Anderton

Jonbouy

Just as a reality check...no one program will ever have all desirable characteristics of all programs, or there would only be one DAW, it would have 100% market share, and everyone else could go home.

Who's reality check?

I don't think anybody here is complaining about Sonar not being all things to all men, in fact it is probably still the one DAW that gets closest to claiming that role.

Yes I agree you see many issues related to specific setups not working in different scenarios I think most are aware of the likelihood of running into issues in that respect on any product, most of us live with that.  Few that live in the real world will need a reality check here.

It's certainly not what I've been talking about.  I've been talking about realistic ways of achieving better stability at launch and how to add real beer not froth to the feature set.

Take Z3ta 2 for example unlike a DAW it gets used in a specific way yet a 50 pager on KVR on the issues at launch it had characterized it for many as being a 'typical' Cakewalk release, nothing to do with Hardware, complicated scenarios just another Cakewalk standard quality release.

Here's the real reality check.  Cakewalk can certainly do much better than saying sorry it didn't work but we are a commited bunch here's a bugfix that solves some of the issues now go and make music!

Incidentally, there's a thread running on Props User Forum just now as there is some indication of increased CPU usage on Reason 6 over the previous Reason/Record duo,  I can't repliacate it neither it seems can they presently.  But did you know somebody from there has gone through the threads to identify those being affected, created a test project and invited those users to report back with their findings?  Now that to me indicates a company that is serious about the quality of it's product.

They are pro-actively involved in supporting those that are seeing this issue seeking it those affected and supporting them directly, just on the strength of a consensus on the forums.  They are checking to see if there is a fire behind the smoke, and as much as I see praise here (most of which is worthy) for the interaction from the staff the Props are clearly on another level in this regard.

Again I can't see the point of saying it's alright everyone and everything else is as bad I just believe that there are ways of making this favourite DAW of mine stand out by being that bit better than the rest.

I was not addressing your comments, which I think are by and large constructive and balanced.
 
I'm not saying, and never say, it's alright not to strive for perfection. All software companies try to do better, otherwise we'd still be on Cubase 1, Sonar 1, Pro Tools 1, etc. Nor am I saying "everyone else is just as bad" (and it's always frustrating to try to carry on a discussion about something I never said). I'm saying everyone is subject to a similar set of constraints.
 
My comments are directed in a more general sense to the people who want specific features in a DAW that other DAWs have. This happens on all the DAW forums I frequent, not just here. They just don't seem to acknowledge that companies - not just Cakewalk, all of them - have to prioritize what's a) they have the resources to accomplish, and b) what they feel will satisfy the greatest percentage of their user base. There are plenty of things I'd like to see implemented in Sonar, but frankly, I think that they wouldn't be very important to other people - how many people are clamoring for features specific to creating loop libraries? So I just shut up about them!
 
As to Propellerheads, of all the software companies, I think they have the best track record on x.0 releases. But, they get to work with a closed system, and they have fewer products to support and update (although they do have the issue of accommodating cross-platform operation). They're also really smart and do public betas. I think that if I could mandate just one thing for all software companies to do, it would be to do public betas of all their software prior to a release that charges people for the software.

Thanks Craig I appreciate your reply.

But I would point out that Z3ta II is also a 'closed' system and is offered in one of the expanded bundles and is also the most recent Cakewalk product that recieved an embarrasing mauling around the forums due to the quality standard on release. IOW it was badly broken, broken customers as a result of these things are harder to fix than the software is and propogate a bad reputation for the company as a whole.

An the constraints thing I've also already observed that if a company can't support it's ambitions completely it should reduce it's ambitions to enable it to service it's current product line effectively, without expecting it's customers to feel sorry for them because of the large amount of work they have to do, which was the overarching thrust put forward in both Keiths' and Noels' post.

Not even "I can appreciate your concerns", just a response saying effectively "We're already doing it right and I've got better things to do with my time".

Anderton

ba_midi

FastBikerBoy

SteveStrummerUK



If anyone was interested, the option to arm/record on the fly is found at:

• Edit > Preferences > Project > Record > Recording Mode > Allow Arm Changes During Playback/Record

Ah yes, I knew it was somewhere, that should help a few out hopefully. Thanks Steve.

BTW - some options in PREFERENCES only show up when there's a project loaded.   Some people aren't aware of that so I thought I'd mention it here/now/again.

I'm glad you did...I'd completely forgotten about that!!
 
And I totally agree with your "quest for Nirvana" line in a previous post. One of the good/bad aspects of software-based anything is its fluidity. If you bought a Telecaster in 1959. the scale length didn't change, it still has six strings, and you can still buy strings for it . Software is a moving target, and the hardware/software combination moves even faster.
 
But, I should also add that the reason why I come to this forum is usually to see what issues are on people's minds, which provides fodder for my Sonar workshop columns in Sound on Sound. For example, yes, I know Sonar's audio engine is not gapless...but it certainly doesn't seem anywhere near as bad on my system as others paint it to be. Now, I have no doubt that what they're experiencing is real. However, I also have no doubt that what I'm experiencing is real. So, I think it would be instructive to poke around and see if particular operations or hardware settings improve or degrade gaplessness.
 
Of course, some could say "You shouldn't have to do that, it should just work." And that would be nice, but I have deadlines and don't have time to wait until the audio engine is overhauled. However, I do have time to figure out how to improve the performance as much as possible within the existing constraints, and act accordingly. Practically speaking, that's my only option. If gapless audio were of truly crucial importance to me, I'd use Live or Acid all the time. But it falls more under the "would be nice, but not essential" category for me.

Using "gapless audio" as a basis for my assertion to follow ...

I love gapless audio in Live and Studio One, and even Reaper.  It really does make them "different" than Sonar in an obvious and blatant way.

BUT - because I have invested years of "in depth" learning and knowledge in Sonar, I seem to "tolerate" it not being gapless.    As I have said previously (and probably often), inserting almost any synth in X1(E) causes a gap/pause.  In 8.5.3 it was not as glaring.  It happened, but not as often.   So whatever got changed/fixed in X1(E) that has allowed me to actually use X1 on my main system seems to have also changed the depth of the gapping problem in my case.

Yet, as I said, I tolerate it.  I think this happens to many people in many situations where there has been an investment and perhaps even a comfort zone established.  We as humans tend to "tolerate" things.

But with that toleration comes a price.  When others things we tolerate start to build up (eg: a bunch of new bugs) the toleration soon turns into frustration.  It then opens the door to users wanting greener pastures, perhaps.   It did for me, initially at the release stage of X1.

So knowing Sonar is NOT gapless is, by itself, probably not enough to make existing users jump ship.   Adding in more things to tolerate just might.

But even if we take the psychological aspect off the table (which is hard to do, but ...) -- actually working with a gapless audio environment REALLY does make a difference (to me, and many others).  It's a very different experience.  And, if a product is reasonably bug free AND gapless, well that's definitely going to pull people toward it.

But strictly from even a music-making perspective, I suspect a truly gap-free Sonar environment would change not only the existing user base's perception, but would undoubtedly change a LOT of OTHER people's perception of Sonar as well.

Just like in political drama, making Sonar gapless would take a "major" argument against it off the table immediately.   I can't see how that would be a bad thing in any case.

And that would bring Sonar just a little bit closer to "nirvana", no? ;)

 
At least we don't get charged for the gaps
 
 
 
"Pfft - gapless DAWs are so missing in those all important gaps... buy SONAR today - now with free gaps!!"

I'm telling ya' if Sonar ever does get gapless playback somebody will complain they have to use the stop button to stop playback..... you just wait and see....

FBB - :)

Jonbouy

ba_midi


But with that toleration comes a price.  When others things we tolerate start to build up (eg: a bunch of new bugs) the toleration soon turns into frustration.  It then opens the door to users wanting greener pastures, perhaps.   It did for me, initially at the release stage of X1.

So knowing Sonar is NOT gapless is, by itself, probably not enough to make existing users jump ship.   Adding in more things to tolerate just might.

An absolutely key point.

When X1 came out it made me think, well if I have to learn a new workflow just to continue doing the exact same things I've been doing in 8.5 then why don't I look at different workflows that actually provide different or even added functionality to what I have already.

Until that point I was never interested in looking elsewhere. Reason and Sonar pretty much covered my requirements.

Since then I've settled on two competing products that provide real extended features and Reason grew up to the point where it naturally took over some of Sonar's features.

I obviously wasn't alarmed by looking at a new way of working as I've since learned how to operate two completely alien DAWs, gained some real extra functionality, reduced the amount of issues I run into and all for less than the price of an upgrade from 8.5 to X1E.

Sonar remains part of my workflow and likely will for a long time but its duties are becoming fewer and less important whereas a few short months ago it pretty much covered the whole ground, not because Sonar got worse but because other stuff is making strides.

But if Cakewalks' team are happy with that scenario then so be it.  Sitting comfortably in the storm cellar and saying "there ain't no wind in here" while there is a typhoon of competition going on above ground frankly gives me no confidence moving forward. And now I'm finding that I have better things to do with my time than point this out.

This will probably be my last word on these subjects, but at least I can say I've been an intensely loyal customer and I tried to get a heartfelt and reasonable set of points across.

I still think Brandon deserves a medal for being the public 'Front' of this company...  I'd certainly want him on my firm.

I agree with much of that, Jon.   Including Brandon deserving a medal.

FastBikerBoy


I'm telling ya' if Sonar ever does get gapless playback somebody will complain they have to use the stop button to stop playback..... you just wait and see....

I'd even take bets on it

Switching midi channels from the controller is no good either. You need to switch tracks and record the relevant information on the assigned track.

If you set specific input channels for each track, each will record (and echo) only what you send on that channel from your controller.

Studio One Pro is a fine program; I use the mastering/assembly page all the time (it's basically replaced CD Architect for me). But, if you go to the Presonus forums, you'll see multiple complaint threads - crashing on the Mac, can't get Melodyne to work, confusion about how track folders work, and of course, the obligatory "When I do this it crashes" followed by the obligatory "Well I do that all the time and it doesn't crash"...as well as a link to a hotfix.

This isn't a bash on Studio One any more than my complaints about Sonar bash Sonar or my praise for Sonar elevates it above all other programs. It just supports my point about the increasing complexity of software, and how disparities between [fill in the blank - hardware, accessories, plug-ins, workflow, graphics cards, whatever] - are a minefield. This will only get more problematic in the years ahead, as more permutations and combinations of systems are on the market, and programs push them harder.

But, now I definitely have a potential topic for my next Sonar Workshop column - "How to Minimize Audio Gapping in Sonar." If I find any "silver bullet" tips, I'll be sure to post them here.

I also have to add just one more comment, and a quick story, before I get back to work. There was a comment earlier about "yes men" who are afraid to tell their superiors about some problem in order to save their skins. While there ARE some companies like that in the music industry, that hasn't been what I've seen with software companies at all.

The music industry is a low-paying industry by conventional standards. No CEO from Pepsi is going to come over to an MI company, and so we end up with companies populated by a lot of musicians and artists who are very passionate about what they do. In terms of marketing, surveys, advertising, etc., the music industry as a whole is incredibly naive. Take a look at the AES videos on the Harmony Central YouTube channel, and check out the designers and sales reps. None of them look like Mitt Romney, if you know what I mean

So most "corporate meetings" I've witnessed are much more like a contentious band arguing over a set list than captains of industry shrewdly mapping out their future. Out of respect for companies that probably wouldn't like me citing specific, uh, "heated discussions" I won't give specifics, but I have noticed that most of the time the arguments revolve about the "vision" regarding a particular program, and whether any proposed changes are true to that vision.

But, I figure I can tell you a story about a company that doesn't exist any more. Ensoniq was about to come out with a successor to the Mirage, and the company was split down the middle about what to call it. It got really, really heated, and one of their marketing people honestly thought they were going to come to blows. So he said "Tell you what. We'll never get a consensus. I know how to get in touch with Craig Anderton, we'll tell him the two options and let him decide. But you all have to promise that whatever he says goes, and that will be the end of it."

Well I got the phone call, thought one name was much better than the other, and explained why. And that's why the follow-up keyboard ended up being called EPS instead of Mirage II. The upside was that no one at Ensoniq got their teeth knocked out. The downside, of course, was that from that point on I was very popular with half the company, and very unpopular with the other half. 

Hi Craig. If you are going to do some research on gapless performance in Sonar (and it will be very welcome) make sure you visit this thread please:

http://forum.cakewalk.com...93&mpage=2#2391081

And go to my post #48 and make sure you can do the test I have suggested there. As I have said I have not been able to get Sonar to do this sucessfully.

Start n go your like a person holding up a quart saying you fixed the problem of the missing ten dollar bill. Lets hope all those problems what we have are resolved for 90% of Sonars users. Anderton I am glad you have got the point now. It is only certain characteristics that are specific to certain DAWs that make one DAW stand out over or sometimes side to side with another. Glad we can be amicable though we don't have to agree on every point. Here is the dilemma my point of view of how a DAW operates can be brilliant for you and an experience for me. KNowledge, experience does play apart. Who knows the product inside out. Guess thats why we are here :) Just read your post Craig, very interesting as I am sure we agreed on a point or two. Anyway, I would like a review on the "Gapless issue in Sonar" as i have learnt it is there but not all there, what is missing and what could be put right (if) it needs to be put right. As here there is differing views which could make an onlooker sceptical of using this software. When you finished it can you please point us to it I think it would be a good read!

PLAYER - It could be better, but it could be a lot worse +1

Dappa1


Start n go your like a person holding up a quart saying you fixed the problem of the missing ten dollar bill. Lets hope all those problems what we have are resolved for 90% of Sonars users. Anderton I am glad you have got the point now. It is only certain characteristics that are specific to certain DAWs that make one DAW stand out over or sometimes side to side with another. Glad we can be amicable though we don't have to agree on every point. Here is the dilemma my point of view of how a DAW operates can be brilliant for you and an experience for me. KNowledge, experience does play apart. Who knows the product inside out. Guess thats why we are here :) Just read your post Craig, very interesting as I am sure we agreed on a point or two. Anyway, I would like a review on the "Gapless issue in Sonar" as i have learnt it is there but not all there, what is missing and what could be put right (if) it needs to be put right. As here there is differing views which could make an onlooker sceptical of using this software. When you finished it can you please point us to it I think it would be a good read!

Yow! For $10 I hope everything in the quart works like it should and I won't need an 'update'! 

Jeff Evans


Hi Craig. If you are going to do some research on gapless performance in Sonar (and it will be very welcome) make sure you visit this thread please:

http://forum.cakewalk.com...93&mpage=2#2391081

And go to my post #48 and make sure you can do the test I have suggested there. As I have said I have not been able to get Sonar to do this sucessfully.

I'm aware of that thread, and always wondered what the ultimate resolution was (is it valid? does it only apply to specific systems?). I'll try your test but honestly, that's not the way I work, adding multiple parts on different instruments on the same take...so it's never bothered me. But, I'll see if I can figure out a way to make it happen because if it's the workflow you like, then there are probably others who like the same workflow.

FastBikerBoy


Yes gapless is just that, no glitching or stopping when doing just about anything. I don't think anyone would argue that Sonar is gapless, or at least I wouldn't but it's obviously worse for some than others. That may have a lot to do with how its used but there's also a lot of other variables.

The only thing I consistently get dropouts with is switching sends on & off, that's worse for me than anything else including inserting tracks and synths which I would have thought was more intensive than turning a send on, but not in my experience. Looping isn't much of an issue for me unless I move the loop ends through the now time and even that is more likely to keep going rather than glitch or drop out.

But that's just my experiences, there are many different ones though and I'm sure there'll be others here that can turn sends on & off all day but can't insert a synth maybe. It's software, go figure.........

Ok now it motivated me to make a video about me working on sonar , on/off sends / inserting tracks , effects , synths and all without stopping the play .....just to show that it works !!


I'm not saying that the engine is the best , but engine takes care also of the latency compensation and so many things that in sonar is way better that other daws ...


One more thing i see and saw a lot is the bad methology a lot of people have during the production process (production = production , pre mixing and mixing stage , mastering) with each phase kinda merged with the other and so no real separation of the phases and so , for exemple ,hit the mixing stage with alot  vst's still playing and all !!


I have the chance of having a lot of NFR daws including Live , Studio one , PT , Record  .....and guess what ?
Sonar still is my baby ;)

Sommation quality also : nobody give a damn or what ? This by far one of my main concern as i have sometime complex mixes and no anaolg summation solution ....so in this area  also , this just a death match ....excepet maybe for Nuendo , PT , and studio one ...the rest isn't in the same league ...