Craig is totally correct Gearslutz is Mac snob party,but I have to admit I hang out there more than here,purely because of the entertainment value when it's cookin.
 
Bristol_ Jonesy's thread wondering why we've been left out,is still intact,but my thread [asking the same thing posted within minutes,without me knowing about his-and we are both lefties!]say's "moved",so you click on it and it goes to Bristol's thread?mine effectively has been deleted ha ha "that's entertainment".

dlesaux
Gearslutz is not a Sonar friendly place!

 
Now that's an understatement if I ever heard one!  LOL
 
I make sure to don my virtual Kevlar when I head there.

fireberd
I posted this on the Gearsluz forum and got a snide remark. 
 
If there are going to be sub forums for each DAW then all DAW's should have a sub forum, not just some.  Either that or no sub forums at all.
 

You got off easy if all you got was snide

I've learned never to discuss DAW's at gearslutz.  Plugins, hardware, technique, instruments - all fairly safe, although plugins can get a bit dicey too.

To play devil's advocate, it is unrealistic to expect literally every DAW to have a subforum. If gearslutz really thought the lack of coverage of a particular DAW was hurting them, I am sure they would include that DAW. Sonar has a much more helpful forum than most DAWs so the demand is less to have one at gearslutz. What would a subforum there offer that is lacking here?

This thread got pretty long since I saw it last, so not sure I caught everything in context. The two things that caught me the most were 1) the importance of time (i.e., not everyone has hundreds of hours to invest) and 2) that video tutorials that are "short and sweet" (i.e., scripted and on point) are incredibly beneficial.
 
Mixing or individual features tend to get most of the focus with videos, but the average person (sans 1000 hours under their belt in SONAR) simply wants to make "something" and learn as they go. Videos on song creation/composition by genre, targeted at new users might prove more helpful to kick starting people using SONAR (and also show off what it can do). From a development standpoint, workflow is also quintessential to people getting material composed in the quickest amount of time. Again, time required by the user get from point A to point B is pretty much all that matters to them. Music is a commonality that links us all (selling point #1).
 
In thinking of an example of what I mean here, I remembered a video I once saw created by a Geist user. I just watched it again and he goes through the major components of beat creation in 10 minutes - sampling/slicing, sequencing, mixing, scene creation (and could have done song creation in the last 45 seconds to simply capture the scenes). Pretty much the "guts" of the program in one quick pass that ends with "usable product." This is a link to that video, but another caveat is also that videos require time to watch, so scripting them is important (too many videos are errant and waste a viewers time by being this way).
 
I think some people tend to be jaded by the 1000s of hours under there belt, and forget the (needless) growing pains they went through to avoid the (workflow) landmines which should be fixed. New users are significantly less tolerant of these (especially as the market shifts to the Millennials who know loyalty to nothing unless they are getting something from it).
 
BTW, the salmon tip was a good one

backwoods
Gee, thanks for derailing my thread guys (joking)
 
 
Hopefully that puts a full stop on this chapter and maybe if we are lucky this whole sorry thread too :)

No I want more 
 
I've been trying to infiltrate that place for years .
Haven't gotten past the waiting room in the lobby where they keep a collection of the member busts on display ..
 

 
Kenny
 

dubdisciple
To play devil's advocate, it is unrealistic to expect literally every DAW to have a subforum. If gearslutz really thought the lack of coverage of a particular DAW was hurting them, I am sure they would include that DAW. Sonar has a much more helpful forum than most DAWs so the demand is less to have one at gearslutz. What would a subforum there offer that is lacking here?

I thought about the possible reasoning of this situation for about 3 seconds and I think this was what I came up with too if I understand you correctly dub. The reason there are not many many more Sonar posts at gearslutz is that this forum is - by my understanding- easily the most popular DAW forum.

Btw if you all don't vote Sonar I'll play you this video, true story somebody actually died watching it...
 

 
 
 
http://www.sosawards.com/vote-2016/
 
 
 
 

KPerry
I'd argue the 3 most important gaps for SONAR in terms of getting more credible are:

1 - Performance. It shouldn't be the be all and end all but, like cars having great 0-60 figures, it matters. SONAR needs a decent audio/VST performance boost so it can compare favourably with others (which it doesn't in the unfortunately commonly quoted performance tests).

2 - Compatability. There are issues with VST compatability still - it's not bad, but there do appear to be more issues with SONAR than other hosts from reading various forums, and SONAR's methods seem to be criticised (wasn't it Acoustica who recently said that SONAR's thread handling was just wrong which caused problems with their plug-in?). This then reflects in plug-in companies testing with SONAR, which reflects on its popularity which reflects on companies testing with SONAR which... Same applies to control surfaces: Cakewalk should bite the bullet and write the surface dll'ls, not expect the controller manufacturer to do (I'm pretty sure that it's usually the DAW manufacturer who does this).

3 - Reliability. This is a tricky one as - apart from the rare issue I've seen, usually due to plug-in compatability and the Bakers erring on the side of caution with dealing with errant plug-ins - SONAR is no less stable than anything else (hell, I get Windows Explorer crashing more than SONAR!). But there's a perception of it being more unstable, crashing more easily and being more picky about hardware than other platforms. On shared forums, I don't see reports of DAW x stuttering and glitching with one or two audio tracks: I do see these reports about SONAR. This probably ties in with performance above to some extent.

All of these are technical issues that have a direct impact on word of mouth marketing and advertising (especially point 2). They're non-trivial to solve or they would have been, but would need a technical, marketing and charm (money?) offensive to address - eg. Pick a big plug-in manufacturer who doesn't currently support SONAR and work with them to get is supported, learn from them why SONAR is 'difficult', pay for their testing/technical expertise and re-write parts of the code accordingly.

Financial investment in plug-ins is probably greater than that in the DAW itself (all of which are ridiculously cheap for what they offer), so a professional (in terms of making a living from recording/mixing) will choose to follow the plug-ins rather than the DAW, so getting that relationship and compatability right is probably the first step.

 

Doktor Avalanche
1) Link to quote please ?

 
As someone's already posted, DAWBench is the web's unofficial offical DAW benchmark. I think it has a lot of flaws, but it's the one that is referenced in, sayy, Sound On Sound magazine, and has been discussed here and on places like KvR.  I don't know why SONAR is no longer benchmarked there (whether it's down to it not being cross-platform or because the site's owner has had some issues with Cakewalk over the years), but the latest discussion I can find http://dawbench.com/dawbenchdsp-x-scaling.htm - which is very old, admittedly - puts SONAR's performance so far behind everything else's as to be laughable.  Mud sticks, unfortunately, and if that's what the stats seem to say, then it's very hard to shake people's belief in them.

Doktor Avalanche
2) Plugins apart from buggy plugins work perfectly well. Just because Acoustica says so (URL?) does to mean to say it is true. Frankly I doubt it when thousands of plugins work perfectly well..

 
But if a certain plug-in shows that you are doing something fundamental like thread handling differently from "everyone else", especially when combined with (1) above, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing it, or you're going to have more compatability issues than others.  I'd find the thread if I could remember either the plug-in name or the company name for sure.
 
And found it about 10 seconds after posting!  Damn people spelling their company names so similarly :-)
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/x99-i75930k-amp-sonar-platinum-thread-balance-m3234101.aspx
 
with corresponding thread on Acustica (not Acoustica) forum:
 
http://www.acustica-audio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=28728&start=84
 

Doktor Avalanche
3) Sonar is reliable. It's people's systems that are unreliable. What is Cakewalk going to do gag these people who scream at great heights crying wolf? Admittedly there are still very visible bugs that need addressing (how long must I go on about that) but they aren't stability issues.

Well, I find is reliable.  But when you hear repeated stories (not on this forum) of SONAR glitching with 2 audio tracks, no plug-ins, or crashing when other DAWs don't, you have to understand that this is what perceptions are.  Sure, it might be for good technical reasons (I think the Bakers code more by the book than others, which is why there are more VST incompatabilities than with others who just get VSTs to work like Cubase!), but that's not really something that bothers end users: why spend days troubleshooting something trivial when another application will work with no effort?