Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
I did watch it. Besides the presenter mentioning tight integration several times it wasn't clear what was meant by that. Solo mute etc do work in SONAR via Console 1. Can you describe what seamless integration means in this context? 
 
Softube makes great stuff. If there is something more to be done to integrate better than we do today we can certainly work with them and improve on the interop. 

Thank you for your response Noel.  I'm a little surprised you can't see what I'm talking about.  Noel, you're the CTO, is that right?  I'd expect you would know Sonar backwards.  Are you saying that you can't recognize some of the differences shown and talked about in the linked video?  Seriously?

Solo, mute, fader changes, panning - when applied from the Console 1 hardware now directly effect those parameters in the actual DAW track, not merely within the plugin instance.  That appears to be the most obvious difference...  and yeah, I'd call that "tight integration" - and that does not currently exist between Sonar and Console 1.
 
Also, it is mentioned that track sends can be applied with the Console 1 hardware.  Also, not something you can do currently with Sonar and Console 1.  So this "tight integration" you're talking about essentially looks like it allows the hardware to directly effect track properties in Studio One.  Now, you do know that this isn't possible at the moment with Console 1 in Sonar, right?  You're the CTO.  Now that I've explained it, can you see it?
 
The fact that Softube themselves thought that this was different enough, compared to the way in which the integration has been implemented with other DAWs, including Sonar, also suggested that it might be new, different and "tighter".  I'm not sure why you'd be so quick to blow it off without first trying to appreciate and understand it... seems a little naive. They made an announcement at Musikmesse.  They have publicly announced and highlighted how this works with Studio One, and not with other DAWs - and you assume it is the same as with Sonar?  Huh?  Did you assume they meant all DAWs when they were talking about Studio One?  Again, Noel, they have gone to the trouble of highlighting a difference, that you have failed to recognize does not apply to Sonar.
 
So you've asked that if there is "something more that can be done to integrate better than we do today we can certainly work with them and improve on the interop".  Well, I guess it would be that then.  So... if you're saying you will now work with Softube to implement this direct track control the way they have with Presonus then PLEASE... bring it on... I'd love for that to happen.
 
 
 
And "Anderton" - not sure why you felt the need to chime in.  Obviously you think I'm some regular pest under a different username... well, I'm not.  Just a very rare contributor who wanted a question answered.  I have been using Cakewalk since it's "Pro Audio" days and I used to be a contributor on an old Scott Garrigus forum, back in the day.  These days I don't have many questions to ask, so I keep quiet.
 
If your first reaction, to someone questioning anything, is this personal attack and the jumping to conclusions, calling someone a Troll, then you probably don't belong in this space.  Just not very constructive, big fella.  And to answer your question directly - yes, I suppose I did "describe what seamless integration means in this context" now didn't I?  In very specific terms.
 
edit: I see that "Anderton" is the Forum Host.  Astounding.

At least the video shows what Ed Sheeran is up to during his break from recording. It's a strange choice to work for SOS but he can do what he wants now.

Grum.

JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!P!JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!JUMP!...
(as heard from the street below)

Dreamstation
 
Thank you for your response Noel.  I'm a little surprised you can't see what I'm talking about.  Noel, you're the CTO, is that right?  I'd expect you would know Sonar backwards.  Are you saying that you can't recognize some of the differences shown and talked about in the linked video?  Seriously?

 
Why the aggressive stance and second guessing? I asked some pretty basic questions in response to your request for tighter integration. I don't see why you assumed it to be dismissive. I personally did the softube integration in SONAR directly worked with the developer there, so I know exactly the level of the public integration API that they exposed to us. Perhaps they did some custom stuff with Studio One. If so obviously we wouldn't know about it.
If there is something more that is available we'll have to talk to Softube about it. 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

Dreamstation
 
Thank you for your response Noel.  I'm a little surprised you can't see what I'm talking about.  Noel, you're the CTO, is that right?  I'd expect you would know Sonar backwards.  Are you saying that you can't recognize some of the differences shown and talked about in the linked video?  Seriously?

 
Why the aggressive stance and second guessing? I asked some pretty basic questions in response to your request for tighter integration. I don't see why you assumed it to be dismissive. I personally did the softube integration in SONAR directly worked with the developer there, so I know exactly the level of the public integration API that they exposed to us. Perhaps they did some custom stuff with Studio One. If so obviously we wouldn't know about it.
If there is something more that is available we'll have to talk to Softube about it. 

I'll be perfectly honest Noel... your forum admin was way out of line and contributes 100% to my aggressive attitude in this.  There is nothing in my initial post which is aggressive; I honestly just wanted to know if Cakewalk were looking to do something similar, because it was important to me.  I apologize  to you that your admin getting me offside has spilled-over to my reply to you.  My initial inquiry was genuine, and born out of my long-term commitment to Cakewalk and my more recent interest in the Console 1 integration.  The fact remains that something has been implemented with the Presonus guys and I would like to see the same achieved with Sonar.  You have addressed that, and I thank you.  Please do look into it  :-)


"Anderton" obviously thought I was someone else, a regular trouble maker (?), but I think he was too quick to jump to that false assumption, and I think you'll have to agree if you read his dismissive and pointedly rude post that he is himself acting outside this forum's code of conduct which dictates respect for fellow forum members.  I find that astonishing, given that he is the forum host.  Clearly he is jaded, perhaps from some recent bad forum conduct.  I don't visit here often, so I'm not "up" on what is happening in the forums.  Maybe he's just been doing this for too long.
 

Troll or no troll that is NOT the question.  Trying to steer this back to the OP. Here is my take on this debate.  If the OP is willing to jump to Personus because of some integration issue, then do it.  But, my advice to the OP is that threatening to jump doesn't gain you more sway on the forum.
 
I think you said that you have been a 20 year user of CAKE/SONAR?  I too am probably closer to 25 years of using CAKE stuff.  I actually have and installed PRO TOOLS 12, and PRESONUS Professional, in addition to CAKE.  My motives of having all these DAWS is simple.  If some day, CAKE ceased to exist, I would like another alternative.  But most importantly, can these other products actually help me produce music that sounds better? And there is ONE MAJOR difference for me.
 
I have integrated my workflow around the features and improvements in CAKE over the years.  I know what key bindings to hit, I know how to setup soft synths and effects, I know how to edit tracks both (MIDI and AUDIO) and I know how to control the audio signal chains.
 
So, I decided years ago that unless some magic technology within a audio program could make my music sound better, it wasn't worth the effort and I didn't want to throw away my knowledge investment in CAKE to switch.  Trying to learn a new DAW just isn't worth it for me based upon the current state of all these audio programs.  I have seen guys who know PROTOOLs hit key bindings to so fast, I couldn't keep up with them but like magic, there was a project set up with 50 tracks all routed and ready to go with effects in like 3 seconds.  Those guys, I am sure, do not want to lose their investment in knowing how PRO TOOLS works.
 
It's like LOTUS and EXCEL.... if you were a LOTUS user and all of a sudden had to use EXCEL, it was a major buzz kill when most of what you knew how LOTUS worked wasn't the same in EXCEL. You had to either ask someone how to do something or open the manual and read how to do something that in LOTUS, you didn't have to think twice about.  These constant interruptions in workflow totally kill the creative side of making music.
 
So, switch if you want to (I wouldn't) and perhaps request the bakers to include tighter integration with CONSOLE one in a future release.  This MO works great and the TEMPO integration with Melodyne was released a few weeks after us users got wind of this new MAGIC technology in MELODYNE, improving its integration with SONAR.
 
 

Dreamstation
 
I'll be perfectly honest Noel... your forum admin was way out of line and contributes 100% to my aggressive attitude in this.  There is nothing in my initial post which is aggressive; I honestly just wanted to know if Cakewalk were looking to do something similar, because it was important to me.  I apologize  to you that your admin getting me offside has spilled-over to my reply to you.  My initial inquiry was genuine, and born out of my long-term commitment to Cakewalk and my more recent interest in the Console 1 integration.  The fact remains that something has been implemented with the Presonus guys and I would like to see the same achieved with Sonar.  You have addressed that, and I thank you.  Please do look into it  :-)


"Anderton" obviously thought I was someone else, a regular trouble maker (?), but I think he was too quick to jump to that false assumption, and I think you'll have to agree if you read his dismissive and pointedly rude post that he is himself acting outside this forum's code of conduct which dictates respect for fellow forum members.  I find that astonishing, given that he is the forum host.  Clearly he is jaded, perhaps from some recent bad forum conduct.  I don't visit here often, so I'm not "up" on what is happening in the forums.  Maybe he's just been doing this for too long.

It's interesting that you would assume the first paragraph in my response applied to you rather than the post immediately above mine to which I was referring. Please note that I banned Gone!! and Drone7, not you. That's because I realize it may simply be a coincidence that three people from the same part of the world, all referencing Studio One, with the same writing style, posted within a few minutes of each other to corroborate each other's points. Surely you can understand why that looks suspicious, especially given the modus operandi of those who were banned.
 
As to the second paragraph, you asked a question in the OP. Noel responded, and asked a question in return. Rather than answer his question, you dismissed it by saying "Clearly you did not watch the video." Noel is the CTO of a company and was replying to a forum question, on his own time, on a Friday evening. I feel you should not demand that he spend his time watching a video to try to figure out what you're talking about if you're not willing to take the time to explain it yourself. You can't use my presence as a way to excuse your second post, as I had not yet participated in the thread.

I'll agree that my second post was short, but not necessarily nasty, and yes... I should probably have written out the points rather than link to the video, but again... not necessarily a crime.  However, I don't think it's such a terrible post that it deserved your abusive response... but apparently that wasn't directed at me.  Yet, how was I to know that?  I haven't a clue who Gone and Drone7 are.  I don't spending my time dwelling in this forum, keeping an eye out for troublemakers - you assume too much.  I'm the OP, how could I not assume your post was directed at me.  Again mate, maybe you've been at this too long and you're overthinking it, too quick to slam apparent insubordination.  Lighten-up.

So, going back to the OP, it seems there are three new functions here. There might be more, but that's all I can see in the video. And they are: direct control of the DAW pan pot, direct control of the DAW fader, and ability to insert a send.
 
Just my opinion, but that doesn't seem all that decisive to me. You can already control level and pan in Console One on any DAW it works with, albeit in a sort of jury-rigged way. But the practical difference when mixing is minimal-to-none.
 
Ability to insert a send is reasonably nice, I suppose, but I do wonder if it's a significant time-saver.
 
Not knocking it; good work to Softube for continuing to enhance Console One, and good work to Presonus for being quick off the mark supporting such features. But for me personally, I'm not going "holy smokes, it's a whole new era" at this.

Strange that they would be touting the integration of Studio One and Softube. In order to run Softube plugs in Windows 10, you have to use the Windows 8 compatibility mode for Studio One. S1 ran fine for me in Win 10, but as soon as I switched to compatibility mode, my ilok lost connection with other plugins that I use in S1 and I ended up with a mess. There are some great features in S1 that I'd like to see in Sonar, but it's still too limited in MIDI, and there's no track archive function. Do some research before you dedicate yourself to the switch. I say we let the bakers know what we want and see what sticks to the wall.