.

For several years I am asking people what they want from surfaces integration in Sonar.
There are just several tasks which can not be done from control surface or have some limitations,
but I can list almost all (!) of them here:
* clip editing is problematic since control surfaces can not have feedback from so called "data cursor" in Sonar. That is only relevant for people which what to work without looking at monitor (f.e. when they can not).
* Sonar does not return what is current plug-in in terms of track/fx/synth. That makes plug-in navigation from control surfaces and by mouse disjoint.
* Sonar does not return to control surfaces which synth particular track belong to, that f.e. makes track navigation from NI keyboards almost impossible to implement (track navigation can be easily done, but in other DAWs that automatically selected corresponding Komplet synth or switch keyboard into MIDI mode for not Komplete synth)
* folders, take lanes, instrument tracks, matrix view and some other parts of the interface are "invisible" for surfaces.
 
Other then that (and when compared to the list of functions which work, the list is tiny), control surfaces can control Sonar. So, what you mean by "not existing" integration? Just EUCON, which is not open for everyone, from the Internet incompatible between versions, sometimes tricky to setup, one corporate internal and VERY different from any other Control Surfaces approach? Or Nektar Panorama, which without any objective reason has decided to use closed proprietary protocol and support DAWs they want (only)?
You want to use some surface other then these 2? I am here to help.
You want these 2 only? Sorry, I can not help. But they are not made for Sonar. If some particular auto radio is not compatible with particular car, it is hard to blame the car producer

Craig , believe , i never been so aware of what the industry is and will as since i started teaching ( SAE and now Abbeyroad institute)
I saw the profiles and the market changing , producers are enginneers , mastering engineers , manager ect ...small space , small budget , big need .... no serious solution , ....at the same time the investement to make a seriuous studio is divided easily by 10 , few HW , a sll matrix , great room , monitor ect and you can open a facility , what i m saying is that , for a professionnal like , the eaquation is simple , if i want a SERIOUS controle surface for a studio , i will have to switch daw , it s that simple , ssl nucleus , ssl matrix , avid s3 ...ect those type of Credible surfaces are all supporting logic , PT , even live , when i asked Jim about sonar support on the nucleus or Damien .... well the answer wasn t what i would call positive ...

Making a plugin for the DAW is not what i will call crazy , it s a question of management of priority , you said it , cakewalk was supporting eucon like a champ , you said it is supporting but it false since 3.5 update ...

Forget about making a surface , it s not like they discover eucon , updating the plugin could be done easily , if only one manger would want ...i know cakewalk coders are beast , so my whole thread is trying to shake that tree ... yep it s noy profitable , yes the number of user is restricted , but usually user concerned by this :

1) have a minimum degre of professionality
2) have the budget
3) have interactions with clients/collegues /artists ect...

When i make a pro recording in 4 millions dollars studio ...and i bring my laptop with sonar cause their PT keeps crashing ...after one update ...this some Cakewalk'will benefit from

When i use sonar in my youtube channel and i jeep having question about this rock solid good looking daw , this is profitable for cakewalk ...

When i use sonar for some of my cours , this is profitable for cakewalk ....i m not talking about me here but a whole butch if trustable people in this forum

So keep thinking gestion and numbers and you will end up missing the whole point , car makers make prototype for thei image , this consolidate their image , they keep inovating and reassuring their costumers ... and acquire knowledge and innovation make them marketable since they always have some new on the table

A brand that is not giving a shhh ( i m not saying this is cakewalk , i m volontarybchoose he extrem) will stay 2 dimenentional or horyzontal , always fighting to get bread in the same market part. )

Again , and to finish : guyz GIVE sonar what it desrves !!!! This daw is fantastic , stop treating it like a rocky

Alexei , do you find it normal that we have to use your tool to repair ACT broken links ?
Do you find normal that i prefer to use your plugins instead the good but date surface definition that comes with sonar ( cakewalk generic surface , act midi controller)
I was using mmc For one of my controller but it disapeared ....

What i m saying is that , i m not trying to find a specific responsability here or there , all i say is that we have absolutly ZERO signs that cakewalk cares in this area , even when the vs 700 was still maintened , stuff were broken at on stage and they did n payed attention ( latency for updating display since the introduction of prochannel , the master fader bug , when using the vs 700 , if a tracks is in the 8 channnel bank selected , double cliking on name in sonar doesn t allow renaming , you have to do it twice, act not persistent or broken time to time ect ...)

This wasn t like in 2017 ... not even an ipad app !!! I mean even studio one has one ...and yes i know there 3rd party stuuf to use , but i m talking SIGNS , vectors of appreciations , ...those signs i see around are negatifs ... and before you guyz dropp me "but console one ? " i want you to be fair and objectif ..

Zo
all i say is that we have absolutly ZERO signs that cakewalk cares in this area

 
You cannot say something like that and expect anyone to take you seriously, given that Cakewalk expended a considerable amount of time and effort on collaborating with Softube on the Console 1 integration. Please accept that whether something is a fact or not has nothing to do with what you choose to believe. If you want to believe the sky is green, of course you are free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you.
 
Here is your definition of ZERO signs. I am quite sure it is no one else's definition of ZERO signs.
 

even when the vs 700 was still maintened , stuff were broken at on stage and they did n payed attention ( latency for updating display since the introduction of prochannel , the master fader bug , when using the vs 700 , if a tracks is in the 8 channnel bank selected , double cliking on name in sonar doesn t allow renaming , you have to do it twice, act not persistent or broken time to time ect ...)

You need to realize that the V-Studio 700 was a ROLAND product, not a CAKEWALK product. Roland still owns the product, the related software, and all the intellectual property. If you have a problem, you need to contact Roland. 
 
Please stop repeating statements that have no basis in fact. Fiction can be fun - I really enjoyed Rogue One - but it has little or no place in technical discussions.

Zo
Alexei , do you find it normal that we have to use your tool to repair ACT broken links ?
Do you find normal that i prefer to use your plugins instead the good but date surface definition that comes with sonar ( cakewalk generic surface , act midi controller)
I was using mmc For one of my controller but it disapeared ....

I will express that in numbers, so you can decide yourself what is normal.
The estimation is subjective, simply based how fast I can write things and what that will cost (if payed commercially):
* MMC plug-in - 3 zeros at the end
* Generic surface / ACT MIDI - 4 zeros at the end
* AZ Controller - 5 zeros at the end

I do not claim AZ Controller is the best solution (along all DAWs, for Sonar it is). But at least it is different approach from other. I was able to imitate MackieControl Sonar plug-in in it (the preset was create to prove that is possible, without any other intention), I have created several functioning presets for devices I have seen on pictures only and I have managed to create true speaking preset for device I have seen on pictures only (and that is the only currently existing accessible surface integration with a DAW in the world). So I believe there is something good in this concept, I mean that is not complete trash...
 
But I think your problem is that AZ is not SSL or CW... because:

Zo
if i want a SERIOUS controle surface for a studio , i will have to switch daw , it s that simple , ssl nucleus

this one is a joke... It is like an Apple computer without OS X. Nice car radio panel without radio. With the
proposal "we have made a SERIOS surface (so we sell it for serious money), it is up to you to make it work with your small DAW, than your DAW can be considered serious because there will be SSL label near it...". You can find reposts of SSL replies on customer questions in this forum, words are different but the meaning is the same.
 
Since we are in EUCON thread, this one is conceptually different from other Control Surfaces schema. It is a kind of more "intelligent" concept, in terms as Generic Control / ACT MIDI is more intelligent then MIDI learn and AZ Controller in turn is more intelligent than Generic Control. Again, I do not claim it is the best. But it is different. If you are SSL fellow you can say that is not true: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/547935-so-ssl-how-about-eucon-2.html But you can judge yourself comparing "Getting started with EuCon" document with "Logic Control User's manual" (Google to find both PDFs)
 

So keep thinking gestion and numbers and you will end up missing the whole point , car makers make prototype for thei image , this consolidate their image , they keep inovating and reassuring their costumers ... and acquire knowledge and innovation make them marketable since they always have some new on the table

When, why and how car makers really change something is a separate topic, much more funny then this one
 

it was

Anderton

Zo
all i say is that we have absolutly ZERO signs that cakewalk cares in this area

 
You cannot say something like that and expect anyone to take you seriously, given that Cakewalk expended a considerable amount of time and effort on collaborating with Softube on the Console 1 integration. Please accept that whether something is a fact or not has nothing to do with what you choose to believe. If you want to believe the sky is green, of course you are free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you.
 
Here is your definition of ZERO signs. I am quite sure it is no one else's definition of ZERO signs.
 

even when the vs 700 was still maintened , stuff were broken at on stage and they did n payed attention ( latency for updating display since the introduction of prochannel , the master fader bug , when using the vs 700 , if a tracks is in the 8 channnel bank selected , double cliking on name in sonar doesn t allow renaming , you have to do it twice, act not persistent or broken time to time ect ...)

You need to realize that the V-Studio 700 was a ROLAND product, not a CAKEWALK product. Roland still owns the product, the related software, and all the intellectual property. If you have a problem, you need to contact Roland. 
 
Please stop repeating statements that have no basis in fact. Fiction can be fun - I really enjoyed Rogue One - but it has little or no place in technical discussions.

Craig please let's keep it on a constructive side , i DID mention that the VS 700 issues were here DURING the Cake /Roland PEriod
 
Second , the softube thing (that i knew you will use it as an argument) is not at all an argument ...simply because it's something that Softube pushed ..... i don't think Cakewalk woke up one morning and said : "ok guyz let's supprorte all the contrôle surfaces possible , let's begin with Console 1" ... I know Cake have good Relationship with softtube since the PC modules , and so it was a natural move .... ,it's even more frustarting because it show that if Cake want , they can do !! and no numbers , sale or marging ect .... are entering in consideration!
 
If your attitude of self satifaction is some you're well with , i  think i'm gonna stop waisting my time in this thread , all i want to do is to have clear answers and signs , not excuses or accusations , all i do is trying to shake some sleepy area in the dev directions .
 
You started by explaining me why it's not efficient to make a contrôle surface nowdayz to justify the lack of implication of cakewalk in this area and then finished by saying "yep they working hard on this area , look softube thing " ...
 
LEt's make it clear , i have nothing against cakewalk , it's quite the opposite ....the dev are the most reactive on the market imho  , it's the strategic direction that is the whole subject here ....
 
Things move and change , few months ago you guyz were conviced (me not at all) that the subscription was a superb idea and the way to go , to change the plan now  ....(witch is a good idea imho) ...no one has the absolute truth ...You gave me some great infos about eucon , i reach Avid , i'm taking time and energy in something costumers would not have to do ...Period ! but a project manager , YES !!
 
FACTS are simple , there's not a zillion of control surface around , some have became prosumers classic (Nucleus , Avid Artist and S3 now ect ...) at least a "constant" care for compatibility would be appreciated ...that's all ....all i say is that i'm tired as a Sonar costumers to be in the AREA 51 when it come to solution for my studio compared to cubase /logic even Live compatibility with surfaces ... Is that hard to understand ?  i look to much critical ? , man , it's been 2 decade  i'm not waiking up one day angry like a .... for nothing ...IS THAT that hard dat one guyz says "guyz , let's make sure we're integrated with at least this and this contrôle surfaces ...constantly because it's ipmortant for some of costumers and it's important for a our strategic posistionning ...againts other brands "
 
Because i'm telling you , seriuolsy , having you're name constantly in the supported list in certain brands would give 2 signs  , being considered as a considered maintened seriuous brand and it will give exposure to Pro's as possible solid solution for a studio , not an exotic daw ....
 

 
I will finished with this , BE ABSOLUTLY assured that the CAke Team and Dev , and also you Craig have my entire respect and support .... and as a Professional and a very longue time LOYAL costumer , all I (and i can say WE) want is our Baby to grow and be stronger and stronger ... and sometime having a "too" polished speech doesn't help .... don't take the form to presonnal focus on the subject , not the way i expose it in a non birth langage ...
 
Thks for your time , presence and patience .
 
Cheers
 
Zo

azslow3

Zo
Alexei , do you find it normal that we have to use your tool to repair ACT broken links ?
Do you find normal that i prefer to use your plugins instead the good but date surface definition that comes with sonar ( cakewalk generic surface , act midi controller)
I was using mmc For one of my controller but it disapeared ....

I will express that in numbers, so you can decide yourself what is normal.
The estimation is subjective, simply based how fast I can write things and what that will cost (if payed commercially):
* MMC plug-in - 3 zeros at the end
* Generic surface / ACT MIDI - 4 zeros at the end
* AZ Controller - 5 zeros at the end

I do not claim AZ Controller is the best solution (along all DAWs, for Sonar it is). But at least it is different approach from other. I was able to imitate MackieControl Sonar plug-in in it (the preset was create to prove that is possible, without any other intention), I have created several functioning presets for devices I have seen on pictures only and I have managed to create true speaking preset for device I have seen on pictures only (and that is the only currently existing accessible surface integration with a DAW in the world). So I believe there is something good in this concept, I mean that is not complete trash...
 
But I think your problem is that AZ is not SSL or CW... because:

Zo
if i want a SERIOUS controle surface for a studio , i will have to switch daw , it s that simple , ssl nucleus

this one is a joke... It is like an Apple computer without OS X. Nice car radio panel without radio. With the
proposal "we have made a SERIOS surface (so we sell it for serious money), it is up to you to make it work with your small DAW, than your DAW can be considered serious because there will be SSL label near it...". You can find reposts of SSL replies on customer questions in this forum, words are different but the meaning is the same.
 
Since we are in EUCON thread, this one is conceptually different from other Control Surfaces schema. It is a kind of more "intelligent" concept, in terms as Generic Control / ACT MIDI is more intelligent then MIDI learn and AZ Controller in turn is more intelligent than Generic Control. Again, I do not claim it is the best. But it is different. If you are SSL fellow you can say that is not true: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/547935-so-ssl-how-about-eucon-2.html But you can judge yourself comparing "Getting started with EuCon" document with "Logic Control User's manual" (Google to find both PDFs)
 

So keep thinking gestion and numbers and you will end up missing the whole point , car makers make prototype for thei image , this consolidate their image , they keep inovating and reassuring their costumers ... and acquire knowledge and innovation make them marketable since they always have some new on the table

When, why and how car makers really change something is a separate topic, much more funny then this one
 

 
Alexei , i think you do get what i'm trying to say , i'm not at all a SSL guy or some .... i know Nucleus is a desaster ...when it come to drivers and all (they actually changed the whole protocole) , i' just trying to say that CAKE should be present where other DAW's are constantly present ...simple as That ....nothing more or less ....
 
And the atittude i have here was the same when the SSL forum was still alive and we were pushing a control surface ...with no Soundcard or preamp ....Under 2000 $ ...if they would have listened to us , at least all that audio driver protocol disaster would have been skipped ...but guess what Alexei ....they had the exact attitude i'm feeling sometime here ....that "we know better what were doing than you guyz " .....
 
I do think like you stated that ACT is absolutly brilliant and it was way ahaead comptitition when implemeneted ..and i do love AZ controller witch literraly SAVED me as you know when i decided to stop using for few months the VS 700 , thks to your help .... what i was saying is that it's a not normal that a great solution comes from you Alexei and not Cakewalk ...
 
If you wanna know what surface i really liked , it was the smart AV tango , and guess what when i tried it at the distributor : no way with cakewalk sonar 8.5 at that time  ... what a surprise ... (to be honest i don't know if it was Samrt Av or Cake fault  , but the guy Floating point showed it to me with cuabse , nuendo , logic , prottos ...ect ....as usual i was like :( ....

And to finish about the market while Craig keep telling me that the market for controles surface is not at all interesting bizness Wise  , this solution Under is penetrating this "dead , staturated "market ..... when i hear you talking about people not needing control surfaces i Wonder , if you're really aware of what the market is becoming .... and how the gap between big facilities and bed room producers is getting shorter each day ...
 
http://www.slatemt.com/raven-users/
 
Please take the time to see those pics , spot first the " Juan Carlos" studio with the red korg keyboard : THIS is   a typical nowdayz regular set up ...nothing stellar now check those other big studios ... both sides have one thing in common : need for a control surface at different level ....
 
Be sure that some Sonar users have this level of professionalism .... do you feel like Cake is taking care of them in this area ....
A Chance Steven have promised deep sonar integration soon ...because it's on its side ...
 
 
All i can say is that the success don't depend only on static element analysis but mainly on what you propose .... analysing a market is great , creating a dynamic demand is even better than answering a simple need (thk you evil Apple) ... in the case of what we're discussing here , what i see is that concerning " answer to a demand " : nope
Creating some that will provoque demand  :  nope
At least this was your answers Craig ..or i don't got it
 
Softube did it  ... Slate did it .... Avid understood it with the integration of iPad ...
 
 

Zo
Alexei , i think you do get what i'm trying to say , i'm not at all a SSL guy or some .... i know Nucleus is a desaster ...when it come to drivers and all (they actually changed the whole protocole) , i' just trying to say that CAKE should be present where other DAW's are constantly present ...simple as That ....nothing more or less ....
 
And the atittude i have here was the same when the SSL forum was still alive and we were pushing a control surface ...with no Soundcard or preamp ....Under 2000 $ ...if they would have listened to us , at least all that audio driver protocol disaster would have been skipped ...but guess what Alexei ....they had the exact attitude i'm feeling sometime here ....that "we know better what were doing than you guyz " .....
 
I do think like you stated that ACT is absolutly brilliant and it was way ahaead comptitition when implemeneted ..and i do love AZ controller witch literraly SAVED me as you know when i decided to stop using for few months the VS 700 , thks to your help .... what i was saying is that it's a not normal that a great solution comes from you Alexei and not Cakewalk ...
 
If you wanna know what surface i really liked , it was the smart AV tango , and guess what when i tried it at the distributor : no way with cakewalk sonar 8.5 at that time  ... what a surprise ... (to be honest i don't know if it was Samrt Av or Cake fault  , but the guy Floating point showed it to me with cuabse , nuendo , logic , prottos ...ect ....as usual i was like :( ....

Zo
http://www.slatemt.com/raven-users/
 
Please take the time to see those pics , spot first the " Juan Carlos" studio with the red korg keyboard : THIS is   a typical nowdayz regular set up ...nothing stellar now check those other big studios ... both sides have one thing in common : need for a control surface at different level ....

May be you are right that I do not understand what you try to say, but all your examples make me think so.
 
I am not "media" man, I am an engineer working is science. And I have many friends which are scientists and engineers. So I look at thinks realistically, I am rarely let myself just think "wow, that is awesome" looking at the result. I am more fascinated HOW and WHY something was created so awesome (or why something is so ugly).
Do luxus yachts looks awesome? Yes! In one hour a friend which build such things will come, believe me, stories how they plan, construct, test such ships are far more fascinating then looking at the result...
 
Cakewalk is a company. Cakewalk can not create anything, such AI is not yet invented. So you ask not why Alexei has written something and not Cakewalk, but why Noel (or someone else) is not written it. That imply you think Cakewalk employers are better programmers then some "Alexei"... If you really think so, why? If not, why it is so important for you that Control Surfaces related things are not developed by Cakewalk internally?
Also look all all peaces which come with Sonar. You can find many real names of people which are also external to Cakewalk.
 
For AV tango we can only speculate. Sonar Control Surfaces API was published long time ago and could be used without fees. Do you think cubase, nuendo, etc. once tango was declared have immediately jumped and invested into supporting it? I can not imagine that, what is the reason, profit, etc.?
 
And now to Raved. From videos, documentation, etc. I have tried to understand, what makes it so "attractive". My conclusion (I obviously can be wrong): marketing (and only marketing, I have not found any hint that any serious technical innovation is involved).
 
And so I still stay with my general statement about surfaces: ALL control surfaces as a hardware are IDENTICAL from ANY DAW perspective. The difference is in the SOFTWARE BETWEEN the controller and the DAW. Each DAW has own platform for that software, f.e. Sonar has C++ ACT API, Ableton has Python API.
 
Who is using this API to create the software in question is still an open question for me. It is obvious that only hardware producers get real money from final customers. Big part of that money is for the software. How that money are spent? Had AV Tango payed for Cubase support and could not agree with Cakewalk on that? I have no idea. But I think that question is again in MARKETING.