It is not a problem. It is just how the Sonar audio engine behaves under certain conditions. Bristol put it correctly, the Audio Engine is working. And if you don't need the audio engine to behave a certain way under certain conditions then you don't need it or need to concern yourself with it.

You can then enjoy that DAW for all it has to offer with its many other features that are important to you.

But if you do want a work flow that does include this type of performance then you do have to realise you may not be able to use the program you thought you were going to use and you may have to move to one that handles this differently. Then it is important and could easily be at the top of the list for features.

Dega

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

I guess I just hate for people to put so much emphasis on it that people who don't even think about it or need it start thinking that for some reason they can't make music without it.

I guess I'm not the best Sonar user in town so until I read this thread I wasn't even aware of this "problem". I record real instruments and only use midi for drum tracks and the occasional keyboard fill here and there, and most of the "creative" process is done on an acoustic 6 string so I probably never would have known about this. 
 
Should I feel obligated to complain now?
 
Nah, I suppose not.
 
I guess if I felt there was a better DAW out there I'd be home using that one to be creative and not here complaining about something I don't use . . .
 
. . . but that's just me.
 

I think it's disservice to everyone here to portray the desire (and expression thereof) to improve the audio engine and get it as gapless as possible as "complaining."


If you are happy and feel no need for such a technology and advance in Sonar's audio engine, you are certainly entitled to feel that way.  I never understand why some people feel angst when others try to push the envelope more or why others feel bothered when some users suggest things and have different needs.


But let's keep in mind that most feature advances occur due to customer feedback (and pressure at times).


I think it's healthy when users express their needs and put some upward pressure on the vendors to accommodate such needs.


So, feel free not to complain and let those who feel a need to push the envelope complain all they want.  That works, no?

http://www.cakewalk.com/support/contact/featurerequest.aspx

Yes to what Bill Arnell said here. It is through the request form, as well, that one makes progress in this direction. 

...did somebody say "please Cakewalk improve the Staff Editor"??? I really want to believe........

Rain

Gusfmm


...did somebody say "please Cakewalk improve the Staff Editor"??? I really want to believe........

Someone's been saying exactly that, everyday, for as long as I can remember. 


It is told that early on, in the days of the previous millenium, the naive ancients would often gather round and pray the almighty Cakewalk for a proper staff editor. But it still didn't come to pass.


Thus began the mighty migration to the lands of Sibelius and Finale...

If I were a betting man, I would bet that there is little to no interest at CW for doing major overhauls or improvements to Staff View.


I peronsally would find it a niceity more than a necessity -- but just like the diverse needs regarding the audio engine, I'm sure if CW invested the time and resources to improve in that area I would also benefit from that.


However, I don't see a big push for the public at large for this, which is why I don't think CW is movitvated to put resources into it, but one can never be sure what lurks in the minds of programmers and project managers