In addition to all of the other positive things, P5 came with this as a demo
 
https://dl.dropboxusercon...20Are%20That%20Man.mp3

really though, how hard would it be for Cakewalk to add pattern-based lanes/tracks where we could drag and drop patterns into the timeline from a project's pattern browser or something so that linear sequencing could work hand-in-hand with pattern-based sequencing? the icing on the cake, i guess, would be to be able to drag-and-drop patterns built in Maschine into the Sonar pattern browser for easy placement into Sonar projects.  
 
one of the problems currently with using Maschine as a vst in Sonar is that it places too much stress on the first core of the processor, even though Maschine itself is multi-core aware.  Sonar doesn't seem to be able to spread the load.

Would the arranger track feature in Studio One give you guys the pattern capabilities you're looking for? I have high hopes we will get something along those lines in 2016 based on the very high level of interest shown for that feature and the fact that Noel showed up here
http://forum.cakewalk.com...e-window-m3104937.aspx
asking for specific feedback on what folks would want out of such a feature (and got a unanimous answer).
 
BTW If you haven't voted for that FR please do!
 
 

It looks like Studio One's step sequencer is the same style as the P5 pattern editor, yes?
https://www.youtube.com/w...6yCvQyDDBV&index=5

That looks semi-painful to me. I think most folks are seeking a looper that records real-time and overwrites previous events in the same "step" (meaning quantize is not used so swing is captured). That SS strikes me like SONAR's PRV, and what bothers me specifically is "programming a rest." I look to a SS to program events, all "rests" are implied.

I think the rest in the vid is the same idea as 'step forward' when step recording with Sonar ... which is different from using the 'step sequencer'
 

P5's pattern editor looks like a PRV too. How does it function that is different? Why is it so beloved?

That's hard to verbalize ... to me, the whole package that is P5 works really.  The pieces fit.  The flow makes sense and doesn't surprise you with inconsistencies.
 
It was/isn't perfect for all types of projects, but damn it's slick.  IMHO, of course.

I'm just a hobbyist and have used everything from Pro Audio to X3, but I made more music and had more fun with Project 5 than any of them.  It was just simpler to throw something together and then decide whether to put more effort into it or do something else.  I have never had the time to figure out how to make SONAR that easy if it's even possible.  I bought Live in hopes of using it like that, but haven't had the time to get up to speed on that either.
 
To steal a few ideas from this thread, here's an idea.  Resurrect P5 (exact same UI) with touch implementation targeted at tablet devices like Surface.  I'm a developer, and I can tell you that UI design is a huge component of development and it's really done here.  Porting the GUI to use x64 and using SONAR's audio engine really seems doable.  I agree that P5 was a bit before it's time.  I really think there's a market for it.
 
My 12 year-old son loves loop-based music and I want to help him learn how to create some.  I don't even know where to start with him except maybe getting P5 running again or getting something like Maschine.  I haven't tried matrix yet.  Suggestions?
 
Re putting the feature in SONAR, I'm not sure that makes sense.  Most P5 users don't need much of SONAR, so why add complexity and cost.  Of course, making it integrate with SONAR would be a huge plus.  Start a project in P5 and move it to SONAR if you want to do more with it.
jpr
 

Why don't you buy the rights to P5 from Cakewalk? They aren't going to do anything with it.