cparmerlee
It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.

By your definition all software companies that release upgrades are subscription models. How come you keep getting things wrong? See my previous post.

cparmerlee
It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.
 
Do you plan to extend your subscription in 2016?
 
I agree you don't have to, but obviously the point is to influence you to do that.  Are you going to or not?

You seem to have reality confused with marketing.

cparmerlee

BobF
IT IS NOT A SUBSCRIPTION MODEL

It is a subscription model because the company wants you to keep subscribing.  That is the whole point.
 
Do you plan to extend your subscription in 2016?
 
I agree you don't have to, but obviously the point is to influence you to do that.  Are you going to or not?

I don't have a subscription.  I will likely buy another year worth of updates though.  See, if I decide not to buy another year worth of updates, I can continue to use those that I bought this year.  In perpetuity. 
 
Get it?  It's just like it used to be with two exceptions.
 
1.  There is a payment plan available (which I do not take advantage of)
2.  I don't have to wait a year for new features and enhancements
 
Cool, huh?
 
 

Doktor Avalanche

WDI
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading. Not printing. I output MP3 192 CBR, sounds pretty indistinguishable to me from 44/16 wave, whenever I want a quick reference to take with me for enjoyment, or email etc. I don't need Sonar to output the final product as MP3. Obviously I would output to a lossless high quality format for that, like wave. And I can use iTunes, or whatever program, to create a compressed format from the master for cataloging or whatever.
 
Why question someone who wants to output MP3 directly from Sonar. I mean, then you should be questioning why we need FLAC or OGG whatever and all the rest. Why not get rid of them all except for one high quality lossless format and use some other program to output other formats from that.
 
I really don't get all the MP3 hate. I really never new there was such a thing. I mean, I can understand the idea that buying a lossy format is a bad idea. But using one to store your library on a device smaller than a walkman is pretty cool to me.
 
It always surprises my when you get someone who says how horrible MP3s sound. They must be doing something different than me because at 192 CBR they are pretty indistinguishable form wave 44/16 to me. It would be cool for someone, I would be willing, to upload a 44/16 wave, FLAC, OGG and MP3 192 CBR. We could download the files, create a playlist from them on your phone or whatever and shuffle them and see if you can tell a difference.
 
I know, you already can. No point in doing that stupid test. And by you, I wasn't referring to you Kev999. But rather the person who is going to come in here saying how dumb MP3s etc.
 
Oops, I was supposed to be out of this thread. :)

1) You can use FLAC on mobiles
2) Try listening to a Hammond rotary on MP3, it sounds like a washing machine. Dark Side of The Moon is more like Backside of the Washing Machine.
3) Most of us do understand how MP3's sound, there aren't really many revelations to be had, esp in these forums.
 
I only see one reason for MP3, and that is spoken word recordings where audio quality really does not matter.

1) Mine don't support FLAC - but I could use Apple Lossless or whatever it is.
2) I just ripped Time from Dark Side so I had a wave version. Placed them both on a playlist on iPod and went back and forth not knowing which is which. I was listening with Bose QC15 headphones. At times I felt there was a difference. Then I would get confused as to which one I thought actually sounded better. I know there has to be a difference. The wave is 44.1 at 68.7 MB. The MP3 is 192 at 9.4 MB. So ya, I would hope there is a difference. I had a difficult time hearing a difference the way I was doing it. It did not sound like a washing machine regardless.
3) Something must be wrong with my hearing. 
 
But the real issue being discussed really isn't your or my opinion of MP3, but rather why the encoder is locked which Noel and countless others have answered anyways. But I can understand why people new to Sonar are confused when many other programs do not do it this way.

WDI
2) I just ripped Time from Dark Side so I had a wave version. Placed them both on a playlist on iPod and went back and forth not knowing which is which. I was listening with Bose QC15 headphones. At times I felt there was a difference. Then I would get confused as to which one I thought actually sounded better. I know there has to be a difference. The wave is 44.1 at 68.7 MB. The MP3 is 192 at 9.4 MB. So ya, I would hope there is a difference. I had a difficult time hearing a difference the way I was doing it. It did not sound like a washing machine regardless.

I'm with you.  At MP=128 I can usually tell a difference, but I have just gotten to where I do 320 all the time.  That is still a big reduction in file size and it works with just about any device that can use MP3s.  At 320 I cannot tell a difference -- certainly on on any of the material I do.  With just the right material on the greatest speakers in the best acoustical space, maybe I'd be able to hear the difference, but that isn't what I do.

Should have listened to great gig in the sky... Hammond at any lossy bitrate is truely awful... If you can't hear it A/B it, it's as clear as mud. I give you that mp3 works quite well for uncomplicated dance music.

Doktor Avalanche
Should have listened to great gig in the sky... Hammond at any lossy bitrate is truely awful... If you can't hear it A/B it, it's as clear as mud. I give you that mp3 works quite well for uncomplicated dance music.

Well my Disc 1 for Echos is no where to be found that has that on it. I could get it off of record though if you think that would work.

Well sir I respect your Pink Floyd collection... You have taste.. Echos is a nice compilation..

cparmerlee
[And that being the case, a $10 investment to eliminate a sales objection that could potentially mess up a multi-year subscription is smart marketing IMHO.

 
You still don't get it and with all due respect, you seem to have virtually no real-world knowledge about marketing. I'm not dissing you, marketing is one of those subjects where everyone can think they're an expert (like managing a baseball team) but it's not simple. Marketing does not exist in a vacuum. Marketing co-exists with sales, development, manufacturing, operational and executive, legal, statistics/data analysis, and financials.
 
SOMEONE has to pay that $10. Here are some questions for you:
 
1. Given that money doesn't fall out of the sky, who should pay for it?
2. If you say "consumers," why should they subsidize others who think paying $10 for an encoder is outrageous, or that doing nine steps is too onerous a task to avoid paying that $10 - is that fair?
3. If Cakewalk, they will need to trim costs somewhere to pay for it. Should they:
a) Fire someone in tech support? And if so, should customers have to wait on hold longer to accommodate others who think paying $10 for an encoder is outrageous, or that doing nine steps is too onerous a task to avoid paying $10?
b) Include fewer features that require licensing fees in the future in order to pay the licensing fees for MP3 export, which is a freely available option anyway?
c) Raise the price of Cakewalk products to pay for the licensing?
4. What makes you think that your assessment of Cakewalk's present and future marketing plans bear any relationship to reality?
5. Have you looked up the definition of "subscription software"? It is "software that ceases operation if you stop paying for the subscription." Does SONAR become non-functional if you stop paying?
 
I realize I said I had nothing more to contribute to this thread...and in terms of information, I really don't. But I keep hoping that if I explain how the process works enough times, you'll a) understand the real-world realities involved, and although I know this is a long shot, b) if you really are an expert in marketing and running companies, you can come up with some brilliant solution of how to pay for MP3 licensing that doesn't involve penalizing existing users or firing people at Cakewalk. If you do, I would be truly grateful. 
 
 

WDI
Referring to post 63, for me, MP3 is proofreading...

 
As for the "proofreading" thing, it's not really recommended to use a format that entails a risk of introducing unwanted artifacts, however small or subtle, if you are going to be listening critically.
 
MP3 files certainly have their place, particulary as a suitable format for uploading music to the web. But conversion to any lossy format should only be done as the very last stage. This doesn't just apply to audio. JPEGs would be similar.