Musikman
 
The problem I'm seeing ahead is that although it gives me the audio, it does not place it in the same spot on the timeline as it was in the original Sonar project. So that means I'll preserve the audio, but won't have any way of knowing exactly where on the timeline it starts and stops. So as far as I can tell it will be guesswork for that part, unless anyone here has an solution for that? Appreciate any suggestions! Thanks

Open the cwp in SONAR and export the tracks as broadcast (timestamped) wav files. Each track will then have a time stamp on where it is to be inserted when imported. Also, in the DAW you are importing into, be sure the option to import to timestamp is enabled (as applicable).

Cactus Music
Ya sorry for my first answer, I should have realized who was asking it and why. Now I see and it is worth wasting brain cells on.. a fare few too. 

 

Or another idea might be PM Noel and just ask him what he thinks. They might say it's a great idea thank you.

Noel is a very nice person. But if I understand that right, he is still working for Gibson and so the "official" person.
Asking such question directly can be not polite (if official answer is different from his personal opinion...).
 

foldaway
Here's a link to article 6 of the EU directive (2009/24/EC) on the legal protection of computer programs.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=208108#LinkTarget_129

Thanks! That looks really good (if then have not changed something... I remember many discussions several years ago).
 

MandolinPicker
This might be of interest to you. Its called ProjectScope and it was developed by Mark Adamczyk. It is a browser that shows all of the information within the Sonar Project file.

The idea was inspired by that program, as I have already written in corresponding thread.
Note that ProjectScope shows very far from "all" of the information required for converter.
 

michael diemer
I see. Thanks that helps. My use of Sonar is not very deep, so I don't have these issues. Funny, I compose for full orchestra, with many instruments, but it's all midi and the FX are quite basic.

You probably sometimes have several clips on one track...
 

Musikman
The problem I'm seeing ahead is that although it gives me the audio, it does not place it in the same spot on the timeline as it was in the original Sonar project.

When/if there will be the first prototype, it should be able to do at least that
 
I already know how to get: tracks, simple audio clip position, size and fades (which files, with which shifts/snaps, absolute/musical), simple MIDI clips position and MIDI content and basic project parameters. So I am missing tempo map only (should not take long) to have everything for the first attempt...
 

sharke
Such an app to translate to Reaper files would be marvelous. I imagine a dialog where you'd locate the CWP file, check some boxes to specify which elements of the project file you wish to be reproduced, and then provide a name for the Reaper file. Simples!

If I understand related part of Reaper API right, it should be possible to use normal Reaper "Open project" dialog for that. But that is the simplest part of the project

foldaway
@azslow3
I've also been considering this.
 
Here's a link to article 6 of the EU directive (2009/24/EC) on the legal protection of computer programs.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=208108#LinkTarget_129
 
So, as you're in the EU it would be perfectly legal to reverse engineer the .cwp file format & (if I'm reading the directive correctly) the sonar binary, with the purpose of creating a tool to allow interoperability. eg. conversion to another file format.
 
You would also be free to sell such a tool in the EU.  Not sure about the US though.

I’m not so certain about that.

Firstly, the EU isn’t a single nation-state with a federal structure like the USA, it’s a Union of independent sovereign nation states - countries - held together by treaties, trade agreements and the decisions of the member country’s governments. Plus a parliament, civil service (the Commission) and courts with the limited powers required to administer the Union’s common functions and settle disagreements. Not forgetting that some members have exemptions from some Treaty clauses, just to complicate things a bit more.

Which all means EU Directives and Standards are not like a US federal law, made by a single legislature and implemented by a single executive. They’re the result of negotiations between representatives of the EU member countries and other interested parties. Directives, once agreed and published, are not law - instead they require each member country to create its own law to implement the Directive. Which the members get round to.... eventually.

To make things a bit more complicated different countries sometimes interpret the EU’s documents differently - e.g. there are several languages involved and some things don’t always translate very well from one language into another. So sometimes one country’s version of the law might be slightly different to another country’s.

Short version - don’t rely on the wording of a single Directive to get a picture of what is and isn’t legal in any EU member country. Like any legal interpretation you need to look at everything that’s relevant - other statutes, case law and so on in the EU member you’re in at the time.

The references in the Directive to not breaching patents, intellectual property rights or “trade secrets” for example might be relevant. The legal picture could be very complicated indeed, especially given the money involved in the software industry and the number of cases that the courts have already considered.

The wise thing to do might be to start by asking Gibson/Cakewalk if they have any objections. They might say “it’s OK with us”, or they may want money or say “no” and that they’ll sue anyone who creates such a filter.

But just going ahead without asking them at all is a bit of a gamble and could end up costing a lot of money in legal fees.....

azslow3

foldaway
Here's a link to article 6 of the EU directive (2009/24/EC) on the legal protection of computer programs.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=208108#LinkTarget_129

Thanks! That looks really good (if then have not changed something... I remember many discussions several years ago).

 
After some further searching, this appears to still be latest info.
 
Really excited to hear how far you've already got & really hope you carry on with this endeavour.  I'd also be happy to support the development of such a tool through a donation or purchase.

@tlw
 
While I agree that care should be taken, after searching & reading multiple potentially relevant EU directives, I've found no evidence so far to suggest any problems at all! (nb. taking all your points into account)
 
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.
 
As to your last point.  If there is no legal basis for Gibson to object, then there is certainly no reason to ask for thier permission.
 

Look at all the programs that can read Acidized files, but I don't know if the file format was considered proprietary or not.
 
I guess where it gets sticky is that if you're just importing a single data file, that's different from importing multiple aspects that may be considered proprietary...for example, Mix Recall settings. But, suppose you recall QuadCurve EQ settings and apply them to a different EQ. I don't think Cakewalk would own your EQ settings, those are settings you made to their EQ so you should be able to make those settings to a different EQ. In that case, the program is just like a notepad to hold your settings.
 
In any event it's an interesting question.
 
 

foldaway
@tlw
 
While I agree that care should be taken, after searching & reading multiple potentially relevant EU directives, I've found no evidence so far to suggest any problems at all! (nb. taking all your points into account)
 
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.

I also have such impression at the moment.
 
While not all EU Directives are directly laws, I understand that in some areas EU has almost direct control on things. It comes from "EU" meaning in general, while the behavior is not US like, it is definitively stronger then let say UN. Without common patents, trademarks, copyrights and related rules enforcement, economically borderless  EU will fall apart in no time.
 

Anderton
Look at all the programs that can read Acidized files, but I don't know if the file format was considered proprietary or not.

Such formats (several markers) have no technological component. I have already found several (EU) courts decisions that even proprietary scripting languages can be "parsed" without any restrictions or permissions, at least for purpose in question. F.e. when someone creates own program and has considered to USE some proprietary format for it, it is not the same as TRANSFER the information from that format. The later fall into "fair use" case in all documents I have seen so far.
 
But since you are here... Reaper does not support FX chains and CW "FX chain" is not a normal plug-in. I guess I will have to "un-roll" them. Your (locked) FX chains contain not exposed to users IP and so should not be un-rolled. Is that right?
 

mettelus

Musikman
 
The problem I'm seeing ahead is that although it gives me the audio, it does not place it in the same spot on the timeline as it was in the original Sonar project. So that means I'll preserve the audio, but won't have any way of knowing exactly where on the timeline it starts and stops. So as far as I can tell it will be guesswork for that part, unless anyone here has an solution for that? Appreciate any suggestions! Thanks

Open the cwp in SONAR and export the tracks as broadcast (timestamped) wav files. Each track will then have a time stamp on where it is to be inserted when imported. Also, in the DAW you are importing into, be sure the option to import to timestamp is enabled (as applicable).

Alternatively, if you have only one clip per track you can slip drag the left ends of each clip to the same zero point and bounce them. With several clips per track you'd need to bounce them all to form one clip first.

foldaway
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.

I haven’t in any detail, but I’m not a lawyer specialising in that aspect of the law. Those who are may well find something they can build an objection out of. And as Gibson is a US corporation they may be able to persuade the US courts to take an interest no matter where someone who they want to sue lives.

foldaway 
As to your last point.  If there is no legal basis for Gibson to object, then there is certainly no reason to ask for thier permission.

That “if” is the key word. And it’s not unknown for companies to raise objections and move towards the courts regardless of the legal position with the object of costing their opponent so much money they can’t afford to fight the case.

I’m afraid that thinking Gibson have no legal reason to object doesn’t mean that Gibson have no arguable legal reason to object. That’s something courts exist to sort out.

All I’m saying is that personally I’d start by asking the question.

azslow3
But since you are here... Reaper does not support FX chains and CW "FX chain" is not a normal plug-in. I guess I will have to "un-roll" them. Your (locked) FX chains contain not exposed to users IP and so should not be un-rolled. Is that right?

The reason for locking them ceased to exist a while ago, so the new and additional CA-X amp sims for the 30th Anniversary freebies that were based on TH3 were unlocked. Those FX Chains also were improved compared to the original CA-X amps, so I would recommend them instead of the older, locked versions. Also, I believe that if you open any locked FX Chains in SONAR X3, they will unlock by themselves.
 
In any event if there are FX Chains that I created, you are welcome to use them however you want. I am replicating several of the amps in Studio One's FX Chains using S1's processors in conjunction with TH3.