I recently had a newer member reply to one of my posts, that he didn't care about other Sonar users or the money they had invested prior to X1. Basically, he said that all that he cares about is X1.  I say, I am very sorry that he feels that way about other users and their investments in Cakewalk.
 
I suppose it's not but somehow, I could almost believe that is coming straight from someone on the Cakewalk staff that made the lame decision to release such a bubbling product, who is now masquerading as a new forum member.

Otoh, if he really is a user that taxes Sonar to the limit and sees it fail time after time when it's really stressed, maybe after 4 or 5 disappointing upgrades, he too will get that I personally feel like we have been taken for a long ride.

We have for years helped to keep the outfit afloat and many of us simply wanted to get the other 7% there. (I use this number because his own words are that 93% is about as good as can be expected.) I say that is complete bull crap and that if Cakewalk would not have got into the funny business of a complete redesign but just continued perfecting their flagship product, rather than changing it into something nearly unrecognizable and or unuseable by legions of longtime, skilled  devotees, they and we, would have been way ahead of the game.

Many users have stated recently and also on this very thread, that they can only "toy" with X1 and use 8.5.3 for serious work.  In my mind, that's because that's what X1 is. Sadly, in retrospect, 8.5 was the best that I believe, we will ever see  from Cakewalk. So after all these years, my current thoughts are the hell with supporting a company any longer that dumps me to the curb like they have done with X1 - under the pretext that X1 is a better product. 

Time wasted really does equate to money lost. In this case, not by Cakewalk, but by users. 

panup


I upgraded to Expanded but only because I wanted to make my mods with Expanded.
It may be my last Cakewalk update unless something special appears.  PT got just advanced features like Clip Gain and realtime clip fades.  Now the grass is as green at the other side of the fence...

With all due respect, SONAR has had both clip envelopes and real-time fades literally since the last millennium. As good as PT is at certian things, and as well implemented as they my be, these are things many DAWs have had for a long long time. Fade files are so 90's. 

To no one in particular:

It's fine to point out things that can be improved in X1 versus 8.5, etc and we welcome that input. But to say that X1 is somehow a toy and that 8.5 is a serious tool by contrast is something I find a bit baffling and somewhat of an outrageous contention. Many users and staff members are accomplishing serious work with X1 and I fail to see any cogent argument as to what makes X1 a toy and incapable of largely the same production level as 8.5 or earlier versions.

Serious discussions are welcome but let's not get carried away with blanket statements sans any kind of specifics. It frankly gives people the wrong idea.

ba_midi

CakeAlexS


I'm pretty sure there are more fixes in Expanded for the original code than in X1C even though the official line says not. The code would have had to be morphed pretty much for Expanded (of course). In a way it's quite a legit thing to do as you want your latest build to be as stable as possible in testing, and some of the new features would have required original code to be rewritten and/or fixed....

The mistake in my view was not releasing an X1D at the same time Expanded came out..... it's not the end of the world though as I'm an optimist in that I think Cakewalk will or should learn from this in future... and I would expect this to be rectified in due course.... My disappointment right now is no announcement of the approx time scales of X1D, and it seems the QuickFixes have been abandoned (which maybe a good thing if it gets the major patches out quicker).

It's all very well speculating though.

Well I'll speculate a little too ;)    When X1 was initially released, and there was so much angst and issues being reported, many here (including myself) felt like X1 was not fully tested and that, to some extent, it was more of a "beta" release.

I still feel that way.

And, I suspect that "Expanded" is somewhat in the same boat.   There are some issues that I can't imagine got out of beta testing (like the AIM assist bug which is so blatant it's almost laughable).  And, it allows the programmers to get some "real world" feedback on what's working and what's not (assuming there ARE some fixes in there).

I think an opt-in public beta test approach would be a better approach for smaller releases like "Expanded," but I don't really like being a guinea pig without giving my permission.

However, this is the way CW seems to be doing business these days -- meaning their QA seems to be less important these days (though I'm sure - and expect - they would argue differently).

Oh- and PS - I too have noticed there haven't been any "quickfixes" forthcoming lately ;)

Let me tell you all, the grass is not much greener at Presonus Studio None 2.0, either. I've already had the much hyped DAW just a few days and I am ready for my very first UNINSTALL. I feel like waiting a few months [or years] and going into hibernation mode until I install it again ... whenever the application [if it ever does] becomes fully functional. In the meanwhile, I'll deal with X1, and at least get something accomplished. 


I could have accomplished so much more with my time that I've otherwise wasted on that piece of work. Its not even half-baked yet; more like raw and unfit for consumption. [And all I wanted to do was just to make a little music.] 


We need to start a musicians support group for grieving DAW users.

dmbaer

ba_midi


I do agree that in this last year Cakewalk does seem a bit off their game, but I suspect they don't think so.

So if their bottom line (for now) is good, they probably just laugh at the comments made on this forum that aren't in the fanboi column.

I don't think anyone not on the inside should assume they know what's in the heads of the CW staff.  These are largely the same people that grew Sonar into the first rate DAW it was before the X1 major misstep.  I personally don't believe they're indifferent to their mistakes or that they hold their customer base in contempt.
 

You are 100% correct. Many of the same people are still involved and the company has not changed in any dramatic way that would compromise our central goal - satisfying our wide-range of customers while continuing to strengthen the SONAR product as a whole.


You can take it at face value or not - I'm an employee - I get that...but Cakewalk is in no way indifferent to our customer base nor abandoning the long-held desire to make SONAR what it has always been - a powerful tool for professional music production. Quite the contrary. We are focusing more than ever on stability, completing features, closing gaps in workflow, and supporting the current product through an extended and mature life cycle.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

panup


I upgraded to Expanded but only because I wanted to make my mods with Expanded.
It may be my last Cakewalk update unless something special appears.  PT got just advanced features like Clip Gain and realtime clip fades.  Now the grass is as green at the other side of the fence...

With all due respect, SONAR has had both clip envelopes and real-time fades literally since the last millennium. As good as PT is at certian things, and as well implemented as they my be, these are things many DAWs have had for a long long time. Fade files are so 90's. 

Protools has been behind the curve in vital ways for years. It's truly amazing that someone would tout these features as "advanced"!  Protools just recently got delay compensation.  It still does real-time bounce for cryin' out loud!  In other words every bounce makes you wait as long as the track time!  I think I would shoot myself.  And... it's still 32bit!  Sonar X1 has definitely had issues but it seems like a lemming mentality has developed around here.

Kreative


At least Cakewalk has a very healthy head start on developing a fully realized product, and has the proven resources of its own staff and Roland corp. I think that's worth a lot in terms of potential and hope. I think that I'll personally be patient, and wait and see what happens before I make any final judgment about the future of Sonar. The alternatives are not necessarily as promising if you go to some of the other user forums and witness the pandemonium there.

I agree.  I have been following some of these forums as well, and, it appears, they all have their problems.  I have much fewer.  I have looked around, and I am happy where I am.

It's not $80, it's $49.

It's not $80, it's $49 -             AND YOU GET A SOFTUBE SATURATION PLUG-IN

Ah yes... let's bash Pro Tools.

The fact is... this thread is a list of unsatisfied Cakewalk customers who have been calmly providing valuable market feedback.

I did the math.

Cakewalk spent a whole year working on X1E and the market thinks... maybe... it's worth $49 dollars.

In fact, most of the people on this thread are explaining that the upgrade doesn't seem like it's even worth the $49 dollars.

I paid for my $79 X1E update with the PC4k gate bundle...  and I'll be buying and using the $299 upgrade to PT10 real soon.

... and I'll probably still use SONAR v8.5 more so than either.


best regards,
mike




edited

.but Cakewalk is in no way indifferent to our customer base nor abandoning the long-held desire to make SONAR what it has always been - a powerful tool for professional music production. Quite the contrary. We are focusing more than ever on stability, completing features, closing gaps in workflow, and supporting the current product through an extended and mature life cycle.

Great news !!  Now about those bugs and features that NEVER GET FIXED, and keep graduating from one version to the next.  Are there any plans to squash them ?  The 'Ole timers know them and all the work arounds ; for a well documented bug to travel through 3 or 4 full point releases means that the CW powers that be..........don't seem to share your vision !

John T


It's not $80, it's $49.

Depends which package you buy (ie, if you get the one with the gate and z3ta, etc).

ba_midi

John T


It's not $80, it's $49.

Depends which package you buy (ie, if you get the one with the gate and z3ta, etc).

Yes, if you buy one of the bundles, it's less than $49.

With X1e I made a "Distortion Construction Kit" in Pro Channel using EQ, compression, and both the Softube and Cakewalk saturations. Re-arranging the module order makes a huge difference in the sound (e.g., EQ before, after, or between saturations). It's nothing that couldn't be done with VST plug-ins, but having it saved as part of a project is convenient.

I'm trying more and more to use what's included with a program, as it makes a project more transportable, and there (hopefully) won't be surprises if it needs to be opened in a few years. I'm taking this approach with programs other than Sonar.

dmbaer

SteveStrummerUK

dmbaer

So, yeah, they are probably under a lot of pressure to not loose money (and I'd suspect that their bottom line is far from "good" as you've speculated).  In any case, that doesn't mean they're greedy opportunists.
 
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't assume CW doesn't care about it's bad performance in the last year.

With all due respect David, and with apologies for selectively quoting you, but what criteria are you using to define "bad performance"?
 
It can't be sales, X1 is Cakewalk's most successful version of SONAR ever.
 
 

By "bad performance" I simply mean the more-than-usual bugginess of a Sonar release.  I for one welcome many of the new innovations of X1, so I certainly don't mean that, and I'm willing to cut them a little slack in light of the level of innovation. 

 
Many thanks for clarifying that for me, and I think I'm fully in agreement with what you're saying here.
 
 

 
I wasn't aware one way or the other that X1 is CW's most successful version yet in terms of sales.  I'm curious where you got that piece of information.  In any case, that's good to hear.  Like most of us, I want CW to be successful so they have the revenue with which they can fund future R&D.

 
The "most successful version of SONAR" line appeared in some of their previous newsletters/e-mails:
 
 
 
 
Being a cynical bugger, and well aware that 'successful' in ad copy can mean virtually anything, I asked the same question in here about the criteria used to justify the word. In all fairness, Brandon came on here and confirmed that it was based on "sales".