John
Posters are saying the releases are buggy. That is untrue.

That's only because you must not use software features that were impacted in the updates.
 
One example (there are more, but I don't want to waste time searching my problem reports):
 
I was looking forward to combining the virtual keyboard added in the Cambridge release with step recording.  Unfortunately, Cambridge contained a bug that disabled keyboard shortcuts in step recording.  Yes, a change in base functionality is considered a bug.  Without keyboard shortcuts for note duration, step recording was broken for my purposes.  I had to uninstall the update to recover the keyboard shortcut function, but that meant that the virtual keyboard was no longer available.  I logged a problem report and the keyboard shortcuts were fixed in Dorchester, but I lost a month of use of the virtual keyboard.
 
The bottom line is that all software contains bugs and the more frequently you touch it, the more chance you have of exposing the bugs.  I know because I was a software developer for over 20 years.  That's also why I never took it personally when someone pointed out bugs in my code.  I may have been embarrassed, but did not resent the problems being pointed out in the interest of producing a better product.
 
With that said, I think that Cakewalk's move to monthly releases was a good move and the expectation of bug-free software is a fantasy.  I also believe that denying that bugs exist  in Sonar 2015 and that no bugs have been introduced in the separate releases is disingenuous.
 
-- Ron
 
 
 

SquireBum

John
Posters are saying the releases are buggy. That is untrue.

That's only because you must not use software features that were impacted in the updates.
 
One example (there are more, but I don't want to waste time searching my problem reports):
 
I was looking forward to combining the virtual keyboard added in the Cambridge release with step recording.  Unfortunately, Cambridge contained a bug that disabled keyboard shortcuts in step recording.  Yes, a change in base functionality is considered a bug.  Without keyboard shortcuts for note duration, step recording was broken for my purposes.  I had to uninstall the update to recover the keyboard shortcut function, but that meant that the virtual keyboard was no longer available.  I logged a problem report and the keyboard shortcuts were fixed in Dorchester, but I lost a month of use of the virtual keyboard.
 
The bottom line is that all software contains bugs and the more frequently you touch it, the more chance you have of exposing the bugs.  I know because I was a software developer for over 20 years.  That's also why I never took it personally when someone pointed out bugs in my code.  I may have been embarrassed, but did not resent the problems being pointed out in the interest of producing a better product.
 
With that said, I think that Cakewalk's move to monthly releases was a good move and the expectation of bug-free software is a fantasy.  I also believe that denying that bugs exist  in Sonar 2015 and that no bugs have been introduced in the separate releases is disingenuous.
 
-- Ron
 
 
 

Actually I do agree with all your points. What I objected to was the notion that CW is releasing buggy software. Buggy can mean a lot of things but it often means unusable or unstable. Its a matter of degree.
 
I believe that this forum has seen a noted reduction of bug reports. Major bugs are rare. I can't think of any since Platinum came out.
 
 
BTW was your issue fixed? 

There aren't any REAL new bugs in Sonar. There are quirks and minor oddities but they get addressed quickly. The startscreen should not be holding up anybody's work and I'm sure the major concerns people have been posting about will be addressed. It's only been what... a week or so?
 
I think back to X2 when I was ready to launch my system through a wall and compare it to now...
 
yeah, there are no showstopping bugs and we have a much better mechanism in place to report them AND a much more responsive manufacturer sorting these things out.
 
It's time to just make the program more useable. All that other crap is in the past. If we get seriously intrusive bug creep I'll be the first to howl about it but Cake have not been lagging on keeping the X3 standard of stability consistent and moving forward.

 Well Windows 10 is suppose to be a constant developing OS. There will be no service packs and updates are causing some problems.
 
 I think the days are done with DAW developers creating a patch or two and moving on to the next version.  There's more competition in the last decade.  While you try to gain new users you have to also keep the upgraders happy.  I think Live 8 only had 3 updates and now they have a new beta every week.  It would be pie in the sky if developers could release something and not have to maintain it but someone will come out with that must have plugin and not work in a user's DAW and then you have to work on compatibility.  There are some new players in the market in 10 years. You have Studio One, Bitwig, Tracktion resurrection, DP now for PC. 

Beepster
 
It's a great program... if you can figure it out. It is, IMO, much harder to figure out than other programs. It's worth it in the long run but over the past three or four years I've done nothing but study it and I'm still getting tripped up over dumb crap that could (and should) be simpler.
 

 
People talk about making the program 'more usable' - but I don't get that. With capability and flexibility come complexity and a learning curve. It is this potential that makes Sonar stand out. I would never trade any of it's power for simplicity.
 
We kind of want to have our cake and eat it too:)

 

Doktor Avalanche
If you had read all my earlier comments you probably wouldn't have made most of these points IMHO. Most of what you've written is pretty similar to what I've written earlier. Bit of a waste of time but thanks for allowing me to clarify that by regression, I actually meant being regression tested by users out in the wild.

 
So I went back and re-read your earlier posts and I admit, I think I had you all wrong.  Please accept my humble apology.  So all grumpiness aside (pointing at myself here)...
 
You have to hand it to Microsoft for coming up with the insider program.  And I would guess there are a huge number of participants (millions?).  I guess a lot joined for an early look at Win 10 and the active numbers will drop off a lot.  But even so, we are talking about massive numbers of what are effectively beta testers.  Then you have the fast ring people at the front lines taking hits for the enterprise users.
 
Cakewalk produces a niche product with a user base that is a tiny fraction of MS, and for good reason (IMHO) run a closed beta cycle.  Given the constraints of a small company producing a product for an infinitesimally smaller user group, what do you see as an alternative to the current system that CW uses to push out updates?
 
Personally, I would think that the size of the company and user base rules out the use of the MS model (lets face it, nobody is selling millions of DAW licenses).  Given the constraints, I think CW are doing a pretty darn good job.
 
Your thoughts?

tenfoot

Beepster
 
It's a great program... if you can figure it out. It is, IMO, much harder to figure out than other programs. It's worth it in the long run but over the past three or four years I've done nothing but study it and I'm still getting tripped up over dumb crap that could (and should) be simpler.
 

 
People talk about making the program 'more usable' - but I don't get that. With capability and flexibility come complexity and a learning curve. It is this potential that makes Sonar stand out. I would never trade any of it's power for simplicity.
 
We kind of want to have our cake and eat it too:)

I believe you may have missed the point I was making (well the one mettulus made and I was agreeing with).
 
Certainly the software needs to be complex to do what it's supposed to and one has to be willing to spend the effort learning it. That's a whole other thing (but relatedin a secondary way).
 
What I was saying is that there are many parts of Sonar that are UNNECESSARILY complicated. Some things are only slightly weird and clunky while others are... well more so. On their own they are not TOO big of a deal to learn but you add that up across hundreds of features and things start getting out of hand. A "power" user is going to be pushing the program to the limits and need to quickly access/use these various features to accomplish the overall task of creating a song. When each little thing takes 10 more steps than it really needs to or you are constantly having to dig around menus or trying to remember complex workarounds that sometimes only kind of work it all adds up.
 
I used to think I was just too stupid to use Sonar because I was having such a hard time at first. I'm pig headed though and have put in hundreds (if not thousands) of hours reading about it, watching tuts, asking questions and actually using it. I do pretty much know how to do what I've gotta do these days and the reality is it's not so much I'm stupid... it's that the methods in the program are weird. It's kind of scattered. Features disappear in certain areas for whatever unknown reason (usually older components that have not be updated to the new standards of the program), certain tasks/functions could be grouped together or streamlined but aren't, there's a lot of little logical things that don't exist that make you have to fiddle around way more than needed... etc.
 
A good example of a streamlined and semi logical system is the Skylight interface. It's one of the larger, more modern components of the program and I can fly around that bugger like nuthin'. It could be improved but I think it's actually one of the reasons I like Sonar so much.
 
Once we start trying to do more intricate things though and manipulate the audio in a logical manner it starts to fall apart.
 
Audiosnap is a good example of something that could not necessarily be "simplified" but a few extra things added to make quick time warping much easier. Like if I just want to get in and do a quick couple edits and get out I can't. It's big ordeal and some of the competitors smoke Audiosnap in this regard... however their versions may not offer the more in depth complexities that AS has to offer. So in that case you don't add a layer of complexity... you add a layer of simplicity so you can use it easily for quick edits while retaining all the fancier stuff for when it's really needed.
 
Another example would be something that's been asked for for ages. Console View folders for the strips that follow the Folders scheme in the Track View (and an option to link or unlink folder status). This would make the lives of those who create MAMMOTH projects (such as myself) a million times easier. Currently we have to use the Track Manager which is fine I guess but that there is an example something not really making logical sense or staying consistent in various connected ares of the program. Additionally there have been a lot of requests for "Nested" folders that would again make the little things go a lot faster. Like for a set of drum tracks I would ideally like ALL the drums in a main folder then subfolders for say all the toms and all the cymbals. Some simple level, gain and pan controls that are tied directly those controls right on the tracks within would be great too so I can raise or lower the levels of the toms at once without a) going through bother of linking/unlinking the controls or b) creating a bus a may not necessarily want to add.
 
Timeline Zooming is another inconsistency that bugs me. This feature was introduced in X2 and for me is a GODSEND. Just being able to reach up to the timeline and quickly zoom in/out and navigate the entire project is awesome BUT it only works in certain views that have timelines. Like it works in the main track view, it works in the PRV but if you are in Tempo View and some other time based areas it does not. That is very disorienting when you enter those views and all of a sudden you have to revert back to the old school way of doing things. Every time... EVERY time I go to zoom in or move around in one of those areas I reach up to the timeline which of course doesn't work (and sometimes does something undesireable). So yeah... consistency.
 
A new one that's ripping my brain a new one is the fact we can't easily link and edit automation envelopes... but not just that we can't link them, it seems like the whole concept of editing two or more envelopes across multiple tracks is foreign to the programmers. So I can't group the envelopes so they always follow the edits made on one of them, if I try to quick group them (which is the second best thing and completely logical) instead of staying selected the INSTANT you release the mouse button after the first click the quick group selection is lost (so you can only do ONE edit at a time then have to reselect all the lanes again which also makes any kind of envelope editing that requires more than on click impossible like double clicking to input a node or doing range stuff)... AND my personal favorite, which I thought I was being clever by coming up with, is if you group the controls you intend edit together (which makes them move in sync with each other) only the control that actually has the envelope in its track will respond... the rest in the group will not move. I've wasted a TON of time trying to come up with a decent solution to this within Sonar but there simply isn't one. What needs to happen is a third party program needs to be introduced that acts like a virtual MIDI controller. The automation gets written to the track housing that virt controller which in turn moves the controls (like an external controller would when you map multiple controls to one dial or fader). That then writes envelopes to the target tracks... which of course you can edit in sync anyway so it all has to be done in the virt cable's track and recorded to take effect. Not elegant at all and could be easily fixed by just allowing us to group automation envelopes.
 
Oh and one more simplification is setting up external controllers and control groups. If you look at (and sorry for name dropping... I usually don't) how Reaper handles external controller stuff compared to Sonar you'll see how lacklustre this part of our program is. In Sonar it is VERY restricted as to what can be controlled by MIDI CC. In Reaper you can execute seemingly almost ANY command in the program and all you have to do is look it up (and it has convenient search filter of the commands) and either type in the CC or MIDI Learn it. It is also tied to the keybindings as well so you can set up shortcuts for all that stuff too very easily at the same time. Also in Sonar I don't understand why grouping and mapping controls is so weird. This is another example of inconsistency. Certain areas have different methods and some things simply cannot be grouped or mapped. I think all they would have to do to fix this is come up with a virtual controller (similar to the new one we got for synth input) that EVERY control in a project can be linked to (including all effects and synths... everything). Just right click on a dial or control, select "Send to Virt Controller" and a control is made in a virt controller window (button, dial or fader) and extend that even to command actions like Undo or Delete (kind of like the new Custom Module). Then all your mapped stuff is inside this window and you can group any controls you want in whatever configuration you want and if you want to send it to an external contrally you just right click on a control and MIDI Learn it (or type in a CC number or whatever). ACT and other parts of the program ATTEMPT to do this but it's all over the place and doesn't work that well so something like that would be a "clean slate" type solution to ALL those issues. You could even make it so the virt controller has it's own automation lanes area and that would solved the "link envelope" problem. It would not require chaning anything... just adding something cool and simple.
 
I could come up with dozens more examples like this and if you look in the Feature Requests area of this site you'll see hundreds of other suggestions.
 
Of course we all have our own take on what could be improved and it takes a LOT of time and effort to develop these types of things. I get by very well and ain't goin' anywhere because (even though it may not seem like it based on this post) I do really like working in Sonar. I just think the point that Sonar could very much be simplified and made a little more logical and user friendly is a valid one. I bet if you asked the Baker's themselves they would agree and are working fervently to make things like this happen. Track to Track routing is a biggie and it's coming. The PRV changes were more than welcome to me. When they introduced Take Lanes, TimeLine Zooming, Comping, etc it was all very welcome and made my life easier.
 
So yeah... this is not about not wanting to learn or study the program. It's about having studied the program and realizing that certain things could certainly be a little more streamlined and consistent. When those things happen then learning the program for newcomers actually does become easier however that is merely a byproduct of good design. Ya?
 
BTW... I've actually chastised people coming on here moaning about having to read so much and spend so much time learning the program when they've essentially done nothing so far. It just offends me after all the work I (and everyone else around here) have done to get proficient with the program.
 
As I said, I don't expect it to be easy but it doesn't have to be unnecessarily difficult.... and really the more user friendly a program becomes (without losing functionality) the more people buy it, the more money Cake makes and the more financed they are to keep deliver cool stuff and financing their development department (which in turn gives them more time to make it user friendly and so on and so on...)
 
lulz...
 
Anyway... I totally got what you mean and I'm not ranting AT you. Just ranting because I prone to do that. It's a productive rant though (I hope).
 
Cheers.

Beepster

tenfoot

Beepster
 
It's a great program... if you can figure it out. It is, IMO, much harder to figure out than other programs. It's worth it in the long run but over the past three or four years I've done nothing but study it and I'm still getting tripped up over dumb crap that could (and should) be simpler.
 

 
People talk about making the program 'more usable' - but I don't get that. With capability and flexibility come complexity and a learning curve. It is this potential that makes Sonar stand out. I would never trade any of it's power for simplicity.
 
We kind of want to have our cake and eat it too:)

I believe you may have missed the point I was making (well the one mettulus made and I was agreeing with).
 
Certainly the software needs to be complex to do what it's supposed to and one has to be willing to spend the effort learning it. That's a whole other thing (but relatedin a secondary way).
 
What I was saying is that there are many parts of Sonar that are UNNECESSARILY complicated. Some things are only slightly weird and clunky while others are... well more so. 

I get what you are saying Beepster and agree for the most part. I am just not sure that it is always that easy to streamline functionality without losing flexibility. That said, I think that the introduction of the X series (and skylight, as you mentioned) were a big improvement in this area - I remember many things being more convoluted in 8.5. I guess as new features are conceived of they are necessarily layered on top of others. I imagine that it is an ongoing balancing act for the bakers between changing functions and operations and maintaining consistency in the interface to stop us all from complaining about having to re-learn the program. Remember the fuss when X1 first came out!
 
We certainly all have our niggles. My biggest one is definitely external controller support - It has always been a bit light on.
 
Still, as an old dog, when I think back to Cubase for PC version 1 (Cakewalk was only a midi sequencer back then) on my Osborne 386 computer with an Audio Media 3 card, all of which barely worked, trying to do the simplest of tasks between very frequent crashes, I can't help but be blown away by how incredibly capable Sonar has become and  how inexpensive it is given all that it can do. I think the bakers deserve to be proud of their baby:)
 
Cheers mate.

tenfoot
We certainly all have our niggles. My biggest one is definitely external controller support - It has always been a bit light on.

 
Azslow3's AZ controller plug-in is outstanding. Does everything you wanted ACT to do, except more.

Anderton

tenfoot
We certainly all have our niggles. My biggest one is definitely external controller support - It has always been a bit light on.

 
Azslow3's AZ controller plug-in is outstanding. Does everything you wanted ACT to do, except more.

Then why doesn't Cakewalk buy it, and hard code it into Sonar? It's much like the Sonar mods that Panu does, better than the real thing.

John
I really didn't want to get into this thread but I am compelled because it has been stated that CW's updates are buggy. I do not believe that to be true.

how's that belief post-Ipswitch John?

musicjohnnie
When we talk about things that come from being disgruntled with something, we are not helping. I imagine that all of us run up against issues every now and then. Do we run from Apple to Microsoft, or vice versa, when we are frustrated with something. Or do we smile and say I can somehow get through this whatever it takes.

I think all DAWs have reached a pretty high level of performance. Where they differ is in the feature set and functional priorities, and any differences might appeal to some people more than others. That's why there isn't only one DAW in the world