Anderton
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!"
Perfect example of your condescending, sometimes downright stupid, attitude toward any issues that run a bit outside your comfort zone: my post should have been evaluated on its own merit. 63 posts ('investigating' the poster?) means I'm busy working instead of writing - it does not necessarily mean I don't know that Cakewalk has a metronome or that the sounds can be changed. If anything, the feature request/suggestion implies I have done my homework and realized that things can be far more straightforward when it comes to having the metronome as a waveform on the project. You chose - for some bizarre reason - to assume that I have no idea about what Sonar offers.
BTW, you did the exact same thing in another thread where I mentioned how PreRoll Recording would be a very useful feature. The conversation took a bizarre twist when you tried to justify not having the feature by claiming that you needed to have coffee or eat a sandwich before recording (like any of that had anything to do with Pre-roll Recording).
Anderton
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."
The irrational part is this:
Anderton
"..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."
At no point have I said the current implementation is faulty or 'problematic'. I said that having a simple "Insert Click Track' command would be great in its simplicity - faster and better than what Sonar currently offers. No need for templates or workarounds.
Anderton
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."
Well then, maybe you should have read my post where I clearly explain that the whole thing amounts to a
1 CLICK OPERATION where, say, you go to INSERT > INSERT CLICK TRACK and presto!, one audio track with a waveform appears on your track panel.
That's faster and simpler than any the ways you can achieve the same goal in Sonar. Maybe you should have investigated how Reaper does it and learn, rather than becoming defensive.
Anderton
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."
Once again, you assumed I don't know what I'm talking about rather than objectively evaluating my suggestion and you also assume that I suggest a better method - as implemented by other DAWs - because I find sonar's implementation "problematic".
A less defensive, more objective person would have seen my post for what it is:
a simple suggestion/request for a better implementation of a certain feature. It was not a put-down or a fake criticism.
Anderton
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.
I have answered your question several times, from the very beginning - but you're too busy defending Sonar from an attack that only exists in your imagination. Your method is always the same: rather than acknowledge that there is room for improvement, you suggest some workaround and beyond that, start blaming the user for "not understanding"...your attitude is not very positive or engaging, to say the least.