I think that most people would prefer "artifacts" to what we are having to listen to now, considering that music is about "listening".

It's not fair to make assumptions about what people would prefer in this regard.

An artifact would be a pop, a click (or a series of pops-n-clicks) or a quick stutter gap of some kind.

ORIGINAL: danhazer

An artifact would be a pop, a click (or a series of pops-n-clicks) or a quick stutter gap of some kind.

Hi Dan!!!

hey i hate what you are describing but....my hardware is not state of the art...
so....i need to live with that....

Greets
ROlo.

OK, so what about the second part of the question: what's signficiantly different now? A series of pops/clicks is going to be horrid on things like speakers (potentially), so I can't see how pushing for that would be a good thing.

I for one would not advocate that the bakers shoot for this. It's a terrible I idea, in fact. It's like trading a poop for a crap. The difference between gapping and artifacts is like six one way/half-a-doezen the other.

ORIGINAL: Poni
Your probably right about this Dan. Unless the artifacts were actually bearable like the ones that Ron claims are produced when editing by Live.

Where did Ron ever characterize the artifacts as "bearable" ?

ORIGINAL: gdugan

ORIGINAL: Poni
Your probably right about this Dan. Unless the artifacts were actually bearable like the ones that Ron claims are produced when editing by Live.

Where did Ron ever characterize the artifacts as "bearable" ?

Ron never said that I'm saying that, just my experience after demoing Live.

ORIGINAL: NYSR
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The standards from the P&E wing are not outdated.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 In principle they will never become outdated because they are not committed or stuck in the state of current technology as much as they are stuck in the principles of a future reality.

Standards based on ProTools are outdated by definition, since that application is by far not the only player on the block anymore. There are other DAWs nowadays that do the job just as well. Pro Tools' MIDI capabilities have always very limited to start with anyway, so it can't be compared to a sequencer in that regard

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.

Sorry, but what artists use in their own studio is their business alone. The music labels are really only concerned about the output. The only standard is that this output should be rendered to some widely accepted format (WAV, ADAT, analogue tape and perhaps even ProTools) - preferably with seperate tracks for each instrument. Aside from that, anything concering the actual creation process of the audio is fair game and - returning to the subject of this thread - a tool like Sonar should accomodate that process as much as possible.

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.

Tsk tsk tsk.. what makes you think I don't have any technical know-how? I know what technical issues are involved for editing MIDI-events in real-time. I also know that those issues have been tackled in other DAW applications for years now, so I am actually baffled why Cakewalk is still struggling with this.

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.

First of all, if you don't use a method comparable to mine (e.g. using soft synths), how on earth can you tell me what to do? Second, Cakewalk is advertizing with a gapless engine, yet is fails to deliver. That is reason enough to be at the least somewhat disappointed.

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.

Honestly, I actually fail to see the relevance of these remarks to the subject of this thread. Are cracks, gaps & distortions while moving MIDI notes an "adopted technique"? If so, then Sonar is highly standards compliant for sure.

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.

With this train of thought you lost me completely. I almost get the feeling like I'm reading some kind of sermon here. No offense, but appearantly you and me live on different planets - and not only when it comes to music production.

ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]

If other DAW applications can do it without problems, why not Sonar?

ProTools, Cubase and Nuendo gap.

Not while editing in the piano-roll in real-time. And the gaps that do occur are generally much less severe than in Sonar.

Live has "artifacts" if you edit while it's under heavy enough system load.

So? Sonar has "artifacts" under low system-load already. And what artifacts are you talking about? If you mean stuff like aliasing when you manipulate clips in an extreme way, I am not really surprised.

If you recall when SONAR 3 came out, we claimed "no gapping." That was the wrong thing to say. I doubt we will ever claim to have gapless engine, because just as other contemporary so called "gapless" engines there will always be one extreme case that will make it break.

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

See, it's all really a bummer, since Sonar is a lovely application in concept. If it weren't I wouldn't be so hung up on this issue.

ORIGINAL: Blades

Ok...I have to weigh in here...

Let me start by saying, if Sonar were to introduce gaplessness, I would not complain, but here are MY opinions in reference to Planist and these things:

-moving audio/MIDI clips,

In order for me to accurately move things around in the space of time, I stop the playback, otherwaise, I have to move something way too many times for it to actually go where it should - while I would be able to do this gaplessly, which would "increase" my abilities, I'd also take a lot longer to be precise, which would undermine the gaplessness. I am moving something IN TIME so I'd expect a time related glitch from it - a gap.

Try using the nudge facility - it makes moving clips by small but repeatable increments easy, and a very good way to get timing spot on.

-trim audio/MIDI clips,

I only hear a little "tick" when I do this...not a gap - and refer to point (*) below

-open EQ

No tick, gap, artifact, etc here, at least not with Sonitus or the other included effects - not that I recall, though I usually use the track EQ anyway, which is already inserted, which nmeans I don't have to insert it, which means that I will inherently NOT GAP here. If I automate the turning on/off of an effect and THAT caused ticks or gaps when the automation played back, THAT would be a problem - but it doesn't, beacuse it CAN compensate for such things, because it KNOWS they are coming.

-open already inserted instruments/fx

I can open SS2 or Sampletank2 without issue, though, if I'm working on something taht would require one open, odds are it would be open anyway, and refer to point (*) below

-setting loops

I have a hard enough time getting loops/punch times set when the playback is stopped and generally I set loops for the purpose of being repeated (of course) so once it's set, I don't have to re set it until I want to hear a different section, which I'm going to have to stop and move the time for anyway - and refer to point (*) below

In the flow of editing it can be very useful to have a small section looping so that it can be precisely edited, and then to widen out that loop region to check everything's working in a wider context. Bad audio gapping is not conducive to this aproach.

-moving MIDI notes in piano roll,

Typically, my midi notes are where they are for a reason (real feel or quantized to be strict) - I can understand wanting to move them about while trying to get something just right (as I might occasionally do to align a kick and crash cymbal for example, or to get that one hit just a "little more laid back"), but the idea of expecting to be able to move something IN TIME and not have it AFFECT TIME is a bit silly to me, and I'd want to hear it again through anyway, as I probably won't get the move right the first time...though I've found that nudge works pretty well for this (midi or audio)

Yeah but we're not even talking about moving notes that are currently playing - you can move a note or clip from the other end of the project and it'll gap. But the principal problem here is trying to get the "feel" of a "groove" happening in a looped section - every time you shift a note a few ticks you get a gap which completely ****s the flow.

-all transport functions (e.g. move time line to specific time with the mouse)

Ummmm - do you know that you are at zero crossing where you moved to (tick/pop), are you not already interrupting the FLOW by just clicking elsewhere?...and I say, my "gap" here is about a few milliseconds...it's not like there is a 10 second gap and I'm stuck staring at a useless machine until that comes back - and refer to point (*) below

If you have a single plugin in your project which uses PDC, you'll find that the gapping is much more than just a few ms. Of course it could be argued that I should do all my editing, then apply fx, or that I should disable all pdc fx before editing, and yes I could do that. But it doesn't suit me to have a particular order of work(flow) imposed on me - one of the reasons I so love SONAR is the way that it seems so much more flexible in terms of ways of using it than any of the other sequencers I have tried (except for this one gapping issue of course).

I love my Reason and Tracktion sequencers, they kick Sonar right in the balls !

For crying out loud, even Magix products that you can find at your local Best Buy sequences without glitches. We are talking a $50 non professional product.
What is the point to have all these MIDI instrument definitions, drum maps, midi effects and what not, when you can't move a note around and feeling you are working on turntables ?

ORIGINAL: SoundzPlastikSurgeon

For crying out loud, even Magix products that you can find at your local Best Buy sequences without glitches. We are talking a $50 non professional product.
What is the point to have all these MIDI instrument definitions, drum maps, midi effects and what not, when you can't move a note around and feeling you are working on turntables ?

LOL...Lol...lol...lmmm...llmm...MmmmmWHAAAAAAN!!!!!...Snif!...Snif!...

Pathetic isn't it?

It also feels like they're adding and adding more and more features and every time they add one, all the previous others become less and less performant!

Here's an idea, implement one of the $50 gapless/glitchless non professional sequencer as part of Sonar. Should be an available free update to 4 but I'm sure people are ready to pay for a $50 upgrade that would definitly fix the problem.

(that last part is obviously a joke if you didn't already noticed! If only it was that simple...)

I have the same experience.

The big issue is not necessarily moving clips and inserting effects as you play the track. It is the fact that when you "loop" it gaps and glitches when it returns to the start of the loop point.

Logic doesn't do this. Also in logic, you can move stuff around without it freaking out like sonar.

I am a heavy sonar user and love it. Just wish a few of these things would be addressed so that the sonar vs logic discussion can be put to rest (my producer partner loves logic, but is starting to warm up to sonar). If we could fix:

seamless looping
slip editing that snapped to the grid better
lasso selecting clips by just "touching them" and not surrounding them (maybe a hot key or global option). Pressing the ALT select kinda does this.
an EQ plug in that shows the Frequency response graph in real time (like logic EQ)

BTW, does anybody know of a plug in that works like the Logic Space designer reverb?

Our gapping behavior has improved steadily since SONAR 1.0.

given you use the same daw since sonar 1. then it would gap in sonar 4 much more, because the gapping is cpu dependent.

so, from what i read in the forum and what i experience:
there is no big difference in gapping behaviour betw/ s1 and s4.
the same project in s2 and s4 gaps LESS in s2 (while editing)!!

Have you actually rewritten the sonar audio engine code?
or only the vst adapter code?

thanks in advance for more info on this, planist

important:
-moving audio/MIDI clips,
-trim audio/MIDI clips,
-open EQ,
-open already inserted instruments/fx
-setting loops,
-moving MIDI notes in piano roll,
-all transport functions (e.g. move time line to specific time with the mouse)

less important:
-changing tempo
-insert fx
-importing audio clips

I agree.
You hit gapless midi right on the spot.

I find moving midi notes and changing loop points important for the way I work. (changing loop points would be less important if Sonar created a pattern chaining function).