ORIGINAL: Marketing [Cakewalk]


Jose,

I was just trying to state our position on competitive info on our forums. I was not making comentary on this particular thread. I agree that this thread has been valuable.

Now that I've said that. I do need to state that if this thread gets blatantly highjacked as a platform for marketing another daw, we might step in and take action. This is a SONAR forum afterall and it is on our servers. The guerilla marketing that some companies practice really isn't as subtle or clever as the perpetrators might think.

I totally agree. So far this thread has been based on facts so I doubt it'll get to that point (at least I hope not). This is too valuable for all of us (Cakewalk and it's costumers alike) for it to be removed/deleted from your servers. Anyways, I just wanted to make sure we're cool :-) Thanks for confirming it.

Take care Carl!

Carl,
Thanks for taking the time to relate your point of view.

I hope you appreciate that many people like myself would prefer to just use your product exclusively and without a need to compare to others. Unfortunately we can't help but know that other companies have certain features that we envy.

You didn't need to spend a penny of advertising to get my direct to Cakewalk upgrade purchase... it seems to me that should make our business transaction reasonably profitable.

I've been very vocal about my impression that Cakewalk seems to be pursuing a new customer base while leaving current customers wondering if they should consider other options... and I assure you my concerns are sincere... I really hope someone running the shop at Cakewalk will consider that people like myself are customers worth working with.

best regards,
mike

Its amazing how much can be read into one line of text :-) Its politics season after all.

I'm just a lazy developer and so I write short sentences esp when I'm busy with something else. I'm sorry if it was misunderstood since that wasn't how I meant it. So now I'll put my foot into my mouth again and try and explain better. This thread started out being a SONAR benchmark thread. What Keith and I were essentially saying was that we should keep it that way since its most useful to the SONAR community in that context. We are most interested in positive as well as negative results since it helps us fine tune this even more. This however is not the appropriate place to do a detailed comparitive analysis between all DAW platforms as we thought some posters were about to do. Someone already posted a link to an independent site that hosts that level of detail. And as Carl clarified we don't want to host free marketing data for other DAW's.

That said we absolutely have no problem with anyone mentioning or discussing other DAW's features. Often we have customers who need information about how to do equivalent operations in SONAR so this healthy dialog can be a good thing obviously. I personally greatly value the interaction with all the users on this forum or I wouldn't be posting here in my off time<g>. Its this close communication that has made Cakewalk what it is and I'm sorry if anybody got the impression that any of this would change. As you were :)

I'll let you in on a secret. In early SONAR 8 we actually implemented DM. ASIO DM is one of the poorest areas of the ASIO specification and very incomplete. We ran into so many vague areas with the ASIO spec and differences in manufacturers implementations that we ultimately ended up scrapping it. Additionally most if not all HW vendors have their own console applications that implement their own custom direct monitoring mapping that is superior than any host based ASIO DM implementation could rival. We decided that we'd let this one go for now.

ORIGINAL: nhb

To get slightly back on topic, I'd like to suggest to Noel and Keith that a lot of this low latency controversy could be alleviated if they were to implement ASIO direct monitoring. ADM when properly implemented (which I am confident that Cakewalk would do) is a beautiful thing. It might not be the low latency answer for everyone but I think it would go a long way. ADM would give us the equivalent (or better) of a 32 sample buffer without the CPU overhead. We could just run our systems with a 256 sample buffer (which is fine for softsynths) and all live input recording would be essentially at 0 latency.

Noel, have you guys ever looked into this? It could be a nice surprise in an update, just the way tape style monitoring was in 7.02 last year.

Regards,

nhb

To bad Microsoft can't get it right with WDM and WaveRT spec for the music community. This way we wouldn't have to rely on ASIO developer (we all know who they are) to decide what the ASIO spec should be. Hey anybody have an inside phone number to Bill Gates?
Hey Bill if you're listening you be able to take back some market share from Apple. But as Noel said Microsoft doesn't have the right leader to care about us music folks Just ponder if they did for the next windows version. A module Operating system that all the bloat-ware can be turned off. I can dream, can't I,

Ed

ORIGINAL: nhb

I'll let you in on a secret. In early SONAR 8 we actually implemented DM. ASIO DM is one of the poorest areas of the ASIO specification and very incomplete. We ran into so many vague areas with the ASIO spec and differences in manufacturers implementations that we ultimately ended up scrapping it. Additionally most if not all HW vendors have their own console applications that implement their own custom direct monitoring mapping that is superior than any host based ASIO DM implementation could rival. We decided that we'd let this one go for now.

Noel,

Thanks for that info. I'm not a programmer, but I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't have experience with it. I can assure you, that when "properly implemented" ASIO DM is far superior and easier to deal with than the convoluted mixer matrix features that most sound cards provide. However, I do understand your point that all of the sound cards probably implement ASIO DM differently. How about starting with RME. Sonar with RME ASIO DM would be brilliant.

If you don't want to deal with ASIO DM, then you guys better get cracking on making that 32 sample buffer a little more robust.

Regards,

nhb

nhb for president!!!!

ORIGINAL: nhb
Noel,

Thanks for that info. I'm not a programmer, but I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't have experience with it. I can assure you, that when "properly implemented" ASIO DM is far superior and easier to deal with than the convoluted mixer matrix features that most sound cards provide. However, I do understand your point that all of the sound cards probably implement ASIO DM differently. How about starting with RME. Sonar with RME ASIO DM would be brilliant.

Actually, this isn't correct. ADM is a very limited API that has far less functionality than most manufactirers provide through their custom mixer apps. If I remember correctly, juat about all the ADM API allows is to route card inputs to outputs (stereo pairs only, no mono), and control their gain. It doesn't even allow the application to query the card's current routing configuration. That's about it.

Anything else is going to be part of a custom API which will be different for every manufacturer/card. These are custom DM capabilites that are not part of the ASIO DM standard. It would be possible to get SONAR to access these capabilities (if the manufacturer provides the required information) but it's a lot of work just to give you a different interface for the same functionality that we already have with the card's own mixer app.

How about starting with RME. Sonar with RME ASIO DM would be brilliant.

Yeah and starting down the path of exclusivity and proprietary......we could call it 'M-Walk by Digiland' then.

I'm no a techie but I browse this thread from time to time and while I'm sure it's helpful to the developers and much effort has gone into making the testing fair and exhaustive, it no way influenced my original purchasing decision I doubt it will it influence my next one much either.

I do see though that from the passionate responses here that BOTH developers and user base are dedicated to the end of arriving at the best product possible, which in itself is reassuring. I'm not sure that I myself would be as open to criticism and comparison as our hosts have shown themselves to be on their 'home turf' so to speak and again it inspires confidence that this thread has been allowed to continue pretty much without external influence on such partisan territory and its a pretty long and exhaustive one. Given that quoting 5th amendment freedom of speech stuff is pretty cheap and does make me go 'hmmmm' sometimes given the proven tolerance of our host.

I'm sure given time I will be reaping (unfortunate word choice? ) the benefits of this thread without even realising it and while I've never bought a car on the strength of a performance comparison either, many other factors comfort, durability, practicality and the like go toward making an informed choice there as well.

Now my name has never been 'Kiss Rear' although many point out I may well be on the 'Road to Hell', but I'm still happy with the purchase I made earlier this year and was fortunate enough to see and work with other comparative products in practical working environments before I made up my mind and sure there are pro's and con's with all of them and all of them have their particular strengths and weakness I guess Sonar was the one I disliked the least, or preferred if you like.

I'm not sure how much emphasis needs placing in raw performance, providing its based in the contemporary realm of 'acceptability' as I use fairly low end hardware and whilst I've certainly had various issues they've rarely if ever been to do with speed or performance, and I'm sure if I was using a competing product my issues. while maybe they would have been different ones my experience with other complex applications tells me they would have been at least as frequent.

I reckon the discourse on this forum between end user and developer is second to none and is far more likely to influence any future purchase decision of mine far more than any raw performance data.

But that's just me.

ORIGINAL: Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

Its amazing how much can be read into one line of text :-) Its politics season after all.

I'm just a lazy developer and so I write short sentences esp when I'm busy with something else. I'm sorry if it was misunderstood since that wasn't how I meant it. So now I'll put my foot into my mouth again and try and explain better. This thread started out being a SONAR benchmark thread. What Keith and I were essentially saying was that we should keep it that way since its most useful to the SONAR community in that context. We are most interested in positive as well as negative results since it helps us fine tune this even more. This however is not the appropriate place to do a detailed comparitive analysis between all DAW platforms as we thought some posters were about to do. Someone already posted a link to an independent site that hosts that level of detail. And as Carl clarified we don't want to host free marketing data for other DAW's.

That said we absolutely have no problem with anyone mentioning or discussing other DAW's features. Often we have customers who need information about how to do equivalent operations in SONAR so this healthy dialog can be a good thing obviously. I personally greatly value the interaction with all the users on this forum or I wouldn't be posting here in my off time<g>. Its this close communication that has made Cakewalk what it is and I'm sorry if anybody got the impression that any of this would change. As you were :)

I'm with you on the politics statement... in this season, even the most level-headed person can get in a silly tizzy. :)

Just briefly (or not-so-briefly) I still want to respond to this respectfully, and then see myself gracefully out of this thread. :)

Noel, you know I respect you and the Cakewalk team, and I've stated that a million times. But your response here is exactly why this thread, in my opinion, is now dead.

At least for the purposes of what we were trying to do here, in my opinion.

Here's why: Your response, Keith's response and Carl's response all confirm the same thing to me. The tone of this thread has now changed, and is now no longer conducive to exploring fully what we were trying to do. I respect that you may have a different opinion.

I do appreciate the follow up responses and tempering of the initial statements, but the basic framework for the new tone is still there, in my opinion.

You're right that the thread originally started out as a SONAR bench thread, but all the serious people here know what the direction has been going since the Universal Bench was launched. And amazingly, you guys tolerated that, supported that, contributed to that, and even behind the scenes you were there for us and we discussed this in detail sometimes. Bravo to you guys for doing what so few DAW developers would dare to do. So you get big kudos from me on that.

However, the tone change, as confirmed by each of your posts, has killed the prospect of this thread from continuing on what it was already doing, and definitely from moving forward. And you have every right to decide what content you want posted on your forum... of course. No one is disputing that. It's your forum, and you have been very generous here, there's no doubt about that.

But if you think that what any one of us has posted or even thought about posting is "free marketing data for other DAWs" you may have missed what gold-plated awesomeness you had going on here. Carl's unfortunate use of the word "troll" added to that... not that he was specifically accusing anyone here (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), but come on... in this thread? Trolls haven't been tolerated here by us without any intervention from you guys, EVER, and there has not been ONE single solitary serious person in this thread who has exhibited any type of trollish behavior, AT ALL. We have rejected it, and instead we fostered a thread of serious investigation into performance issues and let that take us where it may. Amazingly, and to your credit, you helped us in that pursuit, or at least tolerated it.

To equate or even just remotely imply what we have done, or are "about to do," as being trollish, marketing-hype for other DAW developers, narrow minded, one-sided, or negative to Cakewalk, is just to miss exactly what we have done here! What you guys had done previously by allowing this thread room to breath, whether or not you were really aware of it, amazingly, is foster the most open, most inclusive discussion on the general topic of performance in any DAW developer's forums on the Internet. Period.

And you knew what we were doing, and were party to it. Even the title of the thread was changed as we delved into the first Universal Test. Keith's ridiculous statement that "In conclusion, no one should base purchase decisions on a single benchmark" is just so off base in this thread, I was a little surprised. He's a smart guy, but SO much smarter than us? OF COURSE no one should do that. The serious people in this thread have been saying that, including me, over and over, not just here but in other threads and forums all over the place. And not just that, we all already know that the Universal Bench is not the panacea of all benchmarks... it's just the beginning, and one of hopefully several to come to test the very things you say we should test. Just look at the history of the discussions here in this thread. We've been talking about another benchmark (or two or three) and time and effort have already been spent on those, although for the time being, the focus has been on expanding the Universal Bench. Heck, even BEHIND THE SCENES, both Vin and I and others have personally contacted you guys to discuss issues, and in the case of the Universal Bench, making sure that Cakewalk was properly represented in the numbers. If that's not fair-minded, non-marketing, unbiased development, I don't know what is.

And your response above, gee whiz, Noel, what was it that you think we were doing for the last several months? Sheesh!

Yes, I appreciate your willingness to listen to us, but not one of your responses (and I'm including Noel's, Carl's and Keith's) indicates that we're really on the same page as we used to be. And perhaps we were never on the same page to begin with. And that's all fine by me. We could have been operating at slightly cross purposes from the beginning, and that's just human nature. I still love Cakewalk. But all your statements have confirmed that delving more deeply into the performance issues that are revealed PARTICULARLY via comparison with OTHER DAW apps, will not be as tolerated as they were before, particularly when they are not favorable to Cakewalk in this test. Not one serious contributor (and you know who they are) has done anything other than try to help Cakewalk have a great product... and that includes the most controversial statements that Vin might have made. Frankly, if anyone is confusing propaganda with facts, they are just simply misunderstanding stylistic/personality differences between free-thinking individuals in this thread.

Finally, and this is "final" for me, since I consider this thread basically dead to our prior direction and discussion, I think you guys have just managed to inadvertently squash a great opportunity here. Through this unusual thread, which is really a model for just about every other DAW developer's forum out there, you've allowed a very open discussion that did you credit on more levels than perhaps you realize. Your frequent interaction here, and sometimes detailed contributions have added to your reputation in the DAW community. The fact that this discussion has some sort of shadow or tinge of oversight hanging over it (and no one is really faulting you for having the right to make that choice), and/or downright threats (mild though they may seem) of cutting off the thread if it engages in what you -- and only you -- consider "free marketing for other DAWs", will cripple this thread from moving forward with any truly unbiased discussion. And because of that, I look at it as a lost opportunity for you to be right there, in the midst of the discussion. Now, all you'll get, I expect, will be a relatively superficial report, complaint and SONAR-only comparison feedback loop, with the occasional meaty morsel thrown in at your pleasure. While before we had a feast going on here...

Oh well, that's it for me in this thread. I'm not upset at Cakewalk at all and I have not taken anything personally -- but I will confess that I am just a tiny, itsy bit saddened at the loss of the special magic of this thread. But then again, it's just a thread. :) I was always amazed at the level of acceptance in this thread from Cakewalk itself, and I thought we did some good things, but I respect Cakewalk's decision to, in essence, monitor it more closely, and despite the backtracking of rhetoric a little, I still consider this thread's tone completely changed. I know that any hard analysis will not meet with the openness I once thought it would. Total, real, honest, sometimes brutal discourse on the topic cannot possibly survive unless the attitude fully reverses. That's just my two bits. Take 'em or leave 'em, and I mean that with total respect.

I just cannot see anything that was said by any of the three Cakewalk heavyweights that have chimed in to mean, "As you were," as Noel said in his response above. It is not "as we were" as far as I'm concerned. Take care, and I really do wish you the best. I will of course still be around... I am still a fan of Cakewalk. Just won't be hanging in this thread, and I'll be treading more carefully in other threads too. :)

ORIGINAL: InstrEd

Just ponder if they did for the next windows version. A module Operating system that all the bloat-ware can be turned off. I can dream, can't I,

Ed

I don't remember where, but I saw some Microsoft guy talking about how they were going to look into make services only run when needed instead of loading them all on startup. Something to keep an eye on.

ORIGINAL: Marketing [Cakewalk]

Wow Vin,

I'm not sure what to say here. That was quite a defensive reply on your part. What made you think I was directing that comment at you?

The strong responses that I was refering to were Noel's and Keith's responses to the thread. I didn't feel that they were accurate as to what our policy is. In my last reply, I was just stating what our policy is: If people use our forums as a marketing platform for competitive applications we will take action against those postings. We have trolls up here, and some of them work for our competitors, surely you don't deny that. I wasn't singling you out with my Guerilla marketing comment, I know who you are and what you do. Sorry you took it that way.

Hey Carl,

Thanks for your reply, its amazing how much can be misconstrued in the non verbals..

I thought the comments were directed at me because they followed my last post that wasn't exactly all warm and fuzzy about S8 , and I happened to mention other applications as a comparable reference.

I had absolutely no idea you were in fact referring to Keith and Noels comments, how could any of us in the context and the tone of what was being expressed. I am still not understanding why the whole subject of trolls was brought up in this thread, that definitely started the slide.. :-(

I find it very unfortunate that the misunderstandings and following commentary on this thread has lead us to this point , but I am still with eratu that the tone has definitely changed in regards to the openness of the information flow. I suspect if the results had been different with S8 and that the performance improvements had resulted in a reversal of the state of play against the other applications, we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-)

@ Keith,

Apologies accepted , I admit that the narrow minded comment was like a red flag to a bull in my eyes, as I am still carrying some sting from the other developer that I noted in my reply to you. There is still some confusion about what the test actually represents, and I know that we need to expand the tests to include a Universal VSTi based test as well, but that is proving extremely hard just narrowing done a short list of what 3rd party , freely available VSTis to use , let alone fine tuning the methodology. It also brings up the whole argument about the tests reflecting real projects which I have been hammered about in the past. My only response to that is that there is no such thing as a universal real project, as each individual user has a different concept of what that is, so what is real for one , is not for others. I have never been able to reach a consensus on that, nor do I expect I ever will.

Anyhow,

I have a stack of testing in the works which will no doubt throw up a few curves , so I am going to let this sit for a while and see where the dust settles before I decide what my next move is.. :-)

Peace

V:

CW I am very disappointed in how this thread has been received by you. I have not posted in this tread nor had I intended to. It was your response that prompted me to post here in support of all the posters that had up until now felt free to discuses the topic of this thread.

Through the years CW has been extremely wise in having a hands off approach to the topics and postings of this forum. It has served you well. We the users have for the over whelming proportion of the posts have policed ourselves very effectively and kept things in a more or less high level of quality in the postings.

It comes as a rude awaking to me that you have found a legitimate thread that is very relevant to the user base problematic. The chill that the words posted here by CW can not be minimized and goes against all that we users have applauded CW for in all the years leading up to this point.

It has been your willingness to approach us as adults and responsible forum members that has endeared CW to its forum membership. At this time it seems to me that this is in great jeopardy of being lost.

It is one thing to counter any statements with facts its another thing to crush all statements in the name of marketing. We have been pro Sonar at every turn, Any time anyone asks we here have promoted Sonar to the best of our ability. I can’t see why any thought was given to the notion of squelching talk on this forum even if it was not to your liking. In the end if you had trusted us in this and stayed out of such postings it would have solved itself through our own means.

Now I personally don’t care about benchmarks. I view them as interesting but not of any use to me. All that matters to me is how my system works. Yet here I am posting only because of the very real implications of your posts. It doesn’t only impact this thread it impacts all threads now and forever. It places a chill on any thread that may contain a single post that CW is not fond of.

I have always look toward CW posting as a wonderful addition to this forum. I and so many others have thanked you any time you have taken the time to interact with the forum. I have viewed those times as frosting on the cake of being a Sonar user and forum member.

Now I have to rethink what I have up until now always welcomed.

Dear Cakewalk,

How about you guys open a testing room for current registered Sonar users only? This way the test results won't be displayed to the public and will only be available to us. Everybody's happy. How about it?


Thanks!

What's everyone getting all worked up about? I refuse to take any of Cakewalk employee's offhand comments in this thread seriously until it's proven by some sort of action. I don't take any of Cakewalk's comments as official unless it's posted in a separate thread or as a sticky as that's the only way I know that they have taken the time to think things through...Give 'em some slack...

ORIGINAL: wormser

I use Sonar 7 as well, am a registered user and have been since Greg used to answer my emails personally back in the Cakewalk 1.0 days.

Wow!