Unbelievable.

Apologies to everyone else for this crappy sideshow.

Complicated? Some things are just made that way. This is my point precisely, instead of trying to introduce these so-called features (more like semi-featurettes) as a paid Expansion include them as an update available to all X1 users to level the playing field among the user base to rule out compatibility problems with collaborators wanting to exchange files and such. The modules themselves people would gladly pay for them, like they would any other plugin they wanted. Give the 'dispenser' away to all X1 users and you have a bigger market for your modules, as well as gaining real good-will from those damaged by the many issues that have been addressed since the initial X1 launch. Now that's simple. Having different tiers of X1 Pro users and setting up a scenario where 'this works with that version but that won't work on this unless you have that'...will be where any confusion comes from. Perhaps it is because Cakewalk are like me in not being confident that putting standard but nobbled VST's on a proprietary bus is going to prove to be a long-term winning strategy, so they are looking for a quick return before the marketing smoke clears.

How would any of that make an X1 Studio user compatible? Not to mention the different VSTs people have. Then of coarse the other DAWs CW puts out. How would any of them collaborate? Seems there are ways just the same. Flawed logic.

John T


No, I absolutely cannot see how you can link any of what I've said to a/ knowing you hadn't been working or b/ wanting to say something nasty about someone not working. And you're done responding because you know you can't substantiate this, but you don't have the balls or decency to apologise. What a snivelling self-pitying toad you are.

[sarcasm]

No TOS violations there.

Nice post John.

Thank you.

[/sarcasm]

Regarding the ProChannel modules thing, I am somewhat skeptical about the value of what is, after all, simply a locked down plug-in format.

I like the basic paradigm of a more functional console, with certain core processors already patched in. Comp and EQ make total sense.

But I'm not convinced it's got legs as a third party product channel. I can't quite see any specific benefits over and above normal VSTs. Don't think it's a bad thing, but I think it's likely to stay fairly marginal, unless there's some bigger picture I'm not grasping.

Yeah, as you say, you have no idea what you're talking about.

John T


Regarding the ProChannel modules thing, I am somewhat skeptical about the value of what is, after all, simply a locked down plug-in format.

I like the basic paradigm of a more functional console, with certain core processors already patched in. Comp and EQ make total sense.

But I'm not convinced it's got legs as a third party product channel. I can't quite see any specific benefits over and above normal VSTs. Don't think it's a bad thing, but I think it's likely to stay fairly marginal, unless there's some bigger picture I'm not grasping.

Hey, John_T and I are in agreement.

As an aside, I'd want to know how the new modular strip works with the V700c before installing it.

Dappa1


For once I agree with you John

Which John. LOL

John

Complicated? Some things are just made that way. This is my point precisely, instead of trying to introduce these so-called features (more like semi-featurettes) as a paid Expansion include them as an update available to all X1 users to level the playing field among the user base to rule out compatibility problems with collaborators wanting to exchange files and such. The modules themselves people would gladly pay for them, like they would any other plugin they wanted. Give the 'dispenser' away to all X1 users and you have a bigger market for your modules, as well as gaining real good-will from those damaged by the many issues that have been addressed since the initial X1 launch. Now that's simple. Having different tiers of X1 Pro users and setting up a scenario where 'this works with that version but that won't work on this unless you have that'...will be where any confusion comes from. Perhaps it is because Cakewalk are like me in not being confident that putting standard but nobbled VST's on a proprietary bus is going to prove to be a long-term winning strategy, so they are looking for a quick return before the marketing smoke clears.

How would any of that make an X1 Studio user compatible? Not to mention the different VSTs people have. Then of coarse the other DAWs CW puts out. How would any of them collaborate? Seems there are ways just the same. Flawed logic.

I specifically mentioned between Pro users as you knew, but in case you didn't I've put it in bold for you.  Nowhere did I mention Studio users.

I understand I can exchange stuff with users of different DAWs in different ways, but trust me it was cool knowing a whole bunch of Sonar 8.5 Pro users I could actually exchange projects with without fear of issues between versions, and the convenience that afforded.  Since X1 half of my collaborators upgraded some didn't which made that exchange much less bullet-proof, a new 'elite' version of X1 pro will likely add to the already existant exchange issues cropping up between us.

Nothing flawed with my logic there as far as I can tell.

You seem to want to take issue with anything I say for some perverse reason only known to yourself as far as I can tell.

No,we have Protools with digi rack 002 and Sonar X1 with Focusrite Saffire Pro 26 i\o.No dedicated dsp both,so the comparison is right. Monitor systems are Adam AX7 and Focal CMS 65. With the improvement of the cpu there is no performance difference between native and DSP systems. The proof is that Avid has a native device in his list . I also think that for their value both Avid's products and upgrades are too expensive. Best Roby http://www.myspace.com/grooveinmind

John T


To some extent, though, surely a mismatch of applications and / or versions tends to be the norm, and periods when everyone you're working with is in complete sync are going to be the exception.

I'd expect to see this improve before my working life is over, but it's not in any way unique to Sonar. It's the general norm for audio work at this point in time.

I agree, but it was pretty cool for awhile back there and Expanded just seems to be adding another sub class of Pro user.

It may not eventually turn into any kind of reality but confusing the product line with an additional tier could cause a minor problem.

Pro Tools LE and Sonar hmmmm ok

John not John T not this time ha-ha!

Jonbouy

John

Complicated? Some things are just made that way. This is my point precisely, instead of trying to introduce these so-called features (more like semi-featurettes) as a paid Expansion include them as an update available to all X1 users to level the playing field among the user base to rule out compatibility problems with collaborators wanting to exchange files and such. The modules themselves people would gladly pay for them, like they would any other plugin they wanted. Give the 'dispenser' away to all X1 users and you have a bigger market for your modules, as well as gaining real good-will from those damaged by the many issues that have been addressed since the initial X1 launch. Now that's simple. Having different tiers of X1 Pro users and setting up a scenario where 'this works with that version but that won't work on this unless you have that'...will be where any confusion comes from. Perhaps it is because Cakewalk are like me in not being confident that putting standard but nobbled VST's on a proprietary bus is going to prove to be a long-term winning strategy, so they are looking for a quick return before the marketing smoke clears.

How would any of that make an X1 Studio user compatible? Not to mention the different VSTs people have. Then of coarse the other DAWs CW puts out. How would any of them collaborate? Seems there are ways just the same. Flawed logic.

I specifically mentioned between Pro users as you knew, but in case you didn't I've put it in bold for you.  Nowhere did I mention Studio users.

I understand I can exchange stuff with users of different DAWs in different ways, but trust me it was cool knowing a whole bunch of Sonar 8.5 Pro users I could actually exchange projects with without fear of issues between versions, and the convenience that afforded.  Since X1 half of my collaborators upgraded some didn't which made that exchange much less bullet-proof, a new 'elite' version of X1 pro will likely add to the already existant exchange issues cropping up between us.

Nothing flawed with my logic there as far as I can tell.

You seem to want to take issue with anything I say for some perverse reason only known to yourself as far as I can tell.

What you fail to see is that there already exists a compatibility issue in the plugins available in each CW offering as well as other features plus a very large third party plugin industry. The ability to customize PC wont add any more to that issue. It just means ways to collaborate will be used such as bouncing and the like which have been going on for a long time now.

How is one going to be sure that my killer VST is also on your version of Sonar? Then because you don't have X1 and no PC how would we ever collaborate? Your argument is illogical.

Q. Anyone want to take bets on how long before a developer writes a wrapper that allows any VST to be inserted as a PC module?

I'm waiting to see a bit more info but isn't this just going to be another FX bin with a fancier interface?

I'm not neccesarily saying that's a bad thing though. I do like the way I can have the PC foremost in the inspector and then call it up or hide it by pressing "I".

it is quicker than opening 3 (ATM) vst's.