Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)




Psychic SONAR?

bronsoncox
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Rolling-Updates#start
 
From the 'Up Next' section of the Rolling Updates page

 
YES!!
 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

brundlefly

Adq
I just hope that output choice list will be modified too.

It's the Input list that will be affected by this feature. Physical interface driver inputs are already grouped into a branch of the drop-down list. If each soft synth gets its own branch, the list should be pretty manageable. If not, having even a few multi-out synths in the project would make for an immense list. I trust the Bakers will address this in a reasonable way.
 

No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)

I'm hoping for a graphical approach, like Bidule module connections.
 
Feedback loops might also be useful for the experimenter (with delays, filters etc. in the audio paths using VSTs).

Beepster

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

brundlefly

Adq
I just hope that output choice list will be modified too.

It's the Input list that will be affected by this feature. Physical interface driver inputs are already grouped into a branch of the drop-down list. If each soft synth gets its own branch, the list should be pretty manageable. If not, having even a few multi-out synths in the project would make for an immense list. I trust the Bakers will address this in a reasonable way.
 

No you won't see endless track lists. We have something much cooler planned :)

Now all ya'll should pay attention to this post. I think it says something about the new age of Sonar and how, as I've been saying with cautious optimism since X3, that we could be very well about to experience a massive shift from "underdogs" to "industry standard".
 
This lack of function has indeed been one of the things that other platforms had over Sonar. There was no real disputing that. However now that it is being implemented in Sonar what, ten?, twenty?, years after the others who are firmly planted in that (IMO lame arse, confusing, boring as balls) type of setup can we not expect a hyper modernized and much more USEFUL implementation of that old standard based on the years of requests and suggestions about it?
 
tl;dr
 
The old guys did it 20 years ago and it was "meh" but useful for specific things. 20 years of screaming and plotting and scheming might just = BOOM!!! Super awesome wicked time while the competitors are forced to deal with their 20 year old code deeply ingrained in their programs.
 
All your base are belong to us.
 
well that wasn't really a tl;dr but FU... I do wut I want...
 
/optimistic
//don't prove me wrong
///you have not so far

As much as Sonar is my preferred DAW I don't think the perception of ProTools being the industry standard will change by any amount of new features in Sonar. Taking into account all the info that Craig has given us in connection with the overall DAW market, (brought about by Notaion discussion) when the people using PT at the upper end of the market have no reason to change as it does what it needs to for them, I think a 20 year head start is too big to claw back. That doesn't mean Sonar won't continue to evolve and make converts and attract many new users. Let's see what the market dictates in the next 5 to 10 years.

Can we try and guess how they are going to pull this off, based on circumstantial evidence?
 
If you insert a Soft Synth onto two tracks, instead of combining them into one track like I usually do, Sonar will draw a "ghost" audio waveform onto the audio track as the midi track is performed or played back.  At least the "graphics" for the audio exist at this point...
 
It seems to me that the whole "export" or "rendering" process in Sonar is necessary to prevent feedback loops, so...
 
Can the audio that is generated by Sonar when playing a Soft Synth be "stored" in it's own "silent" place, where the audio is piped in and in only...and with a simple click...that audio can be "released" to the drawn waveform...?
 
Like a clipboard...I guess.

Thedoccal
Can we try and guess how they are going to pull this off, based on circumstantial evidence?
 
If you insert a Soft Synth onto two tracks, instead of combining them into one track like I usually do, Sonar will draw a "ghost" audio waveform onto the audio track as the midi track is performed or played back.  At least the "graphics" for the audio exist at this point...
 
It seems to me that the whole "export" or "rendering" process in Sonar is necessary to prevent feedback loops, so...
 
Can the audio that is generated by Sonar when playing a Soft Synth be "stored" in it's own "silent" place, where the audio is piped in and in only...and with a simple click...that audio can be "released" to the drawn waveform...?
 
Like a clipboard...I guess.

Wat?
 

Thedoccal
If you insert a Soft Synth onto two tracks, instead of combining them into one track like I usually do, Sonar will draw a "ghost" audio waveform onto the audio track as the midi track is performed or played back.  At least the "graphics" for the audio exist at this point...

The waveform preview is just graphical representation of the track meter movement over time. It has a much lower resolution than the actual digital audio signal.
 
Cakewalk CTO Noel Borthwick posted the following earlier in the thread:
 
"The trickiest part of this is not so much the actual routing. As you know we already can route and mix streams from anywhere via sidechains - that's how sidechaining works. The engine has been designed to handle pretty much any arbitrary routing so that's the least of the problem. The hardest part is doing the infrastructure for virtual ports, and recording virtual ports itself which is very complex. If it turns out the way were planning, this will be a really powerful and elegant feature."
 
 

Maybe it'll be set up similar to the Insert Send Assistant, but instead of only being able to send the stream to a bus, it can be sent to any track...
 
Hopefully this track-to-track routing provides significant flexibility so it can be used in a variety of ways.  I personally don't come across the need to record synth tracks in real-time very often, but I sure would like to be able to do track-to-track parallel compression instead of only being able to route to buses.  Maybe it'll be similar to how PT uses aux tracks...
 
Of course all I need to do is be patient, wait, and see what they've got cooking...but man, these monthly rollouts really stoke the curiosity fires!