bronsoncox
Same with Groove Clipping. Turn it into a loop, now I need to make 1 bar repeat 64 times. Grab the edge and hang on for dear life (wait, was that bar 72? crap!). Hopefully, I haven't forgotten any pitch markers that would bork it.

 
If you want to repeat a loop 64 times, then Paste Special would be faster than what you describe or hitting Ctrl+B 64 times. And you better be counting those Ctrl+B keystrokes to make sure you do exactly 64 of them...
 

bronsoncox
I still don't understand why the SOP around here seems to be demonizing someone that suggests a feature or workflow that "DAW" has which Sonar does not by passive-aggressively criticizing them for not using 2 or 3 workarounds to accomplish it. They are called workarounds because you are working around the fact that feature does not exist in the software.

 
You're welcome to see offering suggestions as "demonizing" the OP, but really, what could I have possibly said that could be interpreted as anything more than a) trying to understand exactly what the OP was doing, and b) offering suggestions on accomplishing what he wants to accomplish with the tools available in SONAR?
 
The more a person knows which tools are available to accomplish something, the better. As the mission statement for this forum states, "Discussion focused on the use of SONAR software." I described additional ways of using SONAR software to accomplish what the OP wished exist, but does not. I hardly see that as "demonization." 
 
(And presumably, the OP was asking for advice; if it was simply a feature request, then I assume it would have been in the Feature Request forum.)
 

pwalpwal
 
it wasn't a question - did you read the op?

Then it was posted in the wrong forum. You can hardly blame John, Subtlearts, or me, for assuming the OP posted in the forum "focused on the use of SONAR software" because he wanted to know about the use of SONAR software.
 
I challenge anyone to show me anything said in any post in this thread that "demonized" the OP. I suspect this post will go unanswered.

Anderton

pwalpwal
 
it wasn't a question - did you read the op?

Then it was posted in the wrong forum. You can hardly blame John, or me, for assuming the OP posted in the forum "focused on the use of SONAR software" because he wanted to know about the use of SONAR software.

as hosts, you both should be able to spot the difference, and should also have moved it to the correct forum
 
(re-)read the op, it's clearly a wish, even if it is in the wrong forum

pwalpwal

Anderton

pwalpwal
 
it wasn't a question - did you read the op?

Then it was posted in the wrong forum. You can hardly blame John, or me, for assuming the OP posted in the forum "focused on the use of SONAR software" because he wanted to know about the use of SONAR software.

as hosts, you both should be able to spot the difference, and should also have moved it to the correct forum

 
No. I feel hosts should not arbitrarily second-guess an OP's intentions. I think it's condescending to say "we know better" and act in a way that may negate the OP's intention, given where the thread was posted.
 
Also, this is a FORUM whose premise is discussion. Helping in a polite, constructive, fact-based way will benefit others who want to know how to get the most out of SONAR. It is those making totally unfounded comments about "demonization," not the OP or those suggesting other methods of duplication, who have put a negative spin on an otherwise helpful discussion. 
 
Based on your premise that this was just a feature request and that a discussion is inappropriate, then you're probably equally upset I did not delete the post from Wicked giving specific examples that went beyond what the OP posted. But I think Wicked contributed something of value to the discussion as well. 
 
There is also nothing preventing the OP, or you, or me from posting a feature request for a duplicate command and thus leaving this thread, which contains useful and constructive information, intact.
 
Miracledee clearly understood we were trying to help, as he was polite enough to thank us for our replies and provide additional information that furthered the discussion. I doubt he felt "demonized," and I continue to challenge anyone to show anything that would indicate any disrespect or demonization of the OP. 

pwalpwal
as hosts, you both should be able to spot the difference, and should also have moved it to the correct forum
 
(re-)read the op, it's clearly a wish, even if it is in the wrong forum

 
I dunno, man. I'll give you points on the proper forum technicality, but it's still a pretty harsh move for the guy to hammer people for trying to help a guy do what he's trying to get done.
 
Edited to make clear who I responding to. 

Craig, you and John provide a ton of help on this forum and abroad. There is no denying that; in fact, I have at least a couple of your books. I made the mistake of using a sweeping statement that is being applied to this specific instance and potentially sullying your good name. It was in no way intended to be a middle finger towards you or John directly, more so my opinion of the general tone of the forum (which you may have been able to figure out by my not using anyone's name).
 
...but since we are already here...
 
Instead of repeating the word "demonization" over and over again, let's move on to a different one: presentation. Whether or not it was a formal feature request in the correct forum, you can very clearly interpret it as such.
 
Post #1 - "I wish SONAR had a..." (a wish is a feature request your heart makes)
 
You simply could have said: "Hey, that WOULD be a good feature! You should go to this forum and put in an FR for other people who would vote on it! In the meantime, you can try using these additional features to accomplish what you are trying to do."
 
Thanks all around and that probably would have been the end of the discussion/post.
 
As you point out in Post #24, miracledee does offer thanks, but continues to expand on why a Duplicate function would be more beneficial for their workflow and possibly others in Post #7 and even providing a similar example in Post #8, having already demonstrated knowledge of at least some of the workarounds that were discussed. Once again, a simple "you should submit an FR" would have sufficed.
 
Instead, Post #10 is what we get. Read it as "well, my workaround is just as good as your idea if not better".
 
miracledee is still not deterred at this point, offering yet another personal workflow example of how this particular feature could be beneficial in Post #19. 
 
"Well of course, that's obvious. But I don't understand the point of a test that doesn't relate at all to what I said..."
Post #20 is where it stopped being about the OP and started being about the Anderton.
 
RE: my passive-aggressive statement, please go back and really re-read posts #20-22. Think more 'forum host/professional company spokesperson' and less 'king-of-the-mountain' (John, see Post #6. We already know you're the best.)
 
Post #24 - "No. I feel hosts should not arbitrarily second-guess an OP's intentions. I think it's condescending to say "we know better" and act in a way that may negate the OP's intention..." and yet, to me, that's how most of this discussion has come off.
 
 
Also, 1200ms vs 800ms. #science
 
I would recommend going back and duplicating each of those video clips a few more times to see how significant a 3 to 2 ratio might be. It adds up after awhile.
 
You may be able to save some time duplicating those in Vegas by using Ctrl+B instead of Ctrl+dragging the clips.

I thank you Bronsoncox for explaining your positions in a clear and thoughtful way. I can assure you on this point. Neither myself or Graig had any intention of bashing anyone. That is simply not the way we go about things. 
 
We do see an awful lot of posts and we sometimes see similarities in them. A formal question is not always how a new thread starts. Its often that a term the poster is familiar with is used that is different in Sonar. If I think the poster is unaware of a way to do something even though they know how its done in another DAW we often explain the way Sonar can do it. It may not be exactly how the other DAW does it. The notion is that Sonar can indeed do it.
 
I did say some time back if this thread had been in the feature request forum it would have seen by us as a statement. Being here we will assume it to be a question even if there is no question mark used. We get a lot of non English speakers here and we can't know all the time how well a poster understands the language.
 
We also feel strongly that its our job to offer an answer where ever we can. We do not dismiss someone thinking its a feature request thus requiring no answer.
 
At any rate its the job of this forum to solve problems so we come automatically with a notion that all posts have an issue that needs sorting out. The causal user of this forum may not see things in exactly the same way.
 
What I would like is for members to assume we are here to help and not here to find fault. If that is ones first viewpoint I think long drawn out threads will be at a minimum.
 
  

bronsoncoxWhether or not it was a formal feature request in the correct forum, you can very clearly interpret it as such.

 
Yes, you can. But I didn't, because people usually post in the SONAR forum looking for how to accomplish something. People often ask for a feature that already exists, or for which there's a reasonable facsimile. It's not always a good idea to assume that someone posting, as well as those following the thread, have an extensive knowledge of SONAR.
 
The thread title is: "Duplicate Command for SONAR." There are several ways to interpret that, and people who want to know about duplicate commands in SONAR, or want to discuss the topic, will likely click on that thinking it relates to something they might want to know. I try to write responses that are useful to anyone who might check a thread, for whatever reason they click on it, because a forum is about discussion. 
 

Once again, a simple "you should submit an FR" would have sufficed.

 
Similarly, a simple "I assume he just posted in the wrong forum and needs to know he can submit a feature request because I think he wants a very specific duplication command, not just info on 'Duplication Command for SONAR' as the thread title suggests" would have sufficed rather than choosing to go down the "demonization" path.
 

Instead, Post #10 is what we get. Read it as "well, my workaround is just as good as your idea if not better".

 
I prefer you read it as what I said. The OP presented new information in Post #7 about doing successive copies and making variations. That seemed different from what he said originally, which is why I specifically stated "It sounds like... and "if that's the case." If I'm not sure I understand something, I ask a question and seek clarification. 
 

"Well of course, that's obvious. But I don't understand the point of a test that doesn't relate at all to what I said..."
Post #20 is where it stopped being about the OP and started being about the Anderton.

 
No, it became about a test that was not what the OP described wanting to do in post #7, so I said I didn't understand how that related to successive duplications. Maybe it does, but if so, then I still don't get it.
 

RE: my passive-aggressive statement, please go back and really re-read posts #20-22.

 
I did. The only people who had posted prior to your throwing the accusation of "demonization" into the mix was me, subtlearts, siordanescu and John. You referred to "demonization" as the "standard operating procedure," yet none of us demonized anyone. You made that tie-in more specific by bringing up "workarounds," which is what the four of us presented. You say it wasn't directed at any of us. If that's true, it seems extremely odd to introduce demonization in the context of a thread where up until your post, there was a polite, civil discussion intended to help the OP and those reading the thread to understand duplication commands for SONAR. 
 

Also, 1200ms vs 800ms. #science
 
I would recommend going back and duplicating each of those video clips a few more times to see how significant a 3 to 2 ratio might be. It adds up after awhile.

 
I wrote: "400 ms is negligible compared to the time you'll spend creating the variations in between copies." In fact I confirmed it's faster to use Ctrl+D. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I've had second thoughts and I may be wrong about that depending on the particular task at hand, the number of clips that need to be duplicated, the extent of the variations, and whether the person is a touch-typist or not. I can explain further if you'd like. I spend a lot of time studying clickstreams in product development situations and when writing documentation.
 
The bottom line is if you know ALL the tools available to perform a function, you can choose the right tool for the right job. 

I did some trial sessions in Ableton Live recently and the duplicate feature (CTRL+D) was a REALLY nice timesaver...
 
Noel - any chance of an implementation of this in CbB?

I think clip duplication would be useful personally. We already have track duplication via the newish add track button so I don't see anything wrong with extending that behavior to clips. The feature would obviously have to be properly designed to handle properties on how to duplicate (back to back, use snap etc..)