Have you heard about Dorico-
the new Steinberg notation prog ?
http://blog.steinberg.net
Could be an idea for cake- to create also a notation prog.
 

Dorico is primarily a high end music publishing program for traditional composers, film composers,etc.
It does have rudimentary DAW features like VST support so you can use your own synths but it is nowhere near a real DAW.  It appears to me to be a compositional tool with notation as its primary input rather than live instruments or MIDI (though I'm sure you can track MIDI with it as a notation input). Its primary output is very high end music engraving. The VST/audio capability is for auditioning of the composition and producing demos for film scores, etc.
 
I think the price will be just under $600 which is about the price of Cubase itself.  It is probably 10x what most folks need for notation. The existing score editor in Cubase is more inline with what Sonar needs. Cubase has had this for some time and this fact has not influenced Cake to any real extent that I'm aware of.
I too, hope that Dorico spurs some response from Cakewalk but I am not holding my breath.

rebel007
Cake, are you really listening, there must be some way to end this thread.

I have a proposal
It's fair to think that Cakewalk needs to direct efforts and attention to the areas that make the brand thrive (read: make money)
It's also easy to imagine that people might be quick to say "Oh I NEED a score editor" then flake out of the situation.
How about we accept that a functional score editor is going to be a paid for add - on and then Cakewalk starts a crowdfunding campaign?
We all put the money where our mouth is and everyone is a winner.
Just a thought!

Of note:  The next version of Finale will be 64 bit and have some great new tools as well as fixes.

trtzbass

rebel007
Cake, are you really listening, there must be some way to end this thread.

I have a proposal
It's fair to think that Cakewalk needs to direct efforts and attention to the areas that make the brand thrive (read: make money)
It's also easy to imagine that people might be quick to say "Oh I NEED a score editor" then flake out of the situation.
How about we accept that a functional score editor is going to be a paid for add - on and then Cakewalk starts a crowdfunding campaign?
We all put the money where our mouth is and everyone is a winner.
Just a thought!

Just curious, as it is difficult to "know" someone on a public forum. Did you pay for lifetime updates, for example? Do you use MIDI or are you only/primarily audio? Would you have paid "extra" for some of the core functions of SPlat from the last year - mix recall, ARA tempo sync, drum replacer, for example?
No disrespect intended but I find it is often those who don't give a rat's derrière about notation who say we don't need it, or it should cost more, or more often "buy something else".
Well, I bought the lifetime updates, AND I bought something else - NOTION and PROGRESSION. Just bought the new Reaper (with integrated notation).
Truthfully if Cakewalk said they will integrate a notation editor into SPlat, but it will be an "extra" (non-core) bolt-on, I would buy it. But I wonder if all users in a similar position faced with the same question about a key piece of the daw they love would honestly say the same thing. We're all customers, like it or not, notation IS (at least for now) a piece of the core program.

I would buy add-on notation in a heart-beat. I would actually prefer a bolt-on solution. Why should people with no use for notation pay for it.
Actually what I would really prefer is 'complete' implementation of Music-XML in Sonar (and perhaps in Notion, MusicScore, Finale, etc as needed) so that the user could could chose which notation add-on is appropriate.

This could be argued with the mastering plugs. That is on the edge of the scope the DAW, and many people have fully fledged mastering software, yet cake invested in this. 
 
But I'm in the camp of just wanting the score brought up to date, not needing fully fledged scored program. All aspects of the programs should be evolving, not just the mixing stuff.
 
Cakewalk still advertise scoring as a main feature of the program, is at the top of the 'feature' page
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Features#start
and again half way down the page. But haven't developed it for what a decade.
 
Regards the crowd funding, I feel like that's what the lifetime updates option is for, to fund the mac version, which no current users 'need'. But I hope the flipside to this will be a stack of classically trained musicians with macs going WTF when they try get their head around SV
 

microapp
I would buy add-on notation in a heart-beat. I would actually prefer a bolt-on solution. Why should people with no use for notation pay for it.
Actually what I would really prefer is 'complete' implementation of Music-XML in Sonar (and perhaps in Notion, MusicScore, Finale, etc as needed) so that the user could could chose which notation add-on is appropriate.

Here's the problem(s) -
1) As notation users, even we can't get our act together. I can definitely see why Cake would throw up their hands on the whole matter. But - if you wade back through the thread you'll find that most respondents are looking for staff based editing/entry tools - and mostly - to fix the bugs that have crept in and not been fixed over multiple product evolutions. I personally could'nt care less about music xml (well ok, it would be nice TOO). I DO want a proper, robust staff based EDITOR for MIDI entry/editing/creation, to augment working in the PRV. I can use anything else out there to print pretty notation (and do that currently).
2) While YOU are quick to say you'd pay for a bolt-on YOU want, can I get money back for things in SPlat I don't use - drum replacer for example?
I am just being a facetious ass - but my argument in the post above still stands. Yes I would pay (again) for notation too - but I would like the customer base of SONAR as a whole to be sensitive to the fact that Notation IS part of the SONAR core functionality, (until Cakewalk decides to change paths) - and pre-dates things like touch, mix recall, the pro-channel, drum replacer, ARA, skylight, etc.
 

Brando,
I could not care less about printing scores or even lead sheets either. I bring up musicXML because with even a purely minimal functional implementation, third party notation programs could be used for notation input. If done properly, the third party notation pgm could be integrated into Sonar just like third party wave editors.
It should be a lot less work to fix musicXML support than writing a new staff view.

 

Helene Kolpakova
I recorded the track almost entirely from my keyboard. With minor edits in the piano roll. And you guessed it, the current notation is a total mess. It's absolutely useless as it is right now.

It can probably be improved greatly with the right settings, and some additional editing in the PRV. Here are the main things you will need to do to get the piece to display well as notation:
 
- Record the piece to a click or align SONAR's timeline to it after the fact using Set Measure/Beat At Now (nothing will work as expected if the MIDI isn't closely aligned to the timeline with the correct meter(s) set).
- Manually split left- and right-hand parts of the original track to two new tracks, and designate those two tracks the bass and treble clefs of a grand staff in the Layout section of the Staff View.
- Quantize note start times of these two 'notation' tracks to 100% at the appropriate resolution.
- Set the Display Resolution appropriately, and enable Fill Durations and Trim Durations.
- In areas that still don't display as expected, you will probably need to to do some manual trimming/filling of durations in the PRV to get the desired result.
 
Depending on the style of the composition, there may still be things that SONAR can't get right,  but if it's a 'simple piece' as you described, you should be able to get a serviceable result.