• SONAR
  • Hello from BandLab [Updated 21/3/2018] (p.65)
2018/03/13 23:48:36
abacab
cparmerlee
 
Basically I think Bandlab is a positive thing, but everybody here should understand Bandlab will be appealing to the next generation.  They have to.  That's where the only real business is.  That does not have to be a bad thing, but old-timers should be prepared to open their minds to new ways of doing things that are not just like the "old SONAR".  This should happen gradually, so there is no reason for anybody to get bent out of shape about it.  And the "old SONAR" capabilities will probably mostly remain for a long time.




Imagine ... what if?
 
Cakewalk had dropped Sonar development years ago and continued focusing on Project5 development instead. P5 was a great synth workstation with VST support and a fun/creative workflow.
 
Where would Cakewalk be today in the competitive landscape?  P5 was a niche product back them, perhaps too early to the game, and ahead of its time...
 
But products like Ableton Live and Propellerheads Reason have withstood the test of time.  I think that Reason may have the closest similarity to P5, but until recently, Reason did not even have VST support.  And if you look at the layout of Bitwig, it has some similarities to P5, that even Ableton cannot match yet...
2018/03/14 00:35:40
ch.huey
sharke
Skyline_UK
Back to your salient comment on how some youngsters think they're making music with loops. Let's just get this out there. They're not making music. We mustn't fall into the trap of thinking we need to defy our knowledge and wisdom and think the opposite of what we know is true for fear of being labelled 'Luddite', 'old', etc. We must feel free NOT to be persuaded that "That's how they're doing it now. It's modern and equally valid as learning an instrument was in your day. And by definition, as it's modern it must be good and therefore it's YOU that doesn't understand its validity".  Utter bollocks. Stringing together snippets ('loops') of music made by musicians on instruments is not making music. End of.  Anyway, I like to think that for every bedroom beats copy and paster there is at least one other youngster learning the joy of connecting with a musical instrument and actually expressing what's in their heart and head by making music with it.



This is a little narrow minded but not an infrequent view expressed in the Sonar community. People who rant about kids "making music with loops" are usually coming from a position of ignorance, in that they don't really know what goes into the kind of music the kids are creating and how they're using loops. The idea that they're just dragging 16 bar loops into the DAW and extending them across the timeline and saying they wrote a song is just not true. At least, for the vast majority of people making modern music which utilizes loops. 
 
In fact there is a LOT of musical creativity going on, arguably more so than someone who's been banging out 3 chord songs on a guitar their whole lives. Loops are usually only part of the story, and even when they're used they're being edited and spliced and rearranged and mangled in all kinds of creative ways in order to create something new. It's no less creative than an artist creating sculptures from junk found in a scrapyard (and some of that stuff is amazing). The idea that there is no musical talent or ability behind it is ridiculous. You have to have a keen musical ear to arrange samples into something new, just as you have to have a keen artistic eye to arrange old engine parts into a sculpture of an animal (or whatever). 
 
You don't have to perform with an instrument to compose music. Clicking notes in a piano roll is no different to writing notation down on paper - the computer is just a tool to facilitate the evolution of musical ideas. Whereas the traditional orchestral composer might well be an accomplished piano player, at the end of the day they're just using that piano as an exploratory tool to work out parts and how they go together. This is no different to someone using sample libraries and soft synths to compose in the piano roll. If you don't have a musical ear, you're not going to have to come up with anything decent. 
 
The notion that using samples is "cheating" is as outdated as the notion that banging out three chords on a guitar is "not real music" (and when rock and roll took off, the older generation held precisely this view of it). There are kids out there making electronic music without instruments who are being far more musically creative than a lot of "real" musicians, particularly those who have been knocking out the same old chords and riffs their entire lives. I'm not knocking people who are accomplished at an instrument (I'm quite accomplished on guitar - classical, jazz, folk and a lot of other styles), but I've never seen the use of samples and loops as "unmusical" or "uninventive." Perhaps that's because I've had a good crack at it myself. The level of detail in some electronic productions is immense, and there is a lot of extraordinary creativity going on with samples and loops. I always invite people who pooh-pooh it to set a day aside and try and come up with something good in these genres yourself, just by copying and pasting loops. They never do, and I suspect they'd be lost almost immediately. 


Oh God what door did I open????? My comment has been... misread.
 
First of all, Skyline_UK, not all old people are farts, and not all farts are old. There are plenty of young ones, who grow to be old ones, and plenty of old people who are simply old and not at all farts, and never were. An old fart IS a Luddite who is convinced their way is the only way.
 
I was just pointing out that I'm not old, and I'm also not a kid, just a particular age where I seem to be caught in a gap, and I am in addition, not a fart, some whiny baby who is refusing any kind of change to how they function from a dogmatic a priori belief. Hence, neither old, nor a fart. There are many young farts who think that tracking  a group live in a room is such an old person thing to do and that their looping way is the only way to create real, new, vital music. They're young farts. They'll grow up to be old farts and moan one day how music has declined.
 
Second of all, my comment about my friend's teenage son... that was not an attempt to put down people creating music with loops or samples. If I were to suggest that were the case, I'd be dismissing Stockhausen, Glenn Gould, much musique concrete, and the Beatles who used tape loops all over Tomorrow Never Knows.
 
My point was, and hopefully this will nip this insane conversation that started off a remark I might have phrased better, is that he wasn't AWARE there was another way of approaching things because the program he used made it difficult to view that way.
 
My hope is that the new NotSonar will be something that lets both parties be happy. It's all a sliding scale of increasing technology and ease of use, ease of access, without people, en masse, getting any more creative. The medium is just the tool. Most people still suck. When literacy increased in Victorian England, there was an exponential growth of writing than a century before, but the ratio of good to bad didn't change. There was just a lot more bad. Music is the same way.
 
I am a huge admirer of Frank Zappa. He released his 6 disc/12 volume 'You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore', showcasing the virtuosity of his decades of live music in the late 80's, when freeze dried drum machines ruled the airwaves. He showed what a brilliant man with a guitar with a good band can do live.
 
Then he went off to his basement and created music entirely from sampled instruments on his Synclavier (stone age Sonar), all played back by the machine but programmed in to create some of the most interesting beautiful music, which is still unique and beautiful beyond description. He showed what a brilliant man with sampled instruments from a ghuzheng to Tuvan throat singers and classical instruments,  and even some burps, can create.
 
Common component - brilliant man. He also grew up on analog (5 track that Paul Buff and Les Paul created!!!!), then moved to digital, but he knew the options and ways to achieve what he heard in his head.
 
My fear is that the new NotSonar may turn into something that doesn't give you all the options, since a lot of kids just don't know how to do it. The increasing emphasis on pleasing the consumer, by dumbing programs down to do what they already want to do, will lead to dumbed down imaginations on otherwise brilliant people because it's really difficult to do it any other way. The brilliant people are out there still. But they're losing tools, not gaining them it looks like. Sonar was one of the stand outs in a tool that worked like a digital mixer/tape machine. Who knows how many people will see it that way and decide to give making music that way a try and realize their creativity works differently that way.
 
As far as samples and loops versus playing real instruments... If I'm playing a funk song, I want a real funk guitar. I don't want it looped. Because looped is repeated exactly and your ear grows dead to it, and it has to lock in with the drums, so I don't want looped sampled drums, since it can grow stale. It's what the music requires, and I enjoy that kind of music very much, and that approach is the best to achieve the end, what I hear in my head. No quantitizing. I tried it - it kills groove, not again for that music. Sonar lets me do it this way easily.
 
I also have a project that I want to create where I want everything quantitized because I'm using sampled drum loops, specifically a disco beat, and entirely sampled instruments including loops, including vocal phrases, embracing the sterile 80's sound. It's an absurd piece with a structure of a ballet. That is the best approach to create the music that I hear in my head. I think Sonar will let me do this easily, but I've never really tried yet.
 
I wasn't lamenting the fact that my friend's teenage son wasn't playing an instrument - I was stating that it wasn't obvious to him that what he was sitting in front of is basically an amped up mixer that he saw in all those old videos of way back when, and he could use it the same way. The interface and format didn't clue him in, and he didn't know the history, so he never had the option of deciding which route he wanted to go. The software encouraged him one way, and he went that way, and the program he used was frustrating for me because it was not geared toward actually being able to play guitar, bass, and the rest of the parts in real time. He seemed to love it. He didn't seem to get that there was any other way to do it, though, writing away from the software and creating his own loops to use. Old recording was not better - it forced you to be, and it also severely limited what you could do which is WHY WE HAVE DIGITAL NOW.
 
Art is defined by the frame, and that's where the talent of a person comes in as the only important factor. I don't care for EDM, but I won't call it trash because I can appreciate the organization. I also appreciate that my 4 track Tascam mentality wouldn't help someone who is doing EDM.
 
I hope the new NotSonar is something that lets you switch between playing instruments in, and doing loop based style production. Not one or the other, but both. I am only lamenting that the software developers seem to pick a side sometimes, and people without my weird generation gap experience of 4 track and digital experience may not know there are alternate ways to express their creativity, which is really the whole point of all this after all, isn't it?
 
I never, ever said or implied her son wasn't making music by not using an instrument. I simply said it never occurred to him that there is a whole different way to make it that he might enjoy. Bandlab seems very youth oriented, and I do not know what their plans include. Hopefully, a versatile platform that gives people the options.
 
To quote Oscar Wilde:
"The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim...
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless."
 
Useless organized sound is music in a nutshell. How it's organized doesn't make it better or worse. Knowing as an artist that you have DIFFERENT WAYS to organize it, I think, is always good, and was my point. It is all just a bunch of sound waves hitting our ear drums at the end of a long journey, and everything is a tool to get there. Tools serve no purpose unless they are used by people as tools.
 
I did not intend to start this discussion to exclude anyone, but hope that new NotSonar is MORE inclusive toward different ways of creating, and hopefully I can end it by saying let's all get off our high horses and not pretend we're doing something useful, vital, or enlightening to humanity in general, but at the end of the day, totally biologically unnecessary and frivolous, totally biologically useless, and totally fun, which is why it becomes vital and useful to humanity in general. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here.  I know Mozart is the greatest composer, and I know why, and sometimes I'd still rather listen to Mississippi Fred McDowell than Mozart, who in general I appreciate more than enjoy, as opposed to Beethoven, who isn't as good as Mozart, but I like a lot more.
 
'I like it' and 'it's good' are not equivocal statements, nor are 'I dislike it' and 'it is bad'. 
 
Do we really want to turn into a bunch of essayists rather than musicians? I ran away to music from writing, despite being a writer, because music can be done real time and my jazz friends never went on about 'what an artist does' while doing nothing but talking about what an artist does. They jammed. It was great. I wrote music, ended up bandleader. It was fun (mostly). We played jazz, doo wop, blues, reggae, disco and it was all great, and silly, and great. We did, not talked, but did.
 
Artists art. Add one letter to that and you become .... well what I pointed out at the beginning of this post. They come young and old, and have closed minds. And they all stink, but the wind blow them away eventually.
 

 
2018/03/14 01:18:05
michael diemer
Ha! Hilarious, ch.huey. Another great post. And desperately needed. 
 
If your music is as good as your writing, I'm going to be envious.
 
I guess we'll have to call you a youthful fart, you're too young for middle-age, but too old for unqualifiedly-young.
 
In any case, keep it coming, assuming you have nothing better to do. 
 
Then again, maybe I shouldn't encourage you, some people don't like long posts. But it's about the quality. If that's there, length doesn't matter. 
 
By the way, you are correct about Mozart. So many people question how he could be the greatsest composer, when his music is so simple and light. Just listen to his Requiem, that should dispel that myth. And for complexity, check out the last movement of the Jupiter symphony, where he handles 5 themes simultaneously. I don't believe anyone else has done that, before or since.
2018/03/14 01:22:07
abacab
ch.huey
*.*


+100
 

2018/03/14 01:23:20
Falk
cparmerlee
marled
cparmerlee
But I think the broader point here, to get back on track, is that SONAR (and Cakewalk) had clearly become a niche that was loved by an earlier generation and had little interest to younger people. The SONAR technology is great, but it is in a crowded field, making it impossible to survive.  And as time passed, we saw a vicious circle where the remaining users pushed the company deeper and deeper into the niche.  It was a death spiral.

I do not agree at all! In my opinion they should have strengthened the niche.



That niche was old guys with fading memories of the old studio days.  There is no business there.  That's why it failed -- TWICE (Roland and Gibson.)  During the time that Gibson had it another 5-10 very comparable DAWs came on the market fitting into that same shrinking niche.
 
The only way to make a business here is to find a way to grow the product, and you will not accomplish that selling against entrenched players like PT, Cubase, SO and Reaper, not to mention FL, DP, Logic, Mixbus and on and on.
 
Basically I think Bandlab is a positive thing, but everybody here should understand Bandlab will be appealing to the next generation.  They have to.  That's where the only real business is.  That does not have to be a bad thing, but old-timers should be prepared to open their minds to new ways of doing things that are not just like the "old SONAR".  This should happen gradually, so there is no reason for anybody to get bent out of shape about it.  And the "old SONAR" capabilities will probably mostly remain for a long time.




As I posted a couple pages ago, that niche literally is the reason that a lot of people used SONAR. There exists an entire classification of users whose job scope not only doesn't care for social integration, cloud sync, etc - their work literally runs counter to that - people composing for media, heck, people using SONAR to mix projects, sequence or comp/edit for clients, etc. - any time you're working at the behest of someone else rather than your own music, you're pretty much not going to be sharing your work with your social circle. (Unless your client also happens to be part of your social circle but I digress)
 
I would argue that SONAR's niche within that niche, and why so many people had trouble letting go, is that regardless of the bugs and issues and crashes and whatnot, it did some things incredibly well, in a way that none of the competition could replicate. (Integrated ARA is this one of these bullet points, for me, really) and the acquisition would do well on capitalizing on what drew people to the product and what made it hard for them to let go FIRST, making that as reliable as can be, and THEN seeing what else could be added, rather than trading out one crowded market (PT, Cubase, SO, Reaper, FL, DP, Logic, Mixbus, etc) for another and potentially losing all the product's strengths and branding in the meantime.
2018/03/14 01:35:05
cparmerlee
marled
I wonder that you cut out some of my comment above where I tried to explain what I mean with the first sentence.



I was just trying to avoid the 10-page posts when people quote 5 messages in their entirety.  I wasn't trying to hide anything.
2018/03/14 01:53:37
cparmerlee
abacab
Where would Cakewalk be today in the competitive landscape?  P5 was a niche product back them, perhaps too early to the game, and ahead of its time...
 
But products like Ableton Live and Propellerheads Reason have withstood the test of time.  I think that Reason may have the closest similarity to P5, but until recently, Reason did not even have VST support.  And if you look at the layout of Bitwig, it has some similarities to P5, that even Ableton cannot match yet...



Interesting.  I don't know anything about Project5, so I can't really comment.  But just as a general proposition, if you are in a commodity market you had better be #1 or a very strong #2.  Clearly the general purpose DAW market has become a commodity.  If you can't own those top slots, then the only real answer is to specialize or otherwise create a special niche.  Live is the perfect example of specialization.  Reaper created a "niche" as a lot-cost option.
 
I don't know anything about the "inside baseball" of Cakewalk.  But we do know there have been several high profile projects started and killed.  The Mac port wasn't really to create a value niche, but it surely had the potential to quickly reach a wider base.  I don't think it would have saved the company because it didn't deliver anything that the market didn't already have, but it could have helped with revenues for awhile.  The other projects were all attempts to create a less-crowded niche.  This certainly includes Momentum, and based on your description, Project5 was a similar motive.  And we had the Prochannel, and the various VSTs (the LP stuff and the Adaptive Limiter.)
 
What I'm getting at is that it appears there were people within Cakewalk who saw the need to do more than just make a great general purpose DAW.  One wonders why those efforts didn't really play out.  It seems like there may have competing strategies.  We'll probably never know, and it isn't our business anyway.  But it is interesting.
 
As you said, "Imagine ... what if?"
2018/03/14 02:18:16
ch.huey
michael diemer
Ha! Hilarious, ch.huey. Another great post. And desperately needed. 
 
If your music is as good as your writing, I'm going to be envious.
 
I guess we'll have to call you a youthful fart, you're too young for middle-age, but too old for unqualifiedly-young.
 
In any case, keep it coming, assuming you have nothing better to do. 
 
Then again, maybe I shouldn't encourage you, some people don't like long posts. But it's about the quality. If that's there, length doesn't matter. 
 
By the way, you are correct about Mozart. So many people question how he could be the greatsest composer, when his music is so simple and light. Just listen to his Requiem, that should dispel that myth. And for complexity, check out the last movement of the Jupiter symphony, where he handles 5 themes simultaneously. I don't believe anyone else has done that, before or since.


Thank you but I'm not a lover of long posts myself, I mostly find them a pain in the rear. I agree with you on Mozart - I am learning to appreciate him the more I understand how he adds so many voices on stage at the same time in The Marriage of Figaro. Now that I understand it, I like it, but my gut still goes to Beethoven. Tastes are tastes still.


What I was trying to do was add in my verbose way, to what this thread started out as - a dialogue between our new overlords, and the users, of which I am one. I noticed a lot of speculation and arguing, but it drowns out real comments, like Falk made -
 
Falk
cparmerlee
marled
cparmerlee
But I think the broader point here, to get back on track, is that SONAR (and Cakewalk) had clearly become a niche that was loved by an earlier generation and had little interest to younger people. The SONAR technology is great, but it is in a crowded field, making it impossible to survive.  And as time passed, we saw a vicious circle where the remaining users pushed the company deeper and deeper into the niche.  It was a death spiral.

I do not agree at all! In my opinion they should have strengthened the niche.



That niche was old guys with fading memories of the old studio days.  There is no business there.  That's why it failed -- TWICE (Roland and Gibson.)  During the time that Gibson had it another 5-10 very comparable DAWs came on the market fitting into that same shrinking niche.
[shortened]
Basically I think Bandlab is a positive thing, but everybody here should understand Bandlab will be appealing to the next generation.  They have to.  That's where the only real business is.  That does not have to be a bad thing, but old-timers should be prepared to open their minds to new ways of doing things that are not just like the "old SONAR".  This should happen gradually, so there is no reason for anybody to get bent out of shape about it.  And the "old SONAR" capabilities will probably mostly remain for a long time.




As I posted a couple pages ago, that niche literally is the reason that a lot of people used SONAR. There exists an entire classification of users whose job scope not only doesn't care for social integration, cloud sync, etc - their work literally runs counter to that - people composing for media, heck, people using SONAR to mix projects, sequence or comp/edit for clients, etc. - any time you're working at the behest of someone else rather than your own music, you're pretty much not going to be sharing your work with your social circle. (Unless your client also happens to be part of your social circle but I digress)
 
I would argue that SONAR's niche within that niche, and why so many people had trouble letting go, is that regardless of the bugs and issues and crashes and whatnot, it did some things incredibly well, in a way that none of the competition could replicate. (Integrated ARA is this one of these bullet points, for me, really) and the acquisition would do well on capitalizing on what drew people to the product and what made it hard for them to let go FIRST, making that as reliable as can be, and THEN seeing what else could be added, rather than trading out one crowded market (PT, Cubase, SO, Reaper, FL, DP, Logic, Mixbus, etc) for another and potentially losing all the product's strengths and branding in the meantime.




There are a variety of positions and opinions, and it seems like the company that now owns the IP is willing to listen, so why don't we use this opportunity not to argue what was or was not, but to make suggestions on what might be?
 
Unless I'm severely mistaken here, Sonar, this program, and every other major DAW, is basically the same thing. It's a fancy mixer. You can put any UI you want on it, add any features you want (or not add them), and gear it toward a specific audience, make it complex, which Sonar could be, or simple, like many drag and drop programs. But they all work off the same MIDI standards, with FPS, and they all stream audio back. Maybe different species, but same bird, and they all lay eggs and have feathers at the end of the day. I tried explaining this to someone who 'hated MIDI' but wanted to 'use samples on his Sibelius scores' and ... sigh... he doesn't hate MIDI, he just doesn't know how the software really works. A lot of people, I find, don't. But it all mostly works the same way whether or not people know it - again unless I am massively wrong on this, same thing under the hood but tweaked a little here and there. Still runs on gas. 
 
Falk has a very specific need for the way it's presented, and including a UI that lets him share with his friends is not something he wants or needs. If I had friends, I might decide if I wanted it, but as of now it's useless to my little lonely self. That is a very valid point.
 
Cmparlee is also correct, that many people (something I touched on) look at Sonar as a digital version of a mixer and tape machine. The market for that isn't necessarily that big. But it's not that different under the hood from what a lot of people use, it's just presented different. And people use different aspects of Sonar's massive, powerful, bulging sexy engine.
 
I look at Sonar Platinum, and I remember Sonar 6, and they look very different. But they aren't really, other than workflow and screensets. The Synclavier wasn't even all that different from what Sonar is... just an early version on ancient technology.
 
I believe it is logical to assume that as there were different versions of Sonar aimed at different users, Platinum, Artist, etc, Bandlab will most likely do something similar. Not everyone needs the full range of tools for audio production, but there will be a flagship line that probably has all the features included in addition to the slimmed down ones.
 
Perhaps a better route than arguing over less than nothing, is to express clearly that one group needs these features and not these, while another group needs these features and not these, and why that is, so that there is a NewNotSonar that has a UI more like Ableton, and one that has a UI more like Sonar 6 for the 'old people' (lots of women in audio). But the same audio/midi engine underneath. This will let the new NotSonar be MORE versatile. You can please most of the people most of the time, if not all, if you know what they want. Cars work on the same principle. So do puppies. Why not a DAW with that same mentality. That has VARISPEED RECORDING.
 
Given the strength and versatility of Sonar's engine AS IT IS, aside from a few things I wish it had (varispeed, VARISPEED), it seems like it's capable of doing most things that a lot of DAWS do, but doesn't have the UI to ease the workflow. The fact that I can switch between advanced midi editing in piano roll, console view, track view, matrix view and so on already makes me think this isn't that hard...
 
Suggesting desired features not already there (VARISPEED RECORDING!!!!), and the potential ways each individual user uses it so that the new company has an idea on how we all actually use it and function with it, so they can then develop it in a variety of ways for the people who like dragging and dropping premade loops, or for the people who prefer to play instruments in real time, or the people who do other kinds of production I don't do and can't rattle off the top of my head, will help them use the very very valuable and wonderful IP they acquired, and enhance different aspects so the MIDI heavy people can switch to a custom designed MIDI UI, the audio to their audio UI, etc.
 
Sonar is gone. What Cakewalk should or should not have done is beside the point. What is not beside the point is that we are fortunate enough to have a company willing to listen and this thread devolves into arguments over whether a style of music is valid or not, instead of feedback on:
 
"Hi, I'm xxx. Here is how I used it. Here is what I hope for. Here is what I don't use. "
 
This is a golden opportunity. Let's not let it pass us up here since this could be a very good thing for everyone, but I doubt they want to wade through pages of people arguing over the meaning of 'subscription' to find the people who are expressing what they liked, didn't like, and hope for in future versions which are not in the past but in the future we all eagerly await.
 
Bandlab seems like they are run by a smart guy. Why don't we throw smart ideas at a smart guy running a company full of smart people who just acquired really smartly made software? If they truly are smart, they will listen, and we may see the equivalent of what is currently in Sonar the 'screenset' function so you can toggle between different features of the powerful engine.
 
It's not that Sonar can't do many things other programs can't, aside from some of the social media stuff I think, it's that it's not set up to do so efficiently. Ask and ye shall receive. If there is a social media module I can just not install, hooray for me! But let's put our requests out there so they can be heard in the first place, instead of arguing over what Sonar didn't do but could have.
 
Again, unless I'm mistaken, all a DAW really is, is a thing that plays back recordings. It is truly horrible for printing music. I forgot to mention that. Drawing in septulets is a PAIN, and the staff notation never displays correctly and it looks like gibberish. I have to drag from Musescore or another program into Cakewalk for some of this stuff. That's a good request right there - I am a user who likes seeing sheet music, so perhaps an improvement there.
 
Loop users don't care about that. Those who use loops, what do you care about that you think could be improved?
People who do soundtracks?
People who design for video games or the billion other things I can't think of because I don't do them and it never occurred to me to think of?
 
Your suggestions might be my future blessing, since the company sounds like it really wants to hear what we think while they're making the new program.
 
 
 

 
2018/03/14 03:46:32
michael diemer
Again, great post Youthful Sir. This is the best suggestion I have heard yet in all this ranting, to let Bandlab know what we do/don't use, need, or want. Let's do it!
2018/03/14 10:39:15
iRelevant
Bravo Mr. ch.huey, very enjoyable reading. Applause :) 
 
My main interest in the DAW is it's MIDI features. I hope that the Preferences section get's a streamlining when it comes to the MIDI part. It would be nice if it was easier to select devices formerly associated with Cakewalk ... you would expect it to be just a matter of ticking off the right boxes to select say the VS-100 or the A-Pro Keyboard Series. It's a bit weird how it's quicker to get the A-Pro keyboard to work in Fruity Loops than in Sonar. 
It would also be nice to have easy integration of contemporary control surfaces and keyboards.
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account