*** WHY DIDN"T THE SURVEY ASK IF I WAS GOING TO BUY ANY EFFECTS??? IT SEEMS LIKE IT...

...may not be a good idea to just assume that I'll be buying more effects year after year.

I may already have all that I plan on buying.

It seems like that is the kind of question that might be helpful if a company thought it was in the effects making business.

What happens if it turns out that there is more than one Cakewalk customer (notice I didn't say consumer) thinking like me? It seems like someone could have thought to ask a question that might offer some insights.

I wrote down that I'd rather pay for core DAW improvements rather than any new effects in the little boxes at the bottom. I hope someone takes the time to read the little boxes. Often times, those boxes are there to help ID the outliers whose surveys are thrown out before the stats are presented so I think filling the text box in with a message may actually guaranty that your survey is disregarded. I made sure not to mention staff view. :-)



I wonder if this was one of those surveys where the surveyors actually want to learn something or if it was one of those surveys where the surveyors want to prove something. It didn't seem like the survey was crafted in such a way as to provide a survey of the marketplace.



For example; If I was hoping to sell some effects I'd try to learn how beginners feel? Do beginners look forward to buying lots of effects or are they hoping to get set up with a good package and get back to work?

For example; If I was hoping to sell some effects I'd try to learn how old timers feel? Do old timers look forward to buying more effects next year? Or do old timers feel like that after the first few dozen EQs that they all start to seem the same?




All of the questions seemed to presume I'd be buying more ProChannel effects and the questions inquired about preferred formats rather than asking if I am even interested in more effects. I'm not.

For example; I can download and install the new improved Pro Channel EQ that comes with "D", but I haven't yet... because even though it is free and it works... I don't have any use for it.




Obviously, a lot of people ARE interested and buying and using ProChannel stuff, but if that's not generating all the market activity Cakewalk wants then it seems like a useful question might be something like "what do all the people not buying ProChannel stuff actually want to buy?"





When is X2 coming out?



best regards,
mike

I added som great hints what to make in SONAR X1 and add to the Pro channel.
Full Phase, Stereo RMS analyzer built into all tracks and big on the MASTER bus like Samplitude Pro X. Also WIDER built into every channel.
Better PAN control. I like to see inside the  Pro Channel EQ a graphic Spectrum analyzer behind all of the bands in the EQ.

Love to see they they make a LA2 Compressor/Limiter in Pro Channel and SSL or SPL deEsser.

Bristol_Jonesey


What survey?

Didn't you get one in your mail from Cakewalk? Check your mail box. (not FORUM Mail, note---> real mailbox)

I wouldn't mind if they made an LA2A....

If you were to look for a good analyser which one would you get?

Didn't get the survey either...  I wonder what the criteria is.  And why not send the survey to everyone?

trimph1


If you were to look for a good analyser which one would you get?

Free one---> SPAN Voxengo. Has everything you need but it should been included, deep inside SONAR core and Pro Channel.
http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/
 

but how could they implement a large analyser gui in the pc?

correct

also correct

Freddie H

trimph1


If you were to look for a good analyser which one would you get?

Free one---> SPAN Voxengo. Has everything you need but it should been included, deep inside SONAR core and Pro Channel.
http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/
 

Ditto - it is the one I use and I have never had a problem with it...

The survey did ask about our interest in a whole list of FX types.. I just took the survey. I don't understand the question?  It may not have specifically asked whether I was going to buy them but it asked if I was "very interested", "somewhat interested", "neutral", etc. If I'm very interested in an FX, wouldn't that presume I would also be very interested in buying it?

If someone isn't interested in purchasing any additional PC FX, the answer should have been "very disinterested" for all of the FX types.

Also, a company that goes to the trouble of gathering this sort of data does analyze it and does act upon it. That's the whole idea behind customer feedback surveys. A company can't exist without a majority of satisfied customers.

The fact that they keep pumping out new PC modules is probably an indication that the cost of designing and releasing these modules is less than the income derived from it, therefore resulting in a profit.  Seems like a reasonable business model..

ProjectM


I don't get it... it was a survey about Pro Channel? No?

Anyway, I got the survey. I might not be fan enough...

Yes, yes it was.  As to why one would complain about a survey about Pro Channel would somehow be focused on Pro Channel is confusing.  But to each his own.  Obviously not fan enough because I got it and completed it with the knowledge they were asking me about Pro Channel.

As long as it's not Politically Correct then we're all a bit safer.

As for me, I may buy FX in the future but not if they are locked into a SONAR Prochannel interface.  I may want to work in SONAR 8.5.3 or another DAW.

If I buy an effect, I have to get the most bang for the buck.  I have the money to spend - I bought the latest version Melodyne Editor.  I've bought a cheap notation program.  I bought another DAW platform.

The last three versions of SONAR, I bought because they included some decent plugins that worked cross platform and the cost of the included plugins was competitive with 3rd party products and made the lack of tempting new SONAR features a little less painfull.

Come on Cakewalk, let's fix the envelope colors, the two visible sends limitations, the un-previewable icons in the browser and the work flow for envelopes in general.