Hello BandLab,
 
Having read about Mr. Meng and his passion for music, I can see a very bright future ahead for our beloved DAW.
 
Thanks,
Ed

ch.huey
... Oh God what door did I open????? My comment has been... misread....

 
I like most of this long and entertaining post very much, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with a couple of things... lightheartedly, of course, I hope that comes across, I can get worked up sometimes... 
 

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. 

 
Wow. You "know" - the implication is objectively - that Mozart is "the greatest" composer, but you like Beethoven better even though he "isn't as good". This is simply nonsense. There is nothing objectively better about Mozart than Beethoven. Both occupy a kind of stratosphere of composition, along with a handful of others, depending on who is compiling the list... mine includes Bach (and I frankly think everyone's should), along with Scarlatti, Chopin,  and a handful of others. Yours might be different than mine but to say that one of these giants is objectively 'the best' is flat-out absurd. Let's think about Mozart for a moment: everybody knows he was an inconceivably gifted child prodigy, writing his first pieces at 3 years old and so on. However, there's *far* more mediocre Mozart than Beethoven (there's basically no mediocre Bach, it's pretty much all luminous and perfect, even the Cantatas which he was churning out at one a week alongside everything else, probably thinking they would only ever be played once, in Mass the next Sunday). Most musicologists will tell you (my prof in university did, in any case) that for all his prodigious talent and prolific output, he didn't really write anything particularly novel or noteworthy until the 25th symphony... which he wrote when he was 18. Yes, we can take a moment to process that (how long did it take you to get to 25? I'm a bit slower than that myself), but the fact remains: there are 24 symphonies - and tons of other work as well, obviously - worth of not particularly groundbreaking, fairly conventional music before Mozart becomes really interesting. Yes, he proceeded from there to be consistently, meteorically brilliant, but the fact remains that the early work brings the average down. Beethoven wrote 9 symphonies (and, obviously, lots of other stuff besides), and not only is every one of them extraordinary and profound, but they are revolutionary as well; he was changing the very idea of composition as he went along.
 
So who's 'better'? Through one lens, Mozart was the most brilliantly gifted composer of all time, but through another, he was a fairly conventional high Classical composer who did it extraordinarily well but struggled to find success and died tragically young. Beethoven wrote far less music, but is simultaneously the last great Classical composer and the first great Romantic one, who literally transformed our notion of what an artist should do, even after he'd gone almost completely deaf. Not even Bach did that. Me? I like them all and literally cannot imagine the world without their music (I feel the same way about The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, for the record) and it seems emininently silly to proclaim that one is 'better' than another. 
 

 
... 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. 

This is a strange and (at the risk of stating the obvious) self-contradictory statement. I don't accept at all that music and art are useless, Wilde's wonderfully clever quote notwithstanding. First of all, I think that music is among the highest forms of communication, and communication is absolutely biologically necessary - most social animals (and we're the most social animal of all, as well as the most antisocial) will simply die if they are removed from the pack, or the colony, or whatever.
 
Moreover, I don't remotely accept that music and art are frivolous, or that 'fun' is the only reason they are important at all. Viewed as a species in terms of our impact on the planet and the ecosystem we live in, we are literally the worst kind of cancer, destroying and consuming our host at an ever-increasing rate. The world at large would be far better off if we had never evolved. Or would it? Art and music and culture, to me, constitute most of what makes humanity worthwhile. We've made much of the world a whole lot uglier, and we've been mostly (with notable exceptions) horribly cruel to each other and to virtually all of the other creatures we share this pale blue dot with... but we've created so much astonishing beauty along the way that I can forgive us. The fact that we sent so much music (including works by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Stravinsky, Louis Armstrong and Chuck Berry) into space on Voyager 1 makes perfect sense to me. The meaning is clear: here is the best of us, we hope it reaches someone out there someday...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record
 
Yes, I like to have fun making music, in fact it's how I make my living, but if you view that as the highest possible calling or the only valid purpose of it... I'm afraid I find that a rather narrow and limited outlook. 

I'm in my 50s and use Sonar for both looping and live recording from 2 inputs to 8 simultaneously. The flexibility of the cakewalk daw is what appealed to me decades ago and still appeals to me today. Having the ability to work in live environments or looped or a combination of both are it's strong points and even-though  it can seem very complex, the workflow allows you to pull off some incredible things very quickly. The ability to work on projects not reliant on the net is really cool and I don't believe I'll be storing my works in the cloud anytime soon but for those who like that option cool. I say keep the current options make them better and add some other options if you feel there are not enough already. I've owned and used many other daws but I always return to cakewalk because they stayed practical and current at the same time. I think the bandlab media site is a cool Idea and I have an account there but will I use it? Probably as much as I use face-book and for the same reason to communicate.

ch.huey
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.
...
You can please most of the people most of the time, if not all, if you know what they want.
...
It's not that Sonar can't do many things other programs can't, ... it's that it's not set up to do so efficiently. 

 
IMHO, "pleasing most of the people most of the time" is more of a workflow issue than a 'generational' issue. All music starts with generating a 'sound event' by dragging and dropping a loop, recording a performance of a 'real' instrument or step-editing a series of MIDI notes routed to a VST. These events are then edited/mixed to an artistic end
 
The fact that someone is making music in the first place, regardless of the means, is evidence of creative drive. Nothing kills that quicker than being frustrated when trying to 'execute a creative move'. 
 
It's generally not a matter of capability. Most DAWs are incredibly feature rich and deep. However, a complete range of complex editing/mixing features is likely to be at odds with the desire for instant gratification. This is where presentation/implementation matter and a factor of the users background. Old school might be down with well documented (and marketed) methods and newer producers will expect complete freedom to 'color outside the lines'.
 
The market currently supports various DAWs which appear to target specific "styles" of music/edit preferences but the edit/mix features are fundamentally the same. As previously stated, it is more a difference in implementation than function.  
 
With the exception of full support for something like drag & drop, this appears to be the design goal for Lenses. CW might have gotten more mileage out of this with a video done by artists with cred in specific styles using lenses developed and tagged for a specific workflow. Imagine a lens preset designed by BT, EVH, Taylor Swift or Hans Zimmer. 
 
IME, the user experience is still platform dependent. Had two contrasting scenarios this week. One was setting up a guitar player to do some overdubs on his WIN laptop using PT. He's still working out issues with latency, dropouts, drivers, etc. Mostly likely some configuration issue as most here will surely recognize, but just saying. 
 
The other was to add a 2 channel USB interface to an existing 2 channel USB setup for recording 4 simultaneous channels in Ableton. Four different manufacturers and it was setup and running perfectly in less than an hour. He's on a Mac. And he's a drummer. :-)
 
Perhaps Bandlab will review the potential for a cross platform version of the program. And while SONAR has done a nice job with features like multi-core balancing, upsampling, keeping current with OS upgrades, etc., my sense is there is room for improvement in the fundamental engine, based on my experience with dropouts/glitches when getting heavy with editing takes, Melodyne, automation and ripple editing.
 
I expect a difference in marketing strategies as well.  

Thank you for that great introduction Meng. Very happy that the #1 DAW is still alive and well... Can't wait to see what you have in store for us die hard cakewalk sonar fans. 

subtlearts

ch.huey
... Oh God what door did I open????? My comment has been... misread....

 
I like most of this long and entertaining post very much, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with a couple of things... lightheartedly, of course, I hope that comes across, I can get worked up sometimes... 
 

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. 

 
Wow. You "know" - the implication is objectively - that Mozart is "the greatest" composer, but you like Beethoven better even though he "isn't as good". This is simply nonsense.
 
(edited out)
 

 
... 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. 

This is a strange and (at the risk of stating the obvious) self-contradictory statement. I don't accept at all that music and art are useless, Wilde's wonderfully clever quote notwithstanding. First of all, I think that music is among the highest forms of communication, and communication is absolutely biologically necessary -
 
(edited out)

Subtlearts, I edited your quote just to keep this post short and my reply even shorter.
 
Regarding Mozart, I do know he was a better composer. What you don't know is what the recursive logical statement I was basing that on was, since it was never explicitly stated. Any declarative statement by nature of being declarative implies a belief system underneath it, including criteria and values. In short, you're jumping in with a long argument without actually knowing what I was referring to when I said 'better'. You could have asked me what I meant... Instead of having a long brawl over nothing, which I don't think you want, I'll just state what was elided in the original statement which I did not anticipate anyone doing anything more than glance at:
 
Among the generation of classical composers that predates the cult of the composer (post Beethoven), which means the classical era that included Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Salieri, and countless others, working within specific forms (ie, the sonata form), and working in certain styles such as opera, symphony, string quartet, concertos etc, which was a historical time when there expectations of working within a fixed form (putting Beethoven at the very tail end of this, borderline Romantic), Mozart is the composer who created the greatest variety of masterworks in the greatest variety of genres. In other words, in a room full of carpenters with the same toolset, he was the one who was best with his tools.
 
That's it. That's a very, very, very limited statement, was not touching on what you meant, and you go into things that stretch far beyond what I intended, and are effectively putting words into my mouth by assuming I judge it the same way you do. You're going from an average of the works, which is a bit unfair to Mozart since he started so young and after his death there was a conscious effort by someone to preserve works that may have been lost and changed your average and thus opinon, which is why I am only considering the masterworks. We're not even talking about the same thing. And it's going beyond what this thread was intended for. Let's not read too much into one off comments.
 
PM me if you disagree with my clarification and would like to discuss it at more length, as it would be an interesting discussion and I can respect your opinion, but it is not the time nor the place here to dive into it, especially since it will likely turn heated in a public forum, unnecessarily so. 
 
My statement was strange and self contradictory to prove the point I was trying to make. We eat, sleep, screw, defecate, sleep, wake up and do it all over again, hopefully not mixing those in the wrong combination. Music has no use in that sense. That does not mean it isn't used, but that it is effectively useless by its very nature for a mere physical existence, but appeals to something beyond what makes us beasts, and that is why it is so beautiful and useful. We choose to make it useful, it is not chosen for us. If you think art and culture are what make humanity worthwhile, I cannot share your point of view. Humanity is, it has no need to be worthwhile, or made worthwhile. That seems to me a dim view of humanity. It already is, and worthwhileness is an idea that we created. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse here, and this is leading to another rabbit hole of examining statements without knowing the full extent of recursive beliefs that hold them up. 
 
Again, I seem to have created a problem I hoped to stop, because my point was that we don't need music to survive on a biological level, it's useless, so why are we arguing about it? Throw you on a desert island and you will not die from lack of music, but fresh water, food, etc, and you will, so why are we arguing over the merits of what is or is not real music in this thread? Or my brief statement about Mozart, which was just that, an off the cuff comment I expected most people would gloss over, not take issue with.
 
Again, to reiterate, we have the ear of a company producing a product that we want to use, so why don't we talk about that? What we want from the program, how we use it, and why we want what we want?
 
I'm not against these discussions in general, but it's jamming up the thread. Let's cut down on them, please. We should be discussing things like this:
 
I want my tuplets to go past triplets in the staff view of MIDI events!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want Varispeed recording so I can do it like the old days on tape!!!!! Give me a simpler channel strip view that resembles a Trident (or Neve, or SSL) console while still using the wonderful built in Sonar EQ in the channel strip, so I can assign a low, mid, mid freq. and high to my outboard USB gear with knobs and REALLY feel like I'm using a mixer and don't need to look at the screen at all!

 

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.
But I can see a completely different picture if this tech is integrated with the other things Bandlab is doing.  I could use that a lot. 
In other words, I don't give a damn about "keeping SONAR alive", so to speak.  But I am very interested in seeing the next generation of capability, which should include the familiar DAW capabilities.

what a load of hyperbolic tripe.... my apologies, but there is no other way to put it. 
 
The conversion from 8.5 to x1 was a 3 year hole.. but with Platinum, Sonar is the equal of anything out there. Education, promotion, and marketing are largely at fault, not the current core product... 
 
Would i recommend changes to combat Live?.. sure.. Matrix view has had some work but needs more, but the biggest hurdle is the lack of connectivity to controllers with feedback. a change to python vs cal, and templates/drivers for launchpad pro etc are essential for even a limited chance of success. on the linear recording side, Live is a joke.... 
 
 

When Gibson closed the door, I wasn't that surprised knowing their history. I did go for the lifetime update. That said, I even asked myself how long can this last? Free updates forever? As we know nothing lasts forever. I already was a Reason user for some time and when Presonus had their very generous "SONAR users upgrade" offer for Studio One Pro 3.5, I took advantage of it. I like Reason, I like SOP 3.5, I like Sonar all for different reasons and won't say one is better but different. I'm not arguing the point. I'm glad to see Sonar has a new owner. I also realize the the free lifetime update will most likely be no more. If they come with a "reasonable" upgrade price I would be amiable to it. But if they do what Magix did with Sony Vegas Pro, then no cigar for me. I'll stick with the latest version of SPLAT. I think this will be true for other owners too if Bandlab bleeds users for the update or owners will just do the "every third" version update both which will ultimately hurt the new company. $79 upgrade to me is a reasonable price for lifetime owners and $99 for non lifetime owners.

Mystic38
what a load of hyperbolic tripe.... my apologies, but there is no other way to put it. 

Let me remind you that Cakewalk failed TWICE, under Roland and then under Gibson.  I was simply explaining the realities of a commodity market.  If a third company followed the course you seem to prefer, it would fail a third time.  It seems likely to me that Bandlab has a different plan in mind. 
 

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.

What problems have you had with your A-Pro in Sonar? I had no problems or confusion setting mine up, it was pretty much plug 'n' play!