My 2 cents:

I agree the MAC shut-out has a bit to do with it. There seems to be a real drift toward the laptops especially. They're still pricey, but I have to admit, watching my friend flip his mac open and just start typing must certainly be preferred to the several minute load & log that I have to do on my Xp laptop. My studio desktop loads faster!

The other is name recognition. Sonar??? You know. . . Cakewalk -Oh Yeah, I had a copy "back in the day" The Cakewalk association, I feel draws the the reputation down a bit, because you can get a viable Cakewalk product for under $50.00! Now in some eyes that may cheapen the professional product, but I'm happy that the strategy enables me to share files with a friend running a base version of Music Creator, that I can pop it right up in SonarPE to add it to my master project.

I really think the "respectability" issue could be dealt with on the marketing side, promoting the SONAR brand and keeping the Cakewalk to a minimum.


Ed.

ORIGINAL: John
P.S. I remember with my Wollensack tape recorder way back when. It had a pause that was a lever that was held with a finger. It was a brake on the transport. Letting go would unpause it. Needless to say holding that thing was not a fun thing to hold. I hope that this is not what you all want.

With an MC, a servo, and some programming we can replicate this functionality for you.

ORIGINAL: John T
STOP is what Sonar does now. It's got two options, re-wind to origin point and STOP, or STOP at current position (and update the "rewind to" point).

Pause would, like, you know, pause. The "rewind to" point would not change. There would be no re-wind. You'd be able to unpause and carry on from where you left off. But you'd also be able to stop and go back to your origin point.

I just played with the transport a little more (I guess once you get used to working with something you don't question it as much...).

Your description of how the transport works today highlights the problem with the transport. You identify two concepts -- "now time" and "rewind to". The current transport does not support those concepts, it only has "now time", and the role of now time is intended to cover both concepts, but fails in doing so. The two concepts need to be unambiguously represented.

Currently, depending on how you have SONAR configured, "now time" can mean either:

1.) Actual now time (i.e., what's playing at time X) + where playback started from , OR

2.) Actual now time + where the next playback start point will be (i.e., "the new playback start")

The problem is that there needs to be one visual representation of where the transport is positioned during playback or otherwise (i.e., "now time"), and a totally seperate visual representation of where the transport should rewind to either a.) automatically in the case where you hit stop and the "rewind to now time" option is enabled, or b.) when you hit the stop then rewind buttons. Just like "now time" is a special marker, you also need a "rewind to" special marker. The one marker can't represent both things at the same time. Just like the pan slider doesn't also represent the trim setting.

The "now time" construct should be more explicit -- the little green triangle should move with the vertical line across the top of the TV. The geen marker should always represent actual now time of the transport (i.e., alignd with the vertical line). The little green triangle is just a handle to grab onto now time in TV, but it should not be confused with an actual marker -- in fact, don't make it a triangle at all, make it a circle, so that it's never confused with any type of marker!

Separately you need a special marker introduced called the "rewind to" marker. Maybe identify that with a blue circle to distinguish from red markers and the yellow loop point markers. Also, make the "rewind to" grabbable so you can move it around the TV just like other markers, add right-click options and keystrikes for setting the "rewind to" marker (or setting it to T0).

I don't care where playback started from . I only care about the specific place to go back to when I hit stop or rewind or whatever. Currently, the "started from" point is a big part of the equation, but it shouldn't be -- it should be treated as a totally arbitrary point in time and have no bearing on anything beyond setting the initial time slice for playback (or record).

Also, I'm sure it's been mentioned, but setting up a loop selection currently will allow you to rewind to a starting point without changing the now time marker.

keith, for clarification: the "now time", is a term defined by CW. you can look it up in help/search.

F@KKER

ORIGINAL: F@KKER
keith, for clarification: the "now time", is a term defined by CW. you can look it up in help/search.

I understand what "now time" is. My problem is that CW also defines "Now Time Marker" -- this is the "rewind to" point -- but "now time" and "Now time marker" are one in the same thing!!! This is wrong.

If I change now time I also change the now time marker. If I change the now time marker I also change the now time. You can't separate them. Are now time and now time marker supposed to be different things, or not? As it is now, they are tied together, yet they're supposed to represent different concepts.

To support pausing playback then rewinding to "now time marker" (or "rewind to" marker, or whatever you want to call it) the two things need to be separated, with the option of tying them together to do what it does today. I need to be able to set now time marker without changing now time, and vice versa.

PLUS you need to make the now time marker mean something to the rewind button, which is not the case today. Basically the current "rewind to now marker" option is a special type of rewind function. Why have a special type of rewind function? You alreayd have a rewind button!

ORIGINAL: fastelder
I agree the MAC shut-out has a bit to do with it. There seems to be a real drift toward the laptops especially. They're still pricey, but I have to admit, watching my friend flip his mac open and just start typing must certainly be preferred to the several minute load & log that I have to do on my Xp laptop. My studio desktop loads faster!

That's only if you shut the PC laptop down completely. You can easily keep it in stand-by indefinitely, which means you can get the same performance. Close the lid to stand-by, open the lid and press power to start-up and these procedures only take a couple seconds.

Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - Author of Cakewalk, Sound Forge 6, 7/8 and SONAR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Power books.
** Get Sonar 6 Power & Sound Forge 8 Power - Today! **
http://www.garrigus.com/

Publisher of DigiFreq. Win a free Absynth 3 or Kontakt 2 DVD Tutorial and learn cool music technology tips and techniques by getting a FREE subscription to DigiFreq... over 20,000 readers can't be wrong! Go to:
http://www.digifreq.com/digifreq/

ORIGINAL: droddey

I can't say anything definitive about the Mac vs. PC in the video industry. But I'm a movie nut and I have watched thousands of DVDs by now and I watch all of the extras in pretty much every case, which often includes various amounts of 'making of' stuff. I seem to see considerably more Windows machines being used than I do Macs, though of course there are also a fair number of hefty Unix boxes (SGI I guess?) being used as well for CGI rendering. But most folks who I see using a laptop or desktop machine seems to be using a Windows box most of the time. Now most of what they are doing is not actually editing, it's design work, front ends for various CGI type systems, software development, image correction, simple stuff like just note taking, pre-viz, scheduling, hardware control, that kind of stuff. So I guess I'm just saying that the actual editing process is only a small part of what's going on in a movie in terms of computer use.

Yeah CGI work is a different story. I'm talking about the editing software used to make the final video delivery as that is what I have to deal with when I receive stuff to mix/sound design/etc. :)

UnderTow

Hmm this is an interesting debate. It seems to be turning to who uses PC vs MAC debate. It really does not matter; both are used in professional or semi professional set ups. Both allow for any individual to earn his daily bread.

I am glad that they have been a few here that have highlighted Sonar’s strengths and weakness’. It is just a matter of time before credibility will be associated with this sequencer. Sonar 5 and Sonar 6 are established apps and well worth looking into for anyone serious about their line of work. The fact that they are two markets that Sonar zone in on (home studio and professional) May cause lines to be blurred for the person from outside looking in. I think that Sonar 6xl has bridged the gap between home studio and professional. (if it has not it is getting closer?).

While we are on the subject of Pause…I was thinking that the mouse wheel could be used to slow rewind, left click and wheel; or fast forward, right click and wheel. With the option of pressing the wheel to pause. Da taaa! Problem solved.

In the U.K. I have noticed and also looking at the forums how many new members Cakewalk have been receiving. It would be nice to have a list of sales for this year alone to see how well the product has done.

I frequent sound control and they do not stock Sonar. I have only seen sonar five hiding between one or to other software.

I have been told that they do not stock Sonar as readily as others because of the Upgrade path that Sonar have. So even though Sonar is advertised once in a blue moon in a Mag. You will hardly see Sonar anywhere else. Sound control said that they had a man who was to show case Sonar, as most of the staff do not use Sonar although some have said that Sonar 5 is awesome. But the demonstration that they had, left the staff cooing over this product.

Others have heard of its performance and have noted that it has won numerous awards. Let it be known that people are indeed working on Pro tools, Cubase, whatever and looking over their shoulders and quietly musing over the other option.

I for one would like to do projects and bring them to a studio where the options are instantaneous. Therefore allowing me to work and collab with others who have not turned a blind eye to Sonar.

ORIGINAL: droddey

I can't say anything definitive about the Mac vs. PC in the video industry. But I'm a movie nut and I have watched thousands of DVDs by now and I watch all of the extras in pretty much every case, which often includes various amounts of 'making of' stuff. I seem to see considerably more Windows machines being used than I do Macs, though of course there are also a fair number of hefty Unix boxes (SGI I guess?) being used as well for CGI rendering. But most folks who I see using a laptop or desktop machine seems to be using a Windows box most of the time. Now most of what they are doing is not actually editing, it's design work, front ends for various CGI type systems, software development, image correction, simple stuff like just note taking, pre-viz, scheduling, hardware control, that kind of stuff. So I guess I'm just saying that the actual editing process is only a small part of what's going on in a movie in terms of computer use.

Given where you're at, you should see if you can take a tour up in Emeryville and then at the Presidio. You might
be surprised what they're running now.

As it is right now Sonar is a pile of old code.

Old code is always better than new code. Seriously.

Old code is QA-ed and bugfixed and user tested to the nth degree. Throwing away the codebase and starting again is how you end up like Netscape.

Code matures. Unfortunately, not even programmers grasp this a lot of the time.

Around Sonar 3 I believe CW said that they rewrote the entire program. One to make it easier to update and to make it compatible with international customers.

I suspect that, although I have no proof, what they did was rewrite the audio section and left the MIDI part much the same as it was in Pro Audio.

This was redone again with Sonar 4 and then 5 had the 64 bit engine. All this has made Sonar a bit less stable and I think it could use a complete rewrite including the MIDI side. The problem is that it is likely CW has developed their own libraries and do not want to abandon them after all the work that went into them.

All that being said we shall see how Sonar 7 does.

Best
John

ORIGINAL: John T
Code matures. Unfortunately, not even programmers grasp this a lot of the time.

At many of the places I have worked, ferments might be a better word.

ORIGINAL: Editor

Old code is QA-ed and bugfixed and user tested to the nth degree. Throwing away the codebase and starting again is how you end up like Netscape.

Hear, hear. Sounds like someone's been reading Joel on Software.

I do read that, yeah. But I know it from bitter experience myself. Where I work, we are all about code re-use these days. We've got some systems that we've been refining for a couple of years now, and they are rock solid. You could never hope to build them from scratch. That they've been in released products, and we've learned from how they were responded to and worked in the field, is a huge part of why they're good.

ORIGINAL: John T
Old code is QA-ed and bugfixed and user tested to the nth degree. Throwing away the codebase and starting again is how you end up like Netscape.

All those netscapes ended up millionaires many times over... I'll take that over being poor with an old codebase any day!

around the time v1 of Sonar came out I tried demos of pretty much everything that was on the market. Even Pro Tools Free. The only ones that I couldnt hear screwing up the sound were Cool Edit Pro (which has a multi track view that no one seems to know about) Sonar and Pro Tools. I went with Sonar because it had the most uncluttered, easy to navigate interface. That was years ago.
now it reminds me of one of those photoshopped jokes about what the next version of Word will look like.
The menus are a mess. Why does quantize show up in at least 3 places? Why do the tools for inline and regular PRV differ?
and yeah, why is the PRV getting more, not less, difficult to use?
I still find Sonar eminently usable. But because I use it for at least 20 hours a week, the problems with it are glaring.
I also think there is room for more vertical expansion. did you guys read all of my post? I said they should KEEP sonar as the middle level and come out with a "Nuendo".
Look at Steiny they have their entry level covered (Cubase LE or whatever you get in your box of cereal), their middle tier with Cubase, and top tier with Nuendo. Pro tools has perhaps the best vertical integration ever. They have the little baby m-powered then the M-boxes which run an incrementally better version of PT, then of course the Digi series which are a joke spec wise but which I have seen entire "pro" studios based around. mmmm...buttwich.
ANd then up to HD 3 or 360 or whatever they are calling their crowning acheivement this year. So you can spend $300, $3000 or $35,000 on a PT rig right?
Cakewalk is almost as stratified but it starts at the shoestring budget level with Music Creator for $40. Then you have Guitar tracks and Sonar Home Studio for $130-200 on the low middle on up to Sonar studio and producer for about $300 and $600. Where is the HD version? The Nuendo? Its not Sonar producer,thats exactly the same as studio, studio is just robbed of a few features.
Like I said, come out with a new one that blows our minds. Something that is as powerful as the current Sonar but does something in a whole new way. (the way acid is to loops etc) and make the interface smooth as silk.
One last tiny example. When changing the color of a clip why cant I just hit enter twice to get out of that dialogue? Why does the default button not default to "ok" as in "ok I made my choice get me outta here"
everytime I have to grab the mouse to fidget like that it disrupts my flow a little.