive amount of memory also helps how large mixes you can manage.
 
Beatles did some stuff on 4-trackers - how did they do that?
 
My view is that it might pay off in pro mixers taking on Sonar - and spinoff from being in the professional field.
ProTools use that a lot in marketing.
Or it won't justify the amount of work - don't know.

lfm

Anderton

lfm
If it's automatic Tempo Detection it's cool.

 
It's not just tempo detection, it's tempo following. If you have a part whose tempo varies, the tempo map will  vary. For example, to test it out I played a rhythm guitar part where the tempo sounded like the guitar player was on tranquilizers, then the coffee kicked in, and finally the tempo fell off a cliff to really slow. I was shocked that SONAR (and therefore Addictive Drums) followed it perfectly, although it's important to set Melodyne to percussion mode on really wild tempo changes. If this isn't a major feature, I'm not sure what is 
 

No doubt, really cool and major for sure.
Thanks for pointing that out.
 

Anderton



As to VCA grouping, I believe the main reason for its introduction in other programs is for Pro Tools users. Pro Tools used to have several grouping limitations (not being able to group record and input monitor, not being able to group faders with separate outputs, etc.) and PT 7.2 addressed those by adding VCA grouping. However, SONAR doesn't have those limitations, and Quick Grouping took SONAR's grouping one step further. Also, SONAR has had the ability to group ratiometrically as well as linearly, AND do custom grouping curves, for as long as I can remember. 
 
There have been discussions of VCA grouping in these forums and it seems relevant only in specific situations with post-fader effects and busing. However, maybe I just don't "get" it (which is entirely possible) but I don't see anything that can't be done in SONAR with grouping, buses, and/or aux tracks/patch points. As most of the comments about the desirability of VCA grouping involve separate effect levels on drums, I think it might be possible to create a Track Template with all the bus and aux track assignments needed to do whatever VCA grouping can do. That would simplify matters even further.
 
 

Maybe we could continue usefulness of VCA on feature request forum - there is one such request by someone. 
I tried to explain some things regarding sends adjustments to accomodate how volume automation varies.
It's an intricate calculation of relative percentage adjustments of sends to make the portions of wet and dry signals to be maintained to make the total sum sounding the same.
 
To simplify a bit
Result1=dry1+wet1 and you want Result2 after automation to be -2dB level from Result1 - what should dry2 and wet2 be?
 
If you set a fader level and adjust send to be right how you want it - and this is never touched throughout the mix - no VCA is needed.
 
It's the relative movement that start to change how much wet you need. It's not easy and obvious to see - but normal sends don't fix that. Each fader movement needs a different percentage change of send to sound the same but different level.
 

 
But given, as Craig mentioned earlier, that you can group faders ratiometrically as well as linearly and you are using post fade fx sends, I still fail to see what is achieved here by using VCA grouping that can't be achieved in Sonar already without them.
 
On an analogue mixer a VCA is required to maintain offsets between faders, thus maintaining post fade fx ratios. I am yet to be convinced so called VCA's in DAW's are functionally anything more than the relative ratio groupings that have been in Sonar for years. Again, happy to be corrected as to what I have missed, but I just don't see anything here. 

Me too Bruce.  I don't have anything against them and if CW were to have them along side what the have already I would not bash it. Yet I don't see a burning need for them.

tenfoot
 
But given, as Craig mentioned earlier, that you can group faders ratiometrically as well as linearly and you are using post fade fx sends, I still fail to see what is achieved here by using VCA grouping that can't be achieved in Sonar already without them.
 
On an analogue mixer a VCA is required to maintain offsets between faders, thus maintaining post fade fx ratios. I am yet to be convinced so called VCA's in DAW's are functionally anything more than the relative ratio groupings that have been in Sonar for years. Again, happy to be corrected as to what I have missed, but I just don't see anything here. 

Every little step in a slope of volume fader needs a different ratio - that is how I found it works, looking into the math.
Even though it's cool you can come closer than linear, it's not VCA and it's not nested either in Sonar as I recall.
 
If you can do this in Sonar - why not make a CakeTV episode about it - and all the fuzz go away.
 
If going strict from one automation value to another once - and nothing more - you can calculate manually which ratiometrical to use in Sonar too. I planned to experiment with that - but saw the limitation bothering with that.
 
If everybody feed the Features and Ideas thread we all can learn new things. I have to get cracking on Cubase on this to see what I learn from doing music to video - so hoping Quicktime thingy is fixed soon by Steinberg.
 
For regular pop songs I have not needed VCA's - yet anyway. Try to keep it simple. Longer pieces to video is very different matter what you need depending on the change in scenarios.
 
If we please could continue in Features and Ideas over VCA.
Keep bumping this thread about something else is not a good idea.

lfm
If we please could continue in Features and Ideas over VCA.
Keep bumping this thread about something else is not a good idea.

I suggest starting a new thread in this forum - "How to Do VCA-Style Grouping in SONAR." People would give very specific examples of where VCA grouping would be applicable, and the forum would suggest solutions that involve tools that already exist within SONAR. I'm assuming (based on the fervor or marketing departments for DAWs that have this ), that there may be some VCA-related applications that SONAR can't do...but there are probably some, if not many, that can be done with the existing tools.
 
VCA grouping kind of sounds to me like surround...there was a big buzz many years ago about how a "pro" DAW had to have surround, so all the DAWs sprouted surround implementations (and actually, SONAR's remains one of the better ones). But I wonder how many people actually use it. I'd bet less than 1% of all DAW users. I tend to think it may be one of those "Well I might need it someday, better have it" kind of features.
 
Anyway, if y'all agree that a thread on ""How to Do VCA-Style Grouping in SONAR" would be useful, someone should start it.