razor
Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1557
- Joined: 2004/05/10 16:53:27
- Location: Irvine, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 15:38:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John T
There is nothing wrong with USB. USB's highest transfer rates are faster than Firewire.
Firewire 400 maybe, probably the same, but firewire 800 is MUCH faster.
Stephen Davis Cakewalk by Bandlab Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit ADK DAW - (out of business 2018) Intel i7 4930K CPU Core i7 SB-E MOBO 16 GB DDR3 RAM 7 TB Storage Layla 3G SoundCard (11.5 ms Roundtrip Latency) UAD-2 DSP WaveLab 8 Pro 64-bit Sound Forge 10 Pro
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 16:09:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Duojet
will act ever be bi directional on this thing? I am using a novation nocturn and all controls are bi directional for all plugins. if novation can do it i'm sure you guys can!
The display on the V-Studio does indeed show the ACT parameters, so in this case it is bi-directional. Moving around in SONAR updates the the display and vice-versa.
post edited by Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk] - 2008/10/04 16:12:33
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 16:09:45
(permalink)
Firewire 400 maybe, probably the same, but firewire 800 is MUCH faster. If you do some realworld benchmarks, 1394a comes out a couple of MB/Sec faster (with lower CPU use) than USB 2.0. This is easy to test with an external HD that offers 1394a and USB 2.0 connection. 1394b is significantly faster... (roughly double)
|
gordonrussell76
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1879
- Joined: 2006/12/15 05:28:08
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 17:14:56
(permalink)
quote:
ORIGINAL: gordonrussell76
THanks Brandon, can I have a job :)
No, but Cakewalk will be glad to send you a gold-coloured, plastic pin fob that says "Cakewalk Sales Deputy" that you can wear on your lapel... A little something like this, maybe with the text surrounding the SONAR logo: Dammit, and I thought I was so close, my flat was up for sale, and I was trying to convince and American friend to marry me for a Green Card. Still if the badge is shaped like the T-Bar and has Deputy Alderon Destroyer on it, I'll take it :)
|
Timur
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 179
- Joined: 2008/07/05 05:01:49
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 18:38:19
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jim Roseberry
Firewire 400 maybe, probably the same, but firewire 800 is MUCH faster.
If you do some realworld benchmarks, 1394a comes out a couple of MB/Sec faster (with lower CPU use) than USB 2.0. This is easy to test with an external HD that offers 1394a and USB 2.0 connection.
1394b is significantly faster... (roughly double)
HD benchmark is irrelevant for audio performance, because HDs use "Bulk Transfer Mode" while audio interfaces use "Isochronous Mode". Counting mb/s Bulk transfer can be faster than Isochronous because of less overhead, but Bulk has the lowerst priority on the bus and is not time-critical. Isochronous is time-critical and can allocate bandwidth which is guaranteed by the bus to be delivered if possible. And yes, 1394b is faster and as such can be used when connecting several interfaces to one port (like several RME Firefaces). Another benefit of Firewire is that at least the protocol has a backchannel (kind of half-full-duplex one could say). USB is half-duplex, but USB 3.0 will be full-duplex as far as I remember.
|
Creator
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 170
- Joined: 2004/01/14 20:54:23
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 20:40:17
(permalink)
I am looking forward to seeing how USB 3 and the new proposed Firewire standard improve things.
|
Duojet
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1413
- Joined: 2003/12/06 22:02:31
- Location: NJ, US
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 21:32:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk]
ORIGINAL: Duojet
will act ever be bi directional on this thing? I am using a novation nocturn and all controls are bi directional for all plugins. if novation can do it i'm sure you guys can!
The display on the V-Studio does indeed show the ACT parameters, so in this case it is bi-directional. Moving around in SONAR updates the the display and vice-versa.
nice!
Intel Core2Duo e8400 Abit IP35-E 4GB Ram Windows 7 SP1 64 Bit EMU 1820m DFHS2, BFD2, Battery3, Amplitube2, GuitarRig3, Kontakt4, Ampeg SVX, Line6 PodXT
|
ustudio
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1491
- Joined: 2003/11/08 10:52:05
- Location: Atlanta
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 22:02:51
(permalink)
No one has noticed (not even Cakewalk ) that there is NO pause button. 8 iterations of Sonar to get a pause button - I suppose this console uses the T-Bar to shift into pause? in one of the video I watched on it the guy paused it
|
ustudio
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1491
- Joined: 2003/11/08 10:52:05
- Location: Atlanta
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 22:10:38
(permalink)
|
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 22:48:30
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ustudio
No one has noticed (not even Cakewalk ) that there is NO pause button. 8 iterations of Sonar to get a pause button - I suppose this console uses the T-Bar to shift into pause? in one of the video I watched on it the guy paused it
Yep ... just in case you missed it ... the Play button toggles between Play and Pause mode.
|
kwgm
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2271
- Joined: 2006/10/12 00:14:20
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/04 22:54:19
(permalink)
I sure hope you guys don't let Roland ship that gawd awful Fantom patch editor. It looked like the mock up I saw used the same UI design -- completely modal and just a horrible interface for sound design sorting through 3 or 4 menus levels to choose every sample. Please teach your Japanese friends a little bit about software design.
|
timboe
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 760
- Joined: 2004/01/07 09:01:29
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 00:03:49
(permalink)
Firstly a disclaimer .... my DAW is already quite "compartmentalized" - DAW, hardware controllers, i/o, synths etc.... so whilst I am a mad-keen-Sonar-user-nut, I am not a potential buyer of this system .... having said that, these are my thoughts from all I have so far seen:- - looks and [seems] to function brilliantly - clearly a massive shot-over-the-bow for P/T - exceptionally wel thought out - looks super-easy and quick to get to know - I reckon the average DAW user could be up and running in an hour or two - at ~$4000 est. price, its a steal for what it is and what it can do - and the steet price, within 6 - 12 months of release will be closer to 3K than 4K - the actual hardware used all seems very-close to top shelf or relatively comparable to close to top shelf My concerns:- - USB 2 will - rightly or wrongly - rationally or irrationally - put a *lot* of people off [USB 3 would have been a master stroke but its realistically 12 months away] - I know why Roland went with USB - they have led the pack with their USB i/o's but as good as Roland / Edirol USB drivers are - and they are the best, USB2 will simply not allow low-latency real-time use at anything approaching "pro-semi-pro" loads - as a minimum it should be both USB 2 and Firewire B - this will negate %99 of the inevitiable "pro-semi-pro" criticisim - hopefully its not too late for this? - it needs a talk-back mic built-in - how on earth did it get this far without one ? - a dedicated pause-button is critical - "toggling" between one multi-purpose button is annoying - hopefully its not too late ? - the built in synth is just unnecessary - it will date the system before it even ships and why should someone pay for something they dont want - the synth should be optional - all-in-one products are always massivley risky, especially these days with techology changing on an almost hourly basis - early widespread adoption across the industry is crucial to success/longevity Products such as this are a massive roll-of-the-dice. I truly, truly hope it works, as if it does, it will finally catapault CW/Sonar/Roland into the big league [not that they arent there already by any objective analysis] My gut feeling is that it will go one of two ways - within 2-3 years, it will become the industry standard all-in-one "go to" solution for small-medium installations, schools, churchs, larger corporate's etc.... or alternalty, it will be an orphaned / unsupported / discontinued product ... if its the later, and I sincerley hope it wont be, I especially hope it doesnt bring CW down with it. Good luck and all the best CW for this journey into new waters - if anyone can do it, I know you guys can !!! Tim
post edited by timboe - 2008/10/05 00:13:55
|
candlesayshi
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 694
- Joined: 2008/02/01 00:00:55
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 00:27:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk]
ORIGINAL: candlesayshi
Since Project5 also uses ACT, will there be any extra advantage to the V-Studio specific ACT controls for Project5 2.5? Is there some other underlying ACT technology in the controls meant to integrate into ACT or will it be in a general sense just like setting up any other control surface?
I'm really not sure. I don't want to give any erroneous information so I'll get back to you about V-Studio integration with Project5. I'm curious myself.
You give it a shot yet? How'd it go?
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 00:48:18
(permalink)
HD benchmark is irrelevant for audio performance, because HDs use "Bulk Transfer Mode" while audio interfaces use "Isochronous Mode". Counting mb/s Bulk transfer can be faster than Isochronous because of less overhead, but Bulk has the lowerst priority on the bus and is not time-critical. Isochronous is time-critical and can allocate bandwidth which is guaranteed by the bus to be delivered if possible. So why have we not seen a single USB audio interface (with more than a couple of I/O channels) that offers low round-trip latency performance anywhere close to the best Firewire and PCI/e units? 
|
Crg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7719
- Joined: 2007/11/15 07:59:17
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 01:59:20
(permalink)
- a dedicated pause is critical - "toggling" between one multi-purpose button is annoying - hopefully its not too late ? How about if the symbol on the button changed from play to pause?ORIGINAL: timboe
Firstly a disclaimer .... my DAW is already quite "compartmentalized" - DAW, hardware controllers, i/o, synths etc.... so whilst I am a mad-keen-Sonar-user-nut, I am not a potential buyer of this system .... having said that, these are my thoughts from all I have so far seen:-
- looks and [seems] to function brilliantly
- clearly a massive shot-over-the-bow for P/T
- exceptionally wel thought out
- looks super-easy and quick to get to know - I reckon the average DAW user could be up and running in an hour or two
- at ~$4000 est. price, its a steal for what it is and what it can do - and the steet price, within 6 - 12 months of
release will be closer to 3K than 4K
- the actual hardware used all seems very-close to top shelf or relatively comparable to close to top shelf
My concerns:-
- USB 2 will - rightly or wrongly - rationally or irrationally - put a *lot* of people off [USB 3 would have been a master stroke but its realistically 12 months away]
- I know why Roland went with USB - they have led the pack with their USB i/o's but as good as Roland / Edirol USB drivers are - and they are the best, USB2 will simply not allow low-latency real-time use at anything approaching "pro-semi-pro" loads
- as a minimum it should be both USB 2 and Firewire B - this will negate %99 of the inevitiable "pro-semi-pro" criticisim - hopefully its not too late for this?
- it needs a talk-back mic built-in - how on earth did it get this far without one ?
- a dedicated pause-button is critical - "toggling" between one multi-purpose button is annoying - hopefully its not too late ?
- the built in synth is just unnecessary - it will date the system before it even ships and why should someone pay for something they dont want - the synth should be optional
- all-in-one products are always massivley risky, especially these days with techology changing on an almost hourly basis - early widespread adoption across the industry is crucial to success/longevity
Products such as this are a massive roll-of-the-dice.
I truly, truly hope it works, as if it does, it will finally catapault CW/Sonar/Roland into the big league [not that they arent there already by any objective analysis]
My gut feeling is that it will go one of two ways - within 2-3 years, it will become the industry standard all-in-one "go to" solution for small-medium installations, schools, churchs, larger corporate's etc.... or alternalty, it will be an orphaned / unsupported / discontinued product ... if its the later, and I sincerley hope it wont be, I especially hope it doesnt bring CW down with it.
Good luck and all the best CW for this journey into new waters - if anyone can do it, I know you guys can !!!
Tim
|
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 02:05:06
(permalink)
Hi Guys, Is it really annoying? With all due respect, are you sure it is annoying? I mean, when was the last time you used a VS-700 . I think you will find it to be totally useful. After all you cant play and pause at the same time, so what is the use of two buttons? I think you will find the single button approach quite elegant. OBTW it does BLINK when it is in Pause mode  .
|
Crg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7719
- Joined: 2007/11/15 07:59:17
- Status: offline
|
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 02:19:48
(permalink)
Just to be clear I am talking about the VS-700C control surface. SONAR's GUI has separate Play and Pause buttons. The VS-700C uses the one button approach as I have described above. BTW you cannot Pause in SONAR 7 ... its SONAR 8's hottest new feature .
|
Qwerty69
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1435
- Joined: 2004/02/19 17:44:10
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 04:53:54
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk]
... its SONAR 8's hottest new feature .
Ironic isn't it? Q.
post edited by Qwerty69 - 2008/10/05 04:56:30
|
gordonrussell76
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1879
- Joined: 2006/12/15 05:28:08
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 07:10:25
(permalink)
ONe thought, the Aduio interface with the Phantom in it. THey mention that there will be another flavour of the Audio interface which does not have hte phantom, now if you could buy this and the control surface together without the phantom, then you will be laughing.
G
|
subtlearts
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2200
- Joined: 2006/01/10 05:59:21
- Location: Berlin
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 07:37:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: timboe
- it needs a talk-back mic built-in - how on earth did it get this far without one ?
- the built in synth is just unnecessary - it will date the system before it even ships and why should someone pay for something they dont want - the synth should be optional
100% agreed.
|
Crg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7719
- Joined: 2007/11/15 07:59:17
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 12:00:54
(permalink)
Hmmm, After reading the posts about the pause feature I opened Sonar 7PE and pushed the play button on the large transport. It played, I pushed the play button again and it stopped right at that point and greyed out, I pushed the play button again and it played. Is that not pause? ORIGINAL: Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk]
Just to be clear I am talking about the VS-700C control surface. SONAR's GUI has separate Play and Pause buttons. The VS-700C uses the one button approach as I have described above. BTW you cannot Pause in SONAR 7 ... its SONAR 8's hottest new feature .
|
Logicology
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 146
- Joined: 2006/10/06 11:12:42
- Location: Philadelphia
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 12:09:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk]
Just to be clear I am talking about the VS-700C control surface. SONAR's GUI has separate Play and Pause buttons. The VS-700C uses the one button approach as I have described above. BTW you cannot Pause in SONAR 7 ... its SONAR 8's hottest new feature .
I don't underatand this. In Sonar 7 with my Mackie Control, if I hit PLAY while it is playing, it basically pauses. How does Sonar 8 differ?
|
Blades
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3246
- Joined: 2003/11/06 08:22:52
- Location: Georgia
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 16:45:04
(permalink)
CRG,
there is no shortage of threads on exactly what this "missing pause" is. To try to summarize: the pause people are looking for is one where you press pause and playback stops where you are, but the nowtime does not move to where you paused. Instead, it remains back where you began playing, as if the playback never stopped happening. There are a pile of reasons people have been requesting it. In v8, this has apparently been fixed to really pause as a seperate function to just stopping playback and staying put. They have also added some (apparently) cool FF and FRw buttons - not sure I get this part, but it remains to be seen what's different about this than just clicking somewhere on the timeline while playback is happening.
|
Dave Modisette
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11050
- Joined: 2003/11/13 22:12:55
- Location: Brandon, Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 17:12:34
(permalink)
- the built in synth is just unnecessary - it will date the system before it even ships and why should someone pay for something they dont want - the synth should be optional Agreed. I like the idea of hardware updates via modules like other FX, extra headphone mixes or more ADAT I/O. The synth would go largely unused here. I've sold my hardware synths due to lack of use.
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 17:16:48
(permalink)
Ok, I saw the unit and played with it at AES. (Also stood next to Shawn Clement and had a nice conversation. I had no idea who he was until I saw him in the video above. Also saw Brandon, did not say hi because you were 4 deep with people around). Here are my thoughts. Quality - 10 Console - gets an 8 (Really needs the talkback mic). Loved the DI on the front. Do like the the fact that the faders can be switched to additional tracks. The rest of the functions and controls are in my view very ergonomic, designed with ease of use. Interface - ?? I think the biggest hurtle for success is demonstrating what the preamps and converters sound like. I think Cake would be doing itself a favor by some head to head comparison of existing competition i.e. Presonus, Portico Preamps, Great River, Chameleon and on the converter side, Lynx, RME & Motu. Just a ranking thing mind you. Good clean preamps would be a seller, Presonus level sound, not so much. Same with the converters, if they are at par with M-Audio then not interested, if they are in the RME or Lynx range then we are talking. Software 10 (Hey its Sonar, I love this program) The Synths I heard were very good, the expandability with cards from Roland excellent. Overall, I don't need just average converters and preamps, that is fun home market learning category and I think many people want a low cost HD killer setup. If the price were $8000 and the converters and preamps rivaled say RME, Lynx or 7th Circle, Great River or Portico. That is a system I would be interested in. The product aimed at the masses is probably this box and I think it's a great start on possibly a string of offerings. Not what I was looking for but for some, $3500? That's a great starter system.
post edited by Middleman - 2008/10/05 17:31:49
|
Crg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7719
- Joined: 2007/11/15 07:59:17
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 20:19:37
(permalink)
I hear ya Blades. I just feel it's become a situation of complacency. It's so easy to move the now time already. I could see why you would want a fixed now time if you were constantly loop editing something and wanted a consatant start point. 5&1/2 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. Not much difference.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 22:06:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Seth Perlstein [Cakewalk]
Hi Guys,
Is it really annoying? With all due respect, are you sure it is annoying? I mean, when was the last time you used a VS-700 . I think you will find it to be totally useful. After all you cant play and pause at the same time, so what is the use of two buttons?
Will the button be configurable between just playing from the same spot or pausing? I use this (restarting play from the same spot without stopping) a lot in my daily work (not in Sonar). Most notably when recording voice overs. When the talent stalls or makes a mistake, just hit play again and you restart from exactly the same spot. UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/10/05 22:09:32
|
inhouseproducer
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 131
- Joined: 2008/04/09 10:45:05
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/05 22:13:17
(permalink)
I would like to see some UAD type acceleration for mixing and using plug in effects and instruments. That would make it a true contender for those looking to expand their system.
post edited by inhouseproducer - 2008/10/05 22:15:57
|
MarathonJon
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 70
- Joined: 2003/12/09 17:47:36
- Status: offline
RE: Sonar / Roland Hardware BUT!!!
2008/10/06 00:17:19
(permalink)
i like it cause it seems as tightly (really more than) integrated as my sac 2k WAS a one point in Sonar/PA9. the colors of the unit are similar too. if a control surface only version comes out I'll be buying.
|