I honestly have not noticed much of a difference. I mostly use studio one now anyway so my sample size is smaller than full time user. I do open up a few days a week because it seem like a great solution for my students with low budget.

I'm still going to support Cakewalk by bandlab, but if I have issues I will always have Reaper to back me up in a pinch.

I'm one of those online guys, I keep my laptop online unless I'm working on a project which then I just turn off my wifi in the pc until I need it again.

Friday evening I updated Bandlab Assistant and then downloaded and installed the latest CbB. Ran into no issues, and I've been happy with the performance of CbB. So far I've had no issues, and have been able to continue working on projects started in Splat. I'm quite happy with the way things are progressing and want to say thank you to Meng, Noel and the entire Bandlab team. Thanks Guys.

jeremy@cominginsecond.com
I tried Studio One, and there were some things I liked about it. I even like the Studio One look just a tiny bit more o, even though I shelled out the cash for a Studio One crossgrade in December, I won't be using it all that much I don't think. Just not worth it now that Cakewalk is a viable, supported DAW. 

You are not alone, the truth is, why would anyone go through the pain of  learning to do something on another platform if they can already do it better and faster on an existing Platform?

No self inflicted wounds. 

BobF

GjB
Cakewalk by BandLab.
If people don't like it or use it - then wtf are they doing here?
(I don't hang around in the Mac forums and say that I prefer Windows.)

I switched to Studio One / Reaper a year and a half ago.  I'm still here because I've been here since late '03.  I have since developed respect for many here.  Those just happen to be the same folks that are open-minded and appreciative of opinions from different perspectives.
 
I've never owned a Mac.  However, if I had been a Mac user for many years prior to switching to Windows, and had I participated in a Mac-centric online forum for those years, then, yeah, I would be there telling the remaining Mac users how much I prefer Windows - WHEN THEY ASK.  You know, like the OP of this thread ASKED for this kind of input.
 
C'mon, closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LA-LA-LA-LA ..." isn't going to make CxB any better of a fit for everybody.

Ha...When Gibson got involved I had bad vibes coming from my Sonar. It was trying to tell me something and I have been with Cakewalk since Home Studio 2004. Spent a lot of money with Cakewalk but more importantly recorded a lot of songs since then within Sonar. So 2 years or so ago I went with Studio One and that is my main DAW today. If I want to work on an older song I'll either stem it or use Sonar...all depends.
 
So that is why I would be just as curious as the OP.   
 
Nothing to get upset about here.

The last version of SONAR was 15 years ago; the only reason I have an account here is because I snagged a free copy of CA-2A a couple of years back. Turned out to be fortuitous; now it shows up as a ProChannel module!
 
One thing that puzzles me when browsing this forum is seeing the attitude that switching to a free program vs. continuing to use an old copy of an orphaned program would somehow be doing the free program a favor.
 
It seems that:
 
1. The company that sold the old program made contracts with the users which said that they would keep improving and selling the program forever and then broke the contracts.
 
2. Another company came along and bought the technology (likely for peanuts) and started giving away a program that works just like the old one, except better. Every month, the new company has been releasing versions that work slightly better. They hope to eventually get people making content with the program to upload to their music-based social media platform.
 
3. To some users of the old program this behavior is suspect and not "transparent." The new owners of the technology must be up to no good and they will not give their stamp of approval to this new program until they see a "road map."
 
Well, anyway, hey, I'm using Cakewalk by BandLab and I think it's just great! I have it installed on three computers. Although what I am working with is supposedly a "stripped down" version, I exported some existing projects as stems from Mixcraft and deliberately stuck to ProChannel modules as much as possible, and not only did I get a better-sounding mix, getting that mix happened more quickly.
 
There are some things I miss, like the drag-and-drop simplicity of setting up submixes (and nested submixes and submixes=track folders) in Mixcraft, but Cakewalk's Console annihilates Mixcraft's Fisher-Price Mixer.

Euthymia
3. To some users of the old program this behavior is suspect and not "transparent." The new owners of the technology must be up to no good and they will not give their stamp of approval to this new program until they see a "road map."

It may partly be a cultural thing. It seems a lot of American businesses are oriented toward the next quarter's bottom line. I could be wrong, but it seems obvious what the strategy of BandLab's parent company is. Not everything has to be a profit center. Sometimes an extremely cost-effective marketing expense is far more valuable long-term.
 
Given that several entities have tried to make Cakewalk a success using conventional thinking yet failed, perhaps unconventional thinking will turn out to be the solution. 

Cakewalk has a better chance under Bandlab than Gibson.

Anderton

Leadfoot
I hope there wasn't anything that I said that was considered dissing Cakewalk.

There seems to be a prevailing opinion that learning another DAW is really difficult if you've been using Sonar for years. I think it's true that learning another DAW to same degree to which you know Sonar or CbB is difficult, but to learn what's different so you can take advantage of what that DAW can do isn't hard at all. For years, with album projects I've exported Sonar tracks, loaded them into a Studio One Song page, then did the mastering in Studio One's Project page because it's so easy to make slight mix tweaks and then re-generate another master. That probably used about 10% of Studio One's capabilities, but it was the 10% I needed that no other program could/can do, and I learned it in a day.
 

That is a great point and very true.  All I knew on Sonar definitely lowered the learning curve when I worked with Studio One and Harrison Mix Bus.  Learning a new DAW is not nearly as bad as it's often made out to be.

I'm a songwriter who has used Cakewalk since Pro Audio 8. I want to focus on songs and not have to learn another DAW. I own X3e and though I suppose it will "always work" I don't think that's totally true as eventually I will upgrade my DAW PC and X3e may not run on that new Windows. I paid $168 or something for Lifetime Updates couple years ago and only just the other day finally installed SPLAT and CbB, opened SPLAT to have a quick look, but then went straight to using CbB w/ all SPLAT's extras because why not. As long as CbB keeps up the updates and development till the end of time I'll stick w/ CbB. Who cares what DAW snobs say about CbB, it's a means to my music, not the other way around. If some DAW snob tells me CbB sucks I'd be more interested in judging the quality of their music than engaging in a dumb back and forth like that.

CbB is my main daw program.  I like to have a  different programs to mix with. Heck I like daws and buy them because I like them. I have four and am looking at another one.
I agree with others ideas on long term possibilities of CbB. Cakewalk might not be something a few seasoned engineers use. Doesn't really matter in the end. Plenty of engineers are using the program to run 100+ tracks in well done studios. I know a few here on this forum who do it successfully and wouldn't want to change to another daw.
 
 
CbB is positioned to dominate the market or at least capture a lot of it.You might see ads for CbB in Rolling Stone Magazine.
 
Some  engineers are happy with pro tools, Logic, Cubase and similar who won't be moved....that is until paying clients show up with mixes in CbB. It always helps a studio to have what the client needs. Young clients become older clients who grow their mixing chops. Their studios get more sophisticated as they learn. CbB is set to capitalize on that.
 
 
 

Here's what I think lies in store for the Cakewalk/SONAR code under BandLab's loving care:
 
You know how you can upload your finished song to SoundCloud? My guess is that CbB will soon have a tightly-integrated way to upload finished songs (and even stems) to BandLab profiles.
 
Later, users will even be able to pull "forkable" BandLab projects into CbB, work on them, and send them back up.
 
In addition to what it already is, CbB will function as an offline big brother to BandLab's browser-based DAW.
 
I'm really looking forward to this becoming a reality, because I've already done some primitive collaboration with friends using Internet tools like sharing stems and rough mixes via Google Drive, and being able to work in a full-featured DAW that has online collaboration smoothly integrated is an exciting idea.
 
For those of you who still can't figure out how BandLab can monetize something like this, there's charging for extra cloud storage like Dropbox and Google Drive do; I don't have to think very hard.
 
Millions of people around the world use Google's Chrome browser, which Google gives away for free and has spent many times the amount of money in programmers' salaries and technology licensing that BandLab has and probably ever will spend on poor old Cakewalk. Does anyone think that Google is someday going to pull a gotcha and suddenly start charging for Chrome?
 
The people on this forum who are still feeling stung may not remember, but web browsers used to cost money. Netscape (now called Firefox) was something you had to pay for. Opera was a program you had to pay for. I paid for a lifetime license for Opera before they decided to start giving it away for free.
 
Microsoft came along with Internet Explorer for free and basically killed the market for paid browsers, but you know what? For whatever reason, we have a greater choice of better browsers now that they're all free. I don't know how that works, but it somehow did. Chrome, Firefox, Waterfox, Internet Explorer, Edge, Opera, they all work great.
 
Who knows what effect it will have on the market when BandLab officially releases Cakewalk with great fanfare?
 
In the meantime, I am DIGGING the software! I am so happy to have access to such a great program I just can't believe it!

Euthymia
Here's what I think lies in store for the Cakewalk/SONAR code under BandLab's loving care:
 
You know how you can upload your finished song to SoundCloud? My guess is that CbB will soon have a tightly-integrated way to upload finished songs (and even stems) to BandLab profiles.
 
Later, users will even be able to pull "forkable" BandLab projects into CbB, work on them, and send them back up.
 
In addition to what it already is, CbB will function as an offline big brother to BandLab's browser-based DAW.
 
I'm really looking forward to this becoming a reality, because I've already done some primitive collaboration with friends using Internet tools like sharing stems and rough mixes via Google Drive, and being able to work in a full-featured DAW that has online collaboration smoothly integrated is an exciting idea.
 
For those of you who still can't figure out how BandLab can monetize something like this, there's charging for extra cloud storage like Dropbox and Google Drive do; I don't have to think very hard.
 
Millions of people around the world use Google's Chrome browser, which Google gives away for free and has spent many times the amount of money in programmers' salaries and technology licensing that BandLab has and probably ever will spend on poor old Cakewalk. Does anyone think that Google is someday going to pull a gotcha and suddenly start charging for Chrome?
 
The people on this forum who are still feeling stung may not remember, but web browsers used to cost money. Netscape (now called Firefox) was something you had to pay for. Opera was a program you had to pay for. I paid for a lifetime license for Opera before they decided to start giving it away for free.
 
Microsoft came along with Internet Explorer for free and basically killed the market for paid browsers, but you know what? For whatever reason, we have a greater choice of better browsers now that they're all free. I don't know how that works, but it somehow did. Chrome, Firefox, Waterfox, Internet Explorer, Edge, Opera, they all work great.
 
Who knows what effect it will have on the market when BandLab officially releases Cakewalk with great fanfare?
 
In the meantime, I am DIGGING the software! I am so happy to have access to such a great program I just can't believe it!

You clearly do not understand the data and info that Google are obtaining from users that choose to use Chrome,Do you think they or any other company makes a product completely free of charge because they just want to be nice ?
That is a very silly way to think,nothing is free,there is always some kind of benefit to the company offering it and i don't mean a warm fuzzy feeling when they wake up each morning
Your Personal data/browsing habits and many other things obtained through your browser is what pays for its development
I can assure you Bandlab have not saved Sonar to develop and update it and keep it free for everyone because it makes them feel good inside.