ORIGINAL: Nick P

Oh yeah, markers. But I guess that falls under my "As many of Sonar's transport and navigation features as can be included".

I get the feeling based on music law #1 (musician = wiseass) that the last posts by fac and cryophonik are made tongue-in-cheek. If so, then what I'm hearing their sarcasm communicate is: "Why is anyone even mentioning Sonar? This is the Project 5 forum. If you like Sonar, then get out of our sandbox and go use Sonar." Like mentioning these Sonar features as applied to Project5 is taking some kind of unrealistic approach. Why is that? How could Project5 not benefit from the navigational and technical advancements which its older sibling seems to have, such as markers, better transport mapping, sticky now time without a key combination, dual-core support, etc... As long as Project5 retains its "style", which I don't think these enhancements would in any way jeopardize, then why not make it easier to use?

Actually there is a point here, Project5 wins in a lot of peoples hearts because of its simplicity. You fire it up , you have an uncluttered interface, you get to work and you make music.

Once you start adding in things like markers and many of the other requested things like "I want it to be like Live/Sonar and do this" type requests, you end up with an unwieldy and cluttered interface. Where do you draw the line. One things for certain, it will be up to the Bakers to decide how simple/complex they decide to make it. Remember P5s goal is simplicity of operation.

It's almost like there's this reverse elitism around the P5 forums, i.e. "We don't want Project5 improved. We like not having the more advanced features of Sonar. Some of us don't even want the program to be developed towards a v3 release." Why is that? Makes no sense.

I'm starting a project today, and I was again presented with the decision whether or not to use P5 or Sonar(7). I would love to start the basic germs (patterns) of this project in P5. But with no way to easily move the whole project over to Sonar (and no I'm not talking about rewire, or saving individual patterns and then importing them one by one), it's just not practical, and that kind of makes me sad, since I really want to use Project5 along side of Sonar.

I dont understand why this is so much of a problem for you and other people, I can set up a mass transfer of tracks in Sonar/Project5 in a matter of minutes. I can save a huge amount of time creating in Project5, spend a little bit of set up time and in less than 10 minutes (most of which is bounce time) I can have the wave files in Sonar, I can go make myself a drink while I wait. In the grand scale of things Ive saved more than 10 minutes working in Project5.

What I want, is for Project 5's main features - the pattern editor, the arrange pane, the groove matrix, to be build right in to Sonar. Make it an option. I'll pay for it. I don't want to have 2 programs open at the same time, and I don't want to have to keep track of every pattern and softsynth setup in P5 in order to later duplicate it in Sonar when I make the more at that point in the project. That's just not a professional workflow. I'm amazed the company seems like they're going to keep these two programs so separate. They really go together nicely. It's just that they should all come off one main container, and as much as the P5 die-hards hate to hear this, that container should be Sonar, IMO.

The problem is that the 2 programs have 2 completely different workflows. Sonar is designed to be quicker at doing some things and has its entire setup based around this workflow. Project5 has its setup based around its workflow.

Bastardise the two of them and you actually will likely end up alienating the majority of people that live at either end of the scale, IE those that use Sonar and have no need of something like Project5, and those that have Project5 and have no need, or dont have the extra cash for Sonar, and the motivation to do this is to appease people in the middle that have experienced the workflow of Project5 and realise its a gem in the rough, but use Sonar.

Its very often the same in any forum. People think thats what is best for a program is for it to work the way they want it to work. For instance I think it would be fantastic if Project5 had the ability to select a bus as an output for a track, for a bus to be able to be busable, for Project5 to have the VC-64 and support sidechaining, for it to be multicore capable, have a 64 bit mix engine. Then I wouldnt need to look at Sonar. I couldnt give a monkeys about the audio editing personally, but I would pay serious money to have a soft synth workstation that had all of that, and still be open host. For me this would be ideal. They wont do that though.

Remember Sonar is used in many project and professional studios, many of whom have no need of software instrruments, which is what Project5 excells at. So why bolt into it a soft synth workstation.

Just another point of view that may or may not be shared by other users. (although I think pretty much most people are clear that they want multicore support)

Good points, Stu. Horses for courses, I guess. It will be interesting to see how all of this develops. Will Cakewalk go farther with P5? Which way will they go? What new features will they include. I wish they'd at least give us some kind of heads up that the program will be developed further.

Its not my recipe its actually Jesse Gs.

Open Sonar and create a new project at the tempo you have set for your P5 project. Now make sure in Project5 that you have 64 ouputs for rewire selected in the options - audio page. (if you have more than 64 outs, you may have to do it in 2 bounces, while messing with the track order). Now open the synth rack and insert Project5 as a rewire instrument, make sure you have the setting to create audio tracks for all ouputs(all synth audio outputs - stereo). This will slap 64 tracks onto your interface. The first few tracks will relate to the Master and AUX tracks in P5, while the rest will be for the tracks you have created in Project5.

Now if your project in P5 was 100 bars long, insert a marker around the 110 bar mark (to allow for FX tails). Now select all the audio tracks (you can do this by clicking on the correct spot on the track folder for P5, and all the tracks will be selected). Now click on the timeline to select between the start and your marker. Now go to Edit-Bounce to tracks.

Turn off fast bounce, select the source as tracks. Also select the destination to at the top to the first audio track that is for project5 (in a blank project this should be track 1. Now bear in mid that the first few tracks should be the master and AUX channels so you should delete these, as well as this you will get a lot of "empty" tracks that you can delete as well. What you should be left with is audio representations of all your tracks from Project5, allowing you to mix your project5 project in Sonar. The whole process is relatively quick.

(EDIT If you want a visual example, the Sonar 7 video will have it in its entirity, well, minus the sit about and wait bit while you bounce), Also you can remove Project5 from the synth rack after you have bounced, allowing you to save the project in Sonar now as an audio only project.

Not to start any more debate on this issue, but you're talking about the track becoming straight audio as it enters Sonar. I would still like my MIDI tracks to stay MIDI while in Sonar. Maybe I'll add some audio tracks and then want to go back and edit MIDI in Sonar. Or would I then have to go back to P5, edit the MIDI tracks, and then re-import them into Sonar? Way too much of a hassle.

For me, I'm still looking to try and stay in one program. I like Stu's idea on the SWA video. Take a track (lane) in P5's arrange pane. Make all of the patterns one long pattern , then save and import into Sonar.

Unless the project was really complex, I don't see where it would be that much of a hassle to keep track of all used patterns in P5, save 'em, and then import them into Sonar. Nevertheless I would still prefer sticking with one program for everything.

Customisable Drummap (Setup Names to be displayed on keys of the piano roll/step sequencer, select whether keys are shown/hidden and a consolidation features and a consolidation feature which only display keys/notes that are being used)

+1

I moved to Logic Express 8 on Mac. It's pretty amazing for the price, has all the things I was missing in P5. Luckily my PC purchases didn't get totally useless since I bought DimPro for the P5 Dim upgrade price and it works on Mac as well.

The problem is that the 2 programs have 2 completely different workflows. Sonar is designed to be quicker at doing some things and has its entire setup based around this workflow. Project5 has its setup based around its workflow.

Bastardise the two of them and you actually will likely end up alienating the majority of people that live at either end of the scale, IE those that use Sonar and have no need of something like Project5, and those that have Project5 and have no need, or dont have the extra cash for Sonar, and the motivation to do this is to appease people in the middle that have experienced the workflow of Project5 and realise its a gem in the rough, but use Sonar.

Its very often the same in any forum. People think thats what is best for a program is for it to work the way they want it to work. For instance I think it would be fantastic if Project5 had the ability to select a bus as an output for a track, for a bus to be able to be busable, for Project5 to have the VC-64 and support sidechaining, for it to be multicore capable, have a 64 bit mix engine. Then I wouldnt need to look at Sonar. I couldnt give a monkeys about the audio editing personally, but I would pay serious money to have a soft synth workstation that had all of that, and still be open host. For me this would be ideal. They wont do that though.

Remember Sonar is used in many project and professional studios, many of whom have no need of software instrruments, which is what Project5 excells at. So why bolt into it a soft synth workstation.

Just another point of view that may or may not be shared by other users. (although I think pretty much most people are clear that they want multicore support)

This is the reason that I have suggested in the past that they come up with a Sonar/Project 5 Edition. I understand that there are people who don't care about integrating the two, and I read thier posts. Since it's a user forum, it's the perfect place to exchange ideas on the matter. I don't quite accept the term "bastardize" for blending the two,,, but the reason I would like to see them "bolt a soft synth work station into Sonar" is so that I can use all the features as one host. I appreciate your tips on workarounds to help us work in the current set up, but it's not quite there IMHO.

The reason that I keep posting on the topic is that I DO see Project 5 as a diamond in the rough. It seems to me that quite a few of the missing ingredients that would turn Project 5 into a Super DAW are in Sonar. A marriage of the two makes so much sence to me.

I'm not so entrenched in my views as to insist on any particular route of integration, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to all ideas on the matter. Perhaps a vst version of Project 5 will offer enough ability to transfer data that it would make me smile. It would also allow those users who aren't interested in using both to stay in thier own world.

BTW, I don't think Project 5 is that much better than Sonar for softsynths,,, in fact, Sonar 7 closed that gap quite a bit,,,, it's basically Project 5's loop handling features that Sonar really lacks.

Don't you think it's natural for people to want things to work they way they want?? Again, I'm not trying to INSIST people take my point of view, but I've shelled out a fair amount of cash to Cakewalk, and I feel I have as much right to express my thoughts on what I would like as anyone else.

Syrath, I've learned a lot from you, and I know you are an exeptionally knowledgeable user. Come on now, admit it,,,, isn't there some part of you that can understand why there would be people who would like them to be one program??

Ok, I know that's a bit off topic for the title of the thread.

My main requests for Project 5,,,

VST version
INS support
Markers
Node and line automation
Dual core support
Mute tool

I guess what I meant was if Sonar got the loop improvements, the marriage would be essentially consumated,,,, Cheers

ORIGINAL: syrath

ORIGINAL: harmony gardens

I guess what I meant was if Sonar got the loop improvements, the marriage would be essentially consumated,,,, Cheers

I know what you mean, and I cant see this happening too readily, but if enough people wanted it, why not., however thats a Sonar issue and not a Project5 issue (if you see my point). Instead of suggesting that they merge, people should lobby on the Sonar forum for better pattern and loop oriented editing similar to Project5.

Yes but that would actually require and understanding of what they really want.

I used to use linear sequencing in Reason. Thats where I came from. But after using pattern based its no way I could ever go back. Its much easier to keep a project organized and see what i'm doing. I would like to be able to use some of the features of the big daw's but in all honesty project 5 and fl studio are the only ones i can sequence in. To me instead of begging for more pattern based features in other sequencers I think it would be better if we just got a few extra features in project 5.

Dual core
Line automation
Mixer(if possible not must)
Customizable gui
more midi features
wavform preview is something that i'm liking

ORIGINAL: dham

I used to use linear sequencing in Reason. Thats where I came from. But after using pattern based its no way I could ever go back. Its much easier to keep a project organized and see what i'm doing. I would like to be able to use some of the features of the big daw's but in all honesty project 5 and fl studio are the only ones i can sequence in. To me instead of begging for more pattern based features in other sequencers I think it would be better if we just got a few extra features in project 5.

Dual core
Line automation
Mixer(if possible not must)
Customizable gui
more midi features
wavform preview is something that i'm liking

Yep, for me:

1) Multicore
2) Mixer (I find this awkward in P5 at present)
3) Skinnable (I like the Live approach here)
4) Waveform display when recording

ORIGINAL: jardim do mar
p5 as an instrument,,,,,

great thought, and I suppose this is why some would like to see the ability to load p5 as a vsti like FL. If you think of P5 as an instrument, that is a bit breathtaking isn't it. Fairly often I'm reminded about this by accident because I forget to click midi override on the track I want to record into. When that happens, you're playing your project, and almost every time this has happened it has sounded awesome. A big instrument with lots of sequencing, voicing, and modulation possibilties.

ORIGINAL: Nick P

For example, consider how preferable P5's pattern editor would be to Sonar's new Step Sequencer?

According to whom? Certainly not to me. Sonar's SS and P5's pattern editor are two very different beasts, each with their own strengths. I can already do everything (and more) in Sonar's PRV that I can in P5's pattern editor, so I wouldn't be gaining anything there. But, the step sequencer makes accomplishing tasks like drum and arp pattern creation MUCH easier. So, no I don't think that P5's pattern editor is preferable to Sonar's SS.

Please note that I'm not arguing against the idea of P5/Sonar integration, just that I don't believe that P5's pattern editor would make the SS obsolete or less useful. Apples and oranges.

well, I totally agree with Russel's view, and I've always expressed it...

As much as I would love to open P5 projects in Sonar, I'd hate to have P5 inside Sonar.

I don't think P5 is weaker because it has less tools, because its workflow is different, because it can't do this and that... I have the feeling that it's what makes it my favourite sequencer.

When I fire up P5, I can almost instantly compose what I have in the head. Maybe this is because I know P5 a lot better than Sonar, but I doubt it. There's something great about P5's workflow... the live oriented audio engine that lets me compose while it runs

I don't know, it seems to me like P5 is a product on its own, that is made for different purposes than Sonar.
and I'd hate to see it eaten by the big Sonar.

One of the other things, is I would like to be able to use the same VST menus in P5 that I have set up in SONAR.