Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Yes I see what you are getting at - it would appear that they are mixing in the output of one into the other.

You can't achieve this repeating sound this way, just mixing in the outputs.

Adq
Ok, now I see where I was wrong. Obviously it is possible to create feedback loop in the DAW, but just as Craig's external method of connection interface's output to input with a wire, or method of using interface's internal routing, it would have latency, and it could not be less than buffer size. But it doesn't mean that it has no sense to implement it. In fact every analog feedback loop have some delay, just because of speed of light.

You weren't wrong. It was because some people throw out terms without knowing what they really mean this is not aimed at you but the fellow in the vid you posted. In your context you had it right. I'm just talking about a true feedback loop. What CW has been trying to avoid. Graig's method was not creating a feedback loop. If I have it right he was inputing the output to a new input. That wont cause feedback. If he was connecting the output to the same input a loop would be created.  

John
You weren't wrong. It was because some people throw out terms without knowing what they really mean this is not aimed at you but the fellow in the vid you posted. In your context you had it right. I'm just talking about a true feedback loop. What CW has been trying to avoid. Graig's method was not creating a feedback loop. If I have it right he was inputing the output to a new input. That wont cause feedback. If he was connecting the output to the same input a loop would be created.  

There is no "true feedback loop". What you are talking about is feedback loop with such settings that produce increasing self-oscillations on some signals. There is the only difference between what you are talking, as I understand, and any other feedback loop. Self-oscillations aren't equal feedback loop.

Yeah, and it would be nice to move this feedback offtop to the other thread.

jbow
Yaaaa, I have something to go do!! Thanks Bakers!
You guys should hire Karl to do a cumulative series of videos with a new one each month. A new SWA covering all the new stuff in each update. Create a job! I'd pay an extra 10 bucks a month to cover it.. maybe others would too but IDK. Everyone else seems to already know a LOT more than I do. LOL.
 
Thanks again!
J

I'd buy into that...

irvin
Man, you have to change the defensive attitude. Really. Sonar is great and the monthly updates are truly great. But it seems that any suggestion for improvements outside your comfort zone is met with all sorts of irrational replies, misrepresentations and disparaging remarks. Relax - Sonar is doing great, but there is always room for Improvement!

Of course there's room for improvement, or I wouldn't have advocated staff view fixes, asked repeatedly for a drum machine mode, started threads asking for confirmation from the community about bugs I'd found (which is how the VX-64 got fixed, Cakewalk had enough data to triangulate on a weird intermittent issue), or kept harping on issues with the Concrete Limiter and Channel Tools. People who have been around here a while recognize that I advocate in equal parts on behalf of the community to Cakewalk as on behalf of Cakewalk to the community because I have an affinity for both. 
 
Anyway, step back for a second and consider the reality of the exchange we just had. I have very little idea of the level of the people whom I'm addressing. You have 63 posts. For all I know, you're relatively new to SONAR and don't realize it's possible to change the sounds in the current metronome structure, or that you can have a metronome loop and drag it into a project, or that you can have a metronome loop baked into any template you use. For all I know your answer would have been "Great, that does what I need, thanks!"
 
As to being irrational, misrepresenting things, and being disparaging, I don't see any of those attributes in my responses, starting with:
 
"Or make a loop with your favorite metronome sound, and include it in your standard project template. Then you won't need to 'insert click track,' it will already be there."
 
Then you said "I prefer a feature, not a workaround - take a look at how beautifully simple the implementation is in Reaper and other DAWs."
 
That did not explain to me what was happening that was so "beautifully simple" or exactly what the feature entailed. And although I'm extremely familiar with every other DAW (except Reaper, I don't get along with the UI), nothing about how they implement a metronome struck me as notable. So now I was curious about what you were talking about, but I wanted to LEARN, not argue, which is why I specifically said (bold for emphasis):
 
"Well, I'm not trying to be combative but help me out here, because I don't understand the problem...SONAR already has a click track that's always available for record and playback with one click, offers a choice of multiple waves, and for which you can add your own sounds if you want something like a TR-808 kick or whatever."
 
Then, again assuming the low post count meant a lack of familiarity, I took the trouble to post a screen shot to illustrate what I was talking about. Then I asked you a question:
 
"If you need an audio loop, wouldn't it make more sense to add a drum loop that's relevant to the style of music that you're making? Fill me in on what I'm missing...I'm just not understanding how having an always-available click track with a choice of sounds, and the option to bring in loops of any musical style from the browser, are problematic."
 
You never answered my question, or helped me understand your point, or filled me in on what I was missing. I see nothing in my part of that exchange that could possibly be construed as irrational, a misrepresentation of what was said, or disparaging. I was asking for clarification so I could better understand your issue. I am truly mystified that anyone would have a problem with that.
 

John
Graig's method was not creating a feedback loop. If I have it right he was inputing the output to a new input. 

Actually I was referring to my looper application where I stuck a bunch of delays (with delayed sound only) in series to get like 16-20 seconds of delay, and did indeed feed the output back to the input so the delay would have feedback and just keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and...you get the point. 
 
Yes, there is latency but as you can imagine, with a 20-second loop it didn't make a whole lot of difference to take on another 10-15 ms...the only other time I've used feedback is to drive things into oscillation, but musically speaking, it does me no good to have it slam into uncontrolled feedback - I have to be able to "coax" it into feedback, and "coax" it back out when it gets out of control. So again, even 15 ms of latency makes no difference as I can't move a control with 15 millisecond precision. I suppose there may be applications where someone would need a near-instantaneous application of feedback, but now we're talking about an even smaller subset of potential applications. 

Anderton

John
Graig's method was not creating a feedback loop. If I have it right he was inputing the output to a new input. 

Actually I was referring to my looper application where I stuck a bunch of delays (with delayed sound only) in series to get like 16-20 seconds of delay, and did indeed feed the output back to the input so the delay would have feedback and just keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and...you get the point. 
 
Yes, there is latency but as you can imagine, with a 20-second loop it didn't make a whole lot of difference to take on another 10-15 ms...the only other time I've used feedback is to drive things into oscillation, but musically speaking, it does me no good to have it slam into uncontrolled feedback - I have to be able to "coax" it into feedback, and "coax" it back out when it gets out of control. So again, even 15 ms of latency makes no difference as I can't move a control with 15 millisecond precision. I suppose there may be applications where someone would need a near-instantaneous application of feedback, but now we're talking about an even smaller subset of potential applications. 

Latency can't be less than buffer size actually, to process all plug-ins and other staff, and return signal back. I just want to say there is no "it is harmful", or "it can't be done" arguments. The only one is "there is a workaround", but as I've said earlier it means that 1.somebody need it and 2.it can be done, and it is clear, what has to be done to make it.

Adq

Anderton
I wouldn't mind having the option to create feedback loops. That said, when I need feedback, I use the external insert plug-in and patch an output back into an input. That's how I did it before computers existed, and was the basis of my looper application for SONAR.
 
Then again, we ARE in the United States. The first time someone blew their speakers, they'd probably sue Cakewalk for a million dollars saying their hearing had been damaged permanently, and Cakewalk was negligent in not preventing feedback 
 

They have many ways to damage something, including your external scheme. And there is easiest way to prevent it: auto-mute if sound's level exceeds some threshold. And other DAWs do it, and nobody sue them. And nobody sue delay plug-ins developers, and some of them have crazy settings that could self-oscillate pretty easy. So your arguments don't work, in real life there is no problem with feedback loops, it is imaginary problems.

 
I added a smiley, which indicates something is said with humorous intent. Jeez, why does everybody take me so seriously? Did no one read the first paragraph of my latest "Tip of the Week"? 
 

And you always say that if some missing feature has a workaround, it should not be implemented primarily.

 
That's not true, you just quoted me saying "I wouldn't mind having the option to create feedback loops." 
 
I give opinions on what I think priorities should be. Suggestions need to be evaluated on their own merits. I am in basic agreement with someone like Doktor Avalanche that there are more important issues than being able to set up feedback loops.
 
I present workarounds not as an apology, but as a service to those who think something is not possible when it is. Most people realize I am trying to help them get the most out of their program. I also do this for programs other than SONAR, in the appropriate venues.
 
As to me, there are plenty of features I would like to see that would make creating sample libraries and loop libraries easier. But I am not sufficiently self-centered to think that most users would consider those kind of features relevant to what they do, so I do not ask for them. I can create sample and loop libraries within SONAR the way it is, because it's better suited for that task than any other DAW I've used. That's good enough for me.
 
Like most people who come to these forums, I acknowledge and appreciate what has been accomplished, not just by Cakewalk but by all the dedicated people who work on all the programs we use. If CupertoolsOneplitude has some cool feature, more power to them. Their not including features SONAR has is no more a reflection on them than SONAR not including all the features they have.
 
This is why I come to the defense of other companies on the rare occasions when they are dissed in these forums. I think it is equally rude to come here and knock the competition as it is to promote the competition. I take every opportunity I can to hang out with my many friends at PreSonus, Ableton, Propellerheads, Steinberg, Avid, MOTU, Magix, Native Instruments, Spectrasonics, IK Multimedia, Acoustica, etc.
 
All these companies are making incredible tools for us under difficult conditions in a tiny, low-margin market that's been devastated by rampant software theft. They can't even do a fraction of what they want to do, let alone what their customer base demands that they do. 
 
There is far more respect among competing software developers for each other than they get from the people who use their products. I believe that's because the software companies fully understand the realities of this business, and generally, the customers do not.
 
At least this forum is better than most, and with respect to many people who post here, much better than most. 

Anderton
I am in basic agreement with someone like Doktor Avalanche that there are more important issues than being able to set up feedback loops.

Ok, I absolutely agree with this too. I just don't agree that it never ever should be done, or never could be done.