artturner

jpetersen
Scook, Beepster - After what Craig and Noel revealed sunk in, I began to understand where the priorities really lie. And must do. I tried replying 3 times and that was all I could say.
 
Puts our diligently assembled lists of bugs and feature requests properly in their place.
 
It's left me shattered.

This. I can't speak for others, but this describes my reaction to the LANDRing.
 
Out of all the bugs and features passionately requested and discussed on the forum, I don't remember any that were looking for an "add track" button or the ability to export to LANDR. We pay for rolling updates and look forward to what will be fixed next, then discover that the bakers have used their time to produce updates that few people seemed to need. They then spend time explaining why this is what we should have wanted all along.
 
Ever since the new rolling update model began, it seems to me that the primary focus is to reduce beginning user support calls first and serve pro users coincidentally.
 
For the record, I won't be leaving Sonar over this. But the "sigh...denied again" feeling is all too familiar.

I'm quite sure that not every feature request can be completed in a month, so there will be months where the deliverables are a little on the light side. I'm sure we'll see some cool stuff soon, it just takes a little longer than we'd like sometimes.
 
Dan
 
 

When my in-laws come to visit, we never discuss religion, politics, or LANDR. 😄 This is our family rule to keep peace...ha ha.

artturner

jpetersen
Scook, Beepster - After what Craig and Noel revealed sunk in, I began to understand where the priorities really lie. And must do. I tried replying 3 times and that was all I could say.
 
Puts our diligently assembled lists of bugs and feature requests properly in their place.
 
It's left me shattered.

This. I can't speak for others, but this describes my reaction to the LANDRing.
 
Out of all the bugs and features passionately requested and discussed on the forum, I don't remember any that were looking for an "add track" button or the ability to export to LANDR. We pay for rolling updates and look forward to what will be fixed next, then discover that the bakers have used their time to produce updates that few people seemed to need. They then spend time explaining why this is what we should have wanted all along.
 
Ever since the new rolling update model began, it seems to me that the primary focus is to reduce beginning user support calls first and serve pro users coincidentally.
 
For the record, I won't be leaving Sonar over this. But the "sigh...denied again" feeling is all too familiar.

 
With all due respect...I think there are some extremely short memories around here...
 
The M release had a bunch of optimizations, and responded directly to user feedback about improved solo logic for patch points and aux tracks, as well as the request to include patch points and aux tracks in track templates. Trust me, Patch Points and Aux Tracks were not introduced to "reduce beginning user support calls," and along with synth recording, this kind of functionality was one of THE most-requested features of the past few years.
 
The L release included optimizations that related to projects with large numbers of clips (as required by pro users), loading times, file imports, and more. Fixes related to Staff View, the PRV, clip splitting, the Start Screen, Matrix View, Event List data, drag drop and drag copy, control surface persistence, and others.
 
The K release was also super-heavy on optimizations, with a focus on speed increases and VST3 enhancements. If pros don't want faster and more stable operation, especially with large projects, I would be shocked. There were also 31 bug fixes (and of course, the wonderful Monitorizer FX chain ). And the Start Screen had the list view people had wanted.
 
The J release brought Patch Points and Aux Tracks but also lots of optimizations regarding load times, virtual instrument streaming, VST scanning, and CPU power savings...more pro-oriented features...and again, 31 bug fixes including the end of the long-standing denormalization problem that produced pops with some plug-ins. There was also upsample on playback...an extension to upsampling, another pro-oriented feature because it makes SONAR sound better. To me, sound quality is sorta important.
 
All the people who don't think this was all that big deal of a release should have a discussion with all the people who've said they don't care if Cakewalk misses a monthly release if it's too difficult to come up with big features and improvements every month (like the ones listed above). 
 
And think logically for a second. What's more important, general optimizations of the core program, or attending to subsets of the core program which might be made obsolete by core optimizations?
 
Some of the bug fixes people want are issues with awkward functionality, not stability. But I think those who realize you can't have everything fixed all at once would place a higher priority on stability. Sure, it's not as glamorous to fix things that people forget were fixed because they're not causing problems any more. But they're important fixes. Plenty of people posted threads about "Hey, my ProChannel effects make loud pops at unpredictable times, when are you going to fix this?" No one ever posts a thread that says ""Hey, I just noticed none of the ProChannel effects pop any more at unpredictable times." They'll move on to the next thing they want fixed, and forget about what was fixed.
 
Fortunately, some people look over the continuum of the past year and realize that taken as a whole, Cakewalk's priority has been on providing a balance of features, enhancements, fixes, and optimizations for all types of users, from first-timers to veterans. The result has been increased stability, speed, and functionality. 
 
I'm surprised more people don't take a longer view. IMHO that's the best argument for having yearly updates - people won't have to remember all the cool stuff that happened just a few weeks or months ago, everything will hit at the same time, so they can't avoid seeing the balance.
 
 

...anyway, that's it from me on this subject. I've taken a deep breath, pulled myself together and I'm not going to stoke the fires any further.
 

Again, surprise because without the assistance I get from the fantastic folk here, I'm not sure I'd get much done. But clearly that has to be the case otherwise this forum would be completely clogged.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Also forums are frequented mainly by certain persona's of users.

 
You can say that again :)
 
Craig, Noel, I just want to say thanks that you take the time to reply. Heaven knows, you must have more immediate things on your minds.

My 2 cents.
 
Landr is gloatware and thankfully Bapu has posted how to not have said gloat on your system. I see it as a form of Google toolbar or Yahoo toolbar. It may have some use to noobs but is it actually really a legitimate part of a professional audio production system? My answer is a firm no.
 
Anything that is third party within the Sonar system and demands an extra account and money to be parted with needs to be pretty darned good. Melodyne is a perfect happy partner. Landr is not even a third cousin in that respect.
 
I have experimented with Landr before when it first came out as its an interesting concept. I signed up for my account, used it and didn't like it. Thats my call.
 
To have it shipped as a big "update" cheapens the Sonar range in my opinion and this whole update is clearly scoped at attracting noobs. One button does all....(style dials ffs)
 
Where are the updates for addressing legacy issues, deal breakers? AAF support, Notation, better video integration, windows sample rate issues, more advanced options, control of drivers (Sonardpr.exe bombing out)....I could go on.
 
Its a focus thing, the focus seems to be on "shiny new toys" and not fixing the current estate. I see it in work all the time. "Lets move on to the new gimmick rather than solidifying the current estate".
 
I miss the Roland days, when I see Ryan showcasing the new Roland range of synths I sigh wishing that we had some of that technology in Sonar rather than "Style dials" and Andertons latest Gibson guitar splurges (no offence mate)...

Its a confusing time for me with Cakewalk. Will I walk? Definitely not as this software is so ingrained into my working day but Do I think there is a lack of vision? Absolutely yes.

SvenArne

markyzno
 
I have experimented with Landr before when it first came out as its an interesting concept. I signed up for my account, used it and didn't like it. Thats my call.
 

 
 
Picking a preset in Ozone does not work for me in this regard, they all sound completely wrong and exaggerated to me, while the Landr file sounded just fine!
 
Sven

 
Ozone isn't for presets, its for investigation and analysis and MASTERING. It is a truly awesome bit of kit. 
 
This is what music tech has become. A preset for this a style dial for that and no actual sound design let alone an understanding of the processes going on. Probably explains why a lot of music is so bland to the ear.
 
I urge everyone to look at Steve Albinis techniques.

jpetersen

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Also forums are frequented mainly by certain persona's of users.

 
You can say that again :)
 

I..... It's just......... No,  I can't even. :) 

PLEASE CHECK THIS:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3377300

In case people have not been paying attention the difference in this case (vs. a simple plugin/chain preset) seems to be the analysis being done by the service which then either chooses the most appropriate preset based on the analysis and/or crafts a sonic plan based on the analysis. The analysis is based on some kind of algorithm that sifts through similar mixes that have deemed to have been mastered "well" (by whom I don't know) and I'm seeing it mentioned that this algorithm "learns" as it goes based on masters that have been accepted or rejected by tunes previously run through the system (that part sounds weird because if a bunch of people wanted to they could feed it false data... like a good master they'd say was bad and a bad master they would say is good thus skewing the results like people messing with political pollsters and the like... or people who simply have bad ears/no taste could skew it... one would hope that's been taken into account).
 
That's the difference (supposedly) between a simple preset. The analysis/algorithm making the decisions on WHAT preset or minor adjustments to said presets will be applied acts as the "mastering engineer".
 
From my (admittedly limited... no pun intended) understanding of Mastering the tools used to acheive a good result don't need to be entirely complex at all. Just EQ, compression, maximization/saturation and limiting. It's how it is applied that matters which is where the algorithm comes in.
 
I may be entirely mistaken on some or all of that because I'm just basing that on what I've read so far but that is very different than you or I (and we all have different ears/tastes/skill levels) just slapping a preset on something and calling it a day. I do not think it is that simple.
 
Now if they remove the stupid app from the main installer then none of this matters because people can truly ignore it entire if they don't want to use it.
 
The ONLY thing "forced" about this (and it is indeed "forced" or at least quite inconvenient to avoid) is that app.
 
Everything else is entirely moot.
 
Again... not an endorsement for or argument against LANDR as a product or it's affiliation with Sonar. Just get it out of the main installer (which I'm almost positive will happen after all this hubbub).

I understand the frustations regarding the installation process, but I wish there were two Landr threads; one for the Landr sonic/practical virtues or lack thereof, and one for the sneaky installation woes...

What are people using for posting music/samples on the internet these days? Anything free/cheap with good bitrate (rules out Soundcloud and the good ole Soundclick)? I might want to start a Landr thread using one of my own songs and comparing my mastering chops with Landr!

Beepster ..... Now if they remove the stupid app from the main installer then none of this matters because people can truly ignore it entire if they don't want to use it.
 
The ONLY thing "forced" about this (and it is indeed "forced" or at least quite inconvenient to avoid) is that app.
 
Everything else is entirely moot.
 
Again... not an endorsement for or argument against LANDR as a product or it's affiliation with Sonar. Just get it out of the main installer (which I'm almost positive will happen after all this hubbub).

A great post Beepster, I completely agree .. especially with your final paragraph. Those who want it would be good to go and those who don't .. er .. don't so everyone wins.
 
In my case I always download and install manually and always select custom install. After reading the ezine I thought the 'app' was hard-wired into the install so was pleased to find the option not to install there.
 
Not so good for those who were caught out and on uninstalling find it is not a 'clean' uninstall and they are left with registry entries and log files and whatever however small the number may be.
 
To offer constructive comments:
First, a huge thank you to Cakewalk for making this an optional install even though it is part of the main installer. I hope you will continue to do this with any other third party apps.
Secondly, Beepster's suggestion of taking this out of the main installer totally would be good. this way people would have a real choice of downloading and installing.
Thirdly, to the app developer, could you not provide a full, clean uninstaller?
Last, and to those who did uninstall, take a look at 'Search Everything' (https://www.voidtools.com). This tool will find remnants and offer the chance to clean up. Some registry entries may need 'taking ownership'. An internet search will show how.
 
Thanks again Cakewalk for a superb DAW and, again, for giving the no install option with the the app.

Grem

Beepster
 
that this algorithm "learns" as it goes based on masters that have been accepted or rejected by tunes previously run through the system (that part sounds weird because if a bunch of people wanted to they could feed it false data... like a good master they'd say was bad and a bad master they would say is good thus skewing the results like people messing with political pollsters and the like... or people who simply have bad ears/no taste could skew it... one would hope that's been taken into account).

 
I don't think the results can be purposely skewed. Sounds like you haven't tried it out yet. You either take it's three different results or you don't.
 
Now when I first tried it I just fed it a mix I had been working on that I also was trying to master. In a hurry, I just opened the project, bounced everything down to a trk and exported that to LandR. I listened to the finished preview and didn't like what I heard. Same day or the next day, I get an email from LandR support suggesting I lower my volumes so that LandR could do a better job on my music. I just blew it off as an attempt of theirs to get me to buy something.
 
But the more I thought about it I had to take a look at the project. Sure enough I had all three of Nomads Analog Mastering Tools on the master bus. I took them off, mixe3d down again, and tried LandR a second time. Results were much better.
 
So I think there is something going on here besides a generic preset slapped on a limiter/eq.

Hiya, Grem. Interesting.
 
I guess to investigate what you said a little more... did you actually click something on their site (or whatever) saying you didn't like the results it produced (like a "Try again" or a "I Ain't Paying for That" option? Just because getting that email sounds like maybe you rejected something and they contacted you with suggestions on how to get better results (and did it sound like an auto response or a human response?).
 
If that's not the case and you got the email unprompted... that's another dynamic to the service to be considered (for the better or worse... currently benign in my eyes).
 
And yes. I have not used it yet. I am curious about the technology (because I'm a curious fellow) and do not reject the service as others have (because as everyone knows I can use all the help I can get and am generally an open minded individual).
 
I guess I am however having my own little one man boycott of it until Cake removes it from the installer and let's me use it how I normally would (via manual install like I do with other online services).
 
I've been paying attention to many of the posts about this (well... the ones from the people I know and trust) and it's been interesting. Might help me, might not (just like many of the tools Cake have introduced over the years).
 
I'm really just trying to make sure the choice remains with us (the users) about what gets downloaded and installed. I've actually been squealing about more (not less) finite control and descriptive info when it comes to the downloads for a while now and that has been being somewhat accomodated. To me this was a shocking and unexpected step backwards in that regard so I'm being a particularly thorny nuisance about that point. I feel it's important.
 
I think it's being paid attention to though and won't elaborate further so once there is confirmation the app is being removed from the main Sonar download I may explore this doohickey further.
 
Cheers. Hope you've been well, dood.