Scoot
I can see Ben's point clearly enough, I think it's fair. I don't know the range of uses this effects produces, but a lot of posters seemed keen, and expressed it was quite common on other apps. It seems to be a classic effect/tool, and Sonar has always tried to emulate the past, see tape sims, console emulators etc, so it seems a a reasonable request. Improved work flow has been a part of Sonar's development too, so a simple knob or button seems as streamlined as you can get.
 
Craig is the administrator for this Cakewalk forum, he creates products for Cakewalk products that are sold by cakewalk, he works for the parent company, he has access to company confidential information, which he even you could say 'teases' us with.

Anderton
 I think when I'm done with these they'll take care of what most people need, so then the Bakers can concentrate on the other features planned for future versions. I think if people knew what those features were, they'd say "I can cope with Craig's solutions for varispeed...forget about the varispeed, now get back to working on those other features!!"

     
So is Craig another user, or are those lines a lot more blurred?
 
Those other feature may be exiting to Craig, but if they are not to Ben, then Varispeed is, and it's valid for him to say so.
 
I don't know how hard VariSpeed  is too implement, not a foggiest, or if it's even possible with the way the audio engine has been set up. It does seem Cakewalks position to communicate, and to me it looks a lot like Craig is defending with them. With the blurred lines, I can see why Ben is upset, and questioning Craig's agenda. Creating this thread has bumped the other, and diverted discussion from 'who wants it?'.
 
 
 
 

Thanks Scoot, I may appear tough but it takes it out of you when the school yard gangs up on you.  I know I don't make my position any easier but hey I only have two gears which is hard to get across on a forum. 1st gear is withdrawn and I'm not going to get involved and 2nd is well you can see but its full on, I will fight you to the death, even if it's mine.
 
Mudgel stop intimating I have a psychosis, I have never had a psychotic episode in my life and I have seen a few people who have.  Go and get qualified before you start making diagnosis!!
 
Ben

Clarification: Craig is one of several Moderators on this forum. Is a user of Sonar as well and provides lots of useful information to the user base as well as tries to help find solutions. He does work for Gibson but that does not make him a cakewalk apologist.  I see nothing for Cake to apologize for anyway. 
 
Ben has been advised to post a feature request and to solicit others to do the same. If he chooses to have a problem with Craig's helpfulness then that is his choice.
 
IMHO Craig took the high road so as to not hijack Ben's thread.
 
As for varispeed I have not had a need for it yet but I support others who may want it. In the meantime Craig has offered assistance the those who wish to take it and has behaved in a manner befitting a gentleman. Hats off to you sir!
 
Carry on.

Scoot
...Creating this thread has bumped the other, and diverted discussion from 'who wants it?'.

Well... that's the thing.  The original thread was asking "who wants varispeed?", but that isn't going to get varispeed implemented because Feature Requests are the method that CW uses to gauge what their users really want.  But Ben has apparently already tossed that aside in favor of continuing this thread... a thread that was started to provide methods to perform varispeed techniques today, not it some potential future version of SONAR.  So now we have two separate threads about varispeed: "who wants it as a dedicated SONAR tool" and "here are some methods to perform varispeed techniques today".   And for anyone who actually does want or need some variation of varispeed today or in the near future, I'd imagine this thread might hold a bit more weight.   I know I plan to try Craig's techniques since I am someone who would like to use varispeed techniques in SONAR. 
 
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 
 
 
 
Edit: Craig, obviously there's a reason why you continue to do what you do - don't ever stop! 
 
 

Anderton

Jlien X
Before reading and trying all these steps, I'd like to know if the workarounds are available in Sonar X3......yes, I mean "Sonar X3"--the base version, which doesn't include Audio Snap.

Actually, it just occurred to me that I don't know if the basic X3 includes the iZotope transposition algorithm, so the "bounce to clip for higher fidelity" may not be possible. I tested all of these techniques in the Producer edition. Can anyone with X3 verify whether you can do Process > Transpose and select different algorithms for transposing audio? Although those algorithms are used by AudioSnap, hopefully they're available for general-purpose bouncing.

 
I see five options in the drop-down list. Are they all the iZotope transposition algorithm? (I've never used them so excuse my ignorance...)
 

Craig - many thanks for this and for your continued invaluable contributions to the Sonar community. I'll definitely give this a try. Outstanding and many, many thanks.

While I don't want to continue to fan the flames - what should be obvious to everyone (but doesn't seem to be) is that pushing the limits of the software will itself lead to other innovations as people begin to think "I never thought of that, what if I tried this with that?" This generosity from skilled users showing the rest of us how to push the envelope is the foundation of innovation, and should be encouraged. It is by me. Thanks again Craig (and B Rock, Scook, FBB, etc etc)

Jlien X

Anderton

Jlien X
Before reading and trying all these steps, I'd like to know if the workarounds are available in Sonar X3......yes, I mean "Sonar X3"--the base version, which doesn't include Audio Snap.

Actually, it just occurred to me that I don't know if the basic X3 includes the iZotope transposition algorithm, so the "bounce to clip for higher fidelity" may not be possible. I tested all of these techniques in the Producer edition. Can anyone with X3 verify whether you can do Process > Transpose and select different algorithms for transposing audio? Although those algorithms are used by AudioSnap, hopefully they're available for general-purpose bouncing.

 
I see five options in the drop-down list. Are they all the iZotope transposition algorithm? (I've never used them so excuse my ignorance...)
 

Thanks! That's what I needed to know. Those are the iZotope algorithms, and frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised they're included with the base version of X3. So you should be able to do the "offline bounce to clip" to improve the fidelity when rendering clips.

Hi Craig, sorry this is a little OT.  I did have the Drumulator,  Emulator II,  Emax, and  Emulator III.  I also had ADAT's and recently I had a loan of the Quadrasynth too.  It is interesting in all these cases the manuals had something similar about them and obviously now I see why. You!
 
I just want to thank you again.  The Emax was the big machine for me as I used it much more than the others.  I was able to extract amazing amounts of performance and features out of it and it was very much due to the way the manual was written. Very clear and most importantly the order by which you did stuff.  I lived in that manual for quite a time and it was definitely responsible for me getting so much out of it.  Even later manuals like Emax II and E5000 etc although you may not have been directly involved with those they have certainly continued the same approach so I see you as having a huge influence on them anyway.
 
Those EMU fellas were pretty clever don't you think.  I still love the sound of the E5000.  It is just huge!  I have got almost the entire EMU sample library these days and my own original samples too of course.  It may be old but it still one serious machine even today.  And it handles varispeed too rather well!

Fair enough questions, here are your answers.
 

Scoot
I can see Ben's point clearly enough, I think it's fair. I don't know the range of uses this effects produces, but a lot of posters seemed keen, and expressed it was quite common on other apps. It seems to be a classic effect/tool, and Sonar has always tried to emulate the past, see tape sims, console emulators etc, so it seems a a reasonable request.

 
Obviously I felt wanting to do varispeed was a reasonable request too, and to honor that request, came up with ways to do varispeed techniques within Sonar.
 

Improved work flow has been a part of Sonar's development too, so a simple knob or button seems as streamlined as you can get.

 
Yes, it would be. The difference is that what I presented you can do NOW. Today. With existing versions of Sonar. I would rather have something that did what I wanted now but required a somewhat more complex procedure than not be able to do something at all.
 

Craig is the administrator for this Cakewalk forum, he creates products for Cakewalk products that are sold by cakewalk, he works for the parent company, he has access to company confidential information, which he even you could say 'teases' us with.
 

Anderton
 I think when I'm done with these they'll take care of what most people need, so then the Bakers can concentrate on the other features planned for future versions. I think if people knew what those features were, they'd say "I can cope with Craig's solutions for varispeed...forget about the varispeed, now get back to working on those other features!!"

     
So is Craig another user, or are those lines a lot more blurred?

 
The only reason why I'm an administrator of this forum is because I asked for the forum privileges needed to perma-ban spammers and delete their posts, which I do with much enthusiasm I have never banned any non-spam community members, or deleted any of their posts. That's not my function here. My function remains what it has been since 2003, which is to contribute techniques to the community on how to make better music and/or use Sonar more effectively.
 
Even before Gibson acquired Cakewalk, I created products for Cakewalk. I also have had access to confidential information since before Sonar was released, but that is not unusual. I have access to confidential information from multiple companies, and still do in many cases.
 

Those other feature may be exiting to Craig, but if they are not to Ben, then Varispeed is, and it's valid for him to say so.

 
Of course it's valid for him to say so. He dedicated a thread to it. Several people described how they use varispeed in the thread he started, which were not always what Ben uses it for by any means. I have used varispeed myself for multiple purposes. But when he insisted on trying to turn this thread into a second platform for his personal agenda, many people, myself included, did not feel that was appropriate.
 

I don't know how hard VariSpeed  is too implement, not a foggiest, or if it's even possible with the way the audio engine has been set up. It does seem Cakewalks position to communicate

 
Noel already communicated some of the issues involved with implementing varispeed in the other thread. Apparently it's not that simple when you start getting 3rd party plug-ins and virtual instruments involved.
 

and to me it looks a lot like Craig is defending with them.

 
I am not defending anyone, except myself against Ben's silly accusations, and the community for being called fools. In this thread I have shown how to do varispeed techniques using Cakewalk's existing tools. You can use those techniques, you can not use those techniques, you can pretend they're not solutions because they provide varispeed functions in a different context than you expect...I don't care what you do with these techniques. My agenda is not that you must do varispeed the way I do. My agenda is offering solutions to people who want them. Because of that agenda, if people want to speed up a mix or do varispeeded vocals or do Strawberry Fields slowed-down vocals (or imitate Alvin and the Chipmunks) but didn't know how, they do now - using methods that are tried, proven, and QCed. I hardly see that as "smoke and mirrors" and "card tricks" from a "flam-flam man" leading people down a "garden path" with "false solutions."
 

With the blurred lines, I can see why Ben is upset, and questioning Craig's agenda.

 
I have advocated for Sonar and devised solutions on how to implement a variety of techniques with Sonar since I first started writing my Sonar column for Sound on Sound magazine (which I still write) over 11 years ago. My so-called "agenda" hasn't changed in all that time. I'm not about to stop advocating for Sonar or presenting useful Sonar techniques just because Gibson now owns the company. That's absolutely ridiculous.
 

Creating this thread has bumped the other, and diverted discussion from 'who wants it?'.

 
I think this is also ridiculous. First, the thread didn't ask "who wants it?" it asked "why not?" I gave my answer to that question (as did Noel) and also in that thread, asked about the functions for which people used varispeed. I was pleasantly surprised that most of those functions could be done in Sonar the way it is right now. You'd think Ben would have been pleased that I recognized the value of varispeed and gave people solutions that didn't require waiting for an update, but apparently that wasn't good enough because it didn't give him what he wanted. He had no empathy for those people in this forum who did get what they wanted, preferring instead to continue dwelling on his displeasure that I didn't come up with a solution that fit his particular desires (although I think most people would realize the "mangling files with Dim Pro" technique is pretty stellar for sound design, and more convenient than transferring a file to another program, processing it, then bringing it back into Sonar).
 
His thread had 84 replies and 1500 views. It did not get "bumped." It simply had nothing more to contribute and fell off the page, like most threads do when they run their course. This thread started an entirely different discussion, which was solutions for accomplishing varispeed techniques within Sonar. It don't think it's surprising that a thread offering concrete solutions would overtake a thread that simply said "I'd like Sonar to have a big shiny red knob." That's nice, but not at all relevant to people who want to do varispeed techniques now, which is what this thread has shown how to do.
 

It's still not a solution, I'm not 100% sure but whenever I have done widespread pitch and time alteration using the isotope algorithms they have always added unwanted artefacts. Yes as I have already reported this can be used as a new sonic effect, and I have but it is not something that I want all the time.
 
Your solution will still not allow me to do a Strawberry Fields type edit, so they are limited in their use and appeal.
 
And the more one doth protests, that I am not trying to distract, the more it looks like you are!!
 
And finally I have Asperger's (although its ASD now), I'm happy to report, I may not have much empathy or "social" skills but what I lack in these areas I have other skills that make up for the lack of the former.
 
Ben     

Having grown up in a family of doctors, doctorates, professors, and originators of scores of US patents, I can't wait till somebody gets (is booted) off their high horse, out of their ivory tower, and begins having to deal with the consequences of their outrageous arrogance, when its time to secure grants, funding, review, and/or any other academic or professional cooperation, which flat isn't going to happen, because intelligence and education are not clubs to be used by the terminally insecure to beat 'lesser beings' over the head with, they are gifts that are to be respected and turned back to the benefit as many as possible.
 
My recommendation to those who stamp their truculent feet and demand performance from others who are generating benefit orders of magnitude beyond parasitical whining, and then direct condemnation and accusation toward that provider is to unweight the point load from their floor/desk interface, which looks grateful for relief from exponentially increasing static pressure and make something actually happen themselves.
 
The only question remaining is whether I need to dial more than 7 numbers to communicate w my ex roommate who poured the crete, set the steel, hung the horns, dialed the aim, and tuned the dataflow of Oz's WAN about a little, and I mean real little, signal to noise problem she's having, or just let karma do what it always does?
 
 Yes, it is, I admit it, and stand by it.