Everyone should win a trophy for participating.

This thread is loaded with intelligent and thought-provoking observations. I'm really glad I asked the question.

Something that I have asked for for years now is a reliable backup system:

1) a menu where one can set dedicated paths for backing up (incl external HDDs and networks), even a scheduler.
2) a system that checks what has been changed and what not, and only updates the changed files and folders (to save time)
3) A process whereby once you have clicked "Backup" you know it's all been done correctly.
 
If that sounds far-fetched, I already am using a stand-alone program a friend wrote to do all of this, but I'd like to see it integrated into Sonar. Or Cakewalk can contact me and I'll give them the script to implement :O)


Furthermore, for the "commercial" producer there is always a need to export final mixes in all sorts of configs, whether for backtracks or stems or just archiving. The problem is the stems and even mixed separates have to be bounced through the master bus to get the correct sound, thus:
 
I would like to see an automated process similar to EXPORT whereby SPLAT will solo each folder (drums, guitars, bass) or each allocated group (or some such selection), mute all other tracks and bounce the entire selection THROUGH main stereo bus, mute that selection and process the next one, and the next etc...
Thus giving you a drum sub mix that is "broadcast ready", vocal, guitars etc..
 
Not sure if anyone else agrees?

Maybe easier said than done, but modern DAWs should automatically map to every controller and control surface made by a major manufacturer. A noob should be able to select from an extensive list of control surfaces and it should work immediately.

Another feature who's time has come is smart detection of moving sound samples or instrument banks.

cparmerlee

rscain
Except for the marketing and sales aspect I don't see why SONAR or any DAW that aspires to be "professional" should be dumbed down.

I don't think anybody is in favor of anything being "dumbed down" if that means limiting capabilities for simplicity's sake.  But there are many aspects of SONAR that just aren't very intuitive or that require some arcane secret handshake that only the old-timers all know about.  The suggestion is that, while Cakewalk has done a marvelous job upgrading and modernizing a very mature code base to give it leading edge function and reliability, the "intuitiveness factor" is not so strong and the "clutter factor" is really burdensome.  These should be targets of emphasis going forward.
 
And if this means that some "legacy users" will have to change a little bit to accommodate an easier, more obvious way of getting the job done, I don't think that is too much to ask.  I am absolutely dead set against an exponentially expanding set of options just so that legacy users are never asked to adjust a little as the product evolves.  Clutter is the enemy.

I agree, for the most part, with what you are saying. There are a lot of things in SONAR that are tough to find or figure out at first blush. And if they can figure out a way to make these things more obvious or intuitive I'm all for that. I'm not enough of a design or code person to figure that out, but that's why the Bakers get the big money, right 
As far as the "legacy users" having to change, well, I'm not adverse to that if it truly does make things easier but it would seem to me that until this "magic" UI comes along that product evolution (or new features) will continue to up the learning curve a bit until folks figure the new stuff out. I don't want to sacrifice the opportunity to have new tools at my disposal simply because I might have to learn something new.
And the "legacy users" have had to change before. I don't know if you were around but the change in SONAR from the "numeric" days (5,6,7, 8.5 etc.) to X1 and beyond was huge. A lot of people, and I mean a LOT, raised hell about the changes in the UI, methodology, even the naming change. So it's happened before and will likely happen again.

I agree with the "bits are just bits" idea.  I think a lot of the problems with DAWS are they try to emulate studio gear and processes which many users are not familiar (or certainly not experts) with.  Ex.: calling something a "tape delay" in a DAW is just misleading.  
Way back -- I used a sequencer program on my Amiga called "Bars and Pipes".  It didn't pretend to be a big multi-track tape machine or really anything from a real studio.  It had "bars" for data and "pipes" for routing, with gadget boxes/connectors for effects and processing that you could put at the start of bars or at the end of bars.  You mostly put MIDI data in the bars, but alternatively, you could draw any function in the bar and "pipe" it to a gadget on anther bar.   Does the same thing as pretending to be a "track" but a lot easier to understand.  Within the scheme of the program you could try all kinds of weird things and it might not be what you expected but it would not error out on you either.

The current Sound on Sound magazine has an article with the top unanswered user requests for Pro Tools.  I was amazed to see some very basic things Sonar has had for a long time missing from Pro Tools.
 
This is not to start another debate about which is better.  I was just surprised by some of the omissions in such a mature product.  (I'm sure some will say this about Sonar, but I haven't yet needed to do something I couldn't.  Some things are just not as easy as they could be and a few things seem to be intermittently quirky.)

This is a very difficult question, because what might be my answer, might not be someone elses.
You can ask me and I will tell you.. don't water anything down in order to please novice users, but then you could ask this same question to a kid making tunes out of his garage in the Bronx and he could give you the perfect answer (Ala Hans Zimmer).
So what might appear to be skewed for some of us, is really not for others.
 
I remember being a teenager and thinking the older engineers in my circles were just clueless.
Sure they knew the trade, but their methods were azz backwards.
So I must respect that same feeling now because now I am the older one. There is a new generation of kids out there (Just like I was once). So its time for me to understand...They just might be correct.
 
With that being said, there's only so much we can do to make things easier. "A help module", Style dials", Insert track dialog menus".
There is one thing through out the years that never seems to change, Training.
That never gets old and yet I've seen cakewalk ignore/moving away from offering up videos to teach a new generation of musicians how to use the very tools they need to make music. Training videos are the key to learning. not just documentation.

chuckebaby
This is a very hard to answer question, because what might be my answer, might not be someone elses.
You can ask me and I will tell you.. don't water anything down in order to please novice users, but then you could ask this same question to a kid making tunes out of his garage in the Bronx and he could give you the perfect answer (Ala Hans Zimmer).
So what might appear to be skewed for some of us, is really not for others.
 
I remember being a teenager and thinking the older engineers in my circles were just clueless.
Sure they knew the trade, but their methods were azz backwards.
So I must respect that same feeling now because now I am the older one. There is a new generation of kids out there (Just like I was once). So its time for me to understand...They just might be correct.
 
With that being said, there's only so much we can do to make things easier. "A help module", Style dials", Insert track dialog menus".
There is one thing through out the years that never seems to change, Training.
That never gets old and yet I've seen cakewalk ignore/moving away from offering up videos to teach a new generation of musicians how to use the very tools they need to make music. Training videos are the key to learning. not just documentation.

This is the way I see it too. Actually I wouldn't change a single word in Chuck's posts.