Beepster


Hiya, Danny. Good to see you posting a little more again. Thought we lost you.

Quick question which is somewhat related to this thread. I know you keep a few different DAWs around the studio for obvious reasons. I was wondering if you've played around with the new Cubase and if so what's your opinion of it?

The reason I ask is I may have a little more monetary leverage again soon and I was thinking of tucking away a little bit of cash here and there to add it to my arsenal. Now before I get dogpiled or whatever this is not to say I'd be giving up on Sonar because I most certainly would NOT do that. It has a ton of stuff I really like but I used to use Steinberg and for tracking and editing I found it a little more suited to my preferences. I'd use them in conjunction and/or use the right DAW for the right job. The current price for Cubase is actually quite nice at $500. The reason I avoided it when looking at options for my current set up last year was that it seemed to lack tools and instruments I wanted and I didn't want to have to spend an extra $1000 to get it doing what I needed as a one man band. I figure now that I have Sonar with all it's synths/effects and all the third party goodies I've acquired (like BFD, TH2, GR5, etc...) that now it might be a worthwhile investment at some point. 

That said... my primary concern is whether it's gonna be even MORE of a bugfest/broken features extravaganza than Sonar. The notation stuff in Cubase would really help with my teaching/writing (which as you know is important to me) as well as the tracking/editing workflow which I'm assuming will be as pleasurable (if not more so) as my previous Steinberg set up. Another bonus is when and if I ever get work involving other studios or deal with paying clients I can say I use Cubase and hopefully avoid some of the prejudices some might have against Sonar even if I do most of the work within Sonar.

Anyway, hope that makes sense and that you've been well and happy. Cheers, dude.

Hi Beeps,
 
Nah, unfortunately I'm still here at least for a little while longer until I blow a blood vessel and feel like booking a flight to remove someone's lungs. So you're stuck with me for a little bit longer. :-Þ I just can't stand the pistolpetes and other people that ruin these forums that should be banned or moderated.
 
Anyway, I've never gotten along with Cubase. From the earliest version to the most recent, it's just not something I dig working in. I used to like the midi editing in Cubey but there are just other issues with it that stop me from enjoying working in it. The new one looks so bad...I can't use it because of that. I can't help it, I'm an image prostitute. Sort of the way I like my women. I really don't care about body types....but I gotta have a pretty face that I'll be kissing. LOL! :)
 
Steinberg really put a bad taste in my mouth due to the versions of Wave Lab that I purchased that were never fixed and never worked correctly. Then all of a sudden...for the upgrade price of $200, buy this new version that will fix all your problems. Once I get upset with a company (and their support is horrible, user base on the forums acts elite and pompous) I write them off no matter what they come up with.
 
Sort of like Waves....they owe me about 3k according to my records, so I will never support them again. If I decide to use cracks of anyone's crap because they actually work, so be it. Though I don't condone that, I really think an eye for an eye is needed in this world and I've spent near the 100k mark in software over the years....and let me tell you, quite of a bit of it is pure horsesh!t. It's one of the only things we buy today that doesn't have a money back policy which should be changed. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work for a person...end of story, here's your disc back, give me my money back. If I downloaded it and I'm crying because it doesn't work, I'll show you proof it doesn't work THEN you can give me my money back.
 
Sorry for the rant....some things just totally annoy me in this world...software and their rules/policies are definitely on my crap list. I just quit a beta team tonight due to the company not listening to what I had to offer as well as the work I put in. If they don't care enough, I'm not putting my name on the thing. Don't ask me to be a part of your team if you're not going to listen to what I have to say, ya know? Another company that simply doesn't have a clue. I hate to say this...but I hope the masses bail on them.
 
Back to your question...you're going to get bugs in anything you try at some degree. The other thing is learning something new all over again. I hate that and it annoys me to no end. One of the things I hated the most about Sonar X1 was everything was moved to where I found myself looking for things more than working. All the things I had right in my face at all times due to allowing me custom menu/control bar options etc....were removed. After the hide and seek game was over, things were a bit easier but you have to ask yourself if the problems you may be having with your current DAW are worth jumping into a new one with possible new issues and a totally new learning curve.
 
I've been stuck in that rut due to being totally loyal to Sonar. However, as I've mentioned before, I have a few clients that are also students of mine. So when they come to record, they make me use the DAW software of their choice so they can take the work files home and play around. This has sort of forced me to learn Studio One 2 and Reaper a bit more in depth. We also use PT 10, Logic and Nuendo (which I like better than Cubase) but I have engineers that are skilled in those programs so I barely mess with them. But it's nice to have an extra program around. It also allows you to "see the other side" a bit and who knows...you just may like something better and may stick with it.
 
So far of all the DAW programs I've tried, my heart still belongs to Sonar but I believe that to be a comfort thing as well as a "time invested" thing for me. Having used a few others, though they have some really cool things within them, I find myself wanting the stuff that's in Sonar. For example, I can't recall any crashes for me in Studio One or Reaper....I'm serious...not a single crash in how I use those programs and the gapless audio makes it worth it right there. But...Studio One looks like crap and has a few weird things that I wish it didn't have. The same with Reaper...but now it looks totally cool because I spent some time tweaking every area to make it the way I want it. But there too...some weirdness in how you have to do things where to me, those things are much more intuitive in Sonar and I don't have to think about where they are.
 
It's kinda like executing that sick guitar lick we may come up with. You can't play it right if you're thinking about it too much. You have to know it so well you just do it, ya know? I like working to the point of just being on auto-pilot. I can have an in depth conversation with you in person while editing in Sonar without missing anything. I have to think when using the others and I'm still finding my way around. 
 
If I were you....I don't think I'd spend $500 for a program. I'd grab Reaper for $60 and mess with that and tweak up the coolest DAW theme you can build. It's a really powerful program that is very under-rated in my opinion and the perfect extra DAW program to have in your back pocket for a very low price.
 
For you being a guitarist and teacher, I'd recommend Power Tab which is free or check out Guitar Pro 5 or whatever they are up to now. I have no problems creating tabs within Sonar while using them and scoring music. Write up a tab in power tab or GP 5, export the midi it creates, import it into Sonar and I can print out the sheet music. I don't think you need Cubase or anything extensive to be honest. But if you have a spare $500 around and feel the need and want Cubase, there's nothing wrong with that. Hope some of this helps. :)
 
-Danny

I think that because of the competitive aspect of commercial software, we're never going to experience a fully stable, bug-free product that's totally up to date. That pretty much goes for all commercial software of every kind. What you want is for the product that you own to be perfected. But what you get is a product that is being continually updated to stay fresh in the market, with the result that the none of these features will ever be developed to the point where they're totally stable. At some point, the company is going to cease development on them and concentrate on the shiny new stuff. 

I don't think that free competition is entirely to blame (and God knows, it's brought us so many other benefits). Part of the reason is that the science of software engineering itself needs to advance, in terms of developing stable bug-free code. What about the quality of coders these days? Are they as good as they used to be? I remember back when I was a kid when Commodore 64's were all the rage. Forget C++, coders were writing huge games in assembly language that fitted into 64K of memory, and bugs were far less commonplace. Of course systems are far more complex now, but those hardcore old school coders knew the hardware they were writing on inside and out, and not a single clock cycle got wasted. Those kinds of coders still exist - look at the 64K demo scene to see just how much a top-notch coder can squeeze into such a small chunk of memory - but on the whole, I hear those kinds of coders (or "hackers" as they're now called ) lament the poor standard of coding among graduates these days. They're sloppy and wasteful. 


Sometimes I'm amazed at how sluggish some of the everyday programs I use are, in terms of user interfaces etc. I have to remind myself of just how much faster today's processors are than the Amiga I used to own, which often had a far smoother user interface. And back then, you bought a program and there were no "updates" or "patches." You went into a store and purchased the disks. Which meant that the standard upon shipping had to be so much better. You didn't release anything until it was rock solid. Now, the philosophy is "well let's just throw it out there and see how it lands - we'll take all the bug reports and release a series of patches to keep the punters happy until the next major version that we can charge for is released." Basically we're a bunch of mugs who PAY companies to beta test their crappy software. It's not just Sonar. Danny is completely right, it's simply amazing that we cannot get refunds for software that doesn't work as advertised. 


I really don't know how it's going to change? I read part of the thread on shared C++ libraries, don't understand it fully but I understand the concept behind the danger of relying on these shared libraries that get updated and broken and thus screw everything that depends on them. So what is the solution? Maybe take a 10% performance hit and write everything in Ada, like air traffic control software? Imagine a DAW that was as stable and bug free as that!

sharke


So what is the solution? Maybe take a 10% performance hit and write everything in Ada, like air traffic control software? Imagine a DAW that was as stable and bug free as that!

That's hilarious!!!  Sorry to take it out of context, but the I believe the Staff View code is just like air traffic control software - the code is totally unmaintainable.  If they did anything to it, imagine the consequences.

The post just above by JSG is really depressing, that SONAR does not even mention staff view in the X2 features overview. This does seem like a backtracking from their last forum comments about staff view, namely that they were aware of its deficiencies and it was a matter of setting priorities to fix it. No longer acknowledging staff view would seem to support the many detractors who feel it will never be fixed. Up to this point, I have given Cakewalk the benefit of the doubt.

pbognar

jsg

With Sonar, go to the following page and you'll notice they don't even mention the staff view as an editing tool (not only is it an editing tool, it's actually the only way to edit complex, contrapuntal, orchestrated music that isn't based on loops or endless repetition of the same ideas).  It almost seems like Cakewalk has become embarrassed about it and doesn't even bother to mention it anymore.

http://www.cakewalk.com/products/sonar/features.aspx?v=edit


JG
www.jerrygerber.com

Did you hear my smile of agreement regarding Cakewalk's apparent embarrassment of the Staff View and how you never hear them talk about it or promote it?  Sad but true.  You don't suppose they've been asked to refrain from commenting on it?


A MIDI notation editor (not a publishing tool) in a DAW is a deal breaker for me.  When I came back into DAW's after Logic PC was abandoned, and I found Music Creator 3 for like $30, I thought, "hey, I could live with this".  Had I known then that SV would never be improved or would actually become buggy and less functional, I think I would have sought out something else.

When you have a nail in your toe, you tend to fixate on it, and not pay attention to other parts of your body - that is to say, Sonar has a lot of other nice features, but you can't ignore the Staff View deficiencies.

That said, I must not be a "pure" DAW user, because I like to be inspired with sounds, effects, Acid loops, interactive composing (Matrix View), step sequencing, chord following, etc.

That's why a basic audio tracker or notation-only program would never suit me.

Sonar X2 pretty much has the mix of features I like.  It almost looks like Logic.  If only SV would get some attention...

Just another Staff View whiner, now back to your regular programming.

I have no issue whatsover with people that don't use the staff view, so why do they have an issue with those who do? Cakewalk should remember that we're paying good money for this software, let's see, over 22 years of paying Cakewalk (since Cakewalk for DOS) that's probably at least $2500, probably more. 
 
Competition in business is a good thing when it spurs innovation and creative ingenuity.  But when competition becomes unhealthy, everyone is rushed, very rushed, so no one really has the time to make things on a high level of non-fragility and robustness.   When human beings look back at the industrialized world in the 21st century, I imagine the first thing they'll wonder about is why the f**k was everyone is such a G**Damn** hurry?   Didn't they understand the laws of nature?
 
Everything we do, no matter how deep our talent and skill-set, can be done better when people have the optimal amount of time to get it done right.  A flower takes a specific amount of time to grow, a baby takes nine months to be born, these things cannot be rushed.  We should emulate nature a bit more and follow the same advice with the things we create with our minds.  Everyone will be happier, both seller and buyer.  I'd rather see Cakewalk put out a new version every 2 or 3 years and do it well and right.  There are software companies that don't try and release a new version every year and the end-user is probably better off because of it.   A happier buyer is a loyal and confident buyer and loyal and confident buyers continue to support the makers of those products.  This cannot but help the profits of the company.   I don't know if this is true once a company has so many customers that the individual voice/complaint no longer matters, transnational corporatism might appear to be the path toward endless growth, but the only thing that I know of that seeks endless growth is a cancer cell, which will enventually devour the very thing that sustains it.  So not only should the individual customer's voice matter, it should be understood that short-term gains can easily turn into long-term instability, failure and error.   A craftsperson cares about detail, an artistic person is fanatical about it.
 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 
 
 

jsg

Competition in business is a good thing when it spurs innovation and creative ingenuity.  But when competition becomes unhealthy, everyone is rushed, very rushed, so no one really has the time to make things on a high level of non-fragility and robustness.   When human beings look back at the industrialized world in the 21st century, I imagine the first thing they'll wonder about is why the f**k was everyone is such a G**Damn** hurry?   Didn't they understand the laws of nature? 

There's another side to that. If every DAW manufacturer is involved in some stupid "feature war" and releasing rushed, buggy DAW's as a result, it just means there's a potential opening in the market for a thoroughly solid, stable DAW that isn't rushed and which doesn't worry about adding groundbreaking New Featurez every year. The trouble is, such a market depends on there being enough people who actually want such a product. So we're all at fault for being sucked into the Shiny New Things trap and waving our money at manufacturers who churn out such crap. Maybe if we all threw our money at Reaper instead, things would be different. But no....we want a ProChannel and console emulation and a Matrix and other such things that at the end of the day don't really add much to our musical output.  


Maybe the future of DAW's is in a totally new product that isn't clumsily built upon 25 years of code. Or maybe someone will develop an operating system that is 100% tailored to audio production, and we'll all be dual booting in 10 years time. 


The thing about technological progress is that it's a movie, not a snapshot. At any one time, you are not guaranteed to be experiencing the "pinnacle" of anything. It's always on the move. It doesn't matter if it's driven by a profit motive or a bunch of crazy hippies who want to push the envelope for the sake of it - the "new stuff" is never going to be 100% solid.  

Paul P


JG : "Everything we do, no matter how deep our talent and skill-set, can be done better when people have the optimal amount of time to get it done right. A flower takes a specific amount of time to grow, a baby takes nine months to be born, these things cannot be rushed. We should emulate nature a bit more and follow the same advice with the things we create with our minds. Everyone will be happier, both seller and buyer. I'd rather see Cakewalk put out a new version every 2 or 3 years and do it well and right. There are software companies that don't try and release a new version every year and the end-user is probably better off because of it. "

The usual problem, and I don't know if it's Cakewalk's case but it probably is, is that those financing most companies today care more about the profit they'll make than how it will be generated. I long for the days whan an Amercian company was proud that their refrigerator lasted longer than anybody elses. Today's MBAs must think they were insane. What kind of business plan was that ! A customer buys one product and you never hear from him again.

I believe it's possible to build software like that if you structure it properly and spend more time designing it on paper than coding it. I wonder if the younger generation would care for a product that lasted forever. Might be kind of boring.

PS. as for the staff view, I don't see how they can promote something that doesn't work.

Listen, the staff view works, at least in version 7.  It works so well I've produced 7, soon to be 8 symphonies and 12 albums with it.   As a midi input tool and midi editor, it works, that is if you read music, know how to orchestrate, know counterpoint, know harmony, know how to create artistic and expressive form, etc.  I've gotten used to its imperfections, the tied/dotted triplet issue, being the most annoying.  But they actually have the basis for a great notation editor if the programmers were actually allowed to improve it. 
 
I think part of the problem, not all, but a part, is that many people think that "notation editor" means you press a button and a polished, publishable, professional-level score magically appears.   I got news for everyone, even with Sibelius, if you don't know notation well, you might get good-looking scores, but they will not necessarily be detailed, accurate or rich in musical thought and idea.  Sonar's staff view was not ever meant to evolve to the level of a full-fledged score program such as Sibelius.  Why should it?  A DAW does a lot of things:  record, edit and playback midi and audio, control soft synths and work in conjuction with signal processing plugins, synchronize with SMPTE, MIDI Time Code, Machine Control, video, etc., a very complex tool.  Maybe if Cakewalk could be proud of their notation editor, they'd see that it can and should be improved.  I think we (us staff view users) have probably scared them away, metaphorically speaking of course, and they're losing interest in it.  Or maybe Roland told them not to put anymore effort into it.   
 
I don't really care any more.  I will use Sonar 7 till I can't use it anymore due to blindness, death, deafness, OS incompatibility, brain desease or whatever.   I can stop giving Cakewalk money anytime I think I am not getting something more valuable than what I use now, and so can everyone else with most non-essential products for survival. 
 
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com

pbognar


@jsg - I never had Sonar 7 PE, I went from MC3 to HS6XL to 8PE to 8.5(.3) PE to X1d.

Is there anything in Sonar 8.5 PE's Staff View which doesn't work as well as that in 7 PE? 

I don't know, never installed or even have seen 8.5.  Seven became very stable in 7.0.2 and haven't been able to justify upgrading.  I have heard from CW that 8.5 was the first version in which the staff view track pane lost its connection to the active track.  I look at the triplets now as a minor display issue, it doesn't affect midi performance, which is the essential thing.  Yeah, it can be improved, but so can music, and that's more important to focus on.  Learning a new DAW?  Big time commitment.  Big loss of composition time.  Big sense of thrill and triumph if you get it all working consistently. But, understanding the real risks and options of upgrading is essential otherwise the temptation is to focus too much, or too little, on the instruments themselves and not the music to be made with same.
 
 
 

pbognar

guitardood

DCMonkey


Something I'm curious about is what happens when VST plugins and the Host app (ie: Sonar) are compiled against different runtime versions.

Exactly!  I'm sure that a lot of system flakiness could be traced back this, hence my argument for sandboxing apps.  At the very least, it would protect the O/S from getting hosed.




Best,
guitardood

Sorry for the late post, but I just started following this MS VC++ discussion...
 
Why is it then that there are some users who had X1d installed on their computer, installed X2, which seemed to be working ok, then patch up to X2a, and run into issues, so the go back to working in X1d because it is more stable / bug free.
 
If the MS VC++ libraries are the cause of the issues and affect Windows globally, why would X1d continue to function as it did initially?
 
Also Cakewalk themselves have said time and time again that there is no reason to uninstall a previous version prior to installing a new one.  You would think that they would be aware of the potential issues which could arise from if new libraries are deployed as part of each install.

I was not necessarily saying that the VC libraries were "the cause", just that they could be a potential cause.


As for Cakewalk knowing or not knowing of these types of problems, I have no idea.  I don't know any of them personally nor do I have even the slightest knowledge as to their qualifications.  I do know that writing an app of the caliber and complexity of a DAW like Sonar requires more than just Visual Studio experience.


It has been my experience, though, that a vast majority of programmers who utilize Visual Studio and MS' foundation classes couldn't program their way out of a paper bag without those tools and in many cases know next to nothing about the underlying architecture of the OS.  Not to insult anybody, as I don't know "every" programmer, but this has just been my experience.


If you want to read a bit about the problems of MS foundation, MS libraries and the type of code that can be created with a command line compiler and text editor, visit http://www.grc.com/news.htm.  Steve Gibson has been a long time critic of the unnecessary bloat and trouble most of Windows has brought to our lives as well as the dumbing down of the programmer community and also wrote some pretty nifty proof-of-concept apps just to show what could be done in the Windows environment with a few lines of assembly code.


Best,
guitardood

jamesyoyo


If anyone is interested in the final product of the song that caused all this heartburn, here it is:
Our Black Regalia

Nice track James.  Glad you were able to keep working despite the problems.  And again, sorry for turning your thread into a quilted mess.


Best,
guitardood

Hey Beep,I couldn't work out Reaper 4[at ALL!],when it was first released,your certainly not alone on that  one man!
Bob


Edit
I too asked Danny D. about Cubase a little while ago,man he gives the best answers!

I do eventually plan to learn Reaper,just because only knowing one Daw,could be limiting oneself.but whoa I did not have a single clue.....third try luckier I hope, Cheers

Beepster

Hope some of this helps. :)

Right on, Danny. Perhaps I should start thinking Reaper for now if it's as stable as you say it is and save myself some cash. I like the idea of Reaper but I guess I have somehow adopted the silly attitude of "you get what you pay for" even though I of all people, being the stingy bleepstard I am, should know better. I had the demo installed breifly before I picked up Sonar but I couldn't for the life of me figure it out... however that before I had even built my system and hadn't started learning all about the way modern DAWs do stuff. I'm sure it would be much easier now that I've cut my teeth a bit with Sonar.

Hi Beepster,

The Big R is rock solid. I've already recorded 4 songs in it. Not a single hiccup, glitch, crash, snaggle ... nothing. I had a VST crash once, it reset it, without even closing the program, restarted it, and I kept on working, in a matter of seconds. I'm even using some of the VST's that come with Sonar, and I don't know if it's the 'placebo' effect, but I swear they work better. IE ... PX-64 has this problem where you have to have your input from the track set relatively high before modules in it will kick in. That doesn't happen in The Big R. VX-64 ... I don't see the problem with the Delay setting the time to 1 Second after re-opening a project. To me, there is a night and day difference in the way Guitar Rig 4 sounds. It's less harsh, more 'realistic' sounding.

The main thing you have to remember about it is, there are no buses. Which is actually kind of nice. You add a track, and it's either a bus or a track, depending on how you decide to work with it.

The one thing I miss most in it is there is no Step Sequencer like Sonar. Man I love that thing in Sonar. I can make the cheesiest of drum samples sound real with it. PRV works great. There was '0' learning curve in it for me.

As much as I love The Big R though, I still keep coming back to Sonar. It's a comfort/familiarity thing. I've been using Cakewalk software for so many years that it's just hard to not use it. But ... The Big R sure is nice man. Throw Session Drummer 3 in it, Guitar Rig 4, Sonitus, all the 64 Series VST's ... and Melda's Free suite of VST's ... you're set.

And don't forget about Theme's. You can create your own or download them and make it look almost any way you want.

The main thing you have to remember about it is, there are no buses. Which is actually kind of nice. You add a track, and it's either a bus or a track, depending on how you decide to work with it.

Wait... what? How does that work? I've been using busses extensively these days and that would be a major loss considering all the layering I do. Hmm... I'll have to look into that.

Now about the VST/effects/synths... I'm curious, how many of Sonar's effects/synths crossover to Reaper? I know obviously the PC (which would be a major loss for me as I use it a LOT especially for compression and tube sat) is out but what about the other stuff?

And I've seen people mention using rewire to get Reaper inside of Sonar (or maybe I just dreamed that... lol). That would be kind of cool to get at the PC modules but it seems to me that might cause a LOT of glitches. Have you tried anything like that yet?

Cheers, Bub.

And I'm surprised SD3 works in Reaper. I thought that was hardcoded into Sonar. As far as "themes" I've never really paid much attention to that stuff. If I can see what's on the screen and it doesn't look like a total pile of barf I'm cool with whatever is being displayed. Maybe I'll get more particular about that kind of thing as I go along but I haven't changed a single anything in Sonar. I don't even bother with Icons... although I may start as some of my track names tend to get too long to view.

I played with the staff view a bit and found it to be buggy as many people on here have mentioned but more importantly for my purposes (teaching, transcribing for guitar) it just doesn't cut it. It's too cumbersome, limited and just doesn't look the way I want. I also can't for the life of me figure out what the heck they were thinking when they designed the chord diagram boxes. It's like they're a bad acid trip. The fretboard view is cool but WAY different than how I would have implemented it and it's essentially useless as far as conveying a map of the neck for keys, chords etc. I've been doing all that in MS notpad because I have yet to find something that gives me the options I want. Even Guitar Pro doesn't allow me to convey things properly and I find it to be a bit of a bear to work with. It also screwed me up the trying to plot out modes based on standard theory. It was forcing a double flat on me when it should have been a natural and would let me fix it. Ruined a whole days work. I don't like programs that FORCE decisions like that on me... especially when they are totally wrong. I've been meaning to check out Finale Notepad to see if that will cover some of my needs. Can't afford the really high end stuff right now and frankly I'd rather write my own program if I can ever learn how to code.

Alright... now I'm just blathering. Sorry for the threadjack.