You know, the secret meetings they have where they burn composers at the stake after slaughtering the goats.. :)

swamptooth
I remember requesting something akin to mix recall at some point after cubase let me down with track versions...

Thanks, swamptooth.
I will search for that.
I just want to compare the Mix Recall buzz with the SV buzz and see if maybe there is some magic incantation within the MR requests which we could use for SV.

microapp

swamptooth
I remember requesting something akin to mix recall at some point after cubase let me down with track versions...

Thanks, swamptooth.
I will search for that.
I just want to compare the Mix Recall buzz with the SV buzz and see if maybe there is some magic incantation within the MR requests which we could use for SV.

The MR requests built on a relatively modern foundation. Furthermore, the process of implementing MR allowed fixing many other elements. For example, you can now copy bus automation, which was iffy at best before. That was an oft-requested feature as well. So, MR not only implemented mix recall, but implemented additional, requested "under the hood" features as part of the process. That made the feature even more desirable to implement.

Anderton

microapp
 
For the most part this thread is about Cake listening to users and in particular the state of Staff view.
But here is a rough price comparison.
Bought outright by a new user
 
Sonar Platinum $499
Studio One Pro $399
Cubase 8 pro $549
Reason $399
Protools 11 $699
Digital Performer 8 $499
Logic Pro X $199
FL Studio $139
Reaper`$60
Ableton Live 9 $749
 
But on a strictly cost basis you should be using Reaper, yes?
 

To loop back to the topic...not if you want notation. Not only should you avoid Reaper and SONAR if you want notation, you should also pass on Studio One Pro, Reason, FL Studio, and Ableton Live. in other words, more than half of the DAWs in that list DON'T have notation.
 
Also I realize you're not talking about costs going forward, but the list is not really fair to FL Studio, which gives free updates for life. Granted that doesn't give you access to everything, but it's still cool. And don't forget that when you buy SONAR, you get updates which for many other DAWs would be a paid update that occurs sometime after the initial release, so you need to factor that into the initial cost.

Craig,
My point was that Sonar is reasonably priced and not cheap and that cost alone should not be the only reason for choosing a DAW.
I did see that FL Studio is updated free for life and this is impressive.
Also Reaper is rumored to be working on notation for the next release.

Anderton

microapp
I did not say or imply you made anything up.
I assumed there were examples.
I simply wanted to look at them.
You provided some, so thanks.

My apologies, you caught the flak from my dealing with fabricated "facts" and asking where they hell they came from. Given the sequence of posts, I thought that was being reflected back on me.
 
Yes, I'm upset but I really get upset when people make up stuff and pass it off as real. Don't know if they're just too lazy to actually research before they speak, have an agenda, or what. In any event I feel I have to say something or the misinformation will persist.
 
Sometimes I think there's a Gresham's Law of the Internet where bad information drives out good...

I did a quick scan of the examples. Thanks for taking the time to find them.
For the most part they read just like the SV threads now.
Some people for...some people don't see the need...some people offer their workarounds...some people go off the deep end.
If it took 10 years for Mix Recall, maybe there is still hope for SV. There are SV posts at least as old.

dubdisciple
60 is actually one price for reaper. I think it's 250 for pros. Still less than anyone but logic among the big names.

Right. It's the identical program, but the license is $225 USD if you use it for commercial use and make more than $20,000/yr with it.
 
-Susan

 

vintagevibeNot calling anyone a liar at all. My point is that what they are saying now is exactly what they have said since the 90’s.

 

Anderton
Bill Jackson said it wasn't dead. You said "No matter what Cakewalk says publicly it will never be addressed." You can shade that any way you want, but the clear implication is that he is at least being disingenuous. Furthermore, you are referring to statements by "they." "They" were other people, not Bill. 

 
No that is not the implication at all.  Because they say it publically doesn’t mean that it will be done for all the reasons they you have clearly spelled out.  That doesn’t mean they are lying it means that no matter what they may want it will never get done.  This is my prediction based on 20+ years of hearing the exact same thing.  They’ve said they want to do it.  They’ve even said they know what it needs.  Nothing has changed that I can see.
 

Anderton
Your support for this "fact" is that "It used to be this way, so it will always be this way." But when the person steering the ship, the company owning the ship, and the ship's mission changes, you can't assume everything will continue as it has before. Most people are aware just how much has changed in the past 16 months. The marketplace certainly does. 

 

Anderton
Besides, didn't you say after you couldn't get the graphics working properly that you'd pretty much stopped using SONAR anyway except to open legacy projects, and were now doing your projects in Cubase? So it appears you already have a solution. You don't have to wait until SONAR implements one.

 
I don’t have a solution for my legacy projects which I frequently need to access.
 

I don’t think they are being dishonest but that no matter what is said in public when they have design meetings it will never get on the agenda.

 

Anderton
That is a fabrication. I have attended design meetings, and staff view has not only gotten on the agenda but been discussed. Bill's response is almost identical to what he said at a previous meeting. 

 
You are right.  Allow me to correct:   No matter what they say in public or how much some may want to do it, it will never get done.  My prediction.  
 

swamptooth
Any business needs to expand its customer base and listen to new adopters. To only listen to customers who have been around ten years is certain death and sonar would be on version 8.5.9.

This is true, but this is hard in any business.  The questions become:

• To which customers should we listen?

• Who should be doing the listening?

The natural tendency is for the ones who have been at the core of the strategy to control the listening/filtering process.  And the customers they choose to listen to tend to be those who will reinforce the status quo.  In other words, it is easy to say "become customer-centric".  It is very difficult to do.  I have been through that cycle with dozens of companies over the years, either as a worker, an executive, or as a consultant.  I honestly can't think of a single case where that really resulted in the company gaining and fully embracing a new insight.
 
That's the reality.  People in control fight to protect the status quo.
 
What we have here is a culture that is very, very comfortable with the notion of a DAW as the fusion of sequencing and recording.  They have worked very hard to produce a great product that covers most areas of that space very competently.
 
I'm sure we all welcome refinements and way cool features that polish the basic DAW package.  But the reality is there just aren't a lot of huge needs in that area.  All DAWs do a pretty good job of what we know to be "DAW functions" today, and 30 new features in that are really won't change the competitive line-up very much.
 
If I were in charge of such a product, I'd want to understand what is going on in the universities.  What is going on at the leading edge?  What is happening in the base of DAW users that aren't considering this product?  Considering there will probably be little movement between DAWs because of inertia/loyalty/lack of differentiation, a critical question becomes "Is there another base of potential customers who have not committed to ANY DAW yet?"
 
These are the inputs an executive should be seeking.  And I don't think the answers are inside the company or inside the long-term base of most vocal users.

I think a lot of people are equating "listening" to "obeying". The fact this thread exists supports that. Some of us go round and round with cake stuff over whatever our pet issue is wt the moment. Listening does not mean they are obligated to act on every one.  

tecknotI would hate to say, but I think perhaps the time to change passed some time ago.  I know we saw a small exodus before.  In fact, I think Susan was one of the last of that group.  I'm sure she can see the evident change since she has returned.  We have been loyal to a fault.  It seems unlikely that they are going to keep their promises.

Hi tecknot-
 
I do see some changes, for sure, and I think many of them are positive. I'm still just testing the SONAR waters again, though, which is why I opted for month-to-month for now.
 
I remember when I first encountered "the triplet problems" firsthand years ago when I was trying to create a simple lead vocal sheet for my Dad.  He wanted to follow along with a song I'd written and I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to make it make musical sense to him. I remember to this day how I agonized over that (what should have been a) very simple score!
 
I also remember talking about "opening a can o' worms" with notation and Alex Westner (remember him?) saying something encouraging lo those many years ago. I don't remember any "promises", though.
 
It seems to me that there's actually a better chance now than there has been in a long time for something to happen with notation.  I don't expect anything huge, but I think incremental improvements might be coming. 
 
I've also always appreciated that no matter how many improvements are made to the SV, there will always be requests for "just this one thing" more.  That's why I called it a "can o' worms" because even the "big boys" of notation get constant FRs.
 
Thanks-
 
-Susan
 
 

It has been mentioned before but I'm kinda worried they'd have to write it from scratch since all the people who wrote the current version are gone now. Perhaps a reason why they haven't dared tackling it so far. It's easy to say "just fix triplets" but when it's someone else's code and they don't even work there anymore, good luck finding out even where to start.

I still don't get the need, even though I'm a literate musician who uses some form of score almost daily. I do however respect the wishes of such a large number of folks who have felt ignored for a long time now. Let's see what the coming year brings.

Sanderxpander
It has been mentioned before but I'm kinda worried they'd have to write it from scratch since all the people who wrote the current version are gone now. Perhaps a reason why they haven't dared tackling it so far. It's easy to say "just fix triplets" but when it's someone else's code and they don't even work there anymore, good luck finding out even where to start.

I still don't get the need, even though I'm a literate musician who uses some form of score almost daily. I do however respect the wishes of such a large number of folks who have felt ignored for a long time now. Let's see what the coming year brings.

Well said. I feel the same way, and I make most of my living by doing orchestrations (Sibelius).  On the flip side, much of the ****ing about Sibelius (and there isn't a ton) has to do with sounds/mixing capabilities. Comments at the Sibelius forum are often "How can I get Sibelius to do this and this?" when the best answer is "Buy PT/Sonar/Cubase etc". 
 
Like you, I respect the wishes of others and hope they get what they want/need out of their DAW. However, as a pro composer I don't mind using separate programs, and I can see certain advantages in doing so. Workflow is everything: dealing with automated mixes in Sibelius would be great...unless the chart has to be turned in by yesterday. 
 
The irony of course: Sibelius hasn't made any substantial notation improvements since version 6 (6+ years ago). Version 7 comes with a large sample library and no doubt that it sounded better than 6, but the same problematic notation problems still remain. The grass is always greener...

mudgel
I read today at the Presonus/Notion forum that they too will have a connection to Hal Leonard.

From Here On Is All Speculation
I wonder if there's a connection with Cakewalk there.

The Hal-Leonard thing seems like nothing more than a marketing agreement where Sonar is sold through the Hal-Leonard channel.  If so, that is barely more newsworthy than announcing that Sonar is available at Sweetwater.
 
Am I missing something significant here?

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Notation is a very specialized area of programming and most of us here are not very expert in that domain so its a longer process for us to add features to that area.

To try to match Finale or Sibelius in capability would be a vast undertaking, and a very expensive one, both in terms of money and in terms of the focus it would take away from the current product, which still needs to move forward.  The Spreadbury project at Steinberg definitely intends to take on head-on the best of the notation products, but they are probably spending well over $20 million, and that would initially just yield a stand-alone notation product, not improved notation in Cubase.  Of course, one assumes that they would marry those functions eventually, but we're probably talking 2020 for something like that.
 
While the notation world should welcome the Steinberg project (given the limited pace of development on both Finale and Sibelius), it would be insane for Gibson to try to do that.  But fixing some basic bugs and weak features in the Sonar notation engine doesn't seem like an impossible task, nor one that requires an exceptional amount of expertise in the notation field.  It is a limited thing.
 
OTOH, nobody understands MIDI better than Cakewalk.  All the high-grade notation products can export and import MIDI.  And many of them can export and import MusicXML in a comprehensive way.  Even if you don't have MusicXML experts on staff, nearly all competent programmers today are knowledgeable of working in XML, and the MusicXML schema is well defined.  It isn't that complicated, and you would be able to ignore 80% of it anyway.  With a strategy of more seamless interoperability with the major notation products, you would have access to most of what Steinberg might be able to do by 2020, and I bet an import/export process could be built a lot faster than building a whole new notation product. Such a project would give you greatly improved interopberability with all the important notation products out there.  As a strategic planner, I would think that such integration would be a minimum requirement for competing against Steinberg as they do begin to bring their new notation product to market.  (Hint: the Spreadbury product will undoubtedly support MusicXML and MIDI interfaces.)