John
Here is a demo song for X3 as it is displayed when opened.
 

 
 
 
Here is a shot of a few changes to the display.  I used C to hide the Control Bar and F11 to maximize the TV.
 
 

 
 
 
With the keyboard shortcuts and screensets you can do a lot. I would also recommend dual monitors.

Hello John,
thank you for trying to me help out  
I have been using screen sets in X3 a little here and there , I happen to think it is a wonderful feature .
I'm also learning my A B C 's of using the keyboard shortcuts .
On a per project basis I have found those workflow enhancements useful . what I am asking for is somewhat different.
 
rather than try to explain myself here and now ...what I 'm gonna do is work on this on my own time , get as far as I can get ..then when I get stuck I will come back and enlist the community at large in a separate thread addressing my concerns ….
 
oh a funny thing John , I do have an older flat monitor that has been in use on my XP computer .
I went out and bought an adaptor so I could run it w the lap top …I set it up and was able to experience the dual screen work flow  in X 3 …this old monitor seemed dark and I couldn't get it light enough …anyway I disconnected  it after I  shut off my computer ….next time I went to start X3 it was just w the lap top alone ...
I almost had a heart attack ..X3 loaded and I couldn't find it until I swiped the mouse across the screen and got it back 
anyway i think getting a larger screen may help greatly …it may be to my benefit to bring the lappy to store when I am ready to pull the trigger and pick up a screen that is large enough and bright enough for my needs
thanks ...
 

John
One thing is I don't envy the CW developers. Its going to be hard top X3.

Yes…. a big reason why I started this thread ...
 
Kenny
 
 

Anderton
 
Ah, so does this mean you're talking about MIDI and not audio? If so, given that life would be easier for timings if you could start at 0, wouldn't it be a worthwhile tradeoff to just enter that first note manually if it was before 0 and didn't register? My tradeoff is to hit the note a little bit late to make sure it "sticks," then move it to 0 after the recording is done.
 
Not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to get some insight into the process. Personally, I think Sonar's toolkit is well-suited to jingles, but if some feature could be added that would make really help the jingle-making process, I'd like to know about it.

I don't feel like you're giving me a hard time at all. I appreciate your interest.
 
MIDI AND audio are problematic, but the MIDI is easier to fix (as you pointed out) than audio. In one composition, I was trying to start with a guitar chord arpeggio, where I slowly strummed the individual strings, beginning a fraction of a second before 0. Since Sonar didn't record the first of my strum, I had to re-perform the part from the start, which was a time-consuming hassle, considering the fact that the rest of my take was like I wanted it. 
 
Doing as you suggest and hitting the first note a little bit late results in messing with the feel of the part from the word "go". At least for me, it's difficult to play a part with the feeling I'm going for, when I have to consciously delay the very first note. 
 
You are correct that Sonar has a toolkit well-suited to jingles. Mike McCue's suggestion to be able to "select a range on the timeline and there is a read out in SONAR that tells you how long the selection is in H:M:S:F" would make it better, and not just for determining the total length of a piece. 
 
For example, I typically arrange a 60-second jingle to begin with a few seconds of intro for announcer talk time, followed by the jingle sing, a bed for the main commercial voice-over, an end jingle sing, and then a short instrumental stinger to provide for the business address or whatever at the very end. In order to note the exact timings of the intro music, main instrumental bed and end stinger for an advertising copywriter, I now have to take the mix into Adobe Audition 3 and do as Mike suggests...because Audition will do it while Sonar will not. 
 
As I mentioned, I abandoned Sonar's pre-zero metronome count off and developed my system of including a count off in the timeline long ago, when I first started using Sonar 7. Whether I was recording a jingle or a song, having the program miss the first note of an otherwise pristine take became something that I could not live with. 

 
this sounds encouraging 

 
Kenny

I started with Pro Audio 9, and while I have not upgraded every time, I have owned PA9 plus six versions of Sonar, culminating with X3. For the first time, I am completely happy with my DAW. The interface, the workflow, the included plugins, Melodyne, Addictive Drums, blah, blah, blah, and it is the most stable version yet.
 
But the timetable calls for a new version soon, and this is what I've been asking myself: What can Cakewalk possibly say or do to turn me against X3 and make me feel as if I must upgrade? Because that's what it comes down to. You don't change your DAW unless you feel as if the one you're using is inadequate or outdated. The love has to go out of it for you, and every time you load the program you feel resentful and frustrated. If they do a bunch of little under-the-hood enhancements, I don't think I'd be inclined to move away from X3. I mean, there are small annoyances I'd like to see fixed, but for those I could wait a version or two.
 
Maybe I don't have enough imagination to think of what Cakewalk could do that would be earthshaking enough. But I recall it was Addictive Drums that convinced me to move from X2. That offer hit just as I was thinking about a new MIDI drum package, so maybe another giant expensive VSTi or Melodyne Editor or something might ring my bell.
 
In the meantime, X3 and I, we're doing just fine.

melmyers
You are correct that Sonar has a toolkit well-suited to jingles. Mike McCue's suggestion to be able to "select a range on the timeline and there is a read out in SONAR that tells you how long the selection is in H:M:S:F" would make it better, and not just for determining the total length of a piece. 

I'm not aware of that being on the feature request list (you might want to do so), but meanwhile, check this out: you can insert a tempo change for just the first measure or two to make sure it's some nice easy number of seconds. For example if you make the first measure 120 BPM, it will last exactly 2 seconds so measure 2 and the rest of the music will start exactly at the 2-second mark. I just tried this and it works great. Put the locked marker at 62 seconds, and you'll always know exactly where 60 seconds begins and ends, as well as the offset you need to subtract (2 seconds) to know exactly where you are in the jingle.
 
Of course there's the other workaround I suggested - insert an audio track and put a clip in it - any clip - and mute the track. Make the clip the length of whatever you want to measure, and you can see its length in the Inspector's Clip tab. This readout can be in HMSF or the other variants. That, combined with the marker locked to SMPTE, should help make life easier. You'll at least know where the hard end hits, and can measure without having to do any math. But the tempo change thing is pretty slick...give it a shot.

Anderton

thomasabarnes
In the past, users have expressed a desire for a gapless audio engine and staff view improvements.
 

Frankly, I think the notation train has left the station in general. The more recent programs like Studio One, Live, and Reason don't do it at all. Avid had an opportunity when they bought Sibelius to fold hardcore notation into Pro Tools but did a lighter version instead. Cubase is still heavy on notation and that probably won't go away, given Yamaha's interest in the traditional educational market. But I just can't see a greatly improved staff view in Sonar making much of a difference in terms of attracting new users, and while there are existing users who would love Sonar's gestalt bundled with a great staff view, it seems to be a minority viewpoint compared to the user base as a whole. I could be wrong, of course.

 That's because the user base who wanted staff view improvement switched to Cubase.  

kitekrazy1

Anderton

thomasabarnes
In the past, users have expressed a desire for a gapless audio engine and staff view improvements.
 

Frankly, I think the notation train has left the station in general. The more recent programs like Studio One, Live, and Reason don't do it at all. Avid had an opportunity when they bought Sibelius to fold hardcore notation into Pro Tools but did a lighter version instead. Cubase is still heavy on notation and that probably won't go away, given Yamaha's interest in the traditional educational market. But I just can't see a greatly improved staff view in Sonar making much of a difference in terms of attracting new users, and while there are existing users who would love Sonar's gestalt bundled with a great staff view, it seems to be a minority viewpoint compared to the user base as a whole. I could be wrong, of course.

 That's because the user base who wanted staff view improvement switched to Cubase.  

That's opinion. And possible Libel. 
 
Show us X4 Noel and Co. Bring the Ruckus! 
 
I hope it's not X3 with lots of third party stuff seeing as I can't see much to improve.

Anderton

melmyers
Since I commonly set up a 1- or 2-bar count off, there's always a short amount of dead space at the front that affects the total timing.

 
Is there any particular reason why you don't use the metronome to give a one or two-bar countoff so the jingle starts at 0:00? You can have the metronome click only during the countoff, then shut up for the rest of the recording.
 

I have to click at the end of my music, note the total time, click at the end of the count off, note the count off time...and then subtract the count off time from the end-of-music time, to see if the tempo I've set brings me out to :60.

 
 
 
 
 
 

It is common (not just common, but expected) in film/video work for a program to begin @ 01:00:00;00 for many reason I won't get into here.  Working in this environment I picked up the habit of starting my time sensitive projects :10 into a sequence.  My video SYMPTE offset in preferences is always set @ :00:59:50;00.  Once I pick my tempo I manipulate the meter so beat 1 of my music starts at 01:00:00;00. (it could be measure 6 as an example).  I open the "Big Clock" and can easily see where 60 seconds will fall. (01:01:00;00..everything is off set by one hour)
 
Another way...maybe easier...if you want to start your sequence in measure 3,  Just manipulate your SYMPTE off-set until 01:00:00;00  lines up at measure 3.  For example: if your meter is 4/4 and 120 BPM, and a offset of  :00:59:56:00.. measure 3 will have a SYMPTE clock time of 01:00:00:00. 
 
You can find the sympte Off set at    Preferences>Project>Clock.  And here is another clue.  If your music is longer than 1 minute, you are better off setting your frame rate at 29:97 df  (dropframe)  the timing will be more accurate.
     
This stuff becomes second nature once you've done it a couple of times. 

 
Sorry about this font...don't know how it got there and any attempts to change it made things worse
 

backwoods

kitekrazy1

Anderton

thomasabarnes
In the past, users have expressed a desire for a gapless audio engine and staff view improvements.
 

Frankly, I think the notation train has left the station in general. The more recent programs like Studio One, Live, and Reason don't do it at all. Avid had an opportunity when they bought Sibelius to fold hardcore notation into Pro Tools but did a lighter version instead. Cubase is still heavy on notation and that probably won't go away, given Yamaha's interest in the traditional educational market. But I just can't see a greatly improved staff view in Sonar making much of a difference in terms of attracting new users, and while there are existing users who would love Sonar's gestalt bundled with a great staff view, it seems to be a minority viewpoint compared to the user base as a whole. I could be wrong, of course.

 That's because the user base who wanted staff view improvement switched to Cubase.  

That's opinion. And possible Libel. 
 
Show us X4 Noel and Co. Bring the Ruckus! 
 
I hope it's not X3 with lots of third party stuff seeing as I can't see much to improve.

 It's actually ignorance on your behalf.  This forum is a small world.  Check Vi-Control, NSS forums you will find more who switched to Cubase for it's better scoring abilities than sticking with Sonar.  You can google "Sonar's staff view" or even search this forum.  It's a reality that strikes at the heart of this forum's "fanboyism".  People on this forum have gotten harsh treatment because they wanted a better staff view. They started on it because it had a staff view.  After so many years of no improvement and it's something that is really important to them while something out there is better why would they stick with it?  "Other DAWs don't have it" is not a good argument. Usually a DAW with notation is priced higher.
 

kitekrazy1
It's actually ignorance on your behalf.  This forum is a small world.  Check Vi-Control, NSS forums you will find more who switched to Cubase for it's better scoring abilities than sticking with Sonar.

 
I'm not sure I'd consider those big worlds...but anecdotal evidence isn't really that valid. Just because I know people who switched from Cubase to Sonar doesn't mean anything, other than that they found workflow more important to their needs than notation.
 
In any case, it seems obvious that if someone wants heavy-duty staff view abilities, they'd switch to a program that emphasizes that feature. Or if they want to use looping live, they'd switch to Ableton Live. If they buy Premiere, they'll probably switch to Audition and if mastering was a crucial part of their workflow, they might opt for Samplitude. The concept that people gravitate towards programs that suit their needs isn't surprising, at least to me. I've switched platforms multiple times to use what suited my needs best at the time.
 

People on this forum have gotten harsh treatment because they wanted a better staff view. They started on it because it had a staff view.  After so many years of no improvement and it's something that is really important to them while something out there is better why would they stick with it?

 
If someone likes Sonar's workflow but wants a program with heavy-duty notation, then they need to make a choice. Some may stick with Sonar because as one user just posted, he used to work with notation but has since found the piano roll superior for his needs. They might choose to rewire a program like Notion, or block out in a notation-oriented program then import into Sonar for mixing. People have different needs and choose the options that meet their needs the best...as they should.
 
For Cakewalk, the returns of implementing a fancy staff view are not commensurate with the resources needed to implement it. I can print out lead sheets; if I need engraving quality (e.g., for musical examples in books) no DAW really does the job anyway. I'm probably fairly typical. Heavy-duty notation is just not that important to the majority of Sonar users, based not on anecdotal evidence but on a statistically valid sampling of the user base. The lack of interest also indicate that if it was implemented, a major (and expensive) marketing effort would be needed to convince people who are using existing notation-friendly programs to switch. There's no guarantee that would be successful, and unless Sonar attracted a whole bunch of new users because of implementing notation, then it's really not worth the resources.
 
Features like comping, ARA integration, and VST3 support affects a large percentage of the user base and are prioritized in terms of resources.
 

"Other DAWs don't have it" is not a good argument.

 
Actually, it is. It means they've likely done similar research and come to the same conclusion.