You know, it really depends on what I am doing on how much the gapping frustrates/embarasses me. Gapping during playback while clients are listening is unacceptable and embarrasing. Not cool and very very unprofessional. At least with 4.0 I don't get the popping noises (as much), and the crashes have become rare insted of frequent. Using 4.0 I have only lost 2 sessions of work due to the doesn't really save, save function.

When working on my own stuff I have gotten so used to it I hardly even wince anymore.

ORIGINAL: SoundzPlastikSurgeon

I don't think that comment is that stupid.

It reflects what is happening more and more with many companies, a subtle false advertizing, just kept within the boundaries to prevent lawsuits. And as far as reviewers, whose work is purely subjective, I don't trust them and never will.

Exactly. It's called advertizing BS.
It's not acceptable. IF there was a competative product that was in the same price range, performed as well and the company didn't engage in this type of advertizing, I'd move to them ** just on principle alone. **

Steve

Hi all !

Without trying to inflame this issue, Ron's quote is:-

" ..... The kinds of engine changes that are required to reduce gapping are too risky to include a maintenance update. The next major update of SONAR 5 will gap even less than SONAR 4 does .... "

His choice of words is quite specific - " .... SONAR 5 will gap even less than SONAR 4 does... "

Unfortunatley this means:-

- Sonar 5 will gap "less" than previous verisons - a *good* thing


BUT


- Sonar 5 will still "gap" - a *bad* thing


We can therefore say then that Sonar 5 will *not* be fully / totally gapless.

Tim

ORIGINAL: jopatou

does this mean that I'm going to have to wait for Sonar 8.2.4.679 for the real gapless audio engine!!!???

Depressing thought. Actually knowing that Sonar5 will gap is really, sad I was hoping that after five versions them would have sorted things out. To bad I hate changing software, but for me this gapping thing is a show stopper.

ORIGINAL: Steve_Karl


You must not have heard their advertizements for the last 3 years.
I read his explination.
I still contend that they've been using misleading adverts.
It's my point of view. You don't have to agree.

Steve

No Steve you are right on the money.

Besides a Universal Buss architecture one of Sonar 3's major advertising campaigns was a for "gapless audio engine".
It's the main reason I went for the upgrade.

I wish I still had all the propeganda they flooded me with to get me to buy into thier false advertising, as Cakwalk fell short of delivering & what makes it even worse is they've since tried to sweep it under the carpet by making a pun of the terminology calling it "gap-even-less".

It's not funny anymore.

Stich

ORIGINAL: MotorMind

ORIGINAL: NYSR

I would suggest a trip over to the Producers and Engineers Wing at www.Grammy.com to get in touch with guidelines, recommendations and industry standard procedures that when followed help develop recording habits professionals have worked out over the years to avoid this and several other problems that can become a part of the creative process when your method is something that just sort of evolved as you sat down in front of your PC.

I should be more understanding perhaps, but when people want to do things in a way that is contrary to well established industry standards and current constraints they should realize they will run into unexpected difficulties. Those difficulties will include not just equipment not responding as hoped but the fact that the industry itself will think in terms of solving unconventional problems last because the industry is already busy thinking in the way it has grown accustomed based on years of having avoided these sorts of difficulties in the first place.

I am trying hard not to blow my collar over this arrogant, patronizing comment. Why do you think some outdated industry standards would apply to making computer music? Music is an art form and people are inventing all kinds of new ways of making it, suiting their needs. I am pretty sure people like Aphex Twin or Squarepusher - just to name two established musicians - would simply toss those guidelines into the garbage bin, which doesn't make them the slightest bit less professional (perhaps even more so).

Editing notes on a computer while running has been a standard practice since the first sequencers hit the market. The only difference is that a lot of the action now takes place inside the computer instead of in a hardware based studio.

Times change. I hope you get your gapless ability someday ... I guess. I am glad that I simply do not need it. In the mean time it is so much wiser to develop a creative approach that fits with current constraints so that when advances are made your task only becomes easier.

Gapless editing does exist. All the other DAWs are doing it .. Sonar is the only one having problems with it. Even a lowly sequencer like EnergyXT manages to do it. As a matter of fact, I am right now in the process of making a track with it, since it's so inspirational Oh, let me guess: using a non-standards based application makes me less professional, right?

Sonar is so much better than the Sony two track I started with in 1965 that I just can't imagine complaining about gap-glitch.

Sure, it is always a great idea to compare a modern-day DAW to equipment of the sixties [sm=rolleyes.gif]

Motormind, go ahead and blow. If you think my statement is arrogant. I can take it and you might even feel better.

The standards from the P&E wing are not outdated. They were actually written expecting most would be using Pro Tools. In principle they will never become outdated because they are not committed or stuck in the state of current technology as much as they are stuck in the principles of a future reality.

No major label would ever permit its engineers or producers to radically stray too far from those standards. Those standards are the only way to protect their investment and they exist to make certain that every project is created using techniques and methods that can be fully archived for perpetuity in all three of its distinct phases -- tracking, mixing and mastering. Those standards exist so that any studio working according to those standards can unarchive any project created using those standards from now until Jesus Returns regardless of whatever becomes of our technology. When technology advances- a remix will ALWAYS be possible by going back as far as necessary into the three archives.

Incorporating exclusive mixing methods while tracking is a violation of the guidelines not because anyone wants to keep talent in the technological yesterdays, but because it permits their talent to be preserved raw well into the potential of tomorrow's amazing technology. I think you have not read or understood those standards. You certainly lack an appreciation for what they accomplish.

Editing notes during playback has been possible with MIDI sequencers for quite a while but it has also always had its limits. Cakewalk when playing back MIDI reads ahead just a bit to queue upcoming MIDI events. Editing any event currently in the playback queue will not affect its copy in the playback queue. However, editing any MIDI event prior to its reaching the queue can work just fine. Editing a MIDI event that has entered the queue but has an associated event not yet in the queue may cause a gap. You may not have the technological understanding to appreciate that the only way to solve that problem is to create a gapless fake, create a much larger queue, or something else that comes with a package of consequences good and bad. Some of these limits cannot go away without creating other problems you might not notice or like when you do notice. Hosting a wide variety of soft synths further complicates the possibilities.

Gapless editing does exist. Since I use hardware synths and have never used a soft synth in a project yet I am often enjoying gapless editing currently. But when it comes to soft synths, gapless editing evidently is not yet in Sonar. But I must ask you to forgive me for my arrogance in expecting you to use whatever tool is in your hand only in a manner that is in keeping with its capabilities. Do I ask too much? If it won't be gapless at this time then do not adopt a methodological approach that requires it to be gapless. Am I arrogant to point out the inarguable impossibility? Is it my arrogance or is it reality telling you to change your equipment or change your method.

No matter how modern our equipment becomes, all equipment will have strengths and weaknesses. Some strengths and weaknesses will be common to all tools some will be unique to a specific tool. Regardless, a productive producer and engineer refuses to persist with adopted techniques and methods that do not work with the equipment they have available. Rather a wise engineer and producer refuses to continue with any method that does not accomplish the task and preserve the accomplishment for the future.

Dancing around in a fantasy about what it would be wonderful to be able to do is a good thing only if YOU are creating the next generation of technology, but if you are creating music right now, then let tomorrow get here tomorrow while you do today what can be exploited from the capabilities in your hand right now. I would not waste my time worrying two seconds about something that cannot yet be done with the tool in my hand right now. I'm too busy discovering how my creativity can exploit the constraints just as they are. I'll wait till tomorrow to rethink my methods when the new capabilities arrive in my hand tomorrow. I've done that at every upgrade since my Sony 2-track. The closest I can get to being distracted from my creative preoccupation is to make a request and go back to work. The successful folks at Warp Records got where they are by doing what could be done.

This thread is so sad. Really. As much as I had hoped to become a resource of wisdom I have become instead a mere arrogant voice.

Quite true. Eliminating this gapping would also eliminate having to explain/excuse this situation with clients that are startled by this behavior.

agreed.

Yes,
you are correct -ah ah ah

(in an ed mcman tone)

So what your saying Ron is that Sonar 5 will gap. I guess it's time to check out some other software and see what they have to offer.

If gapping is what makes you consider your platform of choise,
then you might want to check live, or reason, but they are far more
limited than Sonar.

Sonar is the best all around package out there.
I would never jump ship due to gapping.
The benefits or Sonar far out weigh it's faults.

T.

There will always be leaders and followers.

ORIGINAL: MotorMind

I also wonder why those reviewers on the Net and in magazines never caught on this. How much did you pay them?

Oh, come on man, this one was really not nice!!!
For me, gapping was never a problem. I insert my effects and instruments before i start playback or record and thats it. Changing parameters during playback did cause a crash only with Sonic Synth 1 based on the original Sampleatnk 1 sample engine. But all other effects / instrumentts i use to use can be edited "on the fly" without gaps or crashes.

So, there are Sonar users who don`t care too much about gapless engine (like me). Of course, it would be even better, if the engine were gapless, but this is not *my* first priority, and probably it also was not the first priority of the revierwers. However, in german musician magazines gapping was amlost every time mentioned as one of the *negative* points when compared to steinberg and co.

Best regards

Otto

Now what about the general advertizing statment about a gappless audio engine?

That ad was pulled down about a week after it appeared.

I THINK THAT IMPROVEMENT SHOULD BE A FREE PATCH, BECAUSE SONAR gaps also under low cpu usage.

They did include it as a freebee in 4.01. Before that update, gaps were so long I started getting depressed a little. Anyway, in 5 you will not be paying for reduced gapping only. There will be a whole host of other wonderful features for you to feast on. And you never know, they may include something in this regard for the 4.1 patch...

We're going to improve the situation in SONAR 5. We recognize that it's important.

Excellent! You have my full support!

Reducing gapping is a major undertaking, and I would never expect it in a free patch - I'm happy to wait till version 5.