BobF

Beepster
Don't mistake my last post as dismissing the validity of these types of requests. It was about the seemingly persistent promotion of another DAW on this forum by one specific user. Not sure what that is all about. Just been seeing a lot of it.

I don't see the "Reaper can do it" posts as promoting Reaper.  I see it as rightfully pointing out that a competing product has the capability.
 
I would gladly trade everything Sonar has that Reaper is lacking in to have Sonar's UI bolted onto the front of Reaper.  THAT would be a most excellent starting point for opening up feature requests.  IMO, of course.
 
Other shoe & foot?  I can't believe how long Justin has allowed the UI & menu inconsistencies in Reaper go without being addressed.  There are some users that have done great themes, but I HATE relying on other users to provide me with functionality that I believe should be part of the core package.  THAT is the biggest reason I came back to Sonar after switching to Reaper for a couple of years.  The flow isn't there for me.  I LOVE the way I interact with Sonar.
 
Back to the OP.  I don't know the architecture of Sonar well enough to do more than guess, and my guess is that the code base is very old and complex, making things that seem simple to users not so simple to implement.
 
 

Hi, Bob. As noted I have no problem with that and perhaps chose a poor example to bring it up on because it was indeed a valid answer to a direct question. It was more about that specific poster who's taken to consistently bringing up the DAW in question just about every post they make.
 
I am happy they have found something that works for them. It was just irking me a little (and perhaps I was in a tad overly irky mood yesterday).
 
Don't want to belabor the issue. It's not a big deal and I probably should have just kept my mouth shut for the sake of not being a poop shuffler on these here fair forums.
 
Cheers.

Don't scooper the pooper...
Then the door was open and the wind disappeared....

Anderton

mudgel

Anderton
I'm pretty sure VoiceMeeter is Windows audio only, not ASIO. There are many non-ASIO solutions available for Windows.

Voicemeeter (Banana) (how's that for a version name) actually does ASIO.

Thanks for the correction. Good news!

...and isn't there an advantage using a virtual solution, since the loopback signal paths would stay inside the computer as opposed to going out the interface (USB, Firewire, etc...), through the DACs/ADCs and then finally back through the interface?

maximumpower

Anderton

mudgel

Anderton
I'm pretty sure VoiceMeeter is Windows audio only, not ASIO. There are many non-ASIO solutions available for Windows.

Voicemeeter (Banana) (how's that for a version name) actually does ASIO.

Thanks for the correction. Good news!

...and isn't there an advantage using a virtual solution, since the loopback signal paths would stay inside the computer as opposed to going out the interface (USB, Firewire, etc...), through the DACs/ADCs and then finally back through the interface?

Yes. As I've stated previously, in most cases (not all) it's more elegant to stay inside the box. 

pwalpwal

Anderton

Karyn
And thus the request to record the live audio from soft synths so that it Does sound the same on each playback.

As pointed out in this thread, there are many ways to do that without having to add another feature. I still think development time is better spent on fixes and features instead of duplication.

as pointed out in this thread, it's not duplication, but rather it's optimising workflow by making routing more flexible - but you can call it a feature if you (or marketing) like :-)
vote here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/Realtime-internal-recording-m3099239.aspx
 

 
Of course I didn't mean duplication of the function; none of the other alternate methods involves being able to click the record button in a SONAR track and record the output. It's a duplication of the functionality, as offered by plug-ins, virtual cables, and physical cables. The closest option is clicking the record button in a plug-in, or doing an internal or external routing first and then clicking the record button in a SONAR track. 
 
And you're right, calling it a feature would be correct, given that "feature" means a distinctive attribute or aspect of something.
 
Anyway, the OP's premise was that it was not possible to record a synth's output in real time. My responses addressed that premise. If the premise had been "Which programs allow direct recording of a synth track in real time?," my response would have been very different.