Hi, Brundle. The user's manual does need some serious editing by someone with the patience and obsessive nature to comb through everything contained in it step by step. There are quite a few inaccuracies and redundancies. I think it could be trimmed down by at least a few hundred pages if not a full thousand.
 
I made it to about page 700 of the X2 manual before life started getting the better of me and I had to stop but even in that first third it was very apparent it could be trimmed, cleaned up and generally explained better. Not to say it isn't useful but it is quite unnecessarily cumbersome.
 
At this point I think Mr. Karl Rose would be the best choice for such a review/edit. That guy just seems to have a knack for peeking in every single corner of things and loves doing it. Some might say "What about Scott? What about Craig? What about Eli?" but they all have more "just get you there" styles and a lot of other crap on their plates. Karl rips crap completely apart without unnecessary opinion, suggestion or subjectivity and it is extremely linear. Not to say "just get you there" isn't a great quality for tutorials or other learning resources and all those dudes are awesome but a manual is meant to be dry, concise and thorough. I think Karl could pull it off and clean things up to make the manual much more useful.
 
But that's JMO.

Good post Craig.  
 
I would add an element to your 90s studio scenario. You walk into that great studio, the studio guy says “Well, gotta go. Good luck!”, and you're standing there in horror and panic. Because you have always been the kind of person who has never understood technology! You're standing in front of an incredible collection of technical equipment, and you don't even know why a toaster works and could never fix one. Any time you've tried to fix anything at your house you always have to call a real repairman to fix your "repair" job, and your extent of automotive knowledge ends after you open the hood of your car. So standing in that studio, you don't even know where to start.
 
Now jump to the Sonar comparison - not only are you non-technical, but computers have never made sense to you. You're a pretty good musician, but you had to call a computer tech the first time your desktop went into hibernate, you still have trouble with copy & paste or trying to install a program, and you have no idea where you saved the photo you just downloaded. So you spend several hundred dollars on audio hardware and software only to find that you couldn't get your mic signal into your DAW if your life depended on it.
 
Modern computer recording software comes with an expectation that the user has, at the very least, some basic computer understanding and skills. But not all users or musicians are technical/computer types. And what's interesting is that some of these very non-technical people/musicians, people who would readily admit that they couldn't even repair a bike flat, become incredibly frustrated (with the software and with themselves) when they can't figure out an advanced and complicated program like Sonar.
 
Some musicians are very technically minded and took to computers very quickly, almost effortlessly. Many other talented people are not technical in the least, so naturally it's going to take them longer to figure out a complicated computer program, or to obtain usable results from that program. That's not a negative and doesn't make non-technical folks inferior to techies, it's just the way it is because we all have different strengths/weaknesses. And perhaps it means that, if you know you're a non-technical type, that you cut yourself (and Sonar) a little slack, realizing that it's going to take more time for you to "get it" than your geek neighbor who's already learned 6 different DAWs while recording 12 albums.

Great post.  
 
People don't usually *start* learning to fly in a 747 though.   They start in a Cessna or something.  I think a lot of 'complexity' too many features that get in the way of the 'basics'.  Of course users WANT all the features (or think they do) so it's a tough balance. 
 
I think one of the big challenges in DAW software is offering enough capability and features and balancing the level of the user interface to not overwhelm.   Seems like as soon as the UI gets in the way you really loose that creative energy.  Less of an issue if you're producing, more if you're the artist AND the producer at the same time.
 
(Sidebar:  One of the reasons I still miss P5 was that it's UI was so unobtrusive that it never got in the way of creativity.   At some point though, it started lacking the extra 'features' and I would move it into SONAR.)
 
Anyway, great post.  We all need to slow down sometimes and learn instead of struggling and forcing it.
 
 

Just fabulous, Craig, and spot on! I've been a professional musician since age 14 (I'm now 52) & spent 30 of those years as a studio sausage, doing session work in California and Nashville on the player side, but never venturing over to "the other side of the glass". This year I got bit by the bug & after months of researching on the internet and consulting with producers/engineers I've worked with over the years, I arrived at X3 Producer as my DAW of choice. Your words echo what I've told a few of those friends/consultants: "I'll be learning this in the same way and by the same process that I learned to play guitar/keyboards/horns, etc. It's basically another instrument".

Your entire post is outstanding Craig...
 
These following quote is something even the seasoned user can remind themselves of...

Anderton
I see people with hundreds of plug-ins who haven’t mastered any of them. So learn one dynamics processor, one multiband EQ, and one reverb—you’re covered for 90% of your signal processing needs.

 
The quote below (from the same paragraph) is something every beginner needs to take the time to learn...

Anderton
Learn a program’s basics, like input and outputs. Eventually, you’ll figure out automation.

 
 

Amen, Craig.  I think the importance of the learning and understanding aspect of music creation has been somewhat lost with the availability of so much digital "stuff".  The big, bewildering recording studio has been reduced to a computer screen.  How hard could it be?  Lots of tempting cool looking plugins.  The illusion of the user having control of his sound begins to disappear as he starts turning knobs.  They still haven't found a digital shortcut for learning.
 
Just as in days of yore, experience is still the key ingredient to achieving successful control of the music creation process.  As you suggest, it wasn't until I began to focus on some basic processes, including learning to LISTEN that I actually began to progress.

One thing worth mentioning - Everyone learns differently. Each student is unique. 
In the olden days we punished students who were  "slow" learners and put them in a corner with a "dunce" hat on. We now have learning assistance specialists that can optimize each students abilities. Lets just say there might be around a dozen learning personality types. 
 
So with that in mind, we will have a few people who can read a book or watch a video and comprehend it and learn, but more than a few people who cannot. These people will be the most frustrated. I am among the lucky ones who can get a lot from a well written instruction book, but be kind to those who struggle..their's is a much harder road to understanding.  
 
Good post Craig,, and a huge +1 to the age old wisdom of " learn how to walk before you run". I have not gone beyond using 6 EFX's and 4 soft synth's because that's all the time I have for learning new "instruments". I'd rather work on my Mandolin chops...
 
 
 

Beepster
Having somewhat limited experience with other DAWs (and the previous one I used extensively was very old) I gotta ask the more seasoned/well rounded folks...
 
Am I mistaken in the impression that Sonar X series is a completely different animal compared to some of the other major players? Based on my limited experience and many video tuts that employed these other platforms they all seem to share some very similar themes and procedures.
 

I've used, reviewed, and run sessions on pretty much all the major DAWs over the years, The general functionality of DAWs is quite similar - cut, paste, copy, tracks, plug-ins, etc. How these are implemented varies to a greater or lesser degree. For an extreme example, IMHO Ableton Live is more of a "musical instrument" than a "virtual studio," due to its orientation toward DJ-style live performance.
 
In general, "the DAW you know is the DAW you like." If you were raised on DAW "X," then all the other ones don't seem as logical. However, I have dealt with several people recently who switched to Sonar from other DAWs. When I asked one about how he had coped with the learning curve, he said "What learning curve?" He found Sonar totally logical, even though he'd had no experience with it. Enough other people felt the same way that it does seem Sonar's mojo is more transparent than many, if not most, other products.
 
Quick story: I wrote a third-party book for a particular piece of software and the book was very successful. The publisher wanted me to turn another one around quickly with the same topics, chapters, word count, page count, number of illustrations, etc. I said I knew Sonar really well, and that would be the quickest to turn around.
 
When I finished, the publisher was quite upset that I had not followed their directions and the book came up about 25% short on page count, which is a big problem for publishers due to coordination with paper and printing. I didn't think that was possible, so I did a side-by-side page comparison. Most of the time if something took, say, 12 steps in the other program, it took 9 steps in Sonar. Of course there were some exceptions but over the course of the book, all these little changes added up. Eventually I had to include more screen shots to make up the shortfall, but that was an objective confirmation of why I felt I was more productive/efficient in Sonar.
 
The book was about Sonar 3 but for me, the X-series changes - once I learned them - have improved workflow even more. I'm definitely more productive with the X-series programs than I was with previous versions.

Cactus Music
 I have not gone beyond using 6 EFX's and 4 soft synth's because that's all the time I have for learning new "instruments". I'd rather work on my Mandolin chops...
 

...and i bet your music is better because of that   A well-played mandolin is a joy.

The flip side to this is someone who takes a program like Acid and makes stuff that their friends like and actually is listenable.  Fairly easy program to learn, if you've worked with computers.  Then...all of a sudden, they're a recording *musician*, yet their *hobby* is just 3 weeks old.  All of a sudden, they're able to play [guitar] much better because their recordings (samples/loops) have great fidelity, even though no one ever listens to it in a format other than a MP3 or on a phone or laptop speakers.
I see this A LOT.
 
( I won't say that they think they're great rappers now too... as that would single out a genre)