Hi Mike, Yes that may seem confusing. I am definately a Sonar user. Unfortunately most of the music posted up there was all done well before I got Sonar while I was still on Logic. I have produced a lot of stuff on Sonar but just not really had time to convert it to mp3's and get it up there. I fully intend to do that as soon as I can. The Jemusic website is very out of date and has no reference to Sonar at all as you say. That was all done well before I had any involvement with Sonar and the V Studio. This year I am intending to redo the website completely. In fact I have sold most of the gear I had then and have a completely different setup now.

What that website is fantastic for its is ability to be found when searched. I had a great guy do the SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) Key in terms like 'Music Producer Melbourne' and see where I come up. Even if its done for the world as well as Australia I am still high on the list. Even extremely generic terms like 'Music Producer' will still find me sometimes on the first page of Google. I get quite a lot of work from the website.

The Myspace link    www.myspace.com/jeffevansmusic   is a bit more accurate in terms of Sonar etc. There are also two tracks up there that I did do on Sonar. ('Twenty Four' and 'Solo over a Groove') They were just quick tracks I did to test the software. There is also a bit more info about me on the myspace link as well. I am currently only representing the software at the moment.

Jeff Evans


I suppose I dont experience the problem due to the way I work.

Hi Jeff,

After reading all your posts and trying to figure out a way to respond to what you wrote, I'll focus in on this one line.... "I suppose I dont experience the problem due to the way I work."

Right there we have a primary difference of perspective. We clearly work in different ways and I say, "more power to you" for the way you work. I'm genuinely happy for you that Sonar does what you need, and that you have workarounds you've found that help you get the job done the way you need it.

I do appreciate your statements in support of Sonar in general, and I completely agree that Sonar is a great platform for creating/producing professional music.

While I certainly have not expressed myself very concisely in my original post :) I think I've made it clear in my time in the forum that I believe everyone works differently and has different needs, and I fully respect that. What may be fine for you may not be fine for someone else, etc. Also, Cakewalk cannot possibly cater to every single voice in the DAW market, and it does the best it can in creating a very balanced product to cover its large user base.

But that doesn't mean it can't stand some improvement. In some areas, perhaps a lot of improvement. After all, we "work" in Sonar, albeit differently. And some of us (including you, I presume) earn part or all of our living from the work that we do in Sonar. It stands to reason that our workflows are extremely important. We all have workflows for the type of work we do, and workflow is a huge issue in saving time (i.e.: money) and enhancing our creative efforts.

Surely, I can do almost everything in Sonar. The question usually isn't "can I do this in Sonar" (for the most part or with workarounds)... The Bakers have answered that by creating a powerhouse product that I love to use for most projects... No, the question for me quite often is, can I do it better/faster/more efficiently? 

I think you missed the point in your suggestions about finding workarounds, or when (or how, or even why) someone should be using envelopes, etc... I also think you missed the point by engaging in discussion of the type of musicians you work with, or anything resembling credentials, etc. We all have different situations, Jeff, we all work differently. We all have different backgrounds, needs, project types and work with different types of musicians. Key word: work. Workflow. 

And I think Cakewalk needs to ask that question -- can I do it better/faster/more efficiently -- on behalf of its users too. The day it stops asking that question is the day Sonar will stagnate, which none of us want to happen.

The core of what I said in my original post boils down to this (quote from my original post):

"Despite all the great qualities of Sonar -- and there are many notable, unique, praiseworthy qualities and features -- it is still lacking in several fundamental workflow areas that other DAWs have continued to refine over the last few years."

Those of us who regularly, seriously use other DAW apps -- for whatever reason (some of us are forced to) -- will recognize this statement as factual. I know you have experience in other DAW apps (you mentioned Logic) so even you should be aware of this fact, depending on what features you use in Logic. Perhaps you never needed to quickly select all clips after the now time cursor? Well, Logic does it with Shift-F (or Edit>Select All Following). Sonar does NOT do this... requiring time-consuming workarounds that are prone to user error. On top of that, try doing it with lots of automation on those tracks... and see what happens. That is a tiny, but very telling example of the differences I'm talking about.

Workflow, the flow of work... work stops flowing, Jeff, when you need to do that exact procedure above.

But fact does not need to be considered an insult to Sonar. I love Sonar, and I want Cakewalk to thrive as a company. My posts in this forum should provide ample evidence of that. But there is no doubt that for all the great qualities of Sonar, there are some major areas that could stand some major improvement, particularly in workflow -- and especially in automation. But before anyone jumps on that statement like I'm attacking Sonar I'd invite people to re-read my original post, where I say things like:

"There are plenty of areas that the other DAWs can learn from Sonar. But it would be very short-sighted to ignore what other DAWs bring to the table, and particularly when it comes to everything surrounding track/clip editing and automation we can stand to have some big improvements that will lead to much better workflow in all areas."

I'd like nothing better than to work exclusively in Sonar. I even said something along those lines in the original post. And it is disheartening that I have had to install Cubase once again, along side Sonar, on my new DAW. For me, it's about workflow. My workflow. But my "Aspirations for Sonar Moving Forward in My Studio" should have been clear in my original post. Indeed, (quote from my original post):

"This is disheartening because it just takes more time to manage a complex project than it should nowadays. And when we get deep into automation, I find it almost impossible to work with Sonar. "

I added emphasis to the word "nowadays" -- and that is really one of the keys of what I'm trying to say. Again, if you regularly work with other current DAW apps, nowadays, you will see that certain types of workflow issues have been refined and improved in subtle and not-so-subtle ways... and the numerous threads about workflow issues in this forum indicate that there is a desire among Sonar users for improvements in those areas... especially, it appears, in automation.

Now, if your personal workflow doesn't require these workflow refinements, then no one is going to try to convince you that you must use them or your music is somehow inferior. Of course not. Your workflow is your workflow.

Personally, I believe Sonar users in general can stand to benefit from refinement in these areas. And yes, *maybe*.... perhaps even you would stand to benefit, perhaps not. Maybe some of the workarounds you have will no longer be necessary or maybe those improvements will give you more time or flexibility in approaching your own personal project workflow. If you disagree, I understand and respect your point of view. However, I'm certain I'm not the only person who desires these improvements. For me, these improvements are essential. In the case of complex automation and editing on certain types of projects, they are show-stoppers. Or should I say, "work"-stoppers.

So I challenge Cakewalk to take a good hard look in those areas once again and do what Cakewalk has proven time and again they can do by making excellent implementations of time-saving, creativity-enhancing features.

(I suspect you won't object if Cakewalk added something like Logic's "Select All Following" feature, for example, especially if you're in a time crunch and you desperately need that feature. ;) )

Again, we can probably both agree that we want Sonar to be the best possible DAW app, and Cakewalk to succeed as a company, even though we may differ on our personal workflows and project/DAW requirements.

Respectfully yours,
James Durham

<EDIT: For a few spelling or grammatical errors>

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. 

Wow. It is clear your use of Sonar is extremely narrow AND you lack the imagination to envisage how other people might use it.

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.

That is the way you use it. That is extremely limited.

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.

This is a complete contradiction to your previous post AND a clear indication that Sonar is seriously lacking in some areas.

Jeff, you are making no sense what so ever.

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.

At the risk of repeating myself, you are only using a minuscule portion of Sonar. You are using it as a glorofied tape recorder. No wonder you have no issues.

And you should make some moves by hand too. It gives the track life and some human element.

Should? The arrogance!

You should make some 21st century music with complex FX manipulation with envelope automation.

But even so I have always found the envelopes to be fine and they obey what they are supposed to do.

Not only do they not always obey what they are supposed to do, (The forum is rife with complaints, no need to repeat), they are also very limited in their implementation.

But then again I am not getting them to do ridiculous things. Back off the evelopes if they cause grief.

And again the sheer arrogance from a man lacking in imagination. Many users want complex envelopes.

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.

Sheesh. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Jeff, please get out of this thread. You do not belong here. You do not understand the issues and you clearly have nothing to add to this thread. All you are achieving is derailing a perfectly fine thread. Don't be a fanboy. Oops. Too late.

UnderTow

Jeff Evans

If I was mixing a lot of post audio for TV (Music, dialog and effects) then envelope and automation performance is perhaps a very big thing. Maybe I would not use Sonar for that.

Indeed. Sonar is unusable for post work despite the advertising claims.

My first post on this subject refers to the tools and where they fit in terms of the music.

But your analogies only apply to your way of working which is very limited as far as modern DAW usage is concerned.

The more you focus on the music the less the tools become a problem in a funny sort of way.

So that is why top guitarists only have one guitar, right? Oh no, they don't, they tend to have many.

That is all I am really saying and the tools should not prevent you from achieving a great result.

Again, see my one string guitar analogy. Sonar, for me, is an instrument. It is still a great instrument but it needs restringing.

UnderTow

Jeff Evans


Sorry Jose was not intending to be arrogant. I did read James post in full and yes there are some interesting points in it. What I don't agree with is using several apps in order to create a piece of music. I dont think you need to do it. I think that slows workflow rather than improve it. You need to choose a program and work with it, that is my opinion.

Let me quote you back at yourself:

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.

A bit of a contradiction, heh?

And if some things are not perfect, develop work arounds as most of us do anyway.

And ask for improvements. You really are just having a knee jerk reaction. You might be more eloquent than some of the other fans but you are doing exactly the same thing and in doing so, wasting everyone's time.

And yes I am very grateful for people who do pursue the features and things as ultimately they will effect me in the future at some point and for the better.

So why do you come here with your pseudo intellectual waffling? You have added nothing to the thread. You have only managed to disrupt it. Go away.

UnderTow

I keep coming back to this thread since I've posted in it before, and now am horribly confused here. Maybe it's the forum quoting awkwardness... but I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.  1 string guitars?

LOL! Dude, I'm sure Jeff can handle it. He seems like a reasonable person and I think those of us who don't see it the way he does have done a great job of expressing our own views.

What I really want to figure out is how to get the message to Cakewalk... Earlier in this thread, I mentioned some of the things I'm doing (and will be doing) -- the typical things like submitting feature requests, contacting Cakewalk directly, supporting threads with similar requests/issues, etc... but I wonder if there's a more effective way to get the message to them, loud and clear.

I have been toying with creating a feature-request website/page (similar to my DAW comparison page I set up a while ago) and then mailing Cakewalk the results of that.... or trying something similar, but within the forum... Just not sure. In the forum has several pluses but also several minuses. An independent user-organized feature-request list instead of a company-organized one... some of us have been asking Cakewalk for something like this for a while, I don't see why we can't come up with a decent user request system on our own. [ EDIT: Some of us are very experienced web/IT people :) this shouldn't be too difficult. ]

(To the guys that think I'm crazy: Yes, I do like Sonar that much.)

I know at some point I'll be mailing (yes, old-fashioned mail) a detailed letter to Noel, Greg and the main Sonar product manager (can't recall his name), hopefully with much more info gleaned from other Sonar users.

I've been pondering getting into the details of specific examples (which I would also be getting a lot of help creating from you all) etc... or if I just want to leave it more general. In my original post I wanted to avoid getting into minute detail since there are so many thoughtful threads on these issues, and some people have invested a lot of time describing/demonstrating the issues. So I didn't want to try to recreate all that hard work. But maybe I should consider creating a master list, with references from the forum and elsewhere.....

Anyway, this is a serious investment of time to do it right, and time is not a commodity I have too much of right now. But I feel like I have to do something. I do know Cakewalk listens, but there are many voices they listen to... how to synchronize those voices or at least tie them together in a way that Cakewalk "gets it?" That's what I want to figure out....

Gee, nice work undertow.

You enter half a dozen rambling posts in response to someone's opinion and accuse that person of wasting everyone's time!!!

Also, why should SONAR be targeted towards what you call "Power Users".  Some of us prefer to get our instrumental tracks down properly and don't really care too much about automation (usually just using crossfades/fades/ and occasional volume/pan changes).  IMHO the most important thing is to get good performances well recorded.  To quote yourself "The Beatles managed with 4 track"!!!
Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.

While this answer is, on some level, technically true, I believe it is also misleading, and that the original statement -- "Sonar started life as MIDI software and audio recording and manipulation was only added later" -- is for most purposes (such as this and many similar discussions) is more "true" than the reply. The Cakewalk/Sonar lineage (what in other contexts might be called its legacy) is at the center of most complaints related to workflow and the enhancement (or addition) of core functionality. There's no disrespect towards CW and/or Sonar and/or its users in looking at that directly.

Pure nonsense Marah. Sonar has always been an audio and MIDI app no matter how you try to frame it. I suppose Pyro has its roots in MIDI sequencing too. The program Cakewalk and the program Sonar are very different programs. Perhaps it is this confusion on your part that causes you so much trouble.

I've just seen this post and I have to agree with most of the requests for worflow improvements, I've seen countless different threads over the past few months alone for different requests to sonar that could have been considered for implementation to sonar 8.5. A written letter to cakewalk seems like an interesting approach and could stand out from all the online user requests, I'd be very interesting to see how cakewalk responds to such an approach.

For a long time I was really happy with how Sonar was functioning for me, I got up to speed with it, bought scotts Sonar 7 Power and learnt some pretty cool features I was asking for and never really thought were possible because I didn't know where to look or how to approach it. At the same time as learning Sonar, I was in a band and used to record demos to use as pre-production and guides that we used when we went into a studio with a hired producer. I've been in countless different studios where I've recorded to tape, pro-tools, nuendo, Adobe Audition, logic and obviously Sonar with myself. I've always managed to learn from watching how other engineers work with their daw (and also desk in the case of the analogue session I was in) and the more you watch how others work in different applications you ask yourself whether you can do something similar in Sonar. The last session I was involved in I was assisting an engineer working pro-tools, I got a hell of a lot of time to ask the engineer questions on protools and how he worked and one of the things I really did miss was the ability to import data from other sessions and the way in which edit groups could be created in protools that they currently can't in sonar (feature requested and brought it up on this forum as well) and also the visual references in the way the tracks in the mixer view can be colours (simple but effective)

I started a post a while back asking about whether clip selection groups could be automatically assigned to groups of tracks that had been recorded together in sonar. When you get something like an 8 mic drum setup or more and start using layers and comping takes together, it gets a bit complicated and the layers view quickly becomes redundent because it becomes too time consuming to manually assign the relevent clips to a clip selection group. Its something I'm happy thats available and is a massive help for me now but from using the feature, I came up with what I think would be a workflow improvement  to how it is currently implemented that would benefit users who may not have even thought.

I also recently went to a lecture on SADIE (prism soudn event around the UK) and saw another instance of the clip volume data being adjusted by the process of a few key strokes (which seems to come up alot when comparing reaper to sonar) , it's something I'd love to see implemented into sonar and can see this as a turn off for engineers for certain types of work if this feature wasn't possible. 

On the debate of mixing and automation, for music I generally start off with all faders reset and pulled to -inf and have the master bus set to mono. I try to get the overal balance of all the instruments in mono (fader level sets and eq) before I start on automation, the capturing process is obviously the most important factor to a recording and a mix, a dynamic mix can make the difference between a good song and a great one in certain genres and would require a lot of automation in different areas to build layers, textures and effects that can keep the listener interested and is something I feel other DAWs have a slight advantage over sonar at this moment in time.

I've had a good experience using sonar. I've found from the upgrade process (5-7-8-8.5) that the features I like the most in the newer version of sonar would generally be the workflow enhancements that don't always get shouted about by cakewalk marketing because of a big band of new features or bells and whistles (that some will find redundent for what they do) aimed at enticing users away from other daws. I'm intrigued to see what updates come in 8.5.2 but an upgrade to 9 would only be dependent on whether my specific needs would be met (as I imagine is the case for alot of people).

Undertow, can you explain how you are quoting like that?

dontletmedrown


Undertow, can you explain how you are quoting like that?

It's all about workflow ... and undertow know how to work the software. You're just not using it right . Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
I agree that Sonar need a workflow overhaul. Compared with PT, which they need to beat in every area to continue to expand in to the pro market, is better in terms of some workflows IMHO.
 
Dude

Marah


What I wonder is, what does "pro market" really mean?

Something else I wonder: To what extent is there really competition between Sonar and the full version (HD?) PT?

Well if these forums are any indication, I have to figure the majority of Sonar users are hobbyists.  Other than myself, I can only think of maybe 15 other posters here that use Sonar to make their living.  That's assuming everyone is telling the truth.

dontletmedrown

Marah


What I wonder is, what does "pro market" really mean?

Something else I wonder: To what extent is there really competition between Sonar and the full version (HD?) PT?

Competition? None whatsoever.

Well if these forums are any indication, I have to figure the majority of Sonar users are hobbyists.  Other than myself, I can only think of maybe 15 other posters here that use Sonar to make their living.  That's assuming everyone is telling the truth.

I once read that there were 15 Pro Tools hobbyists. ;)

I have occasionally made some money with Sonar but the vast majority of my income is generated using Pro Tools. Cakewalk would be capable of changing that state of affairs if they would listen to a particular section of their customers. Right now they are not and are therefore very much determining that that particular section of their customers will not grow very quickly.

UnderTow

Hi John-

Pure nonsense Marah. Sonar has always been an audio and MIDI app no matter how you try to frame it. I suppose Pyro has its roots in MIDI sequencing too.

I have to agree with Marah, here. Obviously Pyro doesn't have its roots in MIDI sequencing(!), but there's a very direct line from the early MIDI-only Cakewalk products (for DOS, then Windows) through Pro Audio to SONAR, IMO. I don't think anyone who's followed the progress (or upgrade path) of the TwelveTone/Cakewalk line through the years would deny that.

-Susan