whoo :) I have V-Vocal opened and I selected DYNAMICS. there is the "envelope". great future is, you can select part of the clip and then the envelope will move only in that particular selected area :))) nice to have on "regular" envelopes too :) very similar to PT8

Susan G


Hi Richard-

I agree with you, and it's not only on this thread. I don't see the point of going on one DAW forum to extol the virtues of another unless it's to persuade Users to switch. Why waste the time & energy, otherwise? It's ironic to me that some here who are considered fan boys/girls of SONAR are shouted down, while others who are clearly fan boys/girls of REAPER are given free passes.

I think by now most people here are aware of REAPER, and you can download it and try it out. If you like it, use it, if you don't, don't! But it's one thing to say "I like these features/implementations in app X", since I think we all benefit from competition (FL Studio's PRV being just one example!), and quite another to bash everything about the company, assume things about its future development plans, coding, etc., etc..

I admit I'm "old school"<g>, but I think it's just bad form to post to a forum with the specific intent to be an advocate for another DAW. Some forums call that "trolling". CW, to their credit, has allowed all of these posts. There are plenty of people here who've tried REAPER and chose to stick with SONAR. I frequent the REAPER forums, and I have to say I haven't seen even one post from a SONARite bashing REAPER.

Personally, I wouldn't think of going on another DAW's forum just to bash it and say how much better DAW X is, but I guess anything goes these days.

-Susan

[CLAPS WILDLY]
 
Enough said :-)

Well I did a long session with 8.5 today, my first tracking session with it.  Mostly it was awesome, very snappy and stable engine.  I totally appreciate the ability to hot-swap controllers.  Awesome.

But then we started comping and arranging and mixing, so I threw in some envelopes.... OOPS.

They've always been susceptible to weirdness but sheesh man these things are really fragile.

Da=man

I do a lot of midi and Reaper sucks big time in that area. 

 
So true!

Exactly, very well put once again Mike.

Mike

xackley


The reference to the R product in this thread does not reflect fanboism. It pertains to development method.
The R product development is completely open. Everyone can view the bugs and FRs. Everyone can know the bugs status. Anyone can test the Pre-release.

 
Reaper's history of sending out little reaperoids into all of the DAW forums to siphon off customers is a matter of public record. Whether you're a part of that effort or not, I believe your discussion is off-topic. This is the Sonar forum.

Richard let me get this straight, you actually believe that cocko's sends out reaper spammers to various forums?  Seems very unlikely, but you've already posted that twice.  Besides, what does THAT have to do with clip envelopes?  Kinda looks like you're the one who is off topic.  Do you have anything relevant to add?

Richard let me get this straight, you actually believe that cocko's sends out reaper spammers to various forums? Seems very unlikely,

 
All you need to do is search this forum for proof of the reaper spammer campaign. Then search their forum for the marching orders and progress reports. If you weren't aware of it, then that explains your attack on me. I suggest you get the facts before charging in half-cockosed.

this thread is about clip envelope glitches that are very easy to reproduce. Have you tried?

 
Clip envelopes and mute envelopes are busted more than an FDIC-takeover bank. If you turn off the envelope option in the Select Tool, it seems to allow editing clips without having the envelopes get deleted and regions changed. I reported that bug along with everybody else...haven't heard anything back on it, but the workaround seems to be ok until then.

I will ask you to recognize that the most vocal posters in this thread who are making comparisons to other products, are SONAR users who *used* to be considerably more active on this forum before they became somewhat disillusioned by Cakewalk's choice not to fix certain longstanding issues. I suspect that they *wish* SONAR were still the ideal all-in-one solution for them, and that they probably see this thread as an opportunity to voice that and hopefully effect change. It's not about trying to siphon off users to a competing product - it's about trying to get THIS product to compete more effectively once again.

 
Well said. What you describe isn't limited to this thread. Unfortunately, the criticism and attacks now go beyond the Sonar product and are now even more against Cakewalk itself. That suggests something bigger that wanting old bugs fixed.
 
Why do I care? I enjoy visiting these forums helping answer some things that I'm able. I learn, as well. These days, if a body can wade through the vitriol and ad hominem crap, then they still have to make it through so many verbose diatribes and predictions of the end of the world, the last thing on your mind is trying to help someone. Why should I care if nobody else does? But I digress, lol. I think I've answered myself.

Richard Fey <<  Unfortunately, the criticism and attacks now go beyond the Sonar product and are now even more against Cakewalk itself. That suggests something bigger that wanting old bugs fixed. >>
 
It shouldn't come as a surprise that criticism goes beyond the Sonar product to Cakewalk itself. Among Sonar users, for all practical purposes, Sonar IS Cakewalk. And vice versa. The long term state of a product, its maintenance and its development, can legitimately be taken as representing a company's view of that product and its users.
 
That might be different if I was using Cakewalk's Music Creator or Pyro or whatever. But I've been using Sonar Producer for well over half it's brand-life. That's the top of the line. So when dissatisfaction sets in, there are only two places to turn: up to the company itself, or out to the competition.
 
The line between being dissatisfied and disappointed with a product/company, and discussing its competition so that you seem to be trying to "siphon off" customers is a slippery one. I have no doubt I've slipped that line on many occasions. I know that's not my intention. But I also know that at this point my best defense is to plead nolo contendere to the charge of being a Reaper fangirl and just live with my scarlet letter.
 
However, the idea that the only reason to discuss product B in product A's forum is on the marching orders of product B's developers is simply idiotic. Where's the incentive? A free copy of Reaper?
 
On the other hand, it might be worth noting that (as far as I know) Sonar beta testers DO indeed get a free copy of Sonar when it's released. I'm sure that's very nice. But it's hard not wondering if there's a connection between that and how certain bugs and incomplete/sloppy implementations can survive version after version if there was an effective pre-release testing program in place. Surely it's not only fanboys and girls who test Sonar and who are so psyched to be using a future version that they look the other way, gratis version after gratis version after gratis version.
 
I mean we're talking about automation here. What is more basic than that?
 
BUT.... The fact that this thread's subject mentions clip envelopes and track layers doesn't mean that that's all the thread is about. Others have already pointed out that what this thread is really about is how these and comparably significant issues have existed across many versions. Serious users eventually start wondering how this can be. Unfortunately, there are no answers to that question that reflect well on Cakewalk as continuing to be a provider to serious non-upgrading users.
 
Re: the emerging customers that MMc has referred to. I'm not myself aware of any statement CW has made re: that market segment. I'll say this though. While I would never try to "siphon off" existing Sonar users to another platform (believe that as you will), I would certainly advise a NEW user, with nothing to relearn or unlearn from a previous sw, and especially if they weren't coming from a pre-DAW production paradigm, against adopting Sonar as their first platform. By some important measures, Sonar DOES offer a broad and "complete" package for a noob to DAWdom. But as a non newb, I know that there's no such thing as "complete." And that front-of-box feature lists aren't where the action is. (I personally can't imagine what feature or plugin a DAW can offer -- or how cheap it is to buy and upgrade -- that would compensate for how the only way to access clip envelope creation is buried 3 down in a context menu and works only one item at a time... and has been that way for the entire life of the product. That is a scandal. Pure and simple. What's the word processing equivalent of that? How about having to change font size one word at a time by right clicking the word? Analogies are never perfect. But they'd don't need to be.)
 
Even without checking out pre-sales demos and so on, I'd advise newcomers to go with one of the new entries (e.g., Studio One or Reaper etc) than ANY of the old boys (Sonar or Cubase etc) simply because they ARE new. I suspect that ProTools (any version) is in the same boat as the best of the original generation of developers, but PT's status as a standard changes the equation. But then how many newcomers are going to spring for a full blown (high end) PT setup?
 
The reason we write about this stuff is because it matters to us. No one here wants to see CW fail. The prob is, they appear either to be failing, or to not be who some of us thought they were, or who we would like the provider of our most critical tool to be.
 
Open beta's, even if only to registered users, would improve CW's product, and customer good will, enormously. And yes, that's yet another "feature" this reluctant fangirl thinks they should copy from the dark side.
 
(The dark side's forum software, which is also used by many/most of the "pro" sw providers, might also be worth copying.)

The line between being dissatisfied and disappointed with a product/company, and discussing its competition so that you seem to be trying to "siphon off" customers is a slippery one. I have no doubt I've slipped that line on many occasions. I know that's not my intention. But I also know that at this point my best defense is to plead nolo contendere to the charge of being a Reaper fangirl and just live with my scarlet letter.

To me all you are saying here is it is true you are trying to "siphon" off users. What I also see in it is that you don't care about it. This sounds to me very passive aggressive. 

Your indictment of Sonar not just here in this post but in most of them seems unable to acknowledge that most Sonar users use the software with no real issues. That is they are able to do the things with it they wish to do. Being dissatisfied with Sonar you find it impossible that others are satisfied with it. Your "preaching" on the deficits of Sonar seems never to take into account that many don't have the same view. What you find as poor programing others find the way it ought to be. You don't ask for a feature but condemn the basic underlying  principles of Sonar. It is for many of us just the opposite. It is the way Sonar works that is the attraction. Some of this is due to familiarity. Most is due to a full understanding of the way the OS works, meaning how Windows works. Not realizing that Sonar attracts for the way it works is perhaps the real reason we are often at odds. Each DAW app has its own way of doing things. It is that difference that binds users to an app and not another.

I have said often that Sonar could be improved in many ways. I don't want a totally new way to do stuff though.  

rstollen


Well John, we don't always agree on everything, but I'm with you 100% on this one.

 
Me too :-)

Marah

the idea that the only reason to discuss product B in product A's forum is on the marching orders of product B's developers is simply idiotic.

You got that right.  I came here because I began to get email after email from Cakewalk about the new version of Sonar, and I wanted to see what they had done in the way of improvements and fixes to the core DAW software.  I posted a link to a freeking text file, that contained no links or promotional stuff whatsoever, as an illustration of something I think Cake needs to have.  A simple text only changelog, that was mostly about bug fixes.  Something that I believe that Cakewalk should have posted somewhere on their web site.  A simple text only list of what's been fixed in the newest version. A changelog.  It's no wonder that people get bent when they buy the latest version, hoping that a bug that's been bugging them will have been fixed, only to find out that it's still present.  That's what this thread is about.  Bugs that go from version to version and don't get fixed, while the resources that could have been spent fixing them, are used on revamping plugins to v2.0

thomasabarnes

Jose7822

rstollen


Well John, we don't always agree on everything, but I'm with you 100% on this one.

 
Me too :-)

Me three.
 
I don't want things to be such as I would have to learn a new DAW software.
 
No way, Jose!  hehe

Nice one Thomas LOL