LOL
 
Sharke, don't waste your time with these archaic thinking people.
 
You see, they're stuck in the past. Can't do anything about that.
 
By the look of it, I think we can all agree that ProChannel is dead. No more development planned.
 
If you look elsewhere, you can see that even that the so called "console emulation workflow" is better than what's in ProChannel.
 
Look at Reason 9: best SSL workflow ever. you can scroll up and down to see the entire chain. Beautiful.
 
And now they accept VST's! (You see, better late than never).
 
Another way archaic thinking is making Sonar worst: Ripple Editing.
 
Ableton Live 8 was launched in 2009, and back them, a better way to handle what Ripple Editing does, was already there. Can't say about earlier versions of Live.
 
Cakewalk maybe borrowed Ripple Editing from Sony Vegas (works the same way). Even Sony dumped it's entire Sonic Foundry software line to Magix. Maybe because there's nothing you can do with archaic code? Who knows?
 
Why Cakewalk didn't borrowed from better implementations? Archaic thinking? Or archaic code?
 
To all Cakewalk Knights (hosts or not) with their shields and swords: don't get me wrong. There's a lot of features I can't live without in Sonar, but still there's a lot of "better way of doing things" to catch up from other DAW's.
 
I really hope Sonar doesn't stuck in the past, like some people in this forum.

sharke

Starise
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up. 
 
I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated.
 
This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive.

 
What a truly bizarre thing to say. Nobody forced either scook or Anderton to take the interest in the thread that they did.

 
This is true, I choose the threads in which I want to participate. However I am always looking for ways in which SONAR can be improved, and will look at any thread where there's a major discussion going on about features. There seemed to be a lot of passion on both sides which of course made it of greater interest. However for whatever reason, it was not initially clear to me what the issue was. I did not argue with anyone. I a) tried to suggest ways to accomplish what was desired using the existing tools (my default position - if something will do most of what's wanted, then that can hold people over until they get what they want), and b) constantly sought clarification because I just didn't "get" why it was so important to host VSTs in a ProChannel using something other than the existing method of just dragging a VST into it, or using FX Chains.
 
As someone who uses SONAR literally every day on jobs that include remixes, audio-for-video, songwriting, sample library development, editing narration, loop library creation, prepping files for use in my Live act, mastering, and more, the people at Cakewalk take my opinions into account when I think something would really improve the program for a large segment of the user base. I have advocated for many things people have mentioned in the forum, and some of them have come to pass. 
 
Monitoring this forum is also what gives me ideas for the "Friday's Tip of the Week" and my SONAR column in Sound on Sound.
 
Finally, I monitor this forum to "take the pulse" as to whether something catches on with the user base as a whole. Some topics really do have universal appeal, while others don't. As you might expect, the ideal update is one that:
 

• Appeals to, and applies to, a large segment of the user base
• Prioritizes people's needs over people's wants
• Can be implemented easily
• Doesn't "touch" other areas of the program that could cause unexpected consequences

 
 
 
 
 

kennywtelejazz
 
With all due respect sharke your logic here escapes my Feeble Genius Mind .
 
In one breath you claim you want to be able to use the Pro Chanel , Yet in another breath you expect the Pro Chanel to exhibit a "quality of workflow " using other non Pro Chanel VST's in a way that the Pro Chanel does not even exhibit for its own self contained Pro Chanel moduals ...Are you serious ? 
Even when the Pro Chanel is populated with " SONAR Cakewalk only designed Pro Chanel moduals " , you still have to click to expand or collapse the the moduals themselves in order to make changes to the individual effects that you are using within the bone stock Pro Chanel that ships with SONAR
Yes ?                               No?
 
Kenny

I don't know where you're getting any of that from...
 
I just want to be able to drag VST's into the ProChannel (as you can now) but without them having to rattle around inside an FX Chain module which is 5 or 6 times too big for a single VST. The in's and out's of why, and why the suggested "workarounds" are inadequate, are all outlined above numerous times. It really is simple. 

Anderton

sharke

Starise
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up. 
 
I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated.
 
This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive.

 
What a truly bizarre thing to say. Nobody forced either scook or Anderton to take the interest in the thread that they did.

 
This is true, I choose the threads in which I want to participate. However I am always looking for ways in which SONAR can be improved, and will look at any thread where there's a major discussion going on about features. There seemed to be a lot of passion on both sides which of course made it of greater interest. However for whatever reason, it was not initially clear to me what the issue was. I did not argue with anyone. I a) tried to suggest ways to accomplish what was desired using the existing tools (my default position - if something will do most of what's wanted, then that can hold people over until they get what they want), and b) constantly sought clarification because I just didn't "get" why it was so important to host VSTs in a ProChannel using something other than the existing method of just dragging a VST into it, or using FX Chains.
 
As someone who uses SONAR literally every day on jobs that include remixes, audio-for-video, songwriting, sample library development, editing narration, loop library creation, prepping files for use in my Live act, mastering, and more, the people at Cakewalk take my opinions into account when I think something would really improve the program for a large segment of the user base. I have advocated for many things people have mentioned in the forum, and some of them have come to pass. 
 
Monitoring this forum is also what gives me ideas for the "Friday's Tip of the Week" and my SONAR column in Sound on Sound.
 
Finally, I monitor this forum to "take the pulse" as to whether something catches on with the user base as a whole. Some topics really do have universal appeal, while others don't. As you might expect, the ideal update is one that:
 

• Appeals to, and applies to, a large segment of the user base
• Prioritizes people's needs over people's wants
• Can be implemented easily
• Doesn't "touch" other areas of the program that could cause unexpected consequence

There have been a ton of small improvements in Sonar over the last couple of years, and not all of them fit that criteria. A good example is the one I brought up earlier - custom labels for automation lanes. You won't have seen very much at all in the way of requests for that, but the Bakers implemented it anyway, because it was obviously a good idea and something of a no brainer. The only requests I ever saw for it were the ones I posted, and while I got a couple of "good idea" comments, nothing indicated that it was a hugely popular.

I'll go way back to when the PC was first introduced. I'll admit it seemed like a few motives may have been involved. This was back when Mike was coming around. He made a good point then. The PC modules are vst's written to fit inside the PC shell. He inferred at that time it may have also been a marketing decision. I frankly, didn't have an opinion about it then. I could see the reasons for thinking that way. As far as I know, no one else had anything like the PC. efx racks, yes. Reason was basically built on the idea of racks. Nothing had quite the approach to it that PC had though. It was a quick way to access all the main things you might need on any channel quickly. The ease that you could use the PC made my workflows better, even using vst's. If a person had a bunch of similar projects you could save those into the project or save only the PC scenes you like. This negated the workflow issues for lots of people. Simply load a PC preset or mix scene and go about mixing your song.
 
This is why I can't understand the comments by the OP saying it is archaic and behind in some way. It really isn't unless either you've never used it or don't fully understand the capabilities. Screen real estate has always been an issue and no matter what you do it always will be. We can minimize it. You can customize it, but chances are something you wanted to see might get occasionally covered and need to be dragged or relocated. If you have a 100 track mix anything you do will bump the tracks over and you might need to do some toggling. FWIW I think the skylight interface made it better than it ever was. I challenge you to find a daw that has that perfected. Hot keys for the PC would be helpful in maybe making quick on the fly changes to the graphics.
 
What I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. And PLEASE any comparison to Reason as a cutting edge technology is laughable. They just allowed vst 2.4. Reason id a great program but there are so many things you CAN'T do in it.

Starise
I'll go way back to when the PC was first introduced. I'll admit it seemed like a few motives may have been involved. This was back when Mike was coming around. He made a good point then. The PC modules are vst's written to fit inside the PC shell. He inferred at that time it may have also been a marketing decision. I frankly, didn't have an opinion about it then. I could see the reasons for thinking that way. As far as I know, no one else had anything like the PC. efx racks, yes. Reason was basically built on the idea of racks. Nothing had quite the approach to it that PC had though. It was a quick way to access all the main things you might need on any channel quickly. The ease that you could use the PC made my workflows better, even using vst's. If a person had a bunch of similar projects you could save those into the project or save only the PC scenes you like. This negated the workflow issues for lots of people. Simply load a PC preset or mix scene and go about mixing your song.
 
This is why I can't understand the comments by the OP saying it is archaic and behind in some way. It really isn't unless either you've never used it or don't fully understand the capabilities. Screen real estate has always been an issue and no matter what you do it always will be. We can minimize it. You can customize it, but chances are something you wanted to see might get occasionally covered and need to be dragged or relocated. If you have a 100 track mix anything you do will bump the tracks over and you might need to do some toggling. FWIW I think the skylight interface made it better than it ever was. I challenge you to find a daw that has that perfected. Hot keys for the PC would be helpful in maybe making quick on the fly changes to the graphics.
 
What I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. And PLEASE any comparison to Reason as a cutting edge technology is laughable. They just allowed vst 2.4. Reason id a great program but there are so many things you CAN'T do in it.

Screen estate will always be an issue, which is why any small improvements to maximize it or make things more efficient space wise will always be welcome. Allowing single-sized VSTs to be dragged into the PC would be having it both ways. It's very simple. 
 
I'm the OP and I didn't say anything about the ProChannel being archaic or behind. Don't know where you're getting that from. 

ChazEd
Cakewalk maybe borrowed Ripple Editing from Sony Vegas (works the same way). Even Sony dumped it's entire Sonic Foundry software line to Magix. Maybe because there's nothing you can do with archaic code? Who knows?

 
The music software business is too small for a company like Sony, and the software included technology that fit perfectly into where Magix wants to take its products. With one check, Magix got the additional developers and code they needed to take their products to another level, and Sony got rid of something that didn't really help their portfolio.
 

Why Cakewalk didn't borrowed from better implementations? Archaic thinking? Or archaic code?

 
Ripple Editing was a major request from the user base. But it also touched on other aspects, like arranging and getting rid of annoyances like the "delete hole" issues. Ripple Editing as implemented in SONAR is a well-defined concept with which people are familiar. However, Ripple Editing will continue to evolve, much like how comping and the PRV have continued to evolve.
 

To all Cakewalk Knights (hosts or not) with their shields and swords: don't get me wrong. There's a lot of features I can't live without in Sonar, but still there's a lot of "better way of doing things" to catch up from other DAW's.

 
Unfortunately there always will be, because no DAW will be able to duplicate all other desirable features in other DAWs. Realistically, there are ways in which many other DAWs need to catch up with SONAR:
 

• ARA integration
• Microsoft pen and dial support
• Ability to edit time/pitch-stretchable files
• Low-latency laptop operation with WASAPI
• Plug-in load balancing
• MIDI Transform tool
• Bluetooth MIDI
• Matrix View (BTW Ableton wasn't upset when Cakewalk did this, they felt it added legitimacy to the concept)
• Full Softube 1 Console support
• Theme editing
• Smart Swipe
• etc.

 
So why don't all other DAWs implement these features? Time and resources...the same constraints under which SONAR operates. ALL software companies want to make their products better, but they're working in an industry where (for example) people complain that $199 for lifetime updates is too much money, and where software theft is rampant. If everyone who used their software paid for their software, I believe this industry would see an explosion of innovation and lower costs.
 
People simply don't realize how small this industry is - and the market is flat at best, so there is no growth to fuel these companies. Any features a company adds have to navigate the difficult path of satisfying the existing user base that constantly wants more, and newcomers who are already intimidated by existing features - look at how many people can't even get sound to come through an audio interface.
 
Apple decimated several Mac music software companies when it reduced the price of Logic to $199. If something similar happened on Windows, music software as a healthy, competitive genre could disappear...so enjoy it while you can.  
 
This is not being an apologist for Cakewalk. Over the years I've consulted to Ableton, PreSonus, Steinberg, Native Instruments, Avid, Sony, Mixcraft, Samplitude, M-Audio, and others. No company will ever have the resources to produce the DAW they want to produce. ALL companies have a seemingly endless list of things they want to do, but are resigned to picking a very small percentage of items from that list - and hoping they make the right choices. The only option for consumers is to choose the DAW that comes closest to meeting their needs, or learn more than one program.
 
Software companies are no longer living in the golden days of the 90s and early 2000s. It remains to be seen whether those kind of market conditions could ever return; it would help if there was an EDM phenomenon that could stimulate the music software market on the same level that the Beatles stimulated band instruments. However with EDM representing about a 5% US market share of music consumption (according to Neilsen; that includes physical media, downloadable media, and streaming), we have a ways to go. 
 
So the bottom line when contemplating new features (or further developing older features) is they would ideally accomplish three things:
 

• Satisfy a large percentage of the existing user base to encourage customer retention
• Be sufficiently compelling that it causes people to switch DAWs
• Be sufficiently unique and important to cause new users to get on board with the program

 
I say this only to give background so there's a better understanding of why companies do, or do not, implement features their competitors have. The digital revolution has been great in so many ways, but it has devalued intellectual property and that has consequences for software companies. The way most companies have compensated is by adding hardware products (e.g., Push, audio interfaces, Console 1, Artist Series) which can't be downloaded from torrents.
 
This is not to argue with anyone. I just hope that some people find the background information interesting. 

James I was referencing comments by Chazed. On how "archaic" he seems to think Sonar is. The blanket statements lead nowhere. Yes Cakewalk has been around for 30 years and that's a good thing. He apparently thinks almost everything else is better...or he's just having a bad day.Whatever the case, universal statements like that mean nothing to me, especially when no real details are given.
 
To say the PC is dead is also in fact probably a lie. I hate to be that blatant, but seriously Cake can add two modules next week or change it up in some way at any time. Many people use this thing that he says is dead, to even make that statement overlooks just about everything I know about Cakewalk. 
 
Maybe they will add a feature to drag a vst into the PC. I think it's a good idea overall. To do that you would need to write a program that translates to PC on the fly and adjusts the graphics. Probably no small feat. OTOH if you can do that, no one will need to invest in PC modules any more because they can simply load anything they want into it. Then you might run into optimization issues and warranty issues etc etc. It's more work to load tools that are already there as basic working plugs in the PC. 
 
So I'm not saying it's impossible or that it isn't at some point feasible. I'm saying that solving one issue might bring up a host of other issues. It gets complicated really fast. 
 
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm happy with the current setup. Improvements can always be made. It just seems we are working this from the wrong end in how it's going down. 

I tried to reply and my post went away. I wasn't referencing you James. I was referencing ChazED. 
 
To make some changes could possibly cause other complications. Think about it. Maybe your answer is different than mine.I have no problem with your suggestion. It just seems we are typing reams about something simple :)
 
 

Starise
James I was referencing comments by Chazed. On how "archaic" he seems to think Sonar is. The blanket statements lead nowhere. Yes Cakewalk has been around for 30 years and that's a good thing. He apparently thinks almost everything else is better...or he's just having a bad day.Whatever the case, universal statements like that mean nothing to me, especially when no real details are given.
 
To say the PC is dead is also in fact probably a lie. I hate to be that blatant, but seriously Cake can add two modules next week or change it up in some way at any time. Many people use this thing that he says is dead, to even make that statement overlooks just about everything I know about Cakewalk. 
 
Maybe they will add a feature to drag a vst into the PC. I think it's a good idea overall. To do that you would need to write a program that translates to PC on the fly and adjusts the graphics. Probably no small feat. OTOH if you can do that, no one will need to invest in PC modules any more because they can simply load anything they want into it. Then you might run into optimization issues and warranty issues etc etc. It's more work to load tools that are already there as basic working plugs in the PC. 
 
So I'm not saying it's impossible or that it isn't at some point feasible. I'm saying that solving one issue might bring up a host of other issues. It gets complicated really fast. 
 
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm happy with the current setup. Improvements can always be made. It just seems we are working this from the wrong end in how it's going down. 

You misunderstand what I meant about dragging a VST into the ProChannel. I didn't suggest a means of having the VST automatically morph its controls into a PC module format. I just said it would be nice to be able to drag a VST into the ProChannel and have it sit on its own without needing a full FX Chain module. So basically, we need a module which houses one single VST and takes up no more room than that. I have no doubt the Bakers could implement this very easily.