Adq
 
Latency can't be less than buffer size actually, to process all plug-ins and other staff, and return signal back. I just want to say there is no "it is harmful", or "it can't be done" arguments. The only one is "there is a workaround", but as I've said earlier it means that 1.somebody need it and 2.it can be done, and it is clear, what has to be done to make it.

 
I don't think anyone said it couldn't be done. I think some people make a valid argument that a slip of the mouse or a careless assignment could give a speaker-shattering blast of sound. Seems to me the pros and cons are similar to whether an internal combustion engine should have a governor or not.
 
Anyway, can you link to any examples of your music so I can hear how you use feedback in a musical context? Or if you don't make music, can you point to any recordings that use DAW-based feedback so I can hear what about this is so important?
 
Then maybe we can wrap this up and get back to posts that conform to the forum's mission statement..."Discussion focused on the use of SONAR Producer, Studio, Essential and Base." There's a dedicated forum for feature requests.

I would like to give the bakers (even if there are only TWO  ) a BIG thank you. You are doing a fantastic job and the updates are coming earlier and earlier. 
I only hope that when you are finally done with tweaking Sonar, that the mixers will have something to do besides turn on Sonar and import a song. Then we would all be out of a job.
Again Fantastic.  

Anderton
Anyway, step back for a second and consider the reality of the exchange we just had. I have very little idea of the level of the people whom I'm addressing. You have 63 posts. For all I know, you're relatively new to SONAR and don't realize it's possible to change the sounds in the current metronome structure, or that you can have a metronome loop and drag it into a project, or that you can have a metronome loop baked into any template you use. For all I know your answer would have been "Great, that does what I need, thanks!"

 
Perfect example of your condescending, sometimes downright stupid, attitude toward any issues that run a bit outside your comfort zone: my post should have been evaluated on its own merit. 63 posts ('investigating' the poster?) means I'm busy working instead of writing - it does not necessarily mean I don't know that Cakewalk has a metronome or that the sounds can be changed. If anything, the feature request/suggestion implies I have done my homework and realized that things can be far more straightforward when it comes to having the metronome as a waveform on the project. You chose - for some bizarre reason - to assume that I have no idea about what Sonar offers.
 
BTW, you did the exact same thing in another thread where I mentioned how PreRoll Recording would be a very useful feature. The conversation took a bizarre twist when you tried to justify not having the feature by claiming that you needed to have coffee or eat a sandwich before recording (like any of that had anything to do with Pre-roll Recording).
 

Anderton
As to being irrational, misrepresenting things, and being disparaging, I don't see any of those attributes in my responses, starting with:
 
"Or make a loop with your favorite metronome sound, and include it in your standard project template. Then you won't need to 'insert click track,' it will already be there."

 
The irrational part is this: 
 

Anderton
"..I'm just not understanding how having an always-available click track with a choice of sounds, and the option to bring in loops of any musical style from the browser, are problematic."

 
At no point have I said the current implementation is faulty or 'problematic'. I said that having a simple "Insert Click Track' command would be great in its simplicity - faster and better than what Sonar currently offers. No need for templates or workarounds.
 

Anderton
Then you said "I prefer a feature, not a workaround - take a look at how beautifully simple the implementation is in Reaper and other DAWs."
 
That did not explain to me what was happening that was so "beautifully simple" or exactly what the feature entailed. And although I'm extremely familiar with every other DAW (except Reaper, I don't get along with the UI), nothing about how they implement a metronome struck me as notable. So now I was curious about what you were talking about, but I wanted to LEARN, not argue, which is why I specifically said (bold for emphasis):
 
"Well, I'm not trying to be combative but help me out here, because I don't understand the problem...SONAR already has a click track that's always available for record and playback with one click, offers a choice of multiple waves, and for which you can add your own sounds if you want something like a TR-808 kick or whatever."
 

 
Well then, maybe you should have read my post where I clearly explain that the whole thing amounts to a 1 CLICK OPERATION where, say, you go to INSERT > INSERT CLICK TRACK and presto!, one audio track with a waveform appears on your track panel.
 
That's faster and simpler than any the ways you can achieve the same goal in Sonar. Maybe you should have investigated how Reaper does it and learn, rather than becoming defensive.
 
 

Anderton
Then, again assuming the low post count meant a lack of familiarity, I took the trouble to post a screen shot to illustrate what I was talking about. Then I asked you a question:
 
"If you need an audio loop, wouldn't it make more sense to add a drum loop that's relevant to the style of music that you're making? Fill me in on what I'm missing...I'm just not understanding how having an always-available click track with a choice of sounds, and the option to bring in loops of any musical style from the browser, are problematic."

 
Once again, you assumed I don't know what I'm talking about rather than objectively evaluating my suggestion and you also assume that I suggest a better method - as implemented by other DAWs - because I find sonar's implementation "problematic".
 
A less defensive, more objective person would have seen my post for what it is: a simple suggestion/request for a better implementation of a certain feature. It was not a put-down or a fake criticism. 
 
 

Anderton
You never answered my question, or helped me understand your point, or filled me in on what I was missing. I see nothing in my part of that exchange that could possibly be construed as irrational, a misrepresentation of what was said, or disparaging. I was asking for clarification so I could better understand your issue. I am truly mystified that anyone would have a problem with that.
 

 
I have answered your question several times, from the very beginning - but you're too busy defending Sonar from an attack that only exists in your imagination. Your method is always the same: rather than acknowledge that there is room for improvement, you suggest some workaround and beyond that, start blaming the user for "not understanding"...your attitude is not very positive or engaging, to say the least.
 

Nice patchpoint write-up here

portesham
Stop teasing me guys.................how come I can't download this yet??

Did you "force" a CCC update? As in, log out and log back in to CCC, or go to setup and you can initiate one from there.

Hey guys, just wondering if there is an cpu hit when using parchpoints and aux tracks. Fantastic update by the way.

Craig, you seriously deserve a raise for the things you have to endure here.

Gawd another sweet update.
 
Gonna say this again just because I believe the bakers deserve the praise for hard work done - still impressed by the new model of delivery & the choice of features to implement. Be sure to tell the men in charge...
 
Excellent work chaps!

Anderton 
I don't think anyone said it couldn't be done. I think some people make a valid argument that a slip of the mouse or a careless assignment could give a speaker-shattering blast of sound.
 

Just to make something clear here for anyone who might have misconceptions - in the case of digital feedback what you get is complete clipping at 0dB not a high pitched squeal. Which (sadly) means that in today's hypercompressed world for many people it isn't really much worse than their "normal" blast of sound. So you get really horrible, extreme worst-case-possible clipping, but not an ear piercing squeal. It's potentially loud but otherwise not "dangerous" and if you have a limiter either in the loop or between the clipping and your output you can get protection from that too.
 
But there does need to be some delay from a coding perspective - for instance Reaktor automatically inserts a single sample of delay when you create a feedback loop to prevent continually operating on the same sample. So if you're processing things in buffers, that's why you'd need at least one buffer of delay.
 
Personally I'd prefer it be optionally available if feasible, even it inserted a buffer of delay.

bvideo

msorrels
Will patch points work with MIDI tracks?  Doesn't look like it, but I really would love to be able to send one MIDI track to multiple soft synths.  And combine MIDI tracks without having to use a MIDI loopback device.  If not now, perhaps in the future?
 
...

Yes, this ^ will be very nice!

can be emulate with some MIDI dumper (an instrument which only routes the in MIDIs to its output) I'm using MUX for this ( and MIDI processing plugins from https://code.google.com/p/pizmidi/ in it), MIDI CC modulation signals can be looped back from its own fx track to its input (and its out) so MIDI Shaper also can be added to the MIDI router track as an fx unit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsfrVxlBxZc

an official support would be nice ofc. with added MIDI plugins and modulators, and would be nice some automation patchpoint system to (as in FL Studio) too currently nearly impossible to make VST(i) modulations in Sonar due there is no common/group automation (as u can see in the video it's highly PITA) support in it

--

chord track, J74 Progressive (Ableton Live Max chorder plugin) finally has standalone version http://fabriziopoce.com/progressive_se.html (only 10$) so its no super important anymore (for me :) )

Anderton
 I'm always looking for ways to improve SONAR.

More than "looking for", if the recent influx of new features, content, stability, and awesomeness is any indication.

Anderton

PilotGav
One thing I've learned recently is that there's no "RIGHT" way to do many things in recording/mixing - or any other project for that matter.
 
I used to feel very overwhelmed as well. Until I thought to myself "I'll become a bit familiar with a couple of tools/processes at a time, but not feel obligated to use them - and sooner than later I'll come upon a scenario where these new tools/ideas may help and be able to recognize them in context, and THEN decide which method/tool/plugin/whatever I prefer".
 
Taking the pressure off myself AND the software/process ended up in me learning more than I ever have!
 

 
Very well said and excellent advice, even to veterans as they add new functions to their repertoires. 

:-D Praise from you is high praise indeed! Thank you!