Cary

For instance, they can't live without tape machine like auto-input switching.  I haven't updated to 8 or 8.5 yet, so did they implement this yet? 
 
CA

Not sure what you mean by that.  I apologize for my ignorance, but would you be so kind to explain what "machine like auto-input switching" means?
 
Thanks!
 
 

Marah

Just as an aside. Digital "varispeed" is a very different animal than its analog predecessor. In fact, while the term "varispeed" is convenient, it doesn't really describe the functionality involved.

Oh, I hear you, I use Logic which has a nice, new, very elegant varispeed function but my point is that if the bakers allocate resources based on marketing's listening to consumer clamor then bells and whistles (like varispeed) that are a lot sexier than 'workflow improvements' will win every cycle. In a perfect world perhaps one daw would be enough but that's not yet here.

Oh that!

I had forgotten about this feature, but Sonar already has it.  If you go to Options::Global::General tab, there is a check box to "Disable Input Monitoring during Playback" (unchecked by default).  Checking this option should give provide this feature.


HTH

EDIT:  Nevermind, I guess this is not the same.  Carry on :-)
 
 

John:

Thanks, John! Logic 5 was a great go-to centerpiece to my studio back in the day. That was the last time I felt 100% confident with a DAW app. I bought nearly everything eMagic made... they could do no wrong at the time.

Before that, I used a lot of other DAW apps, including Cakewalk's products (going ALL the way back to Cakewalk 2.0, I believe -- I've been supporting Greg & Co. for a looooong time). I had an on-again-off-again relationship with Cakewalk for all those years.... always "checking in" with them and periodically upgrading, but ending up using another app. But I always had a soft spot in my heart for Cakewalk. I just couldn't do what I needed to do with it, though. I even bought ProTools TDM back then. What a waste of my precious money. I bought into the myth of ProTools... and unfortunately, it's an industry standard so I still keep up with it (8 isn't half-bad), but I only use it for clients when absolutely necessary. Other than that, I was constantly shifting around until I landed on Logic 5.

Logic was "just right" for me at the time. However, all that changed when Apple took over... and I was somewhat bitter with them for abandoning the PC (what nerve!), but I swallowed my pride and even bought a Mac so I could keep using Logic! Ahhh! So I was a Mac guy for a while -- mostly a Logic/MOTU guy, but no fan of Apple -- I even bought Digital Performer, which really is quite excellent. I think I would have settled in with Digital Performer had it not been for my poor Apple experience and weird performance issues.

Too many things bothered me about Apple... the support and enhancements for Logic were very disappointing moving forward from eMagic and I remember waiting for good dual-CPU updates and some other important updates which never materialized (or were buggy), if I recall... then they did this thing with AU validation that just ticked me off and messed up plugins, then I had major problems with QuickTime and working with Logic... in the meantime I tested Cubase and was very impressed with the sound quality. I can't remember if it was SX1 or SX2 that convinced me. I thought the Cubase engine at the time was superior to Logic at the time. There was something so smooth and silky about it, and all my mixes sounded better in Cubase than Logic.

I also really missed the control over the hardware I could have with a finely-tuned Windows machine, so I sold almost all of my Apple gear and decided to jump into the Cubase arena on Windows. Would I finally feel at home again? At the time, I think I even upgraded my older license of Cakewalk to Sonar 3.11, I believe. So I ran both Cubase SX1 or 2 and Sonar 3.11. I was VERY impressed with Sonar 3.11 so I knew I had to keep my eye on Sonar. I even scored a film short with it. However, at the time, Cubase was really coming into its own. By the time Cubase SX3 came out, I was simply blown away. It was the most stable, best-sounding DAW I had used since Logic 5 so I thought I would be a Cubase guy for years to come.

The drama continues... unfortunately, there was the Cubase 4 debacle and I couldn't believe what happened. So many broken promises and disappointing surprises and customer service blunders I was just shocked and angry with what Steinberg did. Dropping DX support without even warning before people ordered it was almost unforgivable, and I had many, many issues with many projects... it was a mess of an initial release, the likes of which I had never seen. And it really impacted me personally due to the specific things that they did wrong. For some people, the Cubase 4 launch was just fine. But for me, it really blew up projects with virtually no positive gains. And I hated being treated poorly by customer service, again and again.

Meanwhile I continued to keep my eye on Sonar, and saw some wonderful improvements Cakewalk continued to make... and I saw the future in x64... Cakewalk was light years ahead on that front.

That's when I decided to upgrade my Sonar license again and delve into it. And I saw a night/day difference between the companies as well.

I've been a Cakewalk customer for many, many years... one of the early customers from Greg's early Twelve Tone days... but I haven't become a real Cakewalk "user" and occasional light-hearted "fan" until a few years ago.

But like I said in my original post, I was forced to use Cubase again for a project with tough deadlines due to the motorboating problems with Sonar, and since then I've been running a Cubase/Sonar combo, constantly switching back and forth depending on the nature of the project.

With my successful upgrade to x64 I was convinced I could finally dump Cubase for good... but alas, I'm stuck in the same workflow pattern I've been in for a while.

If Cakewalk can possibly address the workflow issues -- particularly with automation -- then I think Sonar has a chance of converting a large number of DAW users. Cakewalk has had opportunity after opportunity to hit home runs vs Steinberg, which has been caught in an idiotic customer service malaise. I'm just surprised that Roland hasn't invested another $500,000 or $1,000,000 into Sonar by adding more top-flight engineers. Maybe they have? Poor Noel is working his butt off, but he needs more Renes to take Sonar to the next level... I just wonder if the window of idiocy at Steinberg and Yamaha is closing and they might wake up and understand how to treat customers. Then Steinberg might become quite a dangerous competitor again.

Anyway... just rambling thoughts... Now back to work... :)

Bump!

This thread is killer.  So many ideas in here that I would love to see implemented!  I don't know if Cake realizes what a valuable resource they have here on these forums.  Many companies would kill to be aware of their customers' specific needs.  I really wish they would drop the whole "This is a peer-to-peer support forum ONLY" mentality and start taking advantage of it.

Then why do "they" say they don't?

:-)

mike_mccue


Then why do "they" say they don't?

:-)

I don't recall them ever saying that they wont use what is said here for getting features we want. I recall them wanting us to submit a feature request for a feature we may wish for and saying that that way it becomes more official. You know as well as I do that CW is monitoring this forum most of the time. Not all the time though but that isn't needed for them to get a feel for what is the hot topic.

Also if they didn't from time to time see what is being said here they would be the biggest fools around. You and I both know they are not fools.

I do know that before version 8 came out there was a lot of talk about stability. Guess what 8 was a major redo of the audio engine and associated areas dealing with stability.  Also I don't know if a feature request was ever made but a thread about CPU core loading was made and it was a very hot topic that CW came too. Guess what that was addressed too.

Then the campaign of Susan for better MIDI tools with a powerful thread she started and saw through to the end. Next version of Sonar had MIDI tools darn near custom made for Susan as well as the rest of us. But it was Susan here making noise and getting attention and tons of support from many that got that done.

Don't think for a moment that CW isn't listening to what we say here and using what they gather to help them in deciding the direction to go if at all possible. And don't underestimate your own power to get things done. If I thought that our time here were meaningless as far as improving Sonar was concerned I would never post anything dealing with that aspect of this forum.

I hope that fully explains my position on this.

I would like to jump in and defend Sonar if I may. Time to bring it all back to reality. Its all about the Tools that you are talking about. You are forgetting the importance of the order of things. In order of priority we have

Composition, Interpretation, Performance, Tools The tools are last in the food chain and they represent all stages starting with the instruments then mikes picking up the sound and going right through the process to a finished product.

So its a bit like all these software programs are really like just a pair of drum sticks. And some are longer and wider and fatter and lighter etc but at the end of the day if you put them in the hands of Steve Gadd or Jack De Johnette you are still going to get a great performance! How important do the drumsticks figure into it then! (Hey I can mention my friend Frank Gambale here. It does not matter what guitar in the world you put into Frank's hands he still plays the same!!!!!!Believe me I have seen it)

I produce a lot of music every day and don't have any problems doing it.  I spend most of my time playing and not fiddling around with Sonar.

I hope Paul Russell does not mind me saying this but he has just recently produced a great album using Sonar. I am sure if you asked Paul he might say look there a few things here and there I find a bit funny in Sonar but overall I was able to get down to the nitty gritty and get the job done. The better the musician the less they complain about the tools, sorry but its true.

Every program has its idiosyncrasies so I say learn them and get on with it! Sonar may have had problems in the past and I came into at version 8 but all I see is a great program that is stable and works and lets me get on with making music no problems. I chose it because I am a composer and I wanted the instruments. I am not disappointed.

Dont forget I also teach and I see Cubase, Pro Tools, Logic, Sonar etc. They are all the same, do the same thing and they all have a share of strange behaviour. There is NO one program that is perfect and above all else. The people who are so pre occupied with the tools are always going to find problems.

I am not sure you need to have other apps as well as Sonar in order to produce great music. If you keep looking for the perfect app then you are going to have problems where ever you go. I say its a great program and I dont have any problems using it, I produce lots of work on it and am very happy with the work flow. Having several apps in my opinion can really slow the work flow as you have to keep remembering how the other apps work and that can be frustrating at times. Last night for example I was working with a client and was using Logic and Sonar at the same time and I found it confusing to say the least. (And I used to be an experienced Logic user)

(Dont forget V Studio users have a level of control of Sonar that most people do not experience. Maybe you should consider getting a console. Many of the complaints expressed here in this thread are easily handled by the console and fast) But even so I still enjoy a high level of control over the program even without a V Studio.

I do appreciate people wanting features and yes it is good that Cakewalk listen to us as well but I say Cakewalk have done a very good job with this so far and it seems to be only getting better. And as John has pointed out at times one person's bug is anothers idiosyncrasy or even feature!

I have heard a lot of complaints about envelopes. I suppose I dont experience the problem due to the way I work. Mike says he does not go to the envelopes until comping and that aint right. Why is it not right. I dont go near envelops until the final mix. If you are working with good musicians then the recording levels are all fairly even.  Comping is a method of bringing various parts and takes of a track together as one and that is great. After a comp I turn that into one whole track. Then as I have said before I open these tracks up inside a separate editing program and make any adjustments there. A few minutes tweaking tracks in another program makes a world of difference later.

I dont use envelopes much. How come! By the time I get to the mix, all the tracks are well played, any obvious things fixed in the editor program so complex envelope control is just not necessary. Many of tracks do not have any envelopes at all, I just set and forget.
And you should make some moves by hand too. It gives the track life and some human element.

But even so I have always found the envelopes to be fine and they obey what they are supposed to do. But then again I am not getting them to do ridiculous things. Back off the evelopes if they cause grief. Learn to work without them so much.  Use other techniques to create the effects you are after without them so much. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

BTW Jeff, after reading your lecture on how to make best use of envelopes ( in summary... we should all work with good musicians like you do??? ) it occurs to me you will be surprised at how simple and minimal my envelope needs are.

It's good that you admit that you do not use envelopes all that much... but it wasn't necessary... :-) you'd probably dislike them if you did... doubly so if you happened to have some enthusiasm for using them on the other programs where they actually work as advertised.

It's both the fact that envelopes will disappear if you are not careful as well as the most annoying fact that sometimes you simply cannot select a node point with your H.I.D. no matter what tool you use. 

I find both of these quirks to be frustrating disruptions to workflow.

 

Jeff,
 
This statement...
 
<< I dont use envelopes much. >>
 
...and this statement...
 
<< But even so I have always found the envelopes to be fine and they obey what they are supposed to do. >>
 
...invalidate each other.
 
This statement...
 
<< But then again I am not getting them to do ridiculous things. >>
 
...is itself ridiculous. You make automation envelopes sound like some kind of new fangled thing that real musos and recordists don't need, sort of like AutoSnap and Melodyne.
 
You previously offered your credentials as a working professional musician and producer, and declared Sonar fit, or fine, or whatever. You questioned the musicianship of those who complain about these things, using your daily output as a pro to calibrate your radar.
 
That's pretty harsh.
 
Let me suggest that your credentials, like the above quotes, actually undermine your credibility re what's really being discussed here.
 
Here's how I see it.
 
I do not produce "a lot of music every day" for (if I'm reading your correctly) paying clients. Nor do I take an approach to my work that says, basically, if I keep my nose to the grind stone I can bang out another "couple of  tracks for a production library." (You originally said whip out, but is there a practical difference?) If I was doing sessions similar to yours I'd also think Sonar was just fine.
 
But here's the thing: If I was doing sessions similar to yours, I'd likely think that WHATEVER program I was using was just fine, because that was the program I had decided on, and knew, and was comfortable with. Any one of these programs can be learned, including the inevitable workarounds. It takes serious issues, and likely more than one, to make an experienced user of app A switch to app B, especially users whose do regular bread and butter work similar to yours, where the more that can be reduced to rote procedure, the better. You've learned to use Sonar well, to the limits of your needs.
 
Me, I'm not that good a musician or recordist, I admit.
 
I prefer the environment I produce my work in to be fast and smooth, powerful and stable, and not only learnable, but customizable in depth. I confess to using envelopes at the clip, track, bus, and fx levels, lots of them, and often early on (again, I'm just not that pro.) I sometimes even do "ridiculous things" with envelopes, but don't worry, I won't bore you with the deets, I know you're a busy guy. I'm probably just doing something with the envelopes that doesn't "obey what they are supposed to do" so chalk another one up to my lack of professionalism. :)

Jeff Evans


I have heard a lot of complaints about envelopes. I suppose I dont experience the problem due to the way I work. Mike says he does not go to the envelopes until comping and that aint right. Why is it not right. I dont go near envelops until the final mix. If you are working with good musicians then the recording levels are all fairly even.  Comping is a method of bringing various parts and takes of a track together as one and that is great. After a comp I turn that into one whole track. Then as I have said before I open these tracks up inside a separate editing program and make any adjustments there. A few minutes tweaking tracks in another program makes a world of difference later.

I dont use envelopes much. How come! By the time I get to the mix, all the tracks are well played, any obvious things fixed in the editor program so complex envelope control is just not necessary. Many of tracks do not have any envelopes at all, I just set and forget.
And you should make some moves by hand too. It gives the track life and some human element.

But even so I have always found the envelopes to be fine and they obey what they are supposed to do. But then again I am not getting them to do ridiculous things. Back off the evelopes if they cause grief. Learn to work without them so much.  Use other techniques to create the effects you are after without them so much. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Yes I too find that envelopes to be fine, but once you start getting into using envelopes to control various parameters in instrument plugins to 'automate' controls such as cut-off, res, etc;, changes in fxs, panning, vol, etc' you'll soon find out that it can be a PITA when you have multiple envelopes to work with on the same track with no features to show/hide and lock or have an option to display envelope lanes (one per envelope) a feature in other DAW's that SONAR does not have.  That said... CW does indeed need to develope an easier workflow when handling multiple envelopes on the same track.  If everybody followed your ways (learn to work without - end quote) then nothing would get improved in SONAR, Cakewalk encourages 'feedback' from their customers and that includes submitting 'feature requests', I see nothing negative and whiny about that :-)

Wow Jeff!

That first post of yours was so arrogant that I don't even know where to start.  I actually got a glimps of that not long ago in the Techniques forum during a discussion about the time signature of an Acoustic Alchemy song.  But your true colors finally surfaced in this thread, that's for sure.  The only thing I will say is that I'm glad you have no issues with Sonar's workflow implementation.  In this case you should probably go make more music and stop wasting your time with us here.  You've got a billion songs to produce, remember?  In the mean time, why don't you let us "unprofessional" people, which I can assure you the Eratu is not one of, discuss this and perhaps even attempt to improve on the software you enjoy so much.  Perhaps this thread could be the spark needed for a new feature or, most likely, the improvement of exisiting ones that could become beneficial for you too. 

Seriously man, your comments were way out of line.  It's one thing to voice your opinion, but another to insult your community just because you think you're better.

Hey Jeff:
Just took a tour of your website www.jemusic.com.au  

So you use Logic Audio Studio not SONAR. Can't find a mention of SONAR anywhere. I must be mistaken but I thought you are a rep in Australia for the VS-700 system?