Time for math:

Upgrade from 8 to 8.5:   $179

Upgrade from 8.5 to X:     $99
Upgrade to EX:                 $49
======================
             Total:                 $148

Since I figger EX is the new top of the line, and I have always purchased Producer cuz it had more stuff, and now there are now 4 versions of Sonar X, this is sort of a a given purchase.

And, even though we were sorta told that no bug fixes are included with EX other's are reporting they have found such. Maybe. Maybe they were not paying attention before.

I would have preferred $79 instead and had a bunch of fixes and feature adjustments.

I have advocated for years that CW increase the price of Sonar. 

(General business: expenses are related to transactions, not revenues. There are many better ways to increase market share than lowering prices and increasing transactions. Higher prices, fewer customers, more profit.)

Maybe in December we will get to buy Sonar Superior, for another $49.

Always looking forward.

j

ba_midi

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' ;)

It would be easier to accept the argument that your system is sound and it's the software that's the problem when plenty of other users haven't had a problem with X1a,b,& c (or their workflow)  from the beginning. That's not taking into account the hundreds of purchasers of X1 who are using it successfully but who are not participants in this forum (of course, I'm just guessing there - could be just as many having problems getting it to run on their systems, too, but not reporting it on the forum).  Even Windows offer updates from time to time (on my home computer they are done in the background, while I'm connected to the internet) - could it be something Windows changes in their code that affects X1's stability, reliability and function?   And Cakewalk has to play catch-up (like all the other drivers, software companies and firmware updates) after Windows changes something. 
 
It just seems too easy to assume it's strictly a software problem when it doesn't function like it we think it should (or 'like it is advertised' with the minimum specs).  I know some people can't afford it, but ultimately it seems to me, not connecting your audio computer to the internet could prevent a ton of problems.  (Most of all, you could get rid of the pesky virus software that always seems to be updating every time you connect to the internet - that slows my home computer down more than anything, but it's better to be protected. My audio computer never touches the cable modem.)  Or even trying to run too many different kinds of software on your audio computer that also use the same resources in a different way. Does it make sense to have a CAD program or EXCEL on an audio computer? Do we know how any of the other programs affect our computer after we close them?  
 
I probably don't have enough experience to spout off these opinions. Like I said before, I'm fairly new to X1 but I've been reading these forums for over a year and a half now and I waited when X1 came out...especially after reading the backlash that ensued after the bottleneck of downloaders trying to 'get there first'. I'm looking forward to really getting more into X1 and I just downloaded Expanded, because ultimately, it's where the company is going and I still believe in this company.  I built a few computers years ago, but found that it is less of a  headache buying from Dell's business computer site and with a little shopping, I could find a decent priced Dell without all the trialware and crap I don't need - just Windows with everything (Hardware) already configured, tested and working great. Everything I've loaded on it has worked as expected, even X1.  I never buy HP or any computer from the big box office or discount stores - they have WAY too much crap on them.  
 
I appreciate the debate, sorry to veer so far off subject...
--Startngo
 

And one more thing...for some reason, people expect software companies to introduce a product and thanks to good QA, testing, etc., it works fine out of the box. I know of no field of endeavor where this occurs. The Beatles' first album was not Sgt. Peppers, cars constantly improve from one model year to another, smartphones get smarter, Intel started with the 4004 and not the Xenon, etc.

People and companies learn over time, and apply that knowledge to building "a better mousetrap." Mistakes will always be made with something new, it's unavoidable. As least when software has a bug, no one gets killed...unlike cars that have a design flaw resulting in accidents and recalls.

Besides, it's not about the software, it's about the melody line, the lyrics, the chord progression, and the emotional impact on the listener. I have yet to find a DAW that didn't allow those elements to come through. That's not making excuses; that's setting priorities - which we as users must do, as must companies.

You feel a bit sick?

Hmm.. Dappa1.. Really... Is it really necessary to attack anyone that is just pleased or merely accepting X1 and the Extensions? Mr. Anderton is just giving his vision on what is the status at this moment (and I agree with most things he said), just like you. Man - get yourself together and stop acting like a Troll. This is going really over the top...

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.

If you have to ask these questions you are clearly not capable to respond in a reasonable way. While I think X1 (and Expanded) can be improved I strongly disagree with your apocalyptic painting of X1 as a disaster. I only can conclude you do not even try to have a reasonable debate here and only want to Troll around.... Too bad.... Well - back to the mature world.. I have work to do..

We create test projects all the time.  There have been countless cases of serious deep interaction between Cakewalk and customers.  

I've personally participated in many of those as have many other bakers.

For anyone running into issues, we encourage them go through through our support channels.
Not only has work been done on SONAR, but there have been steady improvements to the website, the store, customer service, etc.

We've recently upgraded to new systems internally so we have a really good picture of the open issues, trending issues from customers, etc.  The fault reporter added in E is just the most recent example of that.

Now I should really get back to coding.  

Well, I, for one am happy that I can use 4 instances of AT3.7 without seeing my CPU readings hitting the 15-20% mark. 
so there.


But, yeah, it would be nice if there were some improvements to it. 

Dappa1


"It's skool boy errors which makes me wonder if the errors/bugs are left in there on purpose.".

Have you filed problem reports with support?

Thanks.

FBB are you saying it is possible while in playback to press record? If so I will have to enter that as a problem report! Keith your guys have done well so far with X1c but its taken a little time to get there. So I can understand you being vocal today. If your asking me to put in a feature request then that is acceptable. For anyone that is reading these forums and have not decided to get X1 based on comments let me assure you that X1 is a capable app. The metronome could use some help and it could be gapless. I don't mind filling in the report at some stage Keith.

I'm not saying that Sonar is completely dropout free, but I can certainly insert a track, arm it for recording and enter record mode without it stopping. It's not often I'd work like that admittedly but I can if needed. I've just done it again here to make sure, that's why I queried your post.

I'm more likely to get a dropout while switching sends in & out, it's the only thing on my system that is likely to get a dropout more often than not. That is frustrating.

I have a relatively underpowered system as well. All the talk of problems with some of the firepower some people are running is making me nervous about my planned system upgrade at the end of the year. Maybe I should leave well alone seeing as what I have is so stable.

Thank you for showing me that it can be done!

Dappa1


FBB this is the scientific find of the decade! SO whilst in playback mode you can arm your track?

This has been a around for a while tho. Since v8? I think you have to tick a box in preferences for "alow arming of tracks during playback" or something along those lines. Check the help file if needed - and if it doesn't do it by default.
 
It works tho, I do that all the time. Now if I could disable the Write Automation while playback is running then it would be all swell

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

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 :)

 It seems, to me, that after spending a year (or more) hiding VSTs in Pro Channel while missing the import of the it doesn't fit on anything less than a 1080p screen... AND it doesn't scroll feature that "ProChannel was just about completely rewritten to make it modular."

 Why would any company have to spend the next year completely rewriting what they just invested in and released?

 That doesn't really seem, to me, to have anything to do with over a million possibilities.

 The sad irony is that most of the people who have listed their names here have explained that they did not upgrade because ProChannel is something they are disinterested in... and it seems that Cakewalk's marketing is focusing on ProChannel as if it's important... and it seems as if tech-Dev could be doing other things.

Like for example; it seems as if someone within Cakewalk could have pointed out that reducing track visibility in Track view was going to be met with derision and ridicule. My guess is that someone at Cakewalk did make that observation and that someone else dismissed the concern.

I keep hoping that the end user reaction to X1 will empower the people who have some common sense at Cakewalk and allow them to exert some influence in the design of SONAR.

My end user experience with X1 suggests to me that poorly imagined personal agendas were pursued and the results are inexcusable symptoms such as a ProChannel interface that can't be viewed in it's entirety on a common computer display screen.

Good ideas make sense.

What I see in X1 is a stack of non sensical ideas.




Furthermore the idea that " no two users would execute the same sequence of operations when performing any task in SONAR. " is a nonsensical statement.

Yes, of course there are millions of permutations. But in fact, statistically, it is most likely that most operations will be performed in almost exactly the same manner.

You can't use logic to go from the idea that there are millions of permutations to the idea that no two users work the same way. That is a notion that someone would just have to want to believe... there's no logic that can support that claim.

I am. personally, hoping for some common sense to pervade the Cakewalk shop to the extent that who ever actually coordinates or "manages" the overview and development of SONAR starts making practical decisions. I'd probably settle for some bread and butter logic. I'll continue to send money in and hope things get better.


 best regards,
mike