SONAR - Feature Request LIST

Page: 12345.. > >> Showing page 1 of 27
Author
planist
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 883
  • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
  • Status: offline
2004/04/14 14:30:17 (permalink)

SONAR - Feature Request LIST


SONAR FEATURE REQUEST LIST


Started March 2004
Thanks to the community


WORKFLOW ENHANCEMENTS

Some of the long awaited - workflow improving - features like Aim Recording during Playback or Lock Scroll found their way into Sonar.
Now, in order to streamline the general handling in Sonar further i compiled some more suggestions, which i think are equally important.
(Please comment if you want to add something)

  • Keybindings
    • Possibility to set keybindings for ALL functions that are available, e.g.:
    • Snap to Grid Resolution Options - 16th, 16thT, etc., (Keybind-able, like the nudge settings)
    • Transport Rewind/Forward (not Rewind W, not Space)
    • Left click locks Scroll on / off
    • Flexible Zoom Functions (e.g. ALT and drag mouse left/right = Zoom IN/OUT horizontally, SHIFT + up/down = vertically)
    • maybe also context sensitive keybindings, e.g.: opening a dialog like snap to grid via "c" and when active and open close it with "c" again.
  • Playback
    • Set Now Time during playback not only by clicking on the upper measure bar but also by e.g. Alt+Shift+Left Click on empty space in Track View, Piano Roll View (= much smoother handling of playback and shorter mouse paths while editing a specific part) 
    • A markers "playlist" to auditioning sections of a song in different orders (rtgraham's wish for Sonar 3). Or even better: Possibility to set different loops, name them and assign these loops to the matrix view
    • Most of the functions which - from a users point of view - should not necessarily require a stop of playback, e.g.:
      • bounce to clip, transpose audio, stretch audio, clip fx, draw envelope, etc.
      • Audio Snap Filter functions: Threshold and Resolution
  • Zoom and Scroll
    • Center now time during playback on / off (Now-Time stays in center of view)
    • Vertical track size should be made half the size (half track like in cubase. This doubles the number of tracks visible in TV.
    • Zooming functions: more steps (smoother) and extremer values vertically AND horizontally (more on the screen)
    • Scrolling is too important a function to leave as (more or less) a byproduct of how PC keyboards happen to work. Possible combinations with mouse and the keyboard could be
      • to ZOOM in both directions there could be something like moving the mouse (leftright/updown) while pressing a key
      • to SCROLL the same with another key
  • Misc.
    • Configs of menus should be memorized during one project or session or be saveable in global or project options, e.g.
      • such as Clone Track, Quantize, Groove Quantize, etc. of 
      • Global Grid Setting for one Project (TV, Piano Roll View)
    • Make Snap To Grid and similar menus more streamlined e.g. a litte floating window or a option dialog in the transport or a dialog in the toolbar on the top. 
    • Envelopes
      • Possibility to disable envelopes
    • Folders
      • Folder in Folder
      • Folders could have faders for gain, pan


Index

Most Wanted

1. Engine / Playback
2. Editing
    2.1 Audio
    2.2 MIDI
    2.3 VST/DX
    2.4 Automation
3. Interface / Handling
    3.1 Track View
    3.2 Mixer
4. Customization
5. Misc.
6. Comparisons and Questions
7. General Things

Implemented Features




    1. ENGINE / PLAYBACK

    • Gapless Audio-Engine, still depending on the CPU: eg. CPU Usage 80% = more gaps, sometimes still gapping while
      • - setting/changing loop point
      • - moving now time (its less but it still gaps)
      • - inserting FX, VST
      • - deleting tracks
    • Posiblility to set different loops, (- Set Loops without Playback Stuttering)
      • and assign differetn loops to the Matrix view
    • Set playback point, and rewind+play from there by keybinding
    • I dont know if we should compare Sonar with Ableton Live, but some of its features, e.g. "flexible audio" are very nice. Which could lead to .. a tempo jogwheel in Sonar, playing the project forward, backward, etc.. ;)


    2. EDITING

    • All commands  (like bouncing to clip, and others) should be available during playback. Also e.g. TRansport commands like Rewind and Forward

    2.1 AUDIO


    2.2 MIDI

    • midi note muting
    • - MIDI sends. Sometimes I like to send the same notes to a few synths. Maybe this is possible and I just don't know how.

    2.3 VST / DX

    2.4 AUTOMATION

    • Can't disable envelopes


    3. INTERFACE / HANDLING

    • Move multiple track to another location by selecting multiple tracks and then dragging them to the destination.
      • Dragging selected Tracks to a destination
    • Set Now Time during playback not only by clicking on the Ruler bar in TV, but e.g. Right-click + Alt on empty space in TV. (Option "Alt+Right Click sets Now Time during Playback" can be e.g. implemented in View Options below the new Option "Left Click Locks Scroll")
    • For both options (Set Now time during playback and Scroll) keybindings would be nice. 
    • Configs of menus such as Clone TRack, Quantize, Groove Quantize, etc. of should be memorized during one project or session or be saveable in global or project options.
    • Smooth Scrolling while playback in all views = Now-Time stays in center of view
    • folder in folder
    • folders could have faders for gain, pan

    3.1 TRACK VIEW

    • - Vertical track size should be made half the size (half track like in cubase. This doubles the number of tracks visible in TV.
    • - The name, volume/pan faders, MSR buttons should be changeable in size and order..
    • - Why the patch select screen don't have an option for keeping the screen up when I am trying to audition patches?
    • - There are still differences between the track view and bus view. copying envelopes with ctrl-drag is not possible neither in TV nor BV

    3.2 MIXER VIEW

    • - Alignment of sends in the console view:
      • 1. Sends should insert oldest at the top, newest at the bottom. Send 1 should be at the top, then Send2, etc. Currently, inserting puts newly inserted send at the top. So the top down order is Send3, Send2, Send1.
      • 2. A provision to allow to keep like sends in a single horizontal row so, for example, Send1 horizontally is a cue send, then Send2 horizontally is an effects send. There should be a provision for “spacers” so that tracks that don’t use a particular send have a “gap” in the stack of sends.
      • 3. The goal is to keep the sends in horizontal rows for better visability.
      • 4. Provision to assign a color to a particular send so that Send1 knobs are red and Send2 are blue, etc.
    • - the graphical part could be improved:
    • free color-assigning in track view (tracks) and mixer view (channels, sliders, etc.).

    4. CUSTOMIZATION

    • - Free Keybindings
    • - Can't get an overview of an entire project, e.g., a routing map that shows what's connected to what. The ability to document a project needs to be improved.
    • - Poor use of "tool tip" functionality -- e.g., hovering a mouse over an envelope point shows its level, but not its position. Why not? (This would surely be a very easy thing to do.)
    • - Main menus not keyboard accessible from floating windows.
    • - Insufficient use of "modifier keys" throughout program -- e.g., in piano view, should be possible to temporarily turn the Draw tool into the Select tool with some combination of Ctrl/Shft/Alt.
    • - Customization options not flexible enough (they're quite primitive, really.) Needs custom toolbars, with ability to put *any* command on *any* toolbar, and under *any* key, including single keys and "reserved" keys. (There are only a handful of functions where reserved keys are justified.)
    • - Inadequate macro automation. CAL isn't deep enough, even if it was supported. VBA integration in Microsoft Word is the standard here.
    • - changing clip and audioclip names the way you want - when i change the project name all the audio files still have the name of the previous name..
    • it could be better to have a working (!) audio overview where you can change all the atributes of the clips..
    • - What I would really like to see is plugin hotkeys, where I press something like ctrl-shift-c and that kick my fav compressor.

    5. MISC

    • - A nice sounding timestretch/pitch algorithm in Sonar (Cubase does have 3 or 4, that you can choose from)?
    • - The vertical lines view really slows up the gui on my computer though. In fact the graphics in sonar generally need snapping up to speed.
    • - When a plugin is turned off, a track is muted, or archived, they should be completely ignored.
    • - There should be more debugging information presented to the user, letting them know what the program thinks caused the problem.
    • Testing for a problem at the key stages does take cpu cycle time, but not much, compared to all the magic Sonar performs with all the tracks, busses and plugins. In other programs, I get messages telling me which plugin, or setting is causing a problem. Sonar has a little of this, but not nearly enough.
    • - A way to select all the buses at once like you can for tracks above (in order to mute, or solo, or switch outputs).
    • - Grouping functions need improvement.
    • - Barely adequate file management, including the Clean Audio Folder functions. At the very least, file lists and displays should show the file size in bytes, its length in minutes/seconds, and its timestamp. It should also have the ability to rename the file and automatically update all references/links to it in current project and any other projects that Sonar is aware of (via a master cache/database of some sort.) Compare Sonar to how web development programs like Dreamweaver handle file management and tracking. Audio programs -- where a single project can reference dozens or hundreds of individual files of varying types -- have essentially the same requirements. This would be incredibly great!
    • - Would love to see an update to Sonar that, instead of adding new features (as that's usually understood) would address some of these "amenities" -- the seemingly little things that smooth out the speedbumps and give users more control over their workspace, workflow, and resources. Too many existing features seem incomplete and perfunctory.
    • - I was thinking of a graphical kind of project overview that was printable.
    • - I wish they would make Sonar handle softsyths the way Project 5 does.
    • - I remember being able to use alias names for the soundcard drivers in Guitar Tracks Pro. Back then, I had an M-Audio Omni Studio. Now I have 2 Aardvark Q10s and really wish that I could use alias names in Sonar 3. Even with the S/PDIFs disabled, I have 24 drivers in my list now.
    • - I would like to see better way to alter note velocity. The drum tracks have the velocity sliders for notes, why not the piano roll? Logic Audio has this very nicely figured out, but I suppose Cakewalk can't just rip off features like that.
    • - An object editor like the one in Sampitude, configurable (is that a real word?) surround sound and redbook cd burning right from the track view would set Sonar apart from the pack.
    • - Most of Sonar's last improvements is in audio. A lot of midi recording features are left behind (I feel Sonar 4 would need to definitely step up the game here in this department). Sonar's midi recording features basically haven't changed.
    • - I would like the ability to select 64th notes from the piano roll and also snap-to-grid.
    • - ability to view smaller grid amounts from the track view.
    • - Rethink the way Sonar handles multiple highlighted tracks and deletes. I've seen a few people complain about accidentally deleting more tracks than intended.

    6. COMPARISONS AND QUESTIONS

    6.1 Questions
    • - Does it have any unpredictable behaviour like gapping or disallowing operations during playback? - YES
    • - Does it support PDC without gapping?
    • - Track for track, how is the CPU utilization?
    • - Does it provide the professional mastering, FX and CD burning functionality to give me a finished product?
    • - Does it burn CDs and MP3s stock?
    • - Can individual wav recordings be non-destructively edited at the *object* level?
    • - Is it rock solid? 

    6.2 Comparison (community responses, can't remember who)

    • Cubase offers ..:
    • - The midi note symbols (brackets) show the note name or pitch. You know what note you are editing without looking back to the pianoroll bar or to the info display.
    • - What I miss in Sonar is the ability to have multiple controller lanes. In Cubase you can resize the controller pane as much as you want (Sonars is fixed) and you can add more controllerpanes for editing various midi events (for example velocity and pitchband or modulation data).
    • - You can split notes with the scissor, you can mute notes (mute tool). I am able to experiment for example with an 8 beat versus 16 bit groove by temporarely muting every other hihat.
    • - What I find very handy is that by right clicking cubase shows you a toolbar with the needed tools (select, split, delete, mute, wrap, etc.)
    • - In Cubase the event inspector is a part of the piano roll view (much, much better then in sonar). When you work with two monitors and place the pianoroll view on the second monitor, the event inspector is a part of that window. In sonar it is a part of the main window and it is useless because you work on the second monitor with your midi stuff and the sonars midiinspector becomes inactive.
    • - Cubase has a much better implementation of the mouse scroll function. You can just put the pointer over a number (especially in the midi editor or eventinspector) and change it with the scroll of your mouse: very handy and quick.
    • - Cubase has more line modes. In sonar you can only draw a fixed straight line or a free line. In cubase you can use different shapes and curves, don't remember how many but more than just straight and free.
    • Cubase has:
    • - the grid lines in the main windows. The more you zoom in, the more grid lines appear, so you can see not only where the measure starts, but also the 1/4, 1/4, 1/16 beats. This is very handy when you are moving clips by a smaller amount, and when you are moving clips, a small windows appears and shows you by how many measures, beats you are moving the clip.
    • - pool. In cubase you are able to edit and organize your wave files in a much better way then in sonar. Sonar shows you only what waves are associated with your project. You are not even able to rename them if you want.
    • - Cubase has more and better features to edit audio data. You can normalize waves by an amount you select, you can swap l/r channels, there is a statistic option that shows you statistics about your audio, I think there is an fft analyzer, dc removal, etc.
    • - You can import audio directly from a cd. I find it very handy to import a demo from my client into cubase and can immediately start working on a arragement.
    • - In cubase you can open a time track. Your main ruler can show you measures, beats, and the time track shows you the timeruler with minutes and seconds. Its a nice feature if your song or what ever is time dependent but you need also the beat, measure line for your clip synchronisation.
    • - Markers can be accesed by pressing numbers on the keyped. You can move very quickly thru your song.
    • - The transport bar in cubase has a small slider that acts as an general output fader. You can adjust the general volume of your song without the need go to your console.
    • - In cubase you can show and hide not only the transportbar (like in sonar) but also the mixer (console), the instruments panel and some others. I like this very much. You press f3 and the mixer appears. Press it again and it dissapears.
    • - Macro commands. You can combine together multiple comands and access them by pressing one key (for example dc removal + normalize).
    • - The screensets you make are automatically assigned to a key kombination (alt + 0,1,2, etc.) In sonar you have manually to assign a key kombination.
    • Bad in Sonar 3:
    • - The audio edit options are ancient. They were completely bypassed while making sonar3. I'd like to know who uses and applies the two eq's from Proccess/Audio.
    • Also, the 3dB louder/quiter option is a joke. Instead of giving as some basic needful option there is a relict from proaudio6 or earlier.
    • - It is not a bug, but the icons in the view menu are colored and in from sonar 1 and 2. They don't match the sonar3 design and are different from the icons you have on the main window. It is IMO an inconsistent design. The help file still has explanations where you can read sonar2, and not sonar3. (Any word editor has a replace command!)
    • - When you delete an softinstrumnt from the panel, the dxi track remains on your track window. It should be removed automatically while deleting the associated instrument from the instrument panel.
    • - the metronome. Everything was said about the metronome, but I've found the you cannot switch the metronome on or of while the song is playing. Not even that!
    • - As an european user, I'm really pissed of by Cakewalk because they don't give us an manual. The only thing I get was a printed version of the help file, even less. This "manual" tells me that for more information I should look for online help!!?
    • In other words: a newbie from Europe will not get a deep user guide that explains all the functions of sonar3. We know, there is no PDF. Steinberg gives you and printed basic guide (it is as big as my sonar "manual") and an pdf for detailed explanations, no matter what language you use (of course, only english, french and german).

    General things

    •  A smooth and advanced midi recording system (theorectically never having to press stop with features that cater to many different types of users. Advice study the Akai mpc's series)
    • - totally customizable key command system.
    • - a logical step editor that involves using the midi keyboard integrated with piano roll/staff view for visual feedback.
    • - being able to move thru the whole project screen somehow without using a mouse.
    • Pro tools can show Hours minutes and seconds as well as bars and beats at the same time.
    • Just how you implemented using wdm and asio drivers for low dxi/vsti latency, come up with a type of driver to get computer sequencers timing as tight as hardware like the mpc. Although the timing is pretty good in Sonar, I can hear a difference in using the mpc and Sonar. I would buy a whole new interface for that.
    • OK (Let me freely draw envelopes (Pencil Tool))
    • - instead of the tempo view there should be a special tempo track in the track view/ or bus view
    • - a good set of mastering tools built in.
    • - I'd like to see an option for selecting the type of graphical interface you'd like to use. (i.e. Sonar 4, Sonar 3, Old School, User defineable.) A great example of this is the flexibility of the windows environment. It would make everybody happy.
    • - edit / select multiple tracks
    • It would be great if they'd bundle Amplitube light from the guitar tracks program.
    • Better templates would be good.
    • Streamline the process for beat slicing a loop and getting it into Cyclone. It's too cumbersome.
    • A good and basic set virtual instruments similar to the garage band idea for basic music making. It could use the vsampler engine. Apple is on to something. This would be great for scetching quick song ideas
    • - I'd like to see a vastly improved method of creating a Tempo Map when the music is not in time with the project tempo. I find the Fit-To-Improvisation method unreliable, confusing and annoying.
    • I want to be able to click against any point in a wav OR midi track and tell it exactly what measure/beat/tick I want that point to represent. The tempo map should be able to add the appropriate tempo changes easily. And the more points I add in, the more accurate it becomes.
    • We could still make use of the 'tap in the tempo' idea, but enhance it such that it can be used as a starting place for getting all the 'hit points' described above. This should be easy to add and it wouold be SOOO useful. Imagine then, you coul play your song in freely, fit to improvisation easily, and then make use of all the loop files that match the project's beat/etc.
    • - Oh, and another thing... am I the only person that uses the Drum Mapper? I love the drum mapper. I HATE the Drum Map Manager!!! This has to be the most cack-handed, combersome dialog I have ever seen! If it's not too much trouble, I'd love to see this overhauled
    • - option to choose different panning laws (to compare sonar results with other sequencers) but with a "normal" setting, that is the default one
    • rtgraham:
    • - Unlimited, name-able groups with a group view where you could manage group attributes for tracks, controls, etc.
    • - mfx FIX
    • OK -Crop (and other edit types) multiple clips at once.
    • - Ruler in measures mode - option to have markers in any subdivision.
    • - Ability to bring a clip to front or back when overlapping.
    • - Zoom out to entire project horizontally, no matter how long.
    • - Independently loopable clips or tracks with one or two clicks. No
    • ability to change tempo or pitch would still be ok. (This would be such a help in composition flow!)
    • - A markers "playlist" to auditioning sections of a song in different orders.
    • - Export each track to a seperate file, all at once. Would be great for transferring tracks to other hosts.
    • - Midi out for vst/i plugins.
    • OK - Mute/Solo groups - user made presets that mute/solo various combinations of tracks.
    • - Track Manager option to copy layout from track view to console view, or vice versa (or a "synchronization" option, to have them both be affected when one changes).
    • Play half or quarter speed, as an alternative to scrub mode, to aurally find spots.
    • A mark next to group letters/colors when right clicking a control to show which are already assigned to something.
    • ok - A beat detective-like function!!!!!
    • - I brought this up on the p5 board a while ago. I don't understand why there isn't an ability to have the two programs (Sonar and P5) integrate in a non-clunky fashion. (Maybe they're working on this...) I have a million projects in Pro Audio/Sonar that I want to be able to port over to p5 without having to re-do the entire song. I'd like to be able to take the MIDI and audio effects settings, strip the audio if necessary, and go from there.
    • - The Controller Drawing-View in the MIDI-View should be changeable in size - vertically or as background view like in Project 5.
    • - How about customizeable series of commands – e.g. trim, bouncing to clip, normalizing that can be assigned to one button or keybinding. (I’ve never used CAL-maybe it can be done with that but I’d like an easier way of making these series)
    • - drag and drop function to move the level meters, from vertical to horizontal.
    • - A 'connections' or 'busses' window, that will show, in a simple representation such as a flow chart, how channels are connected, and pluins being used. This way one can realize which channels go to which subs, and to which mains,.. and so on. Modifications can be made in this window, and this will let better configuration of the audio flow and plugin use (therefore less CPU use).
    • - Abbility to save customized commands and options: keybindings, colors, etc. - good for a fast reinstall of Sonar.
    • - A more flexible Project-Audio management: ability to import and delete audio files within the window Project-Audio-Files manager - and not just viewing them.
    • - The editing time that can be viewed in the info/filestats window should be counted over all saved project names. Now, with every new project-name the time returns to zero.
    • - How about copying envelopes the same way you can copy clips: CTRL-drag.
    • - Saving console/mixer settings would be nice (apart from project savings).
    • - Just curious: Why isn't there a interface with buttons or sliders in the options where you can modify those CAKEWALK.INI and AUD.INI easier and within the program. Sonar Utils helps but it is still just editing those ini files. Some of those options are quite important. It should be easy to program.
    • - Refers to groupingfolders for tracks: MIDI and AUDIO for one instrument should be one track (or one folder) like it's done in P5.
    • - The ability to disable and re-enable MFX effects.
    • - The ability to add a new, empty midi clip to a midi track.
    • - Being able to select a diffrent editor when you double click an audio grove clip.
    • - A macro recorder/editor.
    • - A more thorough implementation of the staff view. To be honest, it was the staff view that initially led me towards Cakewalk, but the implementation has always been incomplete. I'm thalking about features such as tuplets (like triplets, but with five beats in the space of four, seven in the pace of six etc), a more flexible beaming system and the ability for the MIDI to respond to non-notational music commands. For example, if I place a hairpin for a crescendo, it would be great if the track actually crescendoed. It'd also great if the MIDI responded to dynamic markers (ff, Mp etc) and tempo indicators.
    • - Different Mixer Windows. one for MIDI, one for AUDIO, BUSSES, AUX BUSSES, MAINS, etc... - or an editable Mixerinterface, with ability to colorize busses, etc
    • - audio functions missing: e.g. goto next zero crossing, etc (like editing functions in cool edit)
    • - Making the All / Mix / FX / IO tabs completely configurable. Let you create tabs, name them how you like and choose which controls to display on each tab
    • - Allow the track manager to save and load configurations, so that you can quickly hide / show and change the track view setup for editing different parts.
    • - Make the audio editing as close to Pro-Tools as technically possible without copyright infringement (especially edit groups, playlists, crossfade tool/dialog, "crop-tool-style" time compression/expansion, and shuffle/spot modes).
    • - I just wanted to vote on the auto quantizing feature, like in Nuendo and Cubase, Yes I know Sonar very well (plugins and I even got a keybinding crtl,Q) but its not the same.
    • - How about a CPU meter that shows what percentage different plug-ins are using?
    • - Faster wave draws.
    • - A Master out or a way to make new audio tracks default to a chosen buss.
    • - MIDI capture without record enabled. Logic calls it "Capture Last Take As Record" Cubase - "Retroactive Record" VERY convenient, spontaneous and cool.
    • - MIDI meters of some type on each track in track view and console view.
    • - Sonar should start when you press play even with a blank project. This allows for practicing with the metronome. (I have implimented a pedal controller at measure 1:00 and 256 in my template to emulate this)
    • - Transport should have buttons for scrolling backwards and forwards by measure.
    • - Transport should "float". When you go to drag it to another spot you only get an "outline" until you release the mouse. This, IMO, is cumbersome.
    • - zooming functions should be more extreme
    • (smaller and bigger - vertically AND horizontally). (eg. half the vertical size the tracks now have = double number of tracks without scrolling)
    • and smoother (more steps)
    • - How about really Drawing Envelopes (Pencil Tool - like drawing them in the midi controller view) (like in Cubase)
    • - Cubase has the VST Instrument window, similar to the Synth Rack. But the Cubase version allows you to cycle though the presets of an individual instrument without opening the UI of the VSTI or DXI.
    • - Floating windows work better in Cubase.
    • -> Some good things Cubase has that Sonar doesn't:
    • - Number pad and single key keybindings (This feature alone would triple the productivity in Sonar).
    • - Auto Quantize (If you are into mpc style sequencing this is a must)
    • - Step editor thats integrated with the piano roll. (Great for inputting hi hat patterns using the midi keyboard while receiving visual feedback from the piano roll)
    • - A feature that I belive would put Sonar over the top would be the ability to record a track ( drums for example ) and auto slice the entire track without having to loop it, and lock it ( quantise it ) to the current tempo map. Pro Tools has something like this and is a HUGE help in the real world of recording.
    • - Auto- SLICING of recorded/inserted audio would be a nice feature (Recycle like, REX)
    • - Also, for us lazy types - the ability to draw chords in piano roll. Just like FL Studio does. FL is the only one I'm aware of that does it. Ver, very handy.
    • - how can I look at other parts of the song in track view while recording....... the screen seems to always follow.
    • Is there a way to punch in and punch out on the fly while recording....... I hate setting up end points since I never know exactly how long the person is going to go for.
    • - I'd like a scroll option that worked as if you were pressing G continuously to center the view -- so rather than scrolling left to right and back again (what you might call "typewriter" mode), the Now time would always be in the center of the view and events would scroll across it (what you might call "geostationary" mode.)
    • Scrolling is too important a function to leave as (more or less) a byproduct of how PC keyboards happen to work.
    • - that lets me think of combinations with mouse and the keyboard:
    • to ZOOM in both directions there could be something like moving the mouse (leftright/updown)while pressing a key
    • to SCROLL the same with another key..
    • - slip edits should be non-destructively overwriting. That is, you pull the edge of a clip over another, it will replace what is there (instead of overlapping... how often is that useful? At least give us the option.) Of course, you could always drag the other clip back, and it would replace the previous one.
    • - Of course, it would help to have playlists like PT for multiple takes. It's so nice to have 8 vocal takes stacked on top of one another that I can flip between, highlight sections, ctrl-c, flip over to my comp playlist and ctrl-v. Simplest way to do a comp, imo.
    • - Of course, once you got all your favorite take clips together, a simple tool to crossfade them centered on their connecting point. Auto crossfades are nice, but it's time consuming to have to drag this one that way and that one this way, making sure it's centered around your initial edit point. Does this make sense? People that use PT should understand... it's real bliss to have a crossfade tool (especially when you can use it on multiple linked tracks *ahem*)
    • - One last wish from PT land... a heal function. You realize once you split a clip, it is irreperably severed. You have to delete one clip and drag the other one out to make one clip again. No pun intended, but what a drag, man!
    • -An object editor like in Samplitude.
    • - Some sort of clip management system.
    • - Configurable surround sound mixing capability.
    • - The ability to color code the channelstrips in the Console Veiw and the track headers in the Track View
    • - The ability to add effects to the Main outputs.
    • - The ability to burn CD's right from the Track View.
    • The option to change the Audio folder destination on a per track basis from within Sonar, so that one Project can have files spread across mulltiple locations if necessary. This is helpful when recording on smaller partitions and one runs out of disk space during a session, and has to move to another partition quickly. It also allows one to place groups of instruments, or session dates (ie. Strings Apr2-02), into seperate folders within a Project.
    • - File management... a browser that shows waveforms like snds newest. {an extensible interface to file management so that the wave/midi browser is scriptable.} ...Actually... since snd will {apparently... I've not tried it yet} compile under windows... maybe you could just integrate snd and give us an audio editor. :}
    • - Cakewalk has taken away Studioware and has not updated CAL for a long, long time.
    • What if they made it possible to add views. Synths are add ons to Sonars interface so why not have Sonar do the same? If they added that and reliesed the SDK (hopefully in a Delphi flavor too) they would clean up. Everyone would be able to customise Sonar to how they would like it. -A modular sequencer.
    • - a.k.a Pro Tools DSP Resource meters???
    • BTW I'm all for Sonar gaining the ability to restore your plug in presets, the fact that it does not is ridiculous considering all the other thinks Sonar is capable of.
    • While I'm on it -How about implementing a take vault within each track so we can choose which take we want to play within say "Track 1"???
    • - side chain.
    • - "beat detective," or at least better implementation/documentation of "extract timing." and side chain.
    • - True side-chaining of dynamics processors would be nice, too, as would side chain.
    • - Something that might be even more usable than a fancy explorer clone would be a library system that would allow us to either database existing files and the tracks within them... or use a library file format... It would be great to run a query and find out exactly where a sample or audio or midi file is used, was last used {revisioning... like cvs}, notes regarding its use, ideas, file info, etc...
    • - I've seen lots of requests for templates and better project mangement. Just reminds me of a little feature in Pro-Tools .... [cue dream harp and wavy flashback fx]...
    • You can import session data from one project to another. You choose the project to import from, and you get a list of all tracks and busses in that project. you can discreetly choose which ones to import as new tracks, or to import into existing tracks. Then globally you can choose whether or not to import audio, playlists, plugins, plugin settings, automation, routing, grouping, etc... pretty much all track and project properties. - This is an EXTREMELY useful, time-saving gift from the gods of workflow. Not saying Digi are gods, but they were using their noggin when they came up with this idea.
    • - Mouse wheel control. The mouse wheel should increment/decrement anything that can be incremented/decremented with a mouseover not a click: now time, loop time, midi values. The mouse wheel should also operate faders and all rotary controls in the console view without having to click just a mouseover. An example of this is the M-Audio Delta Control Panel. All faders, knobs, windows with values. In the case of BBM or timecode display if you click on a field, bars for instance, rolling the mouse wheel will increment/decrement the bars field.
    • - I would like to be able to do song parts then be able to arrange them into a song structure. In other words, verse, chorus, intro, bridge, etc then arrange them on a master track to create the entire song. Right now it is too cumbersome to rearrange different sections of a song.
    • the mpc has this function. I miss it. It takes a sort of nonlinear approach to songwriting.Its sounds like the way how Im arranging in Live. And yes, I'll never go back.
    • - I wish they would finish the OPT implementation in Sonar. If a cross platform program like Cubase can do it Sonar should be able to do it too.
    • - Id also like full per clip automation. Then Id be able to put effects only on the parts I need instead of having to split clips into seperate tracks. Its the only reason I have Acid version one on my computer.
    • -true side-chain would be a nice feature.
    • - how bout an updated session drummer....that has updated styles ect. that you can APPLY to the audio track like real midi data!
    • - Midi export instead of File-Save As-Midi File
    • - I agree with these next features for Sonar 4. There is one thing that I think they should add. In Cubase you have it. In Sx you can see the led of either a wav file playing or VSTi or a data coming from a external module. In Sonar u can not. I have to say that Sx has great features. And also as they mentioned before, how come in Project 5 it can see or access all other VSti but not Sonar? It would be nice. Also in the Piano Roll, make it like Sx, you can select something and either change the length at the same time or decide to change the length of one note.
    • - The ability to freeze a group of tracks with a temporary render of their plug-in and volume state and then collapsing them to take up only one visual track would be fantastic!
    • - Being able to bun up files regardless of size, so I'm not forced to split them up into seperate files or delete things I might need.
    • - Easier ways to adjust size and pitch of loops without having to enter into "loop construction"; it's far less cumbersome in ACID, and we find ourselves doing almost all our looping there and then importing it back into Sonar as rendered WAVs.
    • - Being able to color buses.
    • - Having the numbers on tracks automatically color-code to correspond to the theortical color of the buses.
    • - No restrictions as to how many beats a loop can be.
    • - Ability to lock several counterpart or adjascent tracks so that whatever editing is performed to a single or master track will be done to all linked tracks. If I'm going to perform an operation to the kik track, I want the other tracks (overheads, snare , etc) to be affected in an identical fashion (whether it be moving, or copying, or crossfading).
    • - length of selection display
    • - user programmable zoom settings
    • - exlusive solo
    • - cd ripping
    • - click on the waveform to navigate, during playback.
    • - Also, it would be nice for Sonar to "remember" the beat you assign for a project or template as Session Drummer always resets to top when you load a project that had SD assigned to a particular beat. Also it would be nice to be able to hit a chord in staff view and see it appear on the staff. Also it would be nice to be able to record an audio track AND at the same time be able to record automation in say an effect(ie:bypass effect). Other than this, it is a great program.
    • PS-I like Session drummer interface exactly the way it is. If any changes made, keep as is and add to it if any changes or additions are made. This, Pantheon, and Acid integration is exactly why I use this program.
    • - 5.1 Surround sound.
    • - Pyro's features intergrated into Sonar just like Samplitude.
    • - POW-r dithering / UV22 / UV22HR....
    • - Ping does do count-offs now and works well - although you know I'm a serious sonar audio metronome campaign advocate, and you can group you busses into different coloured groups already. (admittedly it's only a coloured dot on the fader - but it's sufficient)
    • - One thing that has come up while i've been drum editing and slip editing the tracks into time is that a better grid is needed. I'm getting around it by bouncing down a ping track and lining up to that at the moment, but to be able to set the grid spacing would be better.
    • - :} Bright guys... the integration of expressions into the timeline is almost Oberonian{1} in its brilliance....
    • - Plugin manager is a joke, there isn't even a button to rescan VST plugins.
    • Please allow for the full customization of menu items in the same manner the
    • start menu in windows works, or something similar and as flexible, inlcuding
    • moving items so that do not have to be sorted alphabetically. Just the
    • diamond bundle from waves has 2x as many plugins as I have screen in
    • 1280x1024 mode. That's a lot of scrolling.
    • - possibility to preview presets of vsti with a slider or button instead of choosing them everytime from a long list of presets.
    • - Logic, Cubase, Protools allows you to slip, adjust the fade in, out, gain on multiple selected clips. When you have 6-7 drumtracks or backing vocals, you can very easy and fast do your edits.
    • - Possibility to LINK same clips AFTER they were unlinked.. Clip-Grouping
    • - Oengus "I don't know if it was said before but I would like to have the possibility to edit MIDI in the main view instead of opening the Piano Roll .
    • It will be a great improvement because I often need to manually edit MIDI to synchronize it with audio tracks (for example when I trigger the bassdrums or the snare) . Now I need to open piano roll and to put it near the audio tracks , but if I had the possbility to edit MIDI in the main Sonar view (like in Pro Tools) it will be a great thing .
    • - Another important feature is a Spanish and an Italian version . A lot of users speak these languages and I think they deserve their own language version "
    • -Another possibililty would be to allow for the events from more than one MIDI track to be displayed when any given MIDI track is maximised, so for instance you maximise your bass track and you can select for it to also show the drums and guitar midi notes -- as soon as the track is restored it only shows its own data but when it is remaximised its "partner tracks" are remembered. This would allow you to have a number of different groups of partnered MIDI tracks ready to hand -- say bass+drums, voice+sax+kbd, guitar+kbd etc. etc. all easily available at the click of a track maximise button. "
    • - the ability to edit multiple tracks at once.
    • The only thing you can do in Sonar is to move/copy or to split multiple selected tracks. In Cubase/Nuendo you can crop the start/end of multiple tracks, you can apply fade in/out, change the gain, etc. This is speeds extremely up your editing when you work on recorded drums or backing vocals. When you move tracks, Sonar shows you only the rectangle of the moving track or clip. Nuendo/Cubase shows you the waveform, so you can exactly see, where you place the clip on a new location. (Yes, a know about left alt + shift!)
    • - Nuendo/Cubase opens AND closes with a shortcut key some often used windows: mixer, instrument panels, input/output settings for your audiocard. It is easy and fast to work with this because you don't need to grab your mouse everytime when you want to close those windows.
    • - Other features would be Project 5 style step sequencing which allows you to input notes with your midi keyboard.
    • - Mpc style destructive loop record mode (overwrite; overdub after loop point) This would be an innovative feature for Sonar since other Computer programs don't have this.
    • - Another feature would be to have an option to only allow patch change/bank select messages to occur on bar 1. This would help my midi timing considerably.
    • - Sonar have all the features that I need except one that have struck me several times that it would be GREAT to have. What I'm looking for is a more flexible version of the "lenght" or "fit to time"-functions already in Sonar. It would be fantastic to be able to lasso-drag around a selection of notes and then "rezize" the notes in realtime using the mouse to get the selection of notes to end exactly where you want them. Instead of entering numbers in the dialogboxes. Just a little bit more intuitive way of doing it. ...
    • - is it possible to quantize each slice within a grooveclip - like the way i can quantize when i have the clip split into different clips - the way i should be: drumclip, slicing the clip, quantizing within groove clip view, ready to go
    • - concerning the wave-clip drawing - perhaps it would be faster and nicer to have the folder per preject not only for audio files but for the .wov image files as well...
    • --> perhaps faster HD reading times, and all is one place
    • --> at least the option to choose would be nice
    • - Having multiple marker list sets.
    • Purpose: When editing, there are times when I want to mark sections differently than the usual song markers. Adding these markers to a current list of song markers makes the number of markers too cumbersome. It would be nice to be able to drop down a menu that allows you to name a set of markers to say, "Guitar Edits" add your markers how ever you like--as you do now, and then when you're done, drop down the menu i.e., named "Song Parts" and etc. and the list of song markers previously used is brought back into view.
    • Maybe the markers in the different sets could be different colors to ease their recognition.






    Thanks to everyone who made constructive requests and added their thoughts to the list.

    Regards,
    planist



    FRs by (sorry, not all listed):

    jlgrimes
    CrayonJones
    xackley
    harmony gardens
    Bladefish
    Dave Roberts
    razor
    Poni
    jlgrimes
    zone_ahead
    Raymond Wave
    John
    sbavin
    planist
    guitartist
    loco
    Rustic Raf
    roughly
    Solar Musik
    David122
    bandasound
    yep
    Loki
    WhyBe
    Geokauf
    psylichon
    99 devils
    Exe
    Anopenscroll
    Stich
    Akshara
    poni
    Ratherunique
    Sani
    mahood
    featherlight
    daverich
    cmusicmaker
    Notecrusher
    James Althoff
    megatronman
    Auquicu
    EvilGuitarMonke
    Rousseau
    ustudio
    DLuther
    RGL
    rtgraham
    VariousArtist
    dinopop
    Brad russellR
    D. Triny
    Metz
    Andrew Milne
    + lots more



    Implemented


    • ok - Arm (R)ecording an audio track while playback
    • ok - Arm (W)rite any track while playback
    • ok Arm a track and record while playback
    • ok Sample Accurate Recording or at least auto slide!
    • ok - auto/input quantize
    • ok - step editor integrated with the piano/staff editor

    post edited by planist - 2010/01/08 16:18:57
    #1

    803 Replies Related Threads

      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 14:57:31 (permalink)
      i just wanted to put some major requests together into one document for better reading.
      post edited by planist - 2007/09/08 12:45:45
      #2
      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 14:59:39 (permalink)
      ahh, by the way...
      thanks everyone for adding requests.
      it helped me focussing on what i want and what i actually need in Sonar.
      #3
      Loki
      Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 488
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 13:23:05
      • Location: England
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:08:57 (permalink)
      Pianist...This is an awsome undertaking...Thank you for collating this all.

      The big question is will Cakewalk listen to the people who use their product or do their own thing?
      < Message edited by Loki -- 4/14/2004 8:10:05 PM >

      Hear whats possible with no limits...

      http://www.intelligentdancemusic.com/
      #4
      yep
      Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 4057
      • Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
      • Location: Hub of the Universe
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:31:04 (permalink)
      Nice work, planist. And remember: there is an official feature request channel:

      http://www.cakewalk.com/support/featurerequest.asp

      If you have a good idea, please use it. Requested features DO get implemented from time to time. But you got to tell Cakewalk, not just the users' forum. Cheers.
      #5
      ghijkmnop
      Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3456
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 12:28:28
      • Location: Augusta, ME US
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:39:11 (permalink)
      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.
      #6
      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:45:43 (permalink)
      I think that 90% of all the requests above are small.
      They could be implemented in S4 without many coding - problems.
      The unversal bussing architecture algorithms and the change of the audioengine in general from Sonar 2 to 3 has probably been a much bigger challenge.
      post edited by planist - 2006/07/23 17:01:52
      #7
      xackley
      Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 2973
      • Joined: 2004/01/30 09:39:49
      • Location: USA
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:47:23 (permalink)
      To much to read,

      I want to be able to right click a bus and have an option to show only the tracks being sent to that bus.

      Or maybe, even being able to create a seperate window for each bus.

      As the computer is getting more powerful, it is getting harder to keep track of all this stuff on one or two monitors.

      Don

      Van Gogh, seeing more that a vase of flowers.
      http://www.vggallery.com
      Newer Song "River", let me know if you don't like it.
      http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=162668
      #8
      jlgrimes
      Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 1639
      • Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
      • Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:51:10 (permalink)
      Cakewalk should still do their own thing but also find the user suggestions that will keeps their product up to speed or a little more advanced than the competition. Also look out for the seller features like metronome, folder tracks, better keybinding etc.

      One user said if cakewalk implemented all of these suggestions they would have to raise the price. I don't mind Cakewalk raising the price a little (it is still one of the most affordable proffessional sequencers).

      On the other hand if Cakewalk always go their own direction, they can risk leading their product into obscurity.

      So Cakewalk needs to do both.
      #9
      Stich
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 873
      • Joined: 2003/11/11 15:28:25
      • Location: New England
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 15:53:18 (permalink)
      To stand a better chance of this being taken seriously by Cakewalk,
      I'd start by revising that so called "feature request list" & get rid of the What's, Why's,
      & other hoot-nanny. After all it's a request for new features not a quiz right?

      Stich
      #10
      MightyLeeMoon
      Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 513
      • Joined: 2003/12/18 16:24:39
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 16:59:32 (permalink)
      Jeez. 202 things that need to be added. You would think Sonar 3 stinks.

      i throw my self into the arms of that which will betray me.
      i guess to see how far providence will stoop down, just to save me
      http://www.myspace.com/akinderbiography
      http://www.myspace.com/leeneitzel
      #11
      harmony gardens
      Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3490
      • Joined: 2004/01/10 18:50:48
      • Location: Richland Center WI
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 17:14:06 (permalink)
      Jeez. 202 things that need to be added. You would think Sonar 3 stinks.


      We know better than that
      #12
      daverich
      Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3418
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 05:59:00
      • Location: south west uk
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 17:29:56 (permalink)
      Cakewalk do not take feature suggestions from this forum.

      Use the feature suggestion form already provided if you want to get the ideas through.

      Some nice ideas there though ;)



      Kind regards

      Dave Rich.

      For Sale - 10.5x7ft Whisperroom recording booth.

      http://www.daverichband.com
      http://www.soundclick.com/daverich
      #13
      Loki
      Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 488
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 13:23:05
      • Location: England
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 18:47:22 (permalink)
      I have used the feature suggestion before. Im intrested to see if any are in s4 when it comes out.

      Hear whats possible with no limits...

      http://www.intelligentdancemusic.com/
      #14
      deltadreams
      Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 101
      • Joined: 2003/12/20 10:23:19
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 19:17:45 (permalink)
      ORIGINAL: ghijkmnop
      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.


      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.


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


      MightyLeeMoon:

      same to you. why are you still stomping on other people's request for enhancements? if it wasn't for people like planist, software would hardly improve at the rate it should. secondly, it's people like you that hinder progress.
      < Message edited by deltadreams -- 4/14/2004 7:21:45 PM >
      #15
      ghijkmnop
      Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3456
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 12:28:28
      • Location: Augusta, ME US
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 19:52:19 (permalink)
      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.
      < Message edited by ghijkmnop -- 4/14/2004 7:53:09 PM >
      #16
      Poni
      Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 276
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 17:55:46
      • Location: Toronto
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 20:06:38 (permalink)
      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.



      Well then what 10 new features out of these 200 or so would you like to see.
      #17
      exe
      Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 211
      • Joined: 2004/01/22 04:43:19
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 20:14:11 (permalink)
      ORIGINAL: Poni
      Well then what 10 new features out of these 200 or so would you like to see.


      A searchable file database. {Storyboarding for sound}
      #18
      ghijkmnop
      Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3456
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 12:28:28
      • Location: Augusta, ME US
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 20:17:45 (permalink)
      Well then what 10 new features out of these 200 or so would you like to see.

      What would be the point in my listing them? I have submitted the ones I'd like to see via the proper channels.
      #19
      xackley
      Max Output Level: -45.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 2973
      • Joined: 2004/01/30 09:39:49
      • Location: USA
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/14 22:14:50 (permalink)
      The greasy wheel gets the grease.

      A quiet request thru the proper channels is good

      But Cakewalk was good enough to create a 2 edged sword in the form of this forum.

      Cakewalk has to read this, because they know potential customers will read it when making the big decision of where to spend their hard earned money.

      It has been a month. or more. since Guitar tracks. Why haven't they given the tuner and metronome to their premium customers. The metronome and tuner are in the documentation and on the menus. It is supposed to be part of Sonar, now, not something we have to pay for in the future.

      There should be obvious benefits to being a registered customer. Not just emails of opportunities to spend more money on more products.

      I like Sonar, but Cakewalk is doing us no favors, except as I said, a public forum, to **** about them.

      Don

      Van Gogh, seeing more that a vase of flowers.
      http://www.vggallery.com
      Newer Song "River", let me know if you don't like it.
      http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=162668
      #20
      halljams
      Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 148
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 20:54:22
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 02:56:59 (permalink)
      They gotta get rid of that ****ing "O" keybinding for offset mode!!!!!!!!!!
      That SUCKS HARD!
      I'm always hitting that by accident then 2 hours into a mix i realize it
      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
      #21
      sani
      Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 300
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:25:54
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 06:05:22 (permalink)
      ghijkmnop wrote:

      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.


      I'm really sorry if you took my words (joke, unacceptable) so personal. I have also my frustrated moments as others or as with other programs.

      I know that there is a official way to make feature requests but I think we can talk about our desires, likes and dislikes also here in the forum.

      Since Proaudio9 Cakewalk didn't make any improvement in the Audio/Process menu. Almost the same goes for midi editing/pianoroll view. I'm finding this frustrating and it makes my work unecessary hard. An EQ in the process menu made sense in the days where computer where not fast enough to run virtual effects, but now? You have a per channel effect, you can use any other eq as an insert, who applies an eq permanently to the audio from the process menu?
      How about a good timestrech/pitch shift algorythm (Cubase, LogicAudio,...). The one that Cakewalk is giving us with the program is a joke (sorry to say it again). Just look at the timestrech function that Cakewalk gives you with its top sequencer. You cannot choos the initial tempo and the final output tempo, you can only select the percentage and you don't know how fast or slow the endresult will be. If I call something a joke I'm trying to argument my statement. I will never say for one or another product that it is a piece of **** or that it sucks.

      About the price of Sonar4. I don't know how much it will cost. I don't care. Most things that users are asking for are implemented in other sequencers (I own also Cubase SL2) for almost the same price. If S4 will be a significant improvement (in my eyes) I will by it. I will for sure not upgrade only for the audio metronome and 3 or 4 additional features. It is Cakewalks task to make Sonar a competitive product against others with the same price. I'm the costumer.


      At the end:

      As suggested from other users here in the forum I used an external wave editor to edit my wave files. Sonar imports the edited waves back (after closing the wave editor) and gives it the name "Tools Copy of Audio1" etc. You cannot rename a wave in Sonar3. I gave my audiofiles to a mixing and mastering house and the enginer asked me while importing the waves and trying to arrange them in some logical order what is "Tools Copy of Audio1" supposed to be. The next question was what program I use. This is just one situation where I feel that I use an inferior program.

      Peace
      #22
      ghijkmnop
      Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 3456
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 12:28:28
      • Location: Augusta, ME US
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 07:23:11 (permalink)
      I'm really sorry if you took my words (joke, unacceptable) so personal. I have also my frustrated moments as others or as with other programs.

      I didn't take the comments (from you or others) personally; I said they were non-productive in respect to discussions such as these.

      I know that there is a official way to make feature requests but I think we can talk about our desires, likes and dislikes also here in the forum.

      That is true-- just keep in mind that unless someone actually submits the request in the proper fashion, all this talk is worthless.

      <complaints about missing features>If I call something a joke I'm trying to argument my statement. I will never say for one or another product that it is a piece of **** or that it sucks.

      I guess the big question to ask then is: do you comparison folks spend a lot of time on Steinberg's boards complaining about features that Sonar has and Cubase doesn't, or is this strictly a Sonar thing? And if that's the case, why do you continue spend the money on a product you consider unacceptable?

      About the price of Sonar4. I don't know how much it will cost. I don't care. Most things that users are asking for are implemented in other sequencers (I own also Cubase SL2) for almost the same price. If S4 will be a significant improvement (in my eyes) I will by it. I will for sure not upgrade only for the audio metronome and 3 or 4 additional features. It is Cakewalks task to make Sonar a competitive product against others with the same price. I'm the costumer.

      Actually, it is Cakewalk's task to survive as a company. One of the reasons they have up to this point is their response to the needs of their customers. Another reason, however, is their commitment to a stable, powerful, reasonably-priced product. They don't have 85+% of the market, like MS Office has, so they cannot afford to release an ever-growing piece of bloatware, with an ever-growing price point. All one has to do is look at the MSRP of Cakewalk products over the last several years to see that S4 will be at least $900 by default-- depending, of course, on what licensed add-ins they decide to include.

      I agree that there are a good 50-or-so improvements that would accomplish everything from the mundane to the paramount-- what I don't agree with, however, is the ongoing belief that only discussing it here will accomplish anything.

      At the end:
      As suggested from other users here in the forum I used an external wave editor to edit my wave files. Sonar imports the edited waves back (after closing the wave editor) and gives it the name "Tools Copy of Audio1" etc. You cannot rename a wave in Sonar3. I gave my audiofiles to a mixing and mastering house and the enginer asked me while importing the waves and trying to arrange them in some logical order what is "Tools Copy of Audio1" supposed to be. The next question was what program I use. This is just one situation where I feel that I use an inferior program.

      I didn't say that you or anyone else didn't have a legitimate beef. Sonar definitely has room for improvement-- especially with things that don't have a complicated workaround. WordPerfect users have been complaining about MS Word's lack of WordPerfect-style Reveal Codes for nine years now, and that is STILL an issue. I don't see Cakewalk doing the same thing-- they are being as responsive as they can, given their constraints.

      They KNOW that they made a glaring omission with the lack of a P5-style metronome, for example, but as I read this enormous list of requests, along with all the other feature demands, I'm led to believe that if Sonar didn't include a feature that trimmed your fingernails or told you to go to bed after a lot of hours in the studio, people would still complain.

      The only argument I have here is that this discussion needs focus, not additional piling on. It should be pruned considerably. I, however, am not qualified to make those decisions myself, as I don't use MANY of the current Sonar features, like Groove Clips and Session Drummer.

      Peace

      Peace to you as well, Sani.
      #23
      sani
      Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 300
      • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:25:54
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 08:36:50 (permalink)
      I guess the big question to ask then is: do you comparison folks spend a lot of time on Steinberg's boards complaining about features that Sonar has and Cubase doesn't, or is this strictly a Sonar thing?


      I said that I own both, so I participate on both forums, but I don't need to. I run them side by side and see what the one or the other is missing. Believe me, I'm defending Sonar if a similar topic appears on a Cubase forum, pointing out things that are better done in Sonar, IMHO. (Consoleview, Ability to paste effects from one track to another, linking channels,...).

      And if that's the case, why do you continue spend the money on a product you consider unacceptable?


      You are not the only one argumenting in that way, so let me explain it:

      1. At the time, Sonar3 came out, you couldn't download a demo. It was months later on the web.

      2. Cakewalk doesn't list all features that the program has (will have). The same goes for Steinberg or Emagic. The info on the website is not a real referrence what the program can/will do for you. As you know, I guess, everybody expected an audiometronome, even it was not listed on the feature list.

      3. At least, you don't know allways what you expect from a program to do. Did it ever happen to you that you try a program, keyboard and forgot to look if it has one or another feature that is important to you? We are not all living in America or European Union and able to go to a store arround the corner to play with this or that program to test it.

      4. You are not able to download a full manual (PDF) for Sonar to look into its features. I as a european user achieved a Euro-version of sonar with a so called manual that is actually a printed form of the helpfiles. Can you imagine it. A potential Sonar buyer in Europe (with exception of UK where they ship the US version) doesn't get a manual with full explanation about how the program works. And yes, I e-mailed to Cakewalk. No response

      Facit:

      I bought Sonar3 without testing it proper because of the lack of a demo at the time of purchasing and without the ability to read the manual. (BTW, I needed the program back in that time and had to choose between Cubase and Sonar).

      Let me make a last comparison. People on the cubase forum are very critical about the the program (SX) and its bugs or missed features. I don't see what improvement would we get here talking only how great sonar is or some computer related issues (I don't say that the opposite will happen if we start to blame about sonar). At the end, it's a program, I like it very much, I have my emotions about it (that's why I get it), but at the end I have professional work to do with it, no matter if I like it or not. The only thing that counts (IMO) really is: what can you do with the program, how stable, fast and efficient it is. Almost anything else is a matter of taste.
      #24
      cyberzip
      Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 613
      • Joined: 2003/11/12 13:09:45
      • Location: Sweden
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 08:43:40 (permalink)
      Great work with the list compilation, planist!

      If I'd have to pick one, it'd be "clip mute". :)

      cz
      #25
      Sid Viscous
      Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 1532
      • Joined: 2003/11/30 10:05:25
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 08:55:06 (permalink)
      Better tracking, comping and loop recording. The tracking and comping system needs to be more like Nuendo or at the very least make an option for stacking tracks without "loop" recording and a right click menu to get to the tracks under the first one with an ability to drop those tracks for editing. Comping just takes to long with Sonar the way it is, and it's keeping it from being the top of the heap.
      #26
      puffer
      Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 836
      • Joined: 2003/11/04 11:17:02
      • Location: Providence
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 09:59:01 (permalink)
      ORIGINAL: deltadreams


      MightyLeeMoon:

      same to you. why are you still stomping on other people's request for enhancements? if it wasn't for people like planist, software would hardly improve at the rate it should. secondly, it's people like you that hinder progress.


      Whoa, step off there, holmes. I think Mr. Lee Moon was making a little joke.

      But, really, your assertion here is almost funny it's so off. Software wouldn't progress if it wasn't for users ****ing about perceived and actual shortcomings on public forums? What do you think programmers do all day? Sit around, staring at the interface, scratching their chin, thinking, "Well, okay, but *what next*?" I imagine they have a better idea then the entire collective brain of this entire group what is going on with the software, what is and isn't possible, and where they want to take the program.

      Hinder progress? C'mon. "Well, we were going to put in mute clips, but that user on the forum was cracking wise, so screw 'em." I imagine the coders are working away independent of whatever navel gazing we have going on here.

      That said, I think it's safe to assume that discussing our wants and needs, the methods of our workflow, is a great resource if not for Cakewalk, then at least for helping us define what our audio/MIDI sequencer needs are. I think this kind of discussion is useful. Obviously it's inevitable.
      < Message edited by puffer -- 4/15/2004 10:03:50 AM >

      digitallofi.bandcamp.com
      #27
      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 13:35:48 (permalink)
      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?
      if you dont want to, then say it so... but i wouldnt understand

      regards
      post edited by planist - 2006/07/23 17:02:14
      #28
      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 13:46:46 (permalink)
      They gotta get rid of that ****ing "O" keybinding for offset mode!!!!!!!!!!
      I'm always hitting that by accident then 2 hours into a mix i realize it
      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!




      --> flexible keybindings was one of the requests
      #29
      planist
      Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
      • Total Posts : 883
      • Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
      • Status: offline
      RE: Sonar 4: Future Features 2004/04/15 13:54:59 (permalink)
      About the price of Sonar4. I don't know how much it will cost. I don't care. Most things that users are asking for are implemented in other sequencers (I own also Cubase SL2) for almost the same price. If S4 will be a significant improvement (in my eyes) I will by it. I will for sure not upgrade only for the audio metronome and 3 or 4 additional features. It is Cakewalks task to make Sonar a competitive product against others with the same price. I'm the costumer.


      agreed..

      How about a good timestrech/pitch shift algorythm (Cubase, LogicAudio,...). The one that Cakewalk is giving us with the program is a joke


      As suggested from other users here in the forum I used an external wave editor to edit my wave files. Sonar imports the edited waves back (after closing the wave editor) and gives it the name "Tools Copy of Audio1" etc. You cannot rename a wave in Sonar3. I gave my audiofiles to a mixing and mastering house and the enginer asked me while importing the waves and trying to arrange them in some logical order what is "Tools Copy of Audio1" supposed to be. The next question was what program I use. This is just one situation where I feel that I use an inferior program.


      2 of my requests as well..

      if sonar 4 has all these new features (or at least some of the important ones) then i will buy it.
      i dont see why i should without new features or with less than i expect. i would stay with 3.
      post edited by planist - 2006/07/23 17:01:32
      #30
      Page: 12345.. > >> Showing page 1 of 27
      Jump to:
      © 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1