keith


I was kinda sorta inaway going to make a similar post about the console view... but I didn't want to get roasted over an open pit... so here's a +.5 to AndyW's post.

Marah


John said << This is exactly as I see it. My posts in response to Marah have been with that notion in mind. My posts seem from an out of context view not to be true yet I believe Marah's post taken from a holistic view seem never to see anything good about Sonar. Thats why I post in opposition to her. Also it seems that that is only kind of post Marah makes. If she can't interject some deficit about Sonar she doesn't post. >>

John, that is such a ridiculous statement that only an idiot would respond to it. So here I go.

It so happens that just hours *before* you posted that, I posted my unambiguous appreciation for how CW handles registration and copy protection issues, saying that it was one of the reasons I like working with CW. I realize that I tend to post in ways that might be considered "negative," but when I have something positive to say, I say it. (I'd link you to the thread but this forum sw makes doing that more difficult that it's worth, so I guess you'll have to trust me on that.)

What I never do is spin negatives as positives, say, by responding to a request for specific functionality with a sagely assertion that it's not needed, offering as evidence a combination of a misreading of the initial post with obfuscating references to existing Sonar features (e.g., one of your fave tactics is pulling Sonar's "non-destructive editing" out of your hat even when it's got nada to do with the issue); or smugly proclaiming a CS as the reason that you, John, never have the kinds of problems being described; or questioning some aspect of a feature request or work method before it's revealed that what the OP is actually asking for or describing is outside of your vast professional experience and unavailable to your imagination. Fortunately (for you at least) even those sad pompoms add to your post count and the credibility you think it confers. Unfortunately (for you at least) your occasional shots at CW/Sonar (and I know how you love taking them) do nothing to change the perception of your basic shtick.


John << She is a good writer and highly able to get her thoughts across. It is this that makes me question what motivates her.  >>

Are you actually saying that the reason you don't trust my motives is because I express myself clearly?

If so, I don't know whether to be complimented or terrified by the implications of that kind of thinking.

John << When I first read her under a different name I was a cheerleader in the freshness and thoughtfulness in her writings. >>

I remember that, John. And it creeped me out being cheerleaded by the head of the squad. I realize that this is your forum, John, but the truth is your approval or disapproval carry no more weight than your credibility on Sonar matters.

John << More importantly I do more then just complain.  I enter into threads and participate with ideas.  Ways of doing things. Techniques and the like.  Then I have a track record of trying to help here and there. >>

Since you're setting up (and trying to pull me into) a contest between our respective posting records, I'll gladly put my posting history up against yours when it comes to "participating with ideas," "ways of doing things, techniques and the like," and "trying to help here and there." And despite you being an acknowledged expert on Sonar's operation, I might even stand my record of accurately answering questions against yours, since (like I said above) I never try to deflect straightforward questions because an honest answer would point out a Sonar deficiency. I'm sure that you're pattern of doing that is at least as familiar to regular readers as whatever sins against Sonar I might stand accused of.

John, over the last year, as you continued to emerge as the face of the satisfied experienced Sonar user, and therefore the target of Sonar's development, it became easier and easier for me to question my continued investment in the platform. Maybe I was the only one. But right now, for me, on this side of 8.5 and my decision to say thanks but no thanks, if I had to give one and only one reason why Sonar is no longer my preferred production environment, the best answer might very well be you, John. And for that I thank you.

John << Could it be that most people don't have problems with Sonar's work flow? >>

And I thank you once more for casting Sonar in such high relief.

PS. I find it hilarious that you or anyone else thinks I post here to "siphon" Sonar users to Reaper. Plus, you underestimate me. If that was my intention, I'd go about it much more efficiently. Instead of getting into these kind of backenforths with you (where what appears to be Reaper shilling is simply pushing back against kneejerk Sonar rahrahrah) I'd simply do a point by point comparison of how core DAW functionality (object snapping, object and multiple object editing, markers, envelope creation and management, take and comp management, pitch and play rate control, stretching, etc) is implemented in the two programs, and let it speak for itself.

There's no reason for Reaper fans, or fans of any competitor, really, to try to siphon away Sonar users when you, as The Voice Of Sonar Satisfaction, do such a fine job of that already.

Classic!

UnderTow

himalaya

But the issue is more complex than just mentioning general 'workflow'. For example, I do not get on with the current automation envelope implementation at all, since it is extremely time involved when it comes to editing the data ( ie: bad workflow).

Agreed. It needs a complete overhaul IMO.

However,  I love the way freeze is implemented. It is very fast and flexible saving me time by not having to do manual bounce and off loading VSTs

I agree. The editable Frozen tracks are great! I hardly ever use bounce to tracks. I just Freeze and drag to a new track. Or sometimes I just Freeze and edit in situ. I can always clone the track later or drag stuff to another track if I have to. Excellent work flow feature. Great!

Unfortunately there is an issue with the freeze function and arranging.  This is another old gripe of mine: If you have frozen tracks and then use the "Insert Times/Measures" function to add a few measures at the beginning of the project (or anywhere) the Frozen data does not get moved. By Frozen data I mean the data that you can't see. The data that was there before you froze the track. If you now Unfreeze a track, the track is out of sync with the project by the amount of time you inserted with the "Insert Times/Measures" function. If you have used this function several times your project could become a mess. The same thing happens if you select all the data in your project (CTRL-A) and use the Slide function. Frozen data is
not moved.

This is a real pain when you have large projects with many frozen tracks. Your only real option is to unfreeze all those tracks before changing the arrangement and then refreezing everything. (Sometimes to find that you need to do add more measures or whatever and you can start all over again).

Some might argue, and some certainly have in the passed, that Frozen means Frozen. End of story. I do not agree. I see that as a needless limitation. I would like to see an option added to the dialogues of these and other arrangement functions. Something like "Include Frozen events".

Thanks. :-)

On a separate note, I think it has to be repeated that work flow is not about new features (as such) but all about improving what is there already ( at least with an estabilished product).  Get me from A to B with the minimum of mouse clicks.

Hurray hurray! This is indeed what it is all about. I am quite sure that Cakewalk could easily spend a couple of years working on Sonar improving the current features without adding a single new one and it would make Sonar a better product by far compared to adding new features.

Alistair

SongCraft

. Expandable FX bins under shortcut key-toggle with plugin view access tweaks in clearer view, slightly larger view when it's expanded. Thereby no need to open the actual FX module all the time since most of the tweaks can be done in the Trk-Inspector.

We could use ALT-3 as that could be freed up. ;) Just kidding! Seriously, this could be good, yes. I am not sure if you mean the FX Bin in the track or the one in the Inspector. The one in the Sinpector could certain be made bigger (as an option of course). The whole "assignable controls" section could be worked out more.

Frankly I would like to have a bigger inspector. Maybe two options. Double the current width and four times the current width. As it can so easily be shown/hidden by hitting I it can take quite a bit of space. That would make the "Assignable Controls" very precise. You could overlay the values over the little faders. (Now you see the values as a tool tips). The EQ plots could be made bigger. Etc.

Ideally the width of the Inspector would simply be draggable and you would have two or three (or more) Inspector presets/modes. Each preset would be a full "Inspector Layout". So you might use something that looks like the current layout as one mode/preset. Another mode could be quite wide and have a big EQ plot (maybe even as big as the one in the Sonitus plugin itself and even including all the controls with a bit of smart space management). With maybe below that an expanded FX bin with the "Assignable Controls" bin.

Maybe another mode would show little horizontal faders for all the current parameters in a track: All the EQ values (but no plot), All the default faders like Level, Trim, Pan, all the sends etc. Beside these little faders you would have little buttons for automation/envelope show/hide enable/disable etc. A bit like the current R/W automation buttons but for every used parameter in a track.

That and many other things could fit in an expanded inspector.

. Include New Automation Tool-Bar with OS on/off, hide/display env toggle including safety latch/lock for each env type such as; Pan, Vol, FX to prevent acidental edits and to make editing much easier. Included expand view for lanes in trk/clip-view.

Yes I agree. They could be in that expanded Inspector I mention above. :) I also would like track envelope lanes. (Again of course with the option of having them on the main track or on the lanes etc).

. In Trk/clip view allow Nodes to increase in size as you Zoom in, making it easier to do edits.

Ok but as an option then. :) Don't make this standard behaviour. :)

. Nice Gradient Color-Tabs option to replace Trk-Icons.  Narror Color Tabs takes up far less space and having the gradient option allows more variety and unique visual clarity for larger projects rather than being a one solid color all the time.  

Yes great!

I never use Trk-Icons, IMHO Trk-Icons make SONAR look like a 3 y/old picture n spelling book or somthing like that ya' know... hey kids what animal is in that Trk-Picture Icon? Yes! It's a Cowbell, can you spell Cowbell?

Absolutely agreed! I gave Cakewalk alot of flack for adding track icons when they did. Their answer was that many customers requested them and that is IMO a problem with Cakewalk: They are more and more painting themselves into the hobbyist corner by listening to the majority of their customers that are indeed hobbyists.

Cakewalk should have thought about this and come to the conclusion that most advanced users really couldn't care less about track icons. There were much better and useful things to do with their time. Some things that still haven't been done.

Here's a rough a design I did for the trk-view



Also notice much larger space to display Track Name and in slightly larger font yet still keeping it all nice and compact!!

It looks nice to me. One thing I would also like is for tracks to be able to overlap. Or rather, that it is possible to make their height even smaller. So that you can't even fully read the text. In other words, much more hight granularity. That is how it works in Cubase. You can fit 4 or 5 times as many Cubase tracks on the same screen as Sonar. Great space saver! And that means it is faster to work with large projects. You can see the whole project so you can quickly click on any of the tracks and make them bigger. In Sonar some of my projects take 4 or 5 vertical screens to fit everything or even more if all the folders are fully opened. (This is with the tracks minimised of course). Nestable folders would help too. That would save me alot of scrolling time.

I have also in the past submitted feature request to enhance the PRV, to basically enhance the workspace and thereby improve workflow. You can view that thread here

Will check.

UnderTow

This talk about "get rid of the console view" sounds ridiculous to me. For me, it's the Master Mixer and the busses are invaluable, along with the physical outputs volume control.

In my view getting rid of the console view is a ridiculous statement.

Oh please Cakewalk, don't get rid of the console view!

Btw, the way Latch mode is implemented in Pro Tools is that when you touch a fader (or whatever) it latches to that value and will remain at that value until you stop playback or move the fader again. So lets say you pull the volume fader down during playback and then let go with Automation latch enabled, the fader will remain at that level and you get a straight automation line at that level until your press stop or move the fader again. Is that what you mean?

Yes that is sort of what I am asking for. The way it is now with automation already there if you record new automation Sonar will try to bring the fader back to the old automation if you let go of the fader. This is good for some things but being able to switch to a latch mode quickly to redo a section would be very welcomed.  Its some what like offset mode without the adding to just recording the new automation in a passive manner.

Just to add about the Console View. Often it can show the whole project or a good portion of it when the track view can't.

I doubt very much CW will eliminate the console! But like I said, almost all my workflow is Trk-View + Inspector it's just the way I prefer to work. But I agree to keep the console option.

Point of my I suggestion (see my previous post) is because SONAR has turned into a freakosaurs = capability to easily handle very large projects of 100+ tracks. Thereby I would like to access/tweak, view more with far less need to scroll left/right, up/down, left/down, quickly up again then a quick right/left and so on. Ah'ha'!! Tetris? LOL!!

UnderTow : Yes! Those features placed in the improved Inspector, including improvements to envelopes with access to those features accessible in the Inspector. Late Edit: just reading your post again, those other ideas you suggested are great!

Oops! Got to go, my wife needs me :-)

Lunatique



-Ability to add more sub-folders to organize tracks as user sees fit, so we can for example group orchestral instrument sections, solo instruments, electronic instruments, percussion groups...etc as we like.

+1 on that one.
 
However a big NO to removing the console view. It's just too difficult for an old codger like me to work with all the superfluous information in Track View when mixing. I just want to see the levels, sends, busses, EQ etc. Not to mention all the extra scroling about it would involve.
 
To reiterate an old request. I would like to see a toggle to view/hide all Midi tracks in the console view.