Anderton

AdamGrossmanLG

Anderton

AdamGrossmanLG

ampfixer
Let's not delve too deep into speculation. We can observe changes to the program and the way Cake conducts their business. Past that it's just opinion and speculation. There are so many real issues in the world today that I put Sonar development way down my personal priority list. I just want it to let me do my work.

I want it to let me do my work, but why not have a smooth workflow and things that work right?  being complacent does not bring change.

 
Cakewalk provides updates and bug fixes every month. I think most people consider that as bringing change.

 
except for the long-running MIDI issues I have displayed in my Youtube videos and posts.  Oh wait... its user error and/or working as expected ;)

So it seems based on what you said that you consider changes as representing something other than complacency only if they're the changes you want prioritized. The comping people wanted their changes prioritized, and they got it. The ripple editing people want their changes prioritized, the people who want to try out the Mac alpha want their changes prioritized, etc. The MIDI fans will get their turn too...sooner than you might think.

Anderton - your attempts to make it seem like my posts are all about "ME ME ME" are not accurate and it is an attempt to undermine some REAL issues facing Cakewalk's MIDI implementation.

Like I stated earlier, I feel Cakewalk's maybe the TOP software for audio editing, but maybe the WORST for advanced MIDI editing/programming.
 
I hope the MIDI fans will get there turn too, and I hope my post which seems to have gotten a lot of traction might have influenced the bakers.   My goal was not to anger people or cause controversy.   I am far from that kind of person, the GOAL though WAS to get baker's attentions.    

I am glad the bakers are fixing and implementing changes ALL users want... I am not a VIP and do not think of myself as such, I just expect a product that works smoothly and with an intuitive deisgn.

AdamGrossmanLG
 
Anderton - your attempts to make it seem like my posts are all about "ME ME ME" are not accurate and it is an attempt to undermine some REAL issues facing Cakewalk's MIDI implementation.

 
Saying that Cakewalk has prioritized others' issues over yours does nothing to contradict any of your gripes. 
 
If I didn't think there were limitations to Cakewalk's MIDI implementation I wouldn't have suggested rewiring Reason, which you said had a top notch MIDI implementation, into SONAR.
 
We all want great software that works smoothly and has an intuitive design, especially Cakewalk's developers because that would give them a major competitive advantage. However, a few minutes spent on any DAW forum will tell you that so far, that level of performance has been an unattainable goal. So people choose what comes closest - or a combination, e.g., rewiring Reason into SONAR for SONAR users who like Reason's MIDI implementation, or rewiring FL Studio into SONAR for FL fans who are frustrated with its mixing capabilities.
 

I hope the MIDI fans will get there turn too, and I hope my post which seems to have gotten a lot of traction might have influenced the bakers.

 
I can guarantee you it had zero influence. The MIDI improvements that are being implemented have been in the planning for a long time, and have been based on feature requests and problem reports presented through the usual channels. 
 
Whether your intention or not, posts with titles like yours are going to be perceived as grandstanding, which gets reinforced when you don't address comments like the ones in post #8, and pre-emptively dismiss comments that may dispute your contentions as coming from people "who get emotionally worked up over a piece of software they didn't even write and/or don't have stock in...always happens." That makes it seem like you were more interested in broadcasting gripes than getting into a dialog about solving your issues.
 
Imagine how different the response would have been if you had titled your post "Does anyone have solutions for the following MIDI issues" and made that the focus of the post instead of venting. In fact a title like that might have attracted a developer's interest. Because any developer would know that the MIDI implementation wasn't going to change for several months later, given that you said you considered it poor and it was going to cause you to leave Cakewalk, you gave no reason whatsoever for a developer to spend time reading your post instead of making fixes.
 
 

mettelus
MIDI is an antiquated 8-bit architecture that got revived by the power of VSTis. In even a 32-bit world, what exists at interface points (required) could be turned into a powerhouse inside any DAW, but not a lot has been done there. I would wager that most users play a small number of live instruments and the rest are VSTi. There is a vast frontier for innovation to host VSTis in a manner consistent with the architecture available.

MIDI has persisted because it does what it does very well. The main issue with it is the limited 128-step resolution of 8-bit MIDI and the consequent side-effects of that. A shift to 14-bit MIDI would provide as many steps as anyone is likely to want. Not quite as smooth or continuous as control voltages, but for almost any purpose indistinguishable.

The full range of 14-bit MIDI however isn't supported by many, if any, controllers which is perhaps one reason why it hasn't taken off. Sonar does support it, as it happens, and has done for very many versions. However, if every control on every synth were to use the full 16383 step range of 14-bit MIDI the leap in processing required compared to 8-bit would be pretty heavy. To the point where freezing lots of tracks to reduce cpu load would become commonplace again.

If you're contemplating a synth/plugin control protocol that uses even more bits than 14 for each continuous controller (and any digital control system uses bits to do the job) then the processing power required rises exponentially. And along with it come issues around MIDI and audio buffer sizes to allow the DAW, cpu and PCI bus to keep up while also allowing time for the operating system etc. to do its thing. Many synths, hardware and software, have dozens of controllable parameters and each would require its share of available cpu time.

And, of course, you'd need the digital plugin makers to agree about and adopt a coherent new system or, far worse, each come up with their own. Then find some way to turn what comes out of an 8-bit MIDI controller into whatever the plugin coder chose to use for the plugin in question. And no matter how many bits the software could handle, the controller could still only send 128 values.....

Cubase or any other DAW that uses a dongle is pure crap. I am still have problems with the dongles and then you have no choice but to buy the dongle again. It is a pure nightmare. Cubase is a really big no! I have Reason and I like it as an idea machine. When you compare the sound quality you will wish that you could put back on Sonar. I also have Studio One which I think you will like. There are some great things there and the midi as awesome in my opinion. The only thing I hate about studio one is that the load time is not as fast as Sonar's and if you have old plugins they probably won't work. Also, You have to keep your keyboard in because it looks for it. It is kind of annoying but you will have your midi and great sound quality. Sonar keeps getting better and it still is my DAW of choice. I am just giving you the pro's and con's of other DAW's.
 

Anderton

AdamGrossmanLG
 
Anderton - your attempts to make it seem like my posts are all about "ME ME ME" are not accurate and it is an attempt to undermine some REAL issues facing Cakewalk's MIDI implementation.

 
Saying that Cakewalk has prioritized others' issues over yours does nothing to contradict any of your gripes. 
 
If I didn't think there were limitations to Cakewalk's MIDI implementation I wouldn't have suggested rewiring Reason, which you said had a top notch MIDI implementation, into SONAR.
 
We all want great software that works smoothly and has an intuitive design, especially Cakewalk's developers because that would give them a major competitive advantage. However, a few minutes spent on any DAW forum will tell you that so far, that level of performance has been an unattainable goal. So people choose what comes closest - or a combination, e.g., rewiring Reason into SONAR for SONAR users who like Reason's MIDI implementation, or rewiring FL Studio into SONAR for FL fans who are frustrated with its mixing capabilities.
 

I hope the MIDI fans will get there turn too, and I hope my post which seems to have gotten a lot of traction might have influenced the bakers.

 
I can guarantee you it had zero influence. The MIDI improvements that are being implemented have been in the planning for a long time, and have been based on feature requests and problem reports presented through the usual channels. 
 
Whether your intention or not, posts with titles like yours are going to be perceived as grandstanding, which gets reinforced when you don't address comments like the ones in post #8, and pre-emptively dismiss comments that may dispute your contentions as coming from people "who get emotionally worked up over a piece of software they didn't even write and/or don't have stock in...always happens." That makes it seem like you were more interested in broadcasting gripes than getting into a dialog about solving your issues.
 
Imagine how different the response would have been if you had titled your post "Does anyone have solutions for the following MIDI issues" and made that the focus of the post instead of venting. In fact a title like that might have attracted a developer's interest. Because any developer would know that the MIDI implementation wasn't going to change for several months later, given that you said you considered it poor and it was going to cause you to leave Cakewalk, you gave no reason whatsoever for a developer to spend time reading your post instead of making fixes.
 
 

 
 
fair enough, I see your point.  I am sorry I didn't post differently then.  I posted that thread when I lost some critical patches for songs I have and never (to this day) was able to get them sounding just right again.  I was extremely frustrated and lost my cool.   That post was only a sliver of what i was actually feeling inside.  
 
I will apologize if my posts have been too harsh in tone.   Also you are right, text you can't emote and use body language, so maybe I do need to fine tune how I speak out loud vs posting.
 
thank you for putting up with me throughout this thread.
 
And I will say as soon as Sonar fixes some of these MIDI issues, I think it will be one of the best DAW's out there.

Had to log into the computer so I can actually type. I understand your point, but I am not speaking of a "spec" by any means... hence no worry for buy-in, vendor support, etc. so long as they conform the the existing spec (which can be assumed that most do).
 
An audio analogy might be a better description... 24-bit in, 24-bit out (audio interface limitation). These are "set," but there is nothing limiting DAW processing to 32, 64, or even higher... it just needs to hit the AI as something recognizable. And we have that now (yay). For MIDI, there is also no limitation to how a DAW augments the data (proprietary, internal to the DAW only) so long as it "sockets" well at both ends. The MIDI routing, complexity, etc. could be embellished substantially (some exists now, to be sure, but not to the extent of what is possible). The DAW can take the 8-bit input, absorb it into a word/dword, do "funky stuff" with it internally, and then deliver it back to another VSTi as 8-bit.
 
Routing is good example, in that the DAW sees a VSTi generating MIDI out, but "intercepts" it to provide precision routing. There is no reason internal to any DAW that "unlimited channels" isn't possible... compared to "unlimited tracks" this would be simple.