Sorry to get back to Sonar, but...

Has anyone heard any plan to accommodate users without DAW web access regarding Rapture Session or is that dead in the water for those so disposed?

Keni
Sorry to get back to Sonar, but...

Has anyone heard any plan to accommodate users without DAW web access regarding Rapture Session or is that dead in the water for those so disposed?

I read somewhere there was a plan...

Doktor Avalanche

Keni
Sorry to get back to Sonar, but...

Has anyone heard any plan to accommodate users without DAW web access regarding Rapture Session or is that dead in the water for those so disposed?

I read somewhere there was a plan...

Thanks Dok!

Here's hopin'!

Hi - regarding Kingston update, I noticed straight away that both Iris and Breaktweaker produced loud noise when inserted.  I emailed cakewalk immediately but as yet still no reply.  Plug ins work fine in stand alone and in older install of sonar x3 and were fine until this update.
I share the frustration that I don't want monthly updates when they break things, particularly when distributed on the eve on a long public holiday in the US.  A case of "get this problem off our desks and onto those of the users".
Thanks and happy holidays guys.

I cannot comment about Breaktweaker. Don't have the plug-in. When it comes to Iris, both 64bit VST2 and VST3 format Iris and Iris2 seem to work OK for me in Kingston on Win10.

This will kick the hornet's nest, but needs to be said. The "works for me" (a.k.a. "sucks to be you") is a terrible stance to take in a public-facing environment. 1) It very much implies "finality," meaning that no effort to identify/resolve the issue is intended and 2) this seems to come from assigned beta testers in defense of "I did my job."
 
True finality comes from a customer being made whole. First step is prevention of field failures with as much due diligence and sense of urgency as possible, and if something cannot be verified... wait. Nothing gives a "branding black eye" more than field failures, and the monthly release cycle is taking precedence over "wait" - a significant Achilles heal to consider.
 
There are enough Harvard Business Reviews out on this topic to wallpaper a room. If someone has an issue, it is much better to get clarification to drive to root cause/(true) resolution. "Works for me" doesn't show any concern for a customer's issue or intent to resolve it.

You may read my post any way you wish. When someone reports a problem and I try to reproduce the problem, I will report my results. That is all there is to it. My post does not invalidate the post above it. My post only reported a different result. There are reasons why some things work in one case but fail in another. I do not know what it would be in this case. Since I cannot reproduce the problem, it is difficult for me to suggest a fix.

mettelus
This will kick the hornet's nest, but needs to be said. The "works for me" (a.k.a. "sucks to be you") is a terrible stance to take in a public-facing environment. 1) It very much implies "finality," meaning that no effort to identify/resolve the issue is intended and 2) this seems to come from assigned beta testers in defense of "I did my job."
 
True finality comes from a customer being made whole. First step is prevention of field failures with as much due diligence and sense of urgency as possible, and if something cannot be verified... wait. Nothing gives a "branding black eye" more than field failures, and the monthly release cycle is taking precedence over "wait" - a significant Achilles heal to consider.
 
There are enough Harvard Business Reviews out on this topic to wallpaper a room. If someone has an issue, it is much better to get clarification to drive to root cause/(true) resolution. "Works for me" doesn't show any concern for a customer's issue or intent to resolve it.

Sometimes, "it works for me" is the only conclusion found from a "fellow user" . All results matter when one is trying to find a solution. I appreciate other users who take the time to test and report their results. I think maybe you jumped on a fellow user a tad quick.

mettelus
This will kick the hornet's nest, but needs to be said. The "works for me" (a.k.a. "sucks to be you") is a terrible stance to take in a public-facing environment. 1) It very much implies "finality," meaning that no effort to identify/resolve the issue is intended and 2) this seems to come from assigned beta testers in defense of "I did my job."
 
True finality comes from a customer being made whole. First step is prevention of field failures with as much due diligence and sense of urgency as possible, and if something cannot be verified... wait. Nothing gives a "branding black eye" more than field failures, and the monthly release cycle is taking precedence over "wait" - a significant Achilles heal to consider.
 
There are enough Harvard Business Reviews out on this topic to wallpaper a room. If someone has an issue, it is much better to get clarification to drive to root cause/(true) resolution. "Works for me" doesn't show any concern for a customer's issue or intent to resolve it.

I totally agree, I see this all the time and it annoys the pants off me when people say thinks like "it works for me", and they actually mean the issue is YOUR issue (which it may well be, but nobody has proved it).


In the past I've stated "I cannot reproduce" to people, which is just a fact at my end, but I still want to troubleshoot if I can. I've been shot down a few times for saying these sort of statements (no fault of my own imho, as I'm just stating the position at my end and nothing else), and have often ended up being accused of being a fanboy etc (yes really) even though I'm still trying to troubleshoot the issue.
 
I totally give Scook the benefit of the doubt here, I think he's just stating facts here and all he said was "seem to work OK for me", hardly the worst comment to make imho. He's not exactly underlining the point. When we read other things into it, it's just us doing so... If I had a zillion quid everytime that happened to me...
 
So I agree with the point, but don't think it applies to Scook.

 
I want to start out with a positive. I like the new update so far. Seems very responsive. I'm beta testing some plug ins and haven't found any problems in any of the plugs Ive used so far.
 
I'm coming late to the party here with respect to the above discussion, and I suspect there could be way more to this exchange than I am aware of, and it isn't really my concern at this point.
 
I have been guilty of the " it isn't happening for me " kind of response. I hadn't viewed this as being a negative, but after mettelus comment I can see it from another angle. I can see that this might be a frustrating reply to get from someone when you are experiencing the problem and can't find a fix. It's kind of like the telling the HVAC guy that your space is cold and he tells you it feels fine at his house. OTOH , if you have a very similar or exactly the same setup as the person with the problem, it could help them to eliminate the problem. It could help to narrow the differences and maybe find a conflict.
 
In several instances we had people who are having similar issues with the same kind of thing and this is very helpful.
 
If the expectation is that you will never have a conflict with any update, then you set yourself up for a disappointment, because this just isn't the nature of progress in software.