dubdisciple

sharke
 
 
 
I get what you're saying, but I don't really see why they couldn't implement the ability to record into the step sequencer just like you can record to MIDI. If you click "play" in the step sequencer, it throws a loop around the clip in question and loops it. If it can do that, then why not let you record events into it as it's looping? 

I wasn't so much denying it sucks as is.  I was more explaining that it is working how it was designed. An old school step sequencer would not let you record in that manner either.b  I think the designers failed to factor in that just because people like buying vintage plugins in feature, does not mean they want them to be 100% accurate.  Even people who owned drum machines that worked in that way have no desire to create like that on eve nthe most nostalgic days.  Even when I drag out my HR16, I never touch the step record mode.

Developers go nuts trying to recreate every aspect in an emulation. Look at the analog plugins that introduce electrical hum etc, as if that was actually part of the appeal of the original unit. It's crazy. Then you have analog emulations which faithfully reproduce design limitations when there is really no benefit to doing so, for instance the MiniMoog emulator Monark could quite easily have implemented semitone increments in the oscillator tuning knobs and synced modulation, but they left it out to remain true to the original. My thought is "our computers have the power to give us the best of both worlds, so why not?"

dubdisciple
 
I'm just guessing but  i think the step record feature was supposed to work the way a drum machine in step mode works. It was a rarely used mode even on drum machines but i do recall it having some use like being able to step-through" the beat to find errors. I still have an HR-16 that has a "step record mode".This was also present in other post 808/909 machines like the Roland R8 and 505. The idea was to be able to cycle through a loop one step at a time to make fixes.    A simple application on a drum machine was for those who preferred to input beats live, one could go into step record mode and add a kick on the downbeat before doing the rest live.  In other words, i don't think it's mislabeled or poorly implemented, but a feature that had uses on a small LCD grid but  becomes obsolete on a computer. Sonar's "mistake" if you want to call it that was trying to make the step sequencer to true to old drum machine step sequencers.  Every old school drum machine i had either had a step mode or a live record mode with no in between mode. So the answer to the "who creates beats like this?" is guys who had drum machines in the late 80's and early 90's. Nobody i know of does it now

 
 
I understand the step record thing. Thank you for the explanation. My entire issue is that if they were staying true to a step sequencer in a drum machine, then why not have the ability to record live? Less like the 808 and more like the HR-16. It's like emulating a grand piano   without any keys.

Hence why i use geist instead. Cakewalk has not attempted a new instrument from the ground up since beatscape and that was a colossal flop.

dubdisciple

Kylotan
What is lacking from Sonar's Step Sequencer for this?

It's  not that Sonar's step sequencer is lacking. I think fl users are just used to the integrated nature of how the step sequencer works. With Sonar you can't just drag a drum sample to a channel on step sequencer and run with it. Also, although I find Sonar's step sequencer adequate, I find the step sequencers in both Geist and FL a lot more intuitive.

Ah, yes. From the perspective of someone who uses drum maps already, the step sequencer in Sonar seems quite nifty. But if I compare that to my days using FL Studio (just installed version 11 yesterday, in fact - mostly to get Poizone working properly with Sonar, though!), the step sequencer there is so much easier to use.
 
I expect there are a bunch of ways they could improve it in Sonar - automatic drum map generation when you drag samples in, or setting up a sampler synth inside it. But sadly, like the Matrix View, it's probably going to stay neglected in favour of shipping a bunch of pseudo-analogue ProChannel effects...

I'm heavily against the inclusion of sampler or drum machine instruments in sonar, UNLESS they are third party developed and do not influence the current price of sonar. It's much better to leave the user with the choice of instruments, which cakewalk couldn't surpass anyway (let's be honest battery 3 (or geist, I guess) and kontakt are ultimate pieces of software that you would be a fool to try and compete with) AND there are MUCH more important missing features that cakewalk needs to implement in the core program for electronic music anyway.

Spencer
I'm heavily against the inclusion of sampler or drum machine instruments in sonar, UNLESS they are third party developed and do not influence the current price of sonar. It's much better to leave the user with the choice of instruments, which cakewalk couldn't surpass anyway (let's be honest battery 3 (or geist, I guess) and kontakt are ultimate pieces of software that you would be a fool to try and compete with) AND there are MUCH more important missing features that cakewalk needs to implement in the core program for electronic music anyway.

DAW's have to include software "freebies" now to compete. What comes included in a package deal is always going to be a heavy influence in sales. I see no reason why they couldn't tailor make 2 or 3 different packages for different styles. For instance one package which contains AD and other things geared toward more traditional styles, and another package which contains instruments more geared toward modern electronic styles.

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. If they want to cut a deal with NI or fxpansion for bundles, all the better. MUX should be bundled with platinum as far as I'm concerned, in an ideal world. If however, for whatever unfortunate reason, I start hearing about cakewalk devoting development resources into instruments, instead of some core features that have been desperately needed for ages and eons, there is no measure to the amount of complaining that I will do about it.

I'm not against them doing it since the advantage of programs like Fl is that the integration makes certain things far more intuitive than even the best third party products could achieve. Imagine if you just drop samples into step sequencer channels.  Or better yet, slice loops on the fly and map  them to seperate channels. Many possibilities, I just know thatin order to achive that kind of seamless interaction,  it would likely require core code changes.

There's no difference. Dropping samples into battery and then opening up the step sequencer achieves the same thing. Except battery is a hell of a lot better than fl's integrated sample player or ableton's drum rack. There's already a ghetto option: session drummer and it's more than enough.

Spencer
There's no difference. Dropping samples into battery and then opening up the step sequencer achieves the same thing. Except battery is a hell of a lot better than fl's integrated sample player or ableton's drum rack. There's already a ghetto option: session drummer and it's more than enough.

I don't  think session drummer is anywhere near fl or ableton drum rack.  If it were we would not be having this convo. I know a lot of people love battery but it's not for everybody. I know of more than a few battery owners who still opted for other solutions. I looked at battery myself and decided it ecexceled in certain areas but not the ones i needed.