Sonar Just Isn't Smart Enough

Hi. It seems like this is in the oven already http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Rolling-Updates#start
Ripple Editing would do exactly this.
All the best.

The implication of your post ("this needs to change") suggests that all users feel exactly the same way you do and work the same way/face the same limitations etc. While I welcome things like the upcoming ripple editing and have my own wish list I am happy there are many ways to do things in Sonar. When the disparity between what you have and what you need is too great you have to start to wonder if something else might fit better. Fwiw I looked at other options that I thought would suit my needs better and realized the features I thought i needed couldn't offset major deficiencies in those other daws where sonar's workflow was just so superior to everything else. Grass is always greener, etc.

Hi Craig,
 
I have to disagree on the project vs. track level thing when it comes to meter, tempo, and key changes.  Those are a function of the song.  Any time you add to or subtract from a track it can have an effect on the song.  Since meter, tempo, and key changes are a part of the song, these functions should change as well.  The tracks make up the song. The project is just a container for the song.  It should contain general information about the song, but the song itself should determine what happens with meter, tempo, key, etc.
 
I can't think of a single time I've ever extended a part of a song that comes before a tempo change where I didn't want the tempo change to move as well.  I could care less about the project itself when it comes to the functions of the song.

To me, this is a holdover from the early days when it was difficult to conceive of a digital project with multiple tempos and key changes and meter changes.  It made sense in the twelvetone days that when you sat down to write a song using MIDI equipment you would set the key, tempo, meter, etc.  That's not true these days, and it may mean that Cakewalk needs to look closely at how people use this tool for songwriting and do some ground-up reconstruction of the process instead of patching in old methodologies and workflows.
 
Of course, this assumes that we're all using Sonar to write songs.  For me, Sonar remains the more intuitive choice, but that's because I've been using their products for 25 years.

vanblah
Hi Craig,
 
I have to disagree on the project vs. track level thing when it comes to meter, tempo, and key changes.  Those are a function of the song.  Any time you add to or subtract from a track it can have an effect on the song.  Since meter, tempo, and key changes are a part of the song, these functions should change as well.  The tracks make up the song. The project is just a container for the song.  It should contain general information about the song, but the song itself should determine what happens with meter, tempo, key, etc.

 
I don't understand where you're disagreeing, unless what you're saying is that you want tempo, meter, and key changes that are independent for each track (which may be exactly what you want, but it would probably make my head explode ). At least for me, if there's a tempo change at measure 17 and and I insert 4 measures starting at measure 9, I want that tempo change to move from measure 17 to measure 21. That's what happens with SONAR when you insert measures. Where's the problem?
 
 

If Sonar isn't working for you, use another program. I'm sure there's one that will fit your needs.

To be honest, most of the problems and frustrations I have are with MIDI.  I feel for audio it does a great job, I just feel the entire MIDI engine might need an overhaul.   I just find myself constantly frustrated with the MIDI implementation inside of SONAR.   
 
Try bouncing step sequencer clips... they just get deleted!  I selected a drum track with 5 different step sequencer patterns in there, and it deleted half of my drums!
 
Just so many things.

Thanks Craig for showing that the Slide function isnt what I wanted.

I think things need to be more intuitive.  

Zargg71
Hi. It seems like this is in the oven already http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Rolling-Updates#start
Ripple Editing would do exactly this.
All the best.

Personally, I'm not going to hold any expectations about what Ripple Editing will or will not do until it appears in an update i can play with. Like any new feature, I'm sure it will have some spectacular workflow improvements, along with some associated under-implementations[1] and bugs. You know, the usual.
 
(Unless there is some industry standard definition of "Ripple Editing" that Cakewalk has declared as supporting...)
 
[1] The cool think about Cakewalk and SONAR is that these all get addressed in the following month or two. Realistically.

I do agree with you on the fact that, especially since Cakewalk got together with Gibson, their main focus has shifted drastically towards recording live instruments rather than MIDI, and for the most part the FX plug ins do suggest that.  But also they have made some incredible leaps forward to round it out more, and they are still working on other ways to improve everything, as I'm sure they always will.

"However, be aware that ripple editing has the power to screw up a project royally if you forget it's turned on when you don't want to use it."
Man, ain't that the truth...I've made it a rule that if and when I need to use it, I hold my breath until I've turned it back off 
 

The Insert Time/Measures command works fine as long as there is not a meter change at the measure you want to add a blank measure(s), or at the measure before or after the place of insertion.  If there are meter changes, the results are unpredictable.  I've long been annoyed with this bug because in the case of a large orchestral work, things can get chaotic pretty quickly.  Manageable, yes, but clumsy, awkward and excessively time-consuming.  Developers should look into this issue when meter changes are involved when inserting time/measures. 
 
Jerry
www.jerrygerber.com
 

To be fair, though...DAWs are sufficiently complex that, to use your analogy, people might not even know you can put the gas pump's nozzle directly into the car.
 
The only way I can scale a learning curve is whenever I want to do something and it seems arduous, I read the documentation. Actually one of the best things that's happened to my learning SONAR is trying to help people here on the forums. I'll go to the documentation so I can refer to a particular solution, and in the process, I find out about all kinds of other things I didn't know about.
 
Any DAW requires study. If someone spends just five minutes a day looking at the documentation to research a specific function, their rewards will be manifold. As the old joke goes...Q: What's a power user?  A: Someone who reads the manual.

JohanSebatianGremlin
A fair and valid point. I guess my comments were more directed at those who, when instructed on how to do what they're trying to do the right way, simply say well I don't want the program to work the way it was designed to work, I want it work MY way.

Anderton
 
Any DAW requires study. If someone spends just five minutes a day looking at the documentation to research a specific function, their rewards will be manifold. As the old joke goes...Q: What's a power user?  A: Someone who reads the manual.

These right here are the issues! Often it seems that people believe software must be designed to work exactly how they personally want it too rather than by the programmers design. Every minute spent reading the user guide of any complex software will be returned a  hundredfold.
 
'Sonar just isn't smart enough'? Perhaps the problem is that some Sonar users are just not smart enough to read the manual(I  jest - no offence intended silverbluemedallion! )

JohanSebatianGremlin
A fair and valid point. I guess my comments were more directed at those who, when instructed on how to do what they're trying to do the right way, simply say well I don't want the program to work the way it was designed to work, I want it work MY way.

Yes, that's quite different from the point I was making and I agree you've identified a major source of frustration for many people. One of the aspects that fascinates me about software, whether you're talking SONAR, Microsoft Word, or Windows 10 is how different people use the same software in entirely different ways. Even something as simple as moving files in Windows is done differently by different people.
 
However there are limits, because every piece of software does have a design ethos and a personality. For example when Ableton Live first appeared, it was all about drag and drop. At the time that was not a common practice in DAWs, so people who came to it with preconceptions based on the DAW world thought it was the worst, most complicated software on the planet because nothing worked they way they expected. OTOH those for whom Live was their first computer-based software (I still don't think of it as a "DAW" in the conventional sense) just accepted at face value that it was based on drag and drop, and didn't question that design decision.
 
The beauty of SONAR for me is its versatility, but part of that is due to allowing multiple ways to do tasks that, at least superficially, seem the same. For example, it seems entirely logical that if you're going to slide a bunch of tracks over, that sliding should do what inserting measures does. But it doesn't, because sliding is oriented toward moving data within a track, while inserting is oriented toward changing the actual structure of a project. It's a fine point, and it's not really explained specifically anywhere (although the functions are located under different menu items, which is clue).
 
Unfortunately there are no shortcuts to being a "Jedi Master" for any DAW. Like anything in life you want to master, it requires discipline and study. Now, that isn't always necessary; I like to drive a car, but I'm never going to become a race car driver. With SONAR, you don't need to learn everything to get a lot out of it. But if you want to exploit it to its full potential, there's no substitute for spending time studying it and learning its nuances.

Maybe we just edit too much. It seems the more editing capabilities there is the more problems there are. Maybe the old way was better. Don't rely on editing so much.