Helpful ReplyWhy are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration

Page: 1234 > Showing page 1 of 4
Author
Audioicon
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 349
  • Joined: 2016/06/13 23:25:25
  • Status: offline
2017/10/19 22:28:06 (permalink)

Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration


Hello everyone:
Given the age of Cakewalk and Sonar in general, why is there not some High End dedicated Hardware that is proprietary for Sonar? Pro-tools and Motu comes to mind.

I saw this coming along when Roland Acquired Cakewalk sometime ago.

As a pragmatist, I tend to focus more on possibilities than limitations. And I feel if there were hardware to match industry standard it will create a very tight integration for Sonar.

My Refrigerator says GE, but I recently discovered everything in it is made by Samsung. Can't Gibson do this or talk to the folks at RME?

Again, like Pro-tools HD, Cakewalk/Sonar HD completely configured for Sonar.

Thoughts?



#1
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8424
  • Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/19 22:49:39 (permalink)
Plain and simple there would not be enough of a market for it. 
Manufactures are going to build for the highest user base. And even at that, DAW users requiring something that intigrated would be in the 1% or less range of all the people using the software.  
And because DAW's are always updating how long would the hardware be good for? 
There are a few control surfaces that people are using, 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/I-am-wondering-what-control-surfaces-are-compatable-with-splat-m3661544.aspx
 
 

Johnny V  
Cakelab  
Focusrite 6i61st - Tascam us1641. 
3 Desktops and 3 Laptops W7 and W10
 http://www.cactusmusic.ca/
 
 
#2
tenfoot
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2186
  • Joined: 2015/01/22 18:12:07
  • Location: Qld, Australia
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/19 23:00:11 (permalink)
There was the V-Studio 700.
 

Bruce.
 
Sonar Platinum 2017-09, Studio One 3.5.3, Win 10 x64, Quad core i7, RME Fireface, Behringer X32 Producer, Behringer X32 Rack, Presonus Faderport, Lemure Software Controller (Android), Enttec DMXIS VST lighting controller, Xtempo POK.
#3
BenMMusTech
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2606
  • Joined: 2011/05/23 16:59:57
  • Location: Warragul, Victoria-Australia
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/19 23:31:23 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby SteveStrummerUK 2017/10/23 07:16:58
Ok...interesting question. Let's look at this from another angle, 'what is high end?' for a start, and 'do you need a high end interface secondly?'

In the bad old days of early digital and even pre-early digital...think 1977 when the first digital recording was made, converters were basic, unless you stumped up for some boutique converters, or indeed you joined the dark side of the force and brought into the Pro Fools rubbish. In reality what we're talking about is the dynamic range of the converters, and jitter or the clock signal that syncs the audio throughout the analogue to digital and vice versa signal path. The dynamic range of very early converters was about 96db or 16 bit as we know it. In comparison vinyl was only 64db. Now no early converters could take advantage of the full 96db range, and indeed even the best converters today cannot take advantage of the full dynamic range of 24 bit converters. For example most the prosumer Presonus and Motu stuff now offer about 118db of dynamic range, up from about 112-115 which was the standard about 7 years. I'm not sure what the high end convertors are offering in terms of dynamic range...if anyone knows?? 
 
Now the pertinent question is...do you need anymore dynamic range from your converters? and the answer is if you are an average Sonar user probably not, and this is why Sonar is such a great program...Cakewalk have implemented a software solution. This is the 64bitfp mix engine and their upsampling paradigm. By using these concepts within Sonar, you're creating almost unlimited internal dynamic range, and you're eliminating the problem of time based effects disappearing into the noise floor or sounding grainy at the end of the tails. This is why in the past you needed high end converters, because they helped mask and eliminate this problem. 
 
There are a couple of caveats, firstly back to jitter. Jitter is the tiny errors that form between poorly synced ADDA hardware and converters, and can be heard in time based effects and when the noise floor is higher than the output of the audio signal - say if you were mixing an individual instrument. Now if you have a large recording session, and everything was being laid down in a recording studio all at once...say a classical orchestra or indeed a rock band...then the likely hood of jitter coming to bite you in the bum is great, but again if you're an average Sonar user...this is not a problem with prosumer converters. You could easily record a band, probably not a close mic orchestra, and with Sonar's 'software' fix you won't have a problem. The issue is, if you start wanting to add in hardware based effects to the mix as you mix, and this is really the second caveat...by not understanding the digital medium, and the difference between celluloid and zeros and ones...the contemporary audio engineer/producer work within a hybrid paradigm, where they neither commit fully to the analogue medium or the digital medium. Furthermore, this is creating confusion as to converters and high end vs prosumer or the point of your question really. You see, if you're going to record with an analogue mind set...this is high quality outboard analogue equipment into a DAW, you need all the dynamic range your high end converters can muster, because all the stuff we enjoy within music...the tape compression and harmonic distortion gets lost or destroyed by both the lack of dynamic range...or it disappears into the noise floor once we convert our master file into 16bit...something I don't recommend by the way...16bit anything is obsolete, or the jitter actually makes the things we love to hear in our music sound distorted and grainy.
 
Hopefully this answers the OP, to conclude just in case they don't. Sonar doesn't need to create high end audio interfaces or indeed does any other company for Sonar...as I've said, unless you're doing true proper high definition audio or indeed you're transferring Beatle tapes and the like into the digital realm...high end anything is nothing more than a marketing ploy used to give teenage boys and now some girls gear envy. What this does is hold back emerging talent from really harnessing the potential of our technological eco system software instruments...Sonar. I will have to do some research to see how the other big DAWs have implemented a software solution to a hardware problem, but I think Sonar are still ahead of the curve in regards to this matter...I mean it wasn't until 2012 or around about then (off the top of my head) that Pro Fools introduced 64bitfp. Sonar introduced 64bitfp in version 6 wasn't it??, of course Pro Fools had their proprietary 48bit hardware fix. 
 
Ben         

Benjamin Phillips-Bachelor of Creative Technology (Sound and Audio Production), (Hons) Sonic Arts, MMusTech (Master of Music Technology), M.Phil (Fine Art)
http://1331.space/
https://thedigitalartist.bandcamp.com/
http://soundcloud.com/aaudiomystiks
#4
LLyons
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 574
  • Joined: 2004/08/25 12:48:39
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/19 23:56:46 (permalink)
My opinion might be found in three words.  Vision, Focus, and Success.  To me, vision is a function of what I can see (customers needs, product, sales, employee satisfaction, profit, goals and the like).  Focus should be on what I can do, need to do (resources, tasks and the like) and bridging the difference to make the vision happen.   One can argue this point, but to me success - is the long term performance indicator of the first two - with customer expectations and needs being met, and dare I say, delighted enough to look forward to buying more of what the company produces best. 
 
We do not know what goes on in the business planning meetings at Cakewalk. Their engineering plan portion might just have a revolutionary hardware design that costs nothing to design and produce, and eclipse every hardware supplier out there.  They might know it will take 3 years, and have learned from other hardware manufacturers not to let plans be talked about in case that they can't make 1 of 100 points work.  The music hardware industry is re-pleat with 'I know that's what I said, but sorry, I could not make it happen'.  I for one would truly be delighted if they did have something great cooking in the hardware arena. But if they don't,  I suspect they have put their vision into a realistic plan, and are beating cheeks to the finish line so to speak. So that, they make good money from a good product with a loyal customer base that just wants their DAW software to make their music dream a reality, and maybe have fun doing it. 
 
I think its a bit off to say 'we can do anything' - a four foot tall person might not make the best center in the NBA.  It just might be better to say 'this is what I can do, want to do, and will do'.  But hey, that's me.  I can probably write a good song, and want to write a hit song, but... it ain't happened yet.   :o)
 
Take care!

L Lyons 
DOS and Windows Pro Audio 2-9 from 12 Tone, Sonar 2, 2XL, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 8.5, Producer, Producer Expanded, X1 Producer, X2 Producer, X3 Producer and now Sonar Platinum 64 bit - 2nd year
Home Built Machine
32G Ram - Corsair Vengeance DDR4 
Win 10 Pro
Intel i7-6700K
Gigabyte Z170-UD5 Thunderbolt3 - AVB ready
Planar Hellium 27 touchscreen
Limited connection to internet
DAW use ONLY
WAVES 9.2 64 Bit 
MOTU 1248 - Connect Thunderbolt
MOTU AVB Switch
Presonus RM32ai - Connect firewire 800
CS18ai - Connect AVB
#5
Tim Flannagin
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 132
  • Joined: 2015/01/28 16:50:14
  • Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 01:36:08 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby tlw 2017/10/20 14:34:40
It seems to me that a better direction to go in would be to simplify and enhance Cakewalk's ability to take advantage of the available controllers. ACT is available,  but to be honest, it's a little confusing to set up. Key bindings are available, but again this is a little difficult for some users. AZSLOW's solution is great, but again requires some programming and understanding of MIDI control. It seems to me that making the process of setting up/mapping a controller in a way that gives maximum useability for Sonar would be the way to go. Novation's Automap program and Arturia's MIDI Control center come to mind. These programs actually recognize the controller that is plugged in, and present
a graphic to assist in setting up the buttons and knobs. It's helpful, but you still have to have knowledge of Cakewalk (at least in the case of Arturia's MIDI Control Center). This method world require some investment in programming, but would relieve the company of the cost of developing and marketing another VS700 like product knowing that the potiential market is limited. 
 
My two cents worth,

Dell Precision T5400, 2 Xeon E5420 CPUs, 32 GB ram, 1 X 750 GB HDD, 2 X 1TB HDD, Nvidia GTX750 , M-Audio 1010LT, Roland GR-55, Novation SL MKII 49 , Arturia MiniLab, Arturia Spark Creative Drum Controller, '77 Gibson Les Paul Artistan, Epiphone Les Paul Studio w/ GK-3, Fender Stratocaster, Dean Exotica Acoustic, Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Lifetime, Arturia  Synths galore!, Cakewalk Synths galore!, M-Audio BX-5a monitors, a couple of cheap mikes, a dubious quality desk, several shady characters hanging in the studio, etc....
#6
Seth Kellogg [Cakewalk]
Administrator
  • Total Posts : 814
  • Joined: 2009/02/06 15:25:40
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 01:43:14 (permalink)
tenfoot
There was the V-Studio 700.


They still work great too. 

I just wish I could get signed W10 drivers :\

I wish I had grabbed a VS-100 too though.

Best Regards,
Seth
#7
RSMCGUITAR
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1318
  • Joined: 2014/12/27 02:33:15
  • Location: Toronto
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 01:57:45 (permalink)
I would think something a little less extreme than the V-Studio 700 would sell way better and be cheaper to make. If there was a OG Faderport style controller with Transport, 1 Fader, 12 encoder (for EQ) I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.
#8
Seth Kellogg [Cakewalk]
Administrator
  • Total Posts : 814
  • Joined: 2009/02/06 15:25:40
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 02:01:34 (permalink)
RSMCGUITAR
I would think something a little less extreme than the V-Studio 700 would sell way better and be cheaper to make. If there was a OG Faderport style controller with Transport, 1 Fader, 12 encoder (for EQ) I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.



If I didn't have a VS-700 I'd grab a OG Faderport and use AZ's plugin. As would most people ;)

There's very little market share for this type of hardware.

Best Regards,
Seth
#9
Audioicon
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 349
  • Joined: 2016/06/13 23:25:25
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 02:16:19 (permalink)
I appreciate all the input. First, this post has nothing to do with Pro-tools. I mention Pro-tools because they have dedicated hardware for their Software, Motu (Digital Performer).

Gibson owns Cakewalk, they also own Tascam, so why will it be far fetched to make a dedicated Interface or Hardware for Sonar?

Dedicated Hardware means better integration and less problems for users.



#10
Audioicon
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 349
  • Joined: 2016/06/13 23:25:25
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 02:26:47 (permalink)
BenMMusTech
Ok...interesting question. Let's look at this from another angle, 'what is high end?' for a start, and 'do you need a high end interface secondly?'

 
Yes I do. I use an RME UFX PLUS and it's better than any other interface out there. High end as in accurate translation of what's going in and what's coming out. No Color.
 
BenMMusTech
In the bad old days of early digital and even pre-early digital...think 1977 when the first digital recording was made, converters were basic, unless you stumped up for some boutique converters, or indeed you joined the dark side of the force and brought into the Pro Fools rubbish.



This post has nothing to do with Pro-tools, I also mentioned MOTU but you seem fixated on Pro-tools.
This is not about if Cakewalk Sonar is good or Bad.

All I am asking is that Cakewalk was acquired by a Company who also own Tascam, why and will they make hardware that are tightly integrated with the software so that users have unprecedented usability.

Just imagine the possibilities, if you have issues, you get help quickly and accurately because people will have similar systems and setups.

Currently if I have issues with RME, I have to go to their forum, unless I get someone here who uses the same system.





#11
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10654
  • Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
  • Location: TeXaS
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 03:32:34 (permalink)
Roland made the V700, which was as integrated a controller as you could want.  Cake never said anything but it didn't sell well, or enough to come out w/ V700b. 
 
As said above, there is simply no market for a dedicated controller except for Pro Tools  with their market share (especially top end).  A universal controller sells well enough.  But then you have problems integrating it with SONAR.  TASCAM could certainly do the hardware part, but you still have the software side.  Imagine having a software guy write code for a year or $100,000 worth of code.  How many units at what price do you need to sell to make that much profit back?  That is a lot of hardware.  And you would be going against old Faderports or new Behringer units.
 
Some sort of combo fader/knob unit built into a large touchscreen would be best.
 
But the best argument against a Cakewalk hardware unit is the fact they didn't prove popular enough when they had Roland make them.  There are simply not enough customers willing to pay $500 - $3000 for a hardware solution dedicated to SONAR.
 
 

https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/  
 
there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
#12
rodreb
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 915
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:59:42
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 04:18:06 (permalink)
I'm still using my old Tascam US-2400. Still works well and does what I need it to do.



ROD

Imaginary Friend Recording 
https://www.facebook.com/ifrecording?skip_nax_wizard=true
 
Dell XPS, i7 8700 (6 core), 16 gb 2666 RAM, two 2 Tb 7200 RPM HDD's, Windows 10 Home, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 & Octapre
 
#13
BenMMusTech
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2606
  • Joined: 2011/05/23 16:59:57
  • Location: Warragul, Victoria-Australia
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 05:02:49 (permalink)
Audioicon
BenMMusTech
Ok...interesting question. Let's look at this from another angle, 'what is high end?' for a start, and 'do you need a high end interface secondly?'

 
Yes I do. I use an RME UFX PLUS and it's better than any other interface out there. High end as in accurate translation of what's going in and what's coming out. No Color.
 
BenMMusTech
In the bad old days of early digital and even pre-early digital...think 1977 when the first digital recording was made, converters were basic, unless you stumped up for some boutique converters, or indeed you joined the dark side of the force and brought into the Pro Fools rubbish.



This post has nothing to do with Pro-tools, I also mentioned MOTU but you seem fixated on Pro-tools.
This is not about if Cakewalk Sonar is good or Bad.

All I am asking is that Cakewalk was acquired by a Company who also own Tascam, why and will they make hardware that are tightly integrated with the software so that users have unprecedented usability.

Just imagine the possibilities, if you have issues, you get help quickly and accurately because people will have similar systems and setups.

Currently if I have issues with RME, I have to go to their forum, unless I get someone here who uses the same system.









Sorry, I thought I was being unequivocal with my answer, which was there was no point. It would not be financially viable for one...look at Roland and Cakewalk, and look at all the other companies who've tried and failed to create integrated hardware/software products...they've all gone out of business. Secondly, as I pointed out...high end is somewhat of a myth. I'd have to do some research, but I remember doing some a number of years ago, and off the top of my head...all converters were made pretty much made by a small cartel...in fact, but don't quote me...but the converter used in RME's interface and Motu's was the same...the only difference was price :). RME being about 1000 dollars more. 
 
You also mention about tighter integration (less problems) being a payoff for Sonar customers, if Cakewalk built an audio-interface. Let me just say...that it is not Cakewalk or Sonar that is the problem and people who are experiencing problems, it is in fact underpowered PCs and cheap PC components that are the problem. I was having some issues a few weeks ago (crashes), these problems were the result of Windows last update, and indeed a machine that had reached the end of the line powerwise - oh and old plugins. I've now brought a new computer...a beast 32 gig of ram, 6 gig of graphics ram, main SSD drive - even an internal spindle drive for storage, I've also got an audio SSD drive connected to a USB 3 port, and duel 4k monitors. I no longer have the problems that were caused by my old computer being underpowerd. There are a couple of issues still, old plugins mainly...and indeed this is something that people need to address within the digital music paradgim...and no software, Pro Fools :), Cubase or Logic can overcome...when you have so many different standards of plugs...VST 2, VST 3 and DXI...can be made to work perfectly when you're mixing and matching those 3 plugin standards.
 
Finally, if you're having problems with RME i.e. drivers or something not working...you'd still be better off coming to this forum, because most people who use RME also use it with Crapple computers. And here is where you're really getting confused, it is the hyperrestrictions that Crapple impose on their computer parts and the apps which include Pro Fools and Logic that create the tight intergration. Cakewalk would literally have to get into building P.Cs to create what you want. And again...there is no point! 
 
I'd actually forgotton about Gibson owning Tascam, and indeed the links between Cakewalk and Tascam.
 
Ben    

Benjamin Phillips-Bachelor of Creative Technology (Sound and Audio Production), (Hons) Sonic Arts, MMusTech (Master of Music Technology), M.Phil (Fine Art)
http://1331.space/
https://thedigitalartist.bandcamp.com/
http://soundcloud.com/aaudiomystiks
#14
azslow3
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3297
  • Joined: 2012/06/22 19:27:51
  • Location: Germany
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 08:45:58 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Zargg 2017/10/20 14:00:21
Seth Kellogg [Cakewalk]
I just wish I could get signed W10 drivers :\

I guess CW has/can invest into required certificate to resign... I mean for internal use (and may be for "friends", I guess no one will tell Roland ).

Sonar 8LE -> Platinum infinity, REAPER, Windows 10 pro
GA-EP35-DS3L, E7500, 4GB, GTX 1050 Ti, 2x500GB
RME Babyface Pro (M-Audio Audiophile Firewire/410, VS-20), Kawai CN43, TD-11, Roland A500S, Akai MPK Mini, Keystation Pro, etc.
www.azslow.com - Control Surface Integration Platform for SONAR, ReaCWP, AOSC and other accessibility tools
#15
THambrecht
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 867
  • Joined: 2010/12/10 06:42:03
  • Location: Germany
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 09:26:26 (permalink)
I had the Roland VS-700C and I was able to set it up for Windows 10x64. I sold it and bought Hardware from AVID.
And I say quite honestly that the AVID Artist Mix is much much quieter as the VS-700. The faders are so quiet that you can really do a mix without being disturbed by the moving faders. AVID EUControl works very well with SONAR and is very stable. It works over LAN-cable, so you can place the console 100 meters away from your DAW. I think "this" is High-End. But I never would use ProTools.
I think that a lot of users buy rather a "cheap" Behringer X-Touch (with very loud faders) instead of a quiete AVID Artist Mix. What should Cakewalk or Gibson do now?
If Cakewalk would build a HighEnd console with very quite faders, I would buy it. But it must be smaller as the oversized VS-700.
 
 

We digitize tapes, vinyl, dat, md ... in broadcast and studio quality for publishers, public institutions and individuals.
4 x Intel Quad-CPU, 4GHz Sonar Platinum (Windows 10 - 64Bit) and 14 computers for recording tapes, vinyl ...

4 x RME Fireface 800, 2 x Roland Octa Capture and 4 x Roland Quad Capture, Focusrite .... Studer A80, RP99, EMT948 ...

(Germany)  http://www.hambrecht.de
#16
Zargg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10666
  • Joined: 2014/09/28 04:20:14
  • Location: Norway
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 10:06:51 (permalink)
 I'm pleased with the integration With both the Console 1, and the Tascam FW 1884 (Thanks to Tom Deering/DeeringAmps).
But I'd like something more directly integrated with all the bells and whistles 
All the best.

Ken Nilsen
Zargg
BBZ
Win 10 Pro X64, Cakewalk by Bandlab, SPlat X64, AMD AM3+ fx-8320, 16Gb RAM, RME Ucx (+ ARC), Tascam FW 1884, M-Audio Keystation 61es, *AKAI MPK Pro 25, *Softube Console1, Alesis DM6 USB, Maschine MkII
Laptop setup: Win 10 X64, i5 2.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 320gb 7200 RPM HD, Focusrite Solo, + *
 
#17
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 11:09:40 (permalink)
They did have the Peavey Studio Mix which was a CS for Pro Audio and Sonar. There were MIDI interfaces too.
 
CW has had many hardware devices in its history but keeping those things going is not something most software companies do well. 

Best
John
#18
Jesse G
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4282
  • Joined: 2004/04/14 01:43:43
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 12:13:49 (permalink)
Roland made the Octa-Capture when it owned Cakewalk, and that hardware interface is still working great with Sonar.  I loved using it and have never had a problem with it. 
 
Unfortunately, for a midi controller, the VS-700 wasn't maintained and thus fell by the wayside. However, I have to give it to Mackie for creating their tried and true MCU which I have owned and used for over 10 years now.

Peace,
Jesse G. A fisher of men  <><
==============================
Cakewalk and I are going places together!

Cakewalk By Bandlab, Windows 10 Pro- 64 bit, Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI, Intel Core i5-4460 Haswell Processor, Crucial Ballistix 32 GB Ram, PNY GeForce GTX 750, Roland Octa-Capture, Mackie Big Knob, Mackie Universal Controller (MCU), KRK V4's, KRK Rockit 6, Korg TR-61 Workstation, M-Audio Code 49 MIDI keyboard controller.[/
#19
rscain
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 784
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 09:52:29
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 14:06:16 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby dwardzala 2017/10/20 16:33:19
THambrecht
 
I think that a lot of users buy rather a "cheap" Behringer X-Touch (with very loud faders) instead of a quiete AVID Artist Mix. What should Cakewalk or Gibson do now?


Just for the record, I have an X-Touch and the faders are dead quiet. I don't know where that whole loud faders thing got started. Maybe someone got a bad unit, maybe gear snobbery, who knows?
Just wanted to put that out there.
Carry on.
 

My Tunes On SoundClick  
 
 
 AMD FX9350 @4 gHz, 16 gb ram, 240 gb SSD, 2 1Tb SS/Hybrid HDs, 1 Tb Fantom External HD, Windows 10 64 bit, Sonar Platinum 64 bit, Studio One 4 Pro, Harrison Mixbus, Izotope Neutron 2 Advanced and Ozone 8 Advanced, ARC 2, NI Komplete 11 Ultimate, TC-Helicon VoiceLive 3, Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP, Focusrite Octopre MkII, KRK Rokit 8 monitors, Sennheiser HD 280 pro headphones, MidiMan Oxygen 8, Behringer X-Touch, guitars and stuff 
#20
Joe_A
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 458
  • Joined: 2008/07/06 23:16:14
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 14:19:47 (permalink)
This subject has been touched on in many forms throughout the years. One of the many reasonable answers is who makes what marketing agreements across audio interface mfgrs and DAW software providers to appeal to their target groups to create a buzz and the aforementioned "gear envy".
We'll never know Cakewalk's internal plan but it's safe to consider they have some sort of plan.

jambrose@cfl.rr.com  Sonar Plat. Lifetime. Started in Sonar 4, each through 8.5.3PE.
Scarlett 18i202nd gen., Edirol FA-101, M-Audio Firewire 410, AMD Phenom II 1045T six core processor, 8GB DDR3, AMD Radeon HD 6450, dual displays, 1.5 TB SATA HD, USB 2, Firewire 1394A, 1394B, 18/22 mixer, EV Q-66, Yamaha HS50M monitors, few guitars, Fender Cybertwin SE, Fender Cyber foot controller, Boss RC20-XL, misc pedals, etc. Win Home Prem 64 bit.
#21
bitman
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4105
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 14:11:54
  • Location: Keystone Colorado
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 14:28:30 (permalink)
You don't really want this. You just want someone to blame because if they said it was designed for SONAR then it has to work or else.
 
Proprietary is a bad word. It's like handcuffs that really fit nicely.
 
#22
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 7563
  • Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 14:54:16 (permalink)
When I think of integration I am reminded of the way Presonus has integrated their hardware. The only real advantages I can see are their interfaces don't need to be set up. There are a few perks, like wireless use of iPad with wifi, streamlined latency/driver code written into the software making latency almost nil.
 
You can use any other interface and do the same thing in 5 minutes in Sonar if you're tech savvy. Might take a little longer if you need to read a manual. Interface manufacturers really don't want you to have problems, so they try to make the process as smooth as possible.
 
One of the trades in Sonar not being Mac centric was that Sonar kicks a** with windows. They are focusing  on Windows hardware. Just look at the most recent advances in bluetooth, touch screen and surface dial. No other maker is more closely integrated with windows for things like core and load balancing. Meanwhile, Presonus, Cubase and others are busy splitting their resources writing and updating TWO platforms.
 
Almost all control surfaces and interfaces work with Sonar. FWIW I recently seen a computer advertised in Sweetwater that has a Tascam interface and comes loaded with a full version of Sonar ready to go optimized for audio recording. 
 
 
 
 
 

Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, ,
3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, 
Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface.
 CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 
 
 www.soundcloud.com/starise
 
 
 
Twitter @Rodein
 
#23
Audioicon
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 349
  • Joined: 2016/06/13 23:25:25
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 15:14:13 (permalink)
John
but keeping those things going is not something most software companies do well. 


Yep, wonder how Pro-tools did it.
All I am hearing are arguments about what's not possible.
#24
Audioicon
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 349
  • Joined: 2016/06/13 23:25:25
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 15:16:53 (permalink)
Cactus Music
Plain and simple there would not be enough of a market for it. 


Or maybe. Just maybe it wasn't that great.
Again, Cakewalk is own by a company which also own Tascam.

Let's look to the now.
#25
azslow3
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3297
  • Joined: 2012/06/22 19:27:51
  • Location: Germany
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 15:34:55 (permalink)
I have 2 "designed for" CW hardware, and both have so many questionable design decisions that I tend to call both "epic fail":
 
Peavey Studiomix. Nice looking, build like a tank, expensive when released, but:
* what they was drinking while making the decision to send fixed RPNs instead of CC? That creates 4x number of MIDI messages, make the device incompatible with almost anything and also was a reason for trouble with many units (if one message from 4 is corrupted, that produce unpredictable result)
* 2 encoders per strip and... only one button. There is place for more.
* The device is bi-directional (for faders), why could not they put some LEDs?
* it could be used with computer interface and it has a preamp. With one XLR only. No HiZ, no TS connectors, no 6.3 headphone output.
I mean as a unit for home users is was not cheap and not all-in-one. For pro users it had a questionable set of "non-pro" features.
 
Roland VS-20:
* digital gain with finite knob (saved $0.05 ?)
* hardware effects, but no stand-alone mode and no possibility to control it from the device (the last they could easily do in software)
* USB 1, so 2in2out.
* Rather complicated (software controllable!) routing, without save/recall and only with partial control from the device
* except transport, not really usable as a control surface (in original implementation)
So, they put quite some possibilities into the hardware and so was the price tag. But as with Studiomix, it was not shining in any category. Too expensive as 2x2  USB1, unusable as BOSS guitar processor since no stand-along and far from easy to use software, not a control surface. I mean for the price asked, people could get FR Solo + small guitar processor + Korg Nano. And so get much more functional and easy to use device combination (which is still supported, unlike VS-20).

Sonar 8LE -> Platinum infinity, REAPER, Windows 10 pro
GA-EP35-DS3L, E7500, 4GB, GTX 1050 Ti, 2x500GB
RME Babyface Pro (M-Audio Audiophile Firewire/410, VS-20), Kawai CN43, TD-11, Roland A500S, Akai MPK Mini, Keystation Pro, etc.
www.azslow.com - Control Surface Integration Platform for SONAR, ReaCWP, AOSC and other accessibility tools
#26
Joe_A
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 458
  • Joined: 2008/07/06 23:16:14
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 15:48:18 (permalink)
For the software part - whoever thinks that Pro Tools or any software DAW or for that matter any application doesn't have it's own problems in the field, is looking through rose color glasses and may not be fully in the know. It's a good product but would be an error to think it's perfect and no one can match it.

jambrose@cfl.rr.com  Sonar Plat. Lifetime. Started in Sonar 4, each through 8.5.3PE.
Scarlett 18i202nd gen., Edirol FA-101, M-Audio Firewire 410, AMD Phenom II 1045T six core processor, 8GB DDR3, AMD Radeon HD 6450, dual displays, 1.5 TB SATA HD, USB 2, Firewire 1394A, 1394B, 18/22 mixer, EV Q-66, Yamaha HS50M monitors, few guitars, Fender Cybertwin SE, Fender Cyber foot controller, Boss RC20-XL, misc pedals, etc. Win Home Prem 64 bit.
#27
Joe_A
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 458
  • Joined: 2008/07/06 23:16:14
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 15:49:22 (permalink)
Just remember what happened to WordPerfect. 😊

jambrose@cfl.rr.com  Sonar Plat. Lifetime. Started in Sonar 4, each through 8.5.3PE.
Scarlett 18i202nd gen., Edirol FA-101, M-Audio Firewire 410, AMD Phenom II 1045T six core processor, 8GB DDR3, AMD Radeon HD 6450, dual displays, 1.5 TB SATA HD, USB 2, Firewire 1394A, 1394B, 18/22 mixer, EV Q-66, Yamaha HS50M monitors, few guitars, Fender Cybertwin SE, Fender Cyber foot controller, Boss RC20-XL, misc pedals, etc. Win Home Prem 64 bit.
#28
dwardzala
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1470
  • Joined: 2008/05/26 19:18:33
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 16:36:19 (permalink)
rscain
THambrecht
 
I think that a lot of users buy rather a "cheap" Behringer X-Touch (with very loud faders) instead of a quiete AVID Artist Mix. What should Cakewalk or Gibson do now?


Just for the record, I have an X-Touch and the faders are dead quiet. I don't know where that whole loud faders thing got started. Maybe someone got a bad unit, maybe gear snobbery, who knows?
Just wanted to put that out there.
Carry on.
 




 
I am with rscain here.  I have the X-touch and if the audio is at even a modest level, I don't hear the faders.




Dave
Main Studio- Core i5 @2.67GHz, 16Gb Ram, (2) 500Gb HDs, (1) 360 Gb HD
MotU Ultralite AVB, Axiom 49 Midi Controller, Akai MPD18 Midi Controller
Win10 x64 Home
Sonar 2017.06 Platinum (and X3e, X2c, X1d)
 
Mobile Studio - Sager NP8677 (i7-6700HQ @2.67MHz, 16G Ram, 250G SSD, 1T HD)
M-Box Mini v. 2
Win 10 x64 Home
Sonar 2016.10 Platinum
 
Check out my original music:
https://soundcloud.com/d-wardzala/sets/d-wardzala-original-music
 
 
#29
dwardzala
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1470
  • Joined: 2008/05/26 19:18:33
  • Status: offline
Re: Why are there no dedicated High End hardware for Sonar integration 2017/10/20 16:40:21 (permalink)
I think the issue here is what would the benefit be, or the why buy?  Why buy this cakewalk branded hardware?  It may or may not be lower latency.  It may or may not be easier to set up.  It may have more features that integrate with Sonar better (i.e. control for prochannel, etc.)
 
Also, there is a big assumption that all of the Gibson brands are "integrated" corporately.  I get the feeling based on the way Cakewalk is managing Sonar, that this is not the case.
 

Dave
Main Studio- Core i5 @2.67GHz, 16Gb Ram, (2) 500Gb HDs, (1) 360 Gb HD
MotU Ultralite AVB, Axiom 49 Midi Controller, Akai MPD18 Midi Controller
Win10 x64 Home
Sonar 2017.06 Platinum (and X3e, X2c, X1d)
 
Mobile Studio - Sager NP8677 (i7-6700HQ @2.67MHz, 16G Ram, 250G SSD, 1T HD)
M-Box Mini v. 2
Win 10 x64 Home
Sonar 2016.10 Platinum
 
Check out my original music:
https://soundcloud.com/d-wardzala/sets/d-wardzala-original-music
 
 
#30
Page: 1234 > Showing page 1 of 4
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1