Jlien X
Also, when you use multi-timbre romplers like Kontakt, Sampletank, and TTS-1 the pan controls on the MIDI tracks allow you to tweak each part's pan without opening the plugin window or creating automation.

That's true and if you are only using one audio output from each VSTi it would be useful. But I always have multi-outs setup so it still seems to fit my workflow better to work in the audio track where you have access to sends, volume, pan, EQ and pro-channel all in one place.

Glyn Barnes

Jlien X
Also, when you use multi-timbre romplers like Kontakt, Sampletank, and TTS-1 the pan controls on the MIDI tracks allow you to tweak each part's pan without opening the plugin window or creating automation.

That's true and if you are only using one audio output from each VSTi it would be useful. But I always have multi-outs setup so it still seems to fit my workflow better to work in the audio track where you have access to sends, volume, pan, EQ and pro-channel all in one place.

 
Yes, I only use MIDI pan in a project that uses multi-timbre synths and if I need multiple instances of the same patch, for which I use the same one audio output. So I too wonder why Chuck uses it on EVERY project. Curious. :)

all said and done, It's essential to have a global view/access to tuning and track delay parameters
Like in 8.5, logic or Live :
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pe8ksczhidewkgf/Live.jpg
 
A clear view of wich tracks are time delayed is inportant enough in todays club music
that in Live for example it has a dedicated row, activated by pressing a dedicated D icon
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7hslbssu0ir8y97/Live2.jpg
 
Please, no ''THEN WHY DON'T YOU USE LIVE'' kinda replies.
 
I don't like Live. But I don't like it when something logical such as access to track delay gets
burried in a sub menu, get truncated from being trully and easily usable in a project.
 

 Comparisons to 8.5.3 are kinda 4 years too late at this point, and as the items you wish to use are available at the press of one key, its simply a personal workflow preference you are discussing here..
 
all said and done, X3 is what it is. You can either use it, or not. (don't wish to sound blunt but that's where we are at). If logic or Live suit you better then use them, but accept that it is not realistic for any DAW to be the sum of all good parts of all DAWs and have no weaknesses for any one user.
 
I don't discredit your perceived need and have zero issues with Sonar being improved, but complaining isn't a constructive path forward so, if you have a feature request that you would like to document then the link is below. Cakewalk can then evaluate and assess the importance of any resultant change...
 
http://www.cakewalk.com/support/contact/featurerequest.aspx
 
 

Mystic38
 Comparisons to 8.5.3 are kinda 4 years too late at this point, and as the items you wish to use are available at the press of one key, its simply a personal workflow preference you are discussing here..
 
all said and done, X3 is what it is. You can either use it, or not. (don't wish to sound blunt but that's where we are at). If logic or Live suit you better then use them, but accept that it is not realistic for any DAW to be the sum of all good parts of all DAWs and have no weaknesses for any one user.
 
I don't discredit your perceived need and have zero issues with Sonar being improved, but complaining isn't a constructive path forward so, if you have a feature request that you would like to document then the link is below. Cakewalk can then evaluate and assess the importance of any resultant change...
 
http://www.cakewalk.com/support/contact/featurerequest.aspx
 
 

I don't mean to sound blunt either Mystic, but you're part of the problem with replies such as ''why don't you use blah blah blah''
I'm a sonar user, something pretty basic has been taken away from the interface. So no,  it's not complaining when asking to either put something
back the way it rightly was before,  or at least give the user the option to have those essential controls handy where they belong, like in any other sequencer.
 
 
 
 

Kewl Hendagang
So no,  it's not complaining when asking to either put something back the way it rightly was before,  or at least give the user the option to have those essential controls handy where they belong, like in any other sequencer.

 
That's why he gave you the link. When we want something (back), we send in a feature request.

Kewl Hendagang

I don't mean to sound blunt either Mystic, but you're part of the problem with replies such as ''why don't you use blah blah blah''
I'm a sonar user, something pretty basic has been taken away from the interface. So no,  it's not complaining when asking to either put something
back the way it rightly was before,  or at least give the user the option to have those essential controls handy where they belong, like in any other sequencer.
 

There is no need to get personal.. and I do take exception to your statement classifying me as part of any problem that you personally are having with using Sonar.
 
My post was thoughtful, logical and clear.. I simply suggested that you use the best tool for the job, and if you desire changes to Sonar, there is a feature request form for that purpose. Use it.

Kewl Hendagang
 So no,  it's not complaining when asking to either put something back the way it rightly was before,  or at least give the user the option to have those essential controls handy where they belong, like in any other sequencer.
 

So...  Did you file a feature request for this?
 

I just did, with photos.

Cool!   Thanks.