Drone7
Anderton
The workflow, interface, and unique features that other DAWs don't have.
Ahh, i see. You are aware that I can wipe my ass with any brand of toilet paper, aren't you?
I didn't realize that wiping your ass had anything to do with music production but if if you equate music production to wiping your ass, I'm not going to argue.
I gave you a civil response that explained the economics of why a program like SONAR does not want to increase the price in order to include genre-specific plug-ins of interest to a subset of its users, who are capable of choosing plug-ins to customize their program exactly as they want. You chose to answer in a way that completely ignores virtually everything I've said in these forums on multiple topics.
First, rhetorical questions are not intended to create a dialog yet that is your main method of attempting to make a point. You fabricate what I say, then answer that fabrication. I do not twist your words, I answer your concerns in as direct a way as I know how.
Are you suggesting that Sonar has reinvented the wheel? Considering that 99% of songs on the charts have not been made with Sonar, what unique feature (as you say) in Sonar would have made world-class chart songs better? I'm really dying to find-out just exactly what these so-called unique features are.
First, most people realize that
a world-class song is the product of a songwriter and an artist, not a DAW. If not knowing the unique features that SONAR has are indeed about to lead to your imminent death, well, I certainly wouldn't want blood on my hands. So, here you go.
One of SONAR's unique features is its ability to combine multiple functions that may be available in one DAW or another, but not all in one place and at one time. For example if DAW A has feature 1 but not features 2 and 3, DAW B has feature 2 but not 1 or 3, and DAW 3 has feature 3 but not 1 or 2, then if DAW D comes along and incorporates features 1, 2, and 3, then it is unique. I originally switched to SONAR because it did what had previously taken bouncing between two separate programs.
Here are my favorites, in no particular order.
VocalSync
Mix Recall
Matrix View
ARA support
DirectX, VST2, and VST3 support
Quick Grouping
Integrated MIDI arpeggiator on every track
The ability to create, edit, and export Acidized files
Bi-directional browser with recursive search
Rapture (still a great synth, and would be if it never existed and was introduced tomorrow)
Transient view option in Edit filter
My amp sims
FX Chains
The ProChannel (if you don't know why that's an advantage, I can explain in a separate post)
Clip FX
MIDI plug-ins (although not as good a selection as Cubase)
Instruments that extract MIDI data from REX files
Linear-phase EQs and multiband compressors for mastering
Editing on an
individual sample level for restoration
OMF support
Fret view and Tab
64-bit floating point engine
DSD import and export
Automatic Groove Clip/Acidized wav tempo and pitch following
Multi-touch support
"Speed" comping that's significantly different from the way other DAWs handle comping
Smart grid (very handy for me)
Auto-Zoom (great when editing)
Tabbed multidock with content lock
Built-in Bitbridge
Blue Tubes processors
OMF
I find all those features very useful in the work I do.
What do you think would happen if you said to Pro Tools users or Fruityloop users or Cubase users or Ableton Live users "features that other DAWs don't have". They would rightly laugh at you, correct?
No, they're smarter than that. They recognize that all DAWs have unique features.
Unique features you say? Oh, are they so unique that world-class music hasn't been or can't be released without Sonar, or that any song likely to be released will not be complete without some unique feature in Sonar as you call it?
Once again, you are using rhetorical questions that do not relate to anything I said, claimed, or believe. Are you so unique that you see pink skies with blue suns? Well, do you?
See, that's how rhetorical questions work. Now you have to say "I never said I see pink skies with blue suns." Stop fabricating imaginary things I said, and address what I actually said. You might find
this helpful.
you are simply making no sense whatsoever to me!
That's because either you fabricate what I say, you cannot understand what I say, or I am not capable of expressing myself clearly.
[qutoe]If then, as you infer, Sonar has superior workflow
I didn't. The question you asked, to which I responded asked what made SONAR "special." I answered with my opinion. How come you're allowed to have opinions, but no one else is? Do you like rhetorical questions?
How come the most popular and widely-used DAWs in the world are NOT SONAR????????????????????
Are you aware of how many copies of SONAR are installed? How many copies of Cubase? Pro Tools? Ableton Live? No, you arenn't.
I don't know exact numbers of all companies, especially the private-held ones. However, I receive sales figures on software, interfaces, guitars, keyboards, monitors, sound reinforcement, etc. every month by a service that provides these figures to the industry. I cannot tell you what it says because it is copyrighted and you have to pay quite a subscription fee to obtain this information. You have an opinion. I have facts. You are welcome to pay the subscription fee and find out for yourself which DAWs sell the best. Report back when you do. SONAR is doing very well.
And if included plugins are inconsequential to the buyers as you say
That is not what I said. Here is my quote: "
Some people buy software for the provided plug-ins, some already have Waves plugs and Komplete and couldn't care less what a DAW includes."
Does that say included plug-ins are "inconsequential" to buyers? No. It says they matter to some people and not to others. Stop lying.
then why do so many Sonar users inquire so intently about future forthcoming Sonar updates and ask about what new plugins will be added, and why do you and Cakewalk bother to provide any at all if this is not important?
For an "if/then" sentence to have any validity, the "if" has to be based in reality. Your "if" was not.
Shall i answer for you?
Why not? You seem to enjoy making up my answers.
Because "value added" perceptions are 'indeed' very much part of it, regardless of whether users or potential customers already own several preferred plugins, that's why!
Sounds like you're agreeing with the guy who said "
Some people buy software for the provided plug-ins."
Oooops! That was me!
You seem to be suggesting that Z3TA+ has got all bases covered
Another fabrication.
how on earth is "drifting toward" creating new sounds for Z3TA+ "more relevant"?
This is getting tiresome. Read my response. I said programmers would rather program for a more relevant synth. Being cross-platform and iOs is more relevant than an older DXi synthesizer.
I don't understand your reasoning, especially when all your comments seem geared toward promoting Sonar under any circumstance, admitting nothing from others criticisms of Sonar, and denying everything else. Yep, it seems i've got "stupid" written on my forehead LOL
Maybe you do, but maybe you just haven't seen my effusive (and in my opinion, well-deserved) praise of Ableton Live (the program I use for live sets), my favorable mentions of Reason (particularly in the context of rewiring into SONAR), and also talking about tracking multiple classical albums, one of them award-winning, in Pro Tools. Look at Cubase 8, and you'll see one of my plug-in designs (Quadrafuzz) in there. Look on Acoustica's site, and you'll see my videos about Mixcraft. Check out my instructional videos on mastering with Studio One - they're all over the web. Oh, and when someone couldn't decide whether to get SONAR or Studio One, I recommended he get SONAR for multitracking and Studio One for album assembly. If that's "denying eveything else..." well...it was you, not me, who said you seem you have "stupid" written on your forehead. Personally I think that's a little harsh. I'd say "jumping to inaccurate conclusions without seeking clarification first" would be more accurate
.
You say my comments "seem" or "suggest" or "infer" various things. Please take what I say at face value, and read the words I actually write.
And yet we have many plugins inside DAWs that apparently are 'free' by your reckoning
Where did I say that?
Everything included in a program costs something, even if it's only the cost of the time required to include an ancient plug-in in a new installer. Some things cost
more than others. Some things cost
a lot more than others, and expensive items people don't need will not always be greeted with open arms.
The large majority of plugins inside Sonar have long been paid for and no longer incur cost
Consider the concepts of "royalties," "depreciation," and "cost allocation over time." While some elements within SONAR have (presumably) been fully depreciated by now, many have not.
If these things cost money, then how all the latest additions? Didn't they cost money???????? So why aren't we being required to pay more money for those?
You are. SONAR updates used to be $99. Then that went to $149 with X3 because of the extra expenses (Addictive Drums
alone is $149, Melodyne Essential $99), and now the update price will be set to $199 although there is always the possibility of sales, as there always has been. But now you also get content with that.
And how come Cubase users didn't complain about the overbloated price of Cubase, did they say "Screw paying $700 for Cubase" (which is what it costs in Australia), and they knew that they were getting Groove Agent LE. How come Logic Pro X comes standard with some necessary plugins that Sonar doesn't have? How come Frutyloops users get free updates for life??? How come Mixcraft Pro 7 is riddled with sounds and a multitude of plugins and only costs $89? Because clearly you're overstating the cost factor, that's why! There's more than one way to skin a cat, and the price of a DAW is not directly related to development costs of plugins!
Do you really not understand that the reason why there are different DAWs in the world is because people have different needs? Did you really not track the cost of Logic over the years and note that when it became owned by a company with (currently) 178 BILLION dollars in the bank the price became less than what Emagic used to charge for in some cases a
single plug-in? Also note that FL Studio doesn't give you EVERYTHING for free for life (at least that's what their web site says). Mixcraft is a very cost-effective program but take a closer look. You don't get Addictive Drums, Melodyne, VocalSync, Mix Recall, Matrix View, etc. And that's fine!! Not everyone needs those things. If they need exactly what Mixcraft offers,
then they should buy Mixcraft. People have choices and they aren't stupid. Besides, Dan's a super-nice guy
Let's tell the people some truth around here shall we!
Yes, please do. It would be refreshing.
Why would a drum-machine or three plugins cause a price-rise of $200 to all buyers of Sonar?
I drew a parallel with what Groove Agent costs, because you wanted to see something with those particular qualities. If Cakewalk had to charge something in the same vicinity of what other companies charge, then that would be the cost. But, perhaps Cakewalk does have some kind of special magic mojo that would allow them to produce plug-ins at a far lower cost that other manufacturers.
The price of a DAW is related more to how much money the DAW company think they can save while still garnering sales, and that's the primary driver behind the price, what little can they spend why still competing with the other DAWs, it's all 'perception based' selling, like everything else in the world. An iPhone 6 costs a grand total of exactly $245 to manufacture (that's a fact) and yet it sells for $800 outright, NOTHING TO DO WITH PRODUCTION COSTS!!!. Companies command their own profit margins based on what they think they can get away with and what they think market value of the DAW is, in other words it's based on the universal supply-and-demand principle of all trade. For a closer analysis, lets say 5,000 Sonar users by $200 extra (as you say); that equates to one million dollars, right? Well i can tell everyone reading this that it does not take $1,000,000 to produce three plugins, or just a sampled-based drum-machine plugin, that's for certain, so you're actually quite misleading in your assertions, unless you can prove that making three fairly basic plugins will require $1,000, 000, and i know it doesn't. I could design and produce a software drum-machine with a big palette of 24bit samples for $5000, so what indeed are you on about???
Then why does Steinberg sell Groove Agent for $180? Because they have to pay taxes, offer tech support for people who can't figure out to use it, receive store returns, create artwork for and manufacturer packaging, write documentation, cover overhead, probably pay royalties to the people who came up with the samples or whatever, assume its share of Steinberg's forums/marketing/advertising/trade show presence/quality assurance personnel, pay translation costs for multi-lingual manuals, pay for localization for different markets, cover shipping costs for boxed version and server costs for downloads, benefits packages for employees, markups to distributors, etc. You wanted someone to tell the truth; there it is. Music software is not a license to print money.
A very well-known software package that is used extensively by professionals and sold by a giant multinational corporation sold 12 copies last month. No, I'm not going to say who...subscribe to MI SalesTrak and find out. One reason why software costs what it does is based on dividing the total projected revenue by ALL the expenses listed above. There is no guarantee that the product will be successful, either. There may not BE "5,000" people who would be willing to pay another $200 for SONAR to have some specialized EDM plug-ins, but would prefer to spend $200 on plug-ins of their own choice...resulting in a sales disaster. If you can predict the future of product sales, you are crazy to be spending time making stuff up on a forum. You could be making a fortune.
Anderton
What do the Logic ARPs have SONAR's dedicated arps (that are integrated in each channel) don't have?
Drone7Much, actually!
Well that's certainly a definitive answer...and I had such a cool reply if you actually had elaborated. Remember, I own Logic Pro X.
But many here have already made it known that they would like Dimension Pro to be updated, it is obvious that the stock sounds are not world-class, so why does Cakewalk keeping shipping this 7 year old Dimension Pro thingy mijig?
Because a) backwards compatibility has merit. and b)
some people realize that what makes emotionally compelling music is musicians, not software. Dimension Pro has plenty of useful sounds. If you want a whole bunch of sounds that cost a sh*tload of money to produce, buy Kontakt, MachFive, HALion, Omnisphere, etc.
And as i've already expressed, creating a new core library in a rompler is not as expensive as you would have us believe, and this i know!
Okay, since you
know this, why don't you give a dollar figure to how much it cost to develop the core library for four professional software ROMplers of your choice? Don't forget to factor royalty rates in on projected sales, as well as editing, formatting, entering into the software's browser, etc.
Economies of scale would recoup the cost while still boding well for Sonar sales overall. Truth be known, this is really all about Cakewalk essentially saying that this is a DAW for Guitar fiddlers and Trumpet blowers and EP players, and not for EDM producers.
http://blog.cakewalk.com/sonar-platinum-dancefair-utrecht-2015/ Some EDM producers are good enough they don't have to blame their tools, but instead
use their tools to make music. And one of the quotes about SONAR encapsulates a very important point: “SONAR to me is crucial because it’s what helps me to ‘not’ sound like everyone else.”
Many users of Sonar would be happy to have my suggested plugins onboard, they are relevant and the prime fundamentals for EDM, so are you saying that Sonar does not really cater to EDM, and thus my OP?
Many users of SONAR would be happy to have really good staff view and notation capabilities. Many would like more audio-for-video options. Many would like better sounding amp sims (well, they got those
). Many would like a mastering suite, audio analysis tools, orchestral libraries, better CD assembly, overall tempo varispeed, transparent multiband maximizers, and a hover car.
Multitrack tape recorders did not "cater" to rock and roll, yet rock and roll was recorded on them. Apostolic Studios did not cater to a weird synthesis of rock and classical, but Frank Zappa recorded there. SONAR is a canvas.
What you paint on it is up to you. By providing support to all common Windows plug-in formats, you have access to a wealth of EDM-specific sounds and instruments, in addition to what's within SONAR.
Users of any DAW have the right to say what they desire to see in their DAW, this is well-known, so does Cakewalk have a problem with users mentioning such things?
Apparently they don't. There's a dedicated forum to feature requests, and there have been multiple threads pleading for staff view improvements, and few wanting more EDM tools.
I notice you like to appear as though you always know better, Mr Anderton, and you like to have the last say on any matter as if we have it all wrong, and i'm getting sick and tired of it quite frankly, so shall we leave this here for all to see and see if you or i get validated by public opinion and leave your incessant retorts out of it for a while??
I think perhaps public opinion would prefer having enough data to have an informed opinion. If you don't want me to reply, don't ask questions.