Jeff, are you ever offline? The first time I was here at 11.00 am. Now it is 20.30 pm here in Europe, I come back to my office computer and as I see, you are still online.

Deleted by the poster.

Yeah, 30's about right-- I've slowed down a little since over the last couple of weeks, and I did take a 10-day break a while back.

ORIGINAL: ghijkmnop

The big question is will Cakewalk listen to the people who use their product or do their own thing?

If Cake tried to implement 202 (and growing) feature requests, Sonar 4 would be a $1500 piece of bloatware that would have a 3GHz CPU/1.5 GB RAM minimum requirement, and probably wouldn't be able to get out of its own way.

The phrases "Total cost of ownership" and "market share" needs to be applied here.

Your right. How dare I express an opinion which you don't hold.

. . . lots of good stuff here . . . . I don't think it has been suggested - but the feature I would like to see added is a variable to the "add 3dB/decrease 3dB" processing editing tool. I would like to be able to type in the dB amount - or better yet - be able to highlight an area of an audio track, double-click and have a fader appear! Cool! Than be able to move the fader and WATCH the highlighted area increase/decrease in real-time. I don't know - is that just too simple and elementary to be regarded as unprofessional?

Less third party stuff... are you talking about the lexicon and sonitus plugins?

No, I'm talking about the VSC and the notoriously underdocumented VSampler. The Sonitus plugs are a Godsend for the majority of the group, and a requirement for the EQ. I have Waves 4 Platinum and WaveArts Plugs, so none of the additional 3rd-party stuff is of any use to me (except the afore-mentioned Sonitus stuff), and I wish I could purchase Sonar without them and save some money.

That's just me, though.

ORIGINAL: ghijkmnop

Why don't you let cakewalk decide how much the software is going to be instead of automatically knocking down these ideas? it doesn't have to be all in 4. Those are the features someone wants. It may not all be put into the next version but don't try to limit someone else's ideas. The least you could do is thank him for taking the time to write up a long list of valid enhancements.

I'm not knocking down anyone's ideas-- I actually agree with a lot of the ideas presented, and have stated so in all the OTHER FR threads, and posted the address to the FR page at least 50 times now. I also agree with letting CW make the decisions here; throwing a laundry list of 200 demands at them isn't exactly productive, either.

I have read every single FR thread from the beginning of this Forum, and if people made a little less effort comparing features between packages while calling Cakewalk "unacceptable" or "a joke", etc., these discussions would be more productive.

Some features are obviously coming-- an audio metronome and an improved tuner are part of the newly-released Guitar Tracks 3, for example. I have faith that they will do what is right to keep Sonar a clean, stable, well-designed DAW package, and increase the user loyalty and marketshare. Investing dozens of hours designing to appease the whim of less than a thousandth of one percent of your user base is not cost-effective.

From what I've seen in all the FR threads, there are at most 50 legitimate major improvements that would make our lives easier as a customer base, and increase Cakewalk's marketshare-- AND get S4 ready by next year's NAMM.

I'm not trying to squelch discussion-- just to focus it and root it in reality, so a viable set of feature requests can be offered to Cakewalk.

Dear ghijkmnop:

Total Cost of Ownership, cost effectiveness, priorities are applied to product development. BUT, it is not in your place to decide or influence these matters since there are much more cost priority related variables unknown to you and out of your control.

It is the company and the software developers's decision to priortize set the suggested retail price and the market to decide the actual price. As an end user, it is important that you raise issues of what enhancements you want in your software. But not in your place to hinder other people's requests whether you agree with them or not. If they want something, of course, they want it for a reason best known to them.

Till this day, I shake my head reading people's request and yahoos replying that Sonar 3 is already good ie

MightyLeeMoon

Jeez. 202 things that need to be added. You would think Sonar 3 stinks.

well, make it better!! No one said Sonar 3 stinks. But if there's something that people what. Why they hell are you arguing with that? That's what they want!!

I dont' understand people's logic sometimes when they limit progress directly or indirectly.

If there's a work around that you know to solve someone's problem or feature request, offer them in this board. But still don't shun their requests.

ORIGINAL: planist

What would be the point in my listing them? I have submitted the ones I'd like to see via the proper channels.

what the point is? this is a forum where you can contribute to a growing knowledge about sonar. and listing your requests is normal, isnt it?

I think Cakewalk reads feature request threads and over the long run is will be influenced by them. Which is one reason why they're worth posting to. But in the end, Cakewalk's gonna do what Cakewalk wants to do. (I of course hope they want to adopt every single one of my suggestions, and, well ok, the best ones from others, too. :)

As a user, my main interest in these threads is that they give me some insight into how others work with Sonar, which gives me more insight into how I might work with it. In that way, they're a variation on the endless "How do I.....? themes. That's the value of this forum, which is high.

CJ

Your entitled to your opinion just like everyone is.

That is true. Then why are a few of you trying to shut me up?

Cakewalk do not take feature suggestions from this forum.

lol, cannot possibly be true.

ORIGINAL: RikTheRik

It would be pretty great if someone could set a survey web page for all these features, so everyone could rank the priority of each feature request.
The number of votes and ranking of all these features would give a more usable list to cakewalk (I think this list is way too long).

Thanks RikTheRik!

Now that's a progressive suggestion. ghijkmnop and anyone else who constantly makes excuses to limit from enhancements should learn from you.

You won the Award for Most Illogical Internet Post for 2004.

Wow! What do I win? <g>

You are completely ignoring what I'm trying to say, but that's OK. Keep on ridiculing me, and I'll continue to respond politely.

I think the survey is a very good idea, BTW, but it would definitely need to be re-written to remove the personal references, as was suggested earlier in this thread.

What it comes down to is that CW will make the improvements and enhancements that they see fit, and your voice will not be heard unless you speak into the microphone. That's what I've been saying all along-- I have not taken issue with any of the FRs, unlike what you have done to me.

I would be very surprised and a little disappointed if they spent time sifting through the weeky....

this might be called listening to customers...and I'm pretty sure they do this. Not everyone at Cakewalk is a coder.

ORIGINAL: ghijkmnop

Less third party stuff... are you talking about the lexicon and sonitus plugins?

No, I'm talking about the VSC and the notoriously underdocumented VSampler. The Sonitus plugs are a Godsend for the majority of the group, and a requirement for the EQ. I have Waves 4 Platinum and WaveArts Plugs, so none of the additional 3rd-party stuff is of any use to me (except the afore-mentioned Sonitus stuff), and I wish I could purchase Sonar without them and save some money.

That's just me, though.

Actually, if you check the VSampler website, you will find at least 3 or 4 separate PDF files with user documentation. Where is the VSampler website? I don't remember but I was just on there a couple of days ago. I had never played with the V Sampler up until a few days ago and the first thing I find out is that you have to register the freaking thing. So I registered it and then took a closer look at the website and found all the user docs. Just thought I'd mention it in case others are looking as well.

My 2 cents: including 3rd party software that has to be registered separately seems silly to me. What's the point? I don't really need the V Sampler (I have others). And including features that are only good for a short time is another annoyance.

ORIGINAL: HammerHead

Actually at this point, I would be very surprised to find that 95+% of the S4 code isn't already written & being tested. A few things **might** creep in at the end with some bug fixes but the cake is probably already mostly frosted.

That's probably true. Thing is, after about 6 months of heavy Sonar 3 use, I get the impression that a significant percentage of its code was already written two, three, five, or more years ago. I don't mean things like the audio engine, but the interface and the mode of feature implementation. A large number of feature requests come uner this category. Sonar has a fairly old design, as in less than truly modern, like from somewhere in the Windows 98 era. It periodically gets competitive gotta-have features tacked onto it, along with occasional facelifts, but it still leaves unaddressed many oversights in basic implementation.

Personally, I'd put at the top of my request list a full implmentation of VBA, like in Microsoft Word and Excel, that exposed all functions and objects. With that, the user could implement many of even the most idiosyncratic feature requests on her own.

CJ