Sonar's core?

I started writing this as a reply to another thread, but thought maybe it suited it's own.
 
I think all aspects of the Sonar make Sonar what it is. Not just the midi and audio engine. All the editing views, all the plug ins.  Many people don't use step sequencers, does that mean it shouldn't be enhanced and evolve a little. The same for Matrix View not really used, but it's part of the whole bundle, and this stands for the staff view, lyrics view. I don't think there have been suggestions for the Event Editor improvements, but if there were and it was obvious that it would improve it too, then go for it.
 
The idea of a 'core' seems very subjective, and probably changes depending on the time spent with Twelve Tone Systems....er Cakewalk. What is the core?
 
Midi record and editing
Audio record and editing
Audio mixing.
 
If that's it, then anytime someone suggest improving a ProChannel, such as adding MS and gain control to the Quad EQ. Well is that core as part of the mixing option? You can buy third party of you want better. It's not really 'core' It's an add on.
 
At some point, actually probably now, the Piano Roll View is pretty much complete, The option for recording audio seem there too. The console view, what's to add, more routing. We can't say better metering. You can buy that, it's an add on, it's not core.
 
Calling for just 'core' improvements, tweaks, bug fixes and performance enhancements, and to not enhance anything disappoints me. That's not what I'm hoping lifetime membership get me. As soon as you call for just these 'core' progressions, and any other area, yet object to somebody else wanting other enhancements outside your 'just core + plus your thing' then that's either selfish, or you have a different opinion on what you call 'core'.
 
Among the reasons I stuck with Sonar is because it's a rounded package and we saw new innovations before other DAWs, the  options to compose with a broad range of tools for both midi and Audio. To be continue to be innovative I think more than just tracking and mixing need to evolve and be enhanced. It reminds me of the quote;
 
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
etc...
 
If we start cherry picking what we want improved, whilst arguing against enhancements for aspects that don't fit our musical agenda, what do we want Sonar to become. I really don't want it to be a tracking and a mixing machine, that would take the heart and soul out of it. I don't want to be thinking about third part options for things that Sonar has, but but are lacking in other option. I want people to come and use Sonar because it's at least on par with that third part option, but Sonar is more rounded and has more to offer in other options too. I think this will help sonar draw in more users, and in turn help the program grow.
 
Now I expect we will see a drop in developing the existing product as the Mac version gets off its feet. But to draw in new Mac users, then being seen as a complete and rounded Sequencer and DAW is only going to help grow into that market too. So when I see Feature Requests argues against, because it not core, or even to just focus on their interpretation of core for this moment in time, it seems both myopic and  short sighted. 
 
For me, everything that is made by Cakewalk that comes with your sonar version is core. It all needs some loving and attention along the way, especially as part of this membership model. 

How do we determine a reasonable time frame? Do we start from scratch with post X series. As this is the one Sonar to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. If we do that, then what we are 2 and half years in. How many years into this version should things go undeveloped, when they are part of sonar and advertised as key aspects for the program. Many things don't need full overhauls, just tweaks and attention along the way.

But that's more the point I'm making. Everyone's assessment of core seems to be based of there subjective criteria, But no one really wants just core, they want 'core+plus there thing'. It then becomes hypercritical to argue against someone else's reuest on the grounds it's not in their personal definition of core.
 
Since it's release, we've had 2 non core functions added, that many people don't use, (in the same way as Matric, step and staff) in drum replacer and and vocal sync, as well as the external addition of Theme Editor. I'm not objected to those being included, but I would certainly hope when additions are made they are left for half a decade or more when obvious enhancements and tweaks could be made.
 
We don't have a Sonar road map or or manifesto, we have on an act of faith become lifetime members. We have blindly signed up, it seems to help get the Mac version off the ground, but we can have no expectations or clarity on what we are getting.
 
I don't know how coding works, but I'm hoping a spin off of the mac version as the migrate the code, is that lots of area are being reviewed, and will see development as a by product of the mac work.
 
 

Kamikaze
Since it's release, we've had 2 non core functions added, that many people don't use, (in the same way as Matric, step and staff) in drum replacer and and vocal sync, as well as the external addition of Theme Editor. I'm not objected to those being included, but I would certainly hope when additions are made they are left for half a decade or more when obvious enhancements and tweaks could be made.

I forgot to add that plug-ins/core developments are probably done by different people (as you can see from WHO is replaying in this forum and names in About for some peaces).

My take on lifetime updates/core features is that I wouldn't care if every new function introduced from here on in was an optional purchased extra (though given what has happened thus far this seems unlikely!). There is enormous value in knowing that Sonar as it stands (and the projects that I create using it) are 'future proofed' in the sense that bugs will continue to be addressed and the core program updated to work with whatever version of windows becomes current for as long as it survives - without any further cost. Anything beyond is a bonus.

Kamikaze
What's your take on the core, Tenfoot. How do you interpret it.

I guess the core is the essental DAW features and functions of Sonar as it stands now Kamikaze, excluding third party addons like Melodyne, vst plugins and fx. If Drum Replacer were to be released now, as an example, I would definitely expect that to be offered as an optional extra. On the other hand, if a function that exists as part of the program now, such as the playlist or staff view were to be removed, I would consider that to be Cakewalk letting down their side of the bargain. 
 
 

Cakewalk has been doing what I want it to. I do have some personal peeves and things I would like to see enhanced, or simply fixed. but for now, im glad to be doing what im doing. I never take for granted the technology I have at my fingertips. (not for one second).
 
I would have given my left nad for a software like this 10 years ago.
I try not to ever forget the feeling I had of cutting tape all night for one kick drum track in one song.
Sorry if I didn't describe "Core features" .
Interesting topic though.

telecharge

Anderton
plug-in handling, browser enhancements

Any insight you can give on these? Are these tweaks/bug fixes? I ask because they show as added/available on the Rolling Updates page and there's nothing in the October update description except a language fix.

Weren't the browser enhancements released in 2016-08?

telecharge

tenfoot
 
Weren't the browser enhancements released in 2016-08?

Yes, they were. I was asking in the context of "being worked on now."

Ahhh - got it:)

so... what's "core"? what are we actually paying for in the lifetime updates deal? or is it just a crap shoot?

In fairness to Cakewalk, even if they defined Sonar's "core," people would interpret it differently and argue that it doesn't match their use case.
 
When I think of a DAW stripped down to its "core," I imagine something like Tracktion. I'm not saying that is, or should be, Cakewalk's definition, but that's how I think about it.

hello marketing? come in, marketing... ffft bzzz

I completely agree with Bob. I would like things to stay as the are now. I even like the early access program. I can't imagine things getting much better. 

No complaints here as I like where Sonar is going.
 
While I can understand the most used features get baking time, if I were to raise a warning it would be that the little used modules should get a little love too. Not to beat a dead horse but to use it as an example, since the staff view is used by only a few ppl, from a business sense, it understandably gets little attention. If falls farther behind -> more people find it lacking and unacceptable and go elsewhere -> fewer ppl using it -> it gets less attention -> It falls further behind -> ... you get the idea. A vicious cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Just my $.01858947