"plethora"

ba_midi

My advice: Find a handful of users on this forum who don't have ANY problems with X1's stability, reliability and features and buy the same system and/or components THEY have.

And then the other programs that USED to work when X1 didn't - may not work anymore

I'm not as willing to make excuses for products that don't work on whatever system the user has that is within the 'minimum specs'.  I think most of us would agree that it's no easy task to get a complex software such as Sonar or any other host to work on a myriad of system configurations, but the fact remains that the product is sold to do just that (within specs).

I think it's actually great advise to say "buy a system known to work" -- unfortunately even when that is the case, it still is no gaurantee.  Computer setups are never "exactly" the same;  but still it's darn good advise (when practical).

However, my own experience suggests there's more to the story...

As those who know me from around here know, I was not doing well with X1 on my very well tuned DAW system.  And, as much as it may bother you to hear -- EVERY other host ran (and runs) fine on my system.

I kept up with the quick fixes and "Letter" updates ("A", "B", "C") and nothing changed, nothing improved.

Then along comes the spider ... er "Expanded" and it had legs ;)

Now X1"E" is as stable for me as is/was 8.5.3.   I have only had 2 minor crashes in the weeks I've been using X1E (daily, for many hours) and those crashes were easily traceable to 3rd party issues.

So the concept of the hardware being at fault in this case was not true AT ALL.  Expanded changed something in X1 for me and runs smoothly now.   And the facts are:

I DIDN'T CHANGE MY HARDWARE!  The software changed.

I agree that MANY issues can and usually are resolved by adjusting/massaging/correcting/updating one's hardware setup, but there are many many cases where the software needed the fixin'.  

I agree that software often needs the screws tightened down, no question about that. However, when someone encounters constant, seemingly random crashes when doing a variety of tasks, to me that smells like hardware. Software issues tend to be more "When I do 'x', it crashes" although that can be hardware as well.
 
As I've mentioned, I use a lot of programs and the X1 launch experience is becoming the norm, not the exception. Wavelab 7, Cubase 5, Studio One Pro 2, Ableton Live 8, Pro Tools 9, Vegas 9...in each case, their introductions have been followed immediately by incensed users hitting the forums. The proliferation of different systems means this trend will not only continue, but deteriorate. While some companies get around this by being very restrictive in terms of system specs (i.e., MUST be Windows 7, MUST have 4GB RAM, etc.) even that doesn't always guarantee results.
 
I've seen this from both sides - as a consumer who tears his hair out when stuff doesn't work right, and as someone who has a dialog with multiple companies and sees the issues they have to deal with. It's not just about the moving target of hardware, but how to allocate limited resources - I don't know any software company where the CEO drives a Lamborghini . Even companies with significant resources, like Apple and Microsoft, don't always get things right on launch.
 
The best solution for me has been to use computers integrated by companies who specialize in music-oriented systems. For sure it's a more expensive option than getting a Compaq from Office Depot, but it's comforting to know that the responsibility for keeping the thing running smoothly is the company's problem, not mine. I attribute a lot of the reliability with running music software to using these kinds of computers.
 
Nonetheless, I still don't want to ever go back to 2" 24-track!!!!

Anderton

I agree that software often needs the screws tightened down, no question about that. However, when someone encounters constant, seemingly random crashes when doing a variety of tasks, to me that smells like hardware. Software issues tend to be more "When I do 'x', it crashes" although that can be hardware as well. As I've mentioned, I use a lot of programs and the X1 launch experience is becoming the norm, not the exception. Wavelab 7, Cubase 5, Studio One Pro 2, Ableton Live 8, Pro Tools 9, Vegas 9...in each case, their introductions have been followed immediately by incensed users hitting the forums. The proliferation of different systems means this trend will not only continue, but deteriorate. While some companies get around this by being very restrictive in terms of system specs (i.e., MUST be Windows 7, MUST have 4GB RAM, etc.) even that doesn't always guarantee results. I've seen this from both sides - as a consumer who tears his hair out when stuff doesn't work right, and as someone who has a dialog with multiple companies and sees the issues they have to deal with. It's not just about the moving target of hardware, but how to allocate limited resources - I don't know any software company where the CEO drives a Lamborghini . Even companies with significant resources, like Apple and Microsoft, don't always get things right on launch. The best solution for me has been to use computers integrated by companies who specialize in music-oriented systems. For sure it's a more expensive option than getting a Compaq from Office Depot, but it's comforting to know that the responsibility for keeping the thing running smoothly is the company's problem, not mine. I attribute a lot of the reliability with running music software to using these kinds of computers. Nonetheless, I still don't want to ever go back to 2" 24-track!!!!

I agree with much of that (and we need CW to update their forum software so it works with modern browsers!!) -- but, cough cough, aside from that ...

Yeah - it's a real balancing act with software /  hardware integrations.  I have always built my own systems and/or had my distributor put together the bare bones and hard drives, then I'd install everything else (OS, etc).  But I've been doing that since I was a young teenager and have good chops developed over the years.   Not everyone is going to take the time to learn all the ins and outs, obviously - and therefor would be better served by, as you point out, companies/sources that specialize in this stuff.

And, I also understand there are two sides to the coin ...  software companies have to balance resources with demand, and many other variables of course;  but in the end, the user still should receive the "as advertised" product, and that just doesn't seem to happen much these days (something you also point out, and sadly is true).

I definitely wouldn't want to go back to 2/4/8/16/48+ track either LOL.   But I wouldn't mind seeing improvement in the testing and QA of products.   I do think both sides (users and companies/vendors) are to blame ...

The companies want to save money (or don't have enough to do the job right in the first place).
The Users seem to accept a much lower bar, ie, what they consider "acceptable."   So - as I've said often, there's no "upward pressure" on the companies, or at least not a lot/enough; changes/fixes then come slowly (if at all).

This is where mutual education is a good thing.  Forums like this, and others, where everyone contributes to the pool of knowledge, can benefit everyone in the long run.

My experience with X1 through A, B, C, and now E is a good example of how "software needs fixin'".   Yet there are plenty of other good examples on this forum of how "hardware needs fixin'".

By having all this info available to the 'many', at least there is a platform for getting improvement and keeping companies on their toes.   It's to everyone's advantage, a total win-win, when users connect with companies and both sides contribute to the better-ness of the products.

At the moment, I don't see how else things can progress without such interaction; but I do think vendors owe it to those who consume their products to provide as close to the "as advertised" version as possible.   All the debates in the world really are enlightening, fun, etc, but we still all want our money's worth in the end.

The age-old question is how to get 'there' from 'here' ;)

Keith Albright [Cakewalk
]  <snip>

One thing that's debuted in E but will likely find its way to other versions is the Fault Reporting which gives us rapid feedback on crashes.  
<snip>
Thanks everyone for choosing Cakewalk and for your support.

Sincerely, 
Keith Albright
Principal Software Engineer, SONAR Lead.

How will that work for those of us that have music only machines, iow, that have never and will never put them on the net ?  Other company's have thoughtfully worked out painless transmittal methods. I hope yours will be like that.
 

Zo - the softube knob alone desserve the update +1

so that's + 2  ..lol ;)

I said last time I purchased anything I was going to wait until after first patch or 4-6 months. I never learned my lesson in the past. 

To add to the discussion about software quality, there is another aspect to software that can make one user's experience wonderful and another's poor - workflow. 

In a complex piece of software there are millions (I'm not exaggerating) of different ways to use it. To make it more real, no two users would execute the same sequence of operations when performing any task in SONAR. There are classes of software bugs that show up only under very specific combinations of operations. This is why its common to see some users ecstatic about a software release and others complaining that its broken. 
To root out such problems most software companies use a combination of techniques - QA testing, automated testing, scenario testing, beta testing, code analysis and reviews. These techniques find an enormous amount of problems before the software ever hits the street. However its impossible to physically exercise every possible combination of use cases. Its not quite as simple as saying - wait until its stable. No matter how long the application has been tested (even if we fixed every bug we knew of) its pretty much a given that some percentage of users will encounter kinds of problems others do not ever see. As an application matures and more features are added, the potential for such cases exponentially increases. 

This is one reason why our update cycle is set up so that we issue periodic updates after our main release. These try to address as many such issues that show up only under field use. Not trying to make excuses here, just stating the facts and realities of modern software in our times. As Keith mentioned, there is a tremendous effort that goes on behind the scenes from multiple groups of people. Everyone is concerned with quality and none of us here are thinking of the bottom line I can assure you. We'd be in the wrong business if so :)

Glad that you explain as ther was no real obligation to do so. How do you feel knowing that X1 is probably out of lets say ten DAWs the only one that is not gapless. Is this a concern to you or do you think not being gapless is one of Cakewalks strengths in a software. Again you are not obliged to answer this question. Maybe the reason why so many people complain is because they are passionate. I for one do not like being duped but I guess business is tough and relentless and mostly unforgiving. So while I take some of what is said on board i still think there is room for improvement and also quality control before a release is vital as individuals are parting with money that in some cases they really have not got (nowadays) but for the love of music and chasing dreams they buy into you. That atleast must mean something to the guys who head or spearhead your depts???

Ignore function will also take care of that. Just sayin'.

Not saying I don't want it to be gapless, because I do. But I don't agree that Sonar is at the back of the pack or anything. I would say Sonar, Cubase and Reaper are about the same on this. ProTools I don't get to tinker with very often, but I've certainly seen it stutter and stop.

so how is it by that token is it that we often see other companies perform better with regard to initial releases?


We don't see mature DAWs perform any better. Ableton had a shocker with V8, Cubase 5 was bloody awful, Logic has had it's battles as has ProTools, Samplitude is probably the buggiest of all. The ones with the fewest teething problems are the ones with the fewest features- like Reaper and Studio One and Reason6. Lets see how these new DAWs operate when they have comparable feature sets to the big boys. Easy to move quickly when you are catching up along the forerunners' paths. 

backwoods


so how is it by that token is it that we often see other companies perform better with regard to initial releases?


We don't see mature DAWs perform any better. Ableton had a shocker with V8, Cubase 5 was bloody awful, Logic has had it's battles as has ProTools, Samplitude is probably the buggiest of all. The ones with the fewest teething problems are the ones with the fewest features- like Reaper and Studio One and Reason6. Lets see how these new DAWs operate when they have comparable feature sets to the big boys. Easy to move quickly when you are catching up along the forerunners' paths. 

Yeah but we're Sonar user's we're after 'better than the rest' not 'as bad as the rest'...

John T


On this gapless thing, I think Ableton is still the only app out there that truly leads in this regard. I don't find Sonar a conspicuous offender compared to the general competition.

Really ???????  Maybe you don't really know the competition well enough ;)

John T


It's not that. 

John I sincerely hope you haven't gone completely mad or blown a fuse somewhere at this point.  I know we don't always see eye to eye but I want you to know I still care.

I can loop takes on Record (R6), Studio One (v1 and 2) and Reaper without a glitch or gap all day long.  Gapless audio seems to be a given on most other things I've tried out recently not an exception.