It's in the works but it will be Android, not iPad. The current specification is that the surface will communicate directly with Sonar and no MIDI bridge will be required. Track metering will be included, something that AFAIK is not available with alternative solutions at present. Along with transport control, channel gain,record arm, pan, mute, solo and programmable FX insert control will all be available, with the ability to filter and reorder the specific FX or EQ parameters you wish to control.  Initial preferred device will be the Archos 101 tablet, but the design will support other tablets and phones. High speed and very low jitter are part of the design, with the intention that real-time punch in and out will work just fine from the tablet. A desired goal is also to allow audio to be streamed back to the tablet, so that you could, for example, put your headphones on, walk round the studio with the tablet and then monitor any track or the main mix independently from the tablet without interfering with the main DAW (by setting up additional busses which can be routed back to the tablet) .

I do not have a precise availability date at this stage.  Unlike the BCR2000 surface project, this is probably not going to be free, but the cost is intended to be modest. I would hope to be looking at a mid-year timeframe.With the Archos 10 inch screen, somewhere around 16 tracks would be controllable at any time. The device supports two simultaneous touch points so it will be possible to drag two faders simultaneously. Other devices may support additional touch points, of course.

aj,

where do I send the check, esp. if that will speed up the process ;-)

Looking forward to it, and was depending on it after your last post on such a product.

@

aj


It's in the works but it will be Android, not iPad.

Hi AJ, interesting stuff!
I'm the developer of the AC-7 Core for iPad, so I'd definitely be interested in some kind of "parallel" development of a Sonar specific protocol.


Right now, the AC-7 Core's Sonar Mode works as a "Mackie Control" emulation... so track level meters work, track names work, timecode works, eq/plugin control and pretty much everything you can do with a hardware MCU is possible with the AC-7 Core.


That does limit it to controlling 8 channels at a time though (plus the master fader of course), so lots of banking left/right is required for large projects.
16 channels on a 10 inch screen might be a bit tight, but it would be great to try out. 
(of course you can already use multiple iPads running the app to create 16, 24, 32 channel versions)


Are you thinking about creating a brand new controller protocol, or tweaking an existing one?
Cheers,
Colin
Saitara Software

Go guys, go.

My problem with the IPad is wireless.  One more thing to worry about on my music computer, which I don't need.  Plugging in a USB from my android pad directly to the computer seems like the simplest way to go.

@

You don't have to use it wireless if you're worried about glitches... (any reasonably modern computer shouldn't have problems though)
  If you connect the iPad Camera Connection Kit to a USB to MIDI cable, you can plug it in to any available MIDI IN and OUT on your system.
It then functions the same as a hardware unit without any wifi required.

A one-cable solution would be better though. It shouldn't be too difficult to design... It'd just have to appear as a standard MIDI interface to each side.

I'm not sure if Android supports this kind of simple USB MIDI connection either... but I'm sure AJ knows more about it than me.

There are all kinds of ways of interfacing wireless devices to a computer, many of them as glitch-free as you could want. My setup has my desktop PC connected by cable to a router, which also does wireless. The PC itself doesn't know anything about the wireless aspects of the setup. Devices can talk to each other via the router. Wireless is not necessarily problematic or unreliable, but a lot of individual devices and configuration methods are, which has led to a somewhat undeserved bad reputation for wi-fi.

Colin, John,

yes, that is true about wireless. I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to get a good connection.  However, a router involves more expense.  I already splurged on a tablet.  And I need a case, hopefully one with a built in keyboard since I find I have to peck the virtual keys.  And unlike an unfamiliar router, etc. I have lots of USB cables floating around and know exactly how to plug them in.

Other than expenses, it is learning and setting up all this extraneous technology.  I've got a limited amount of time to devote to music, much less doing my own tech support.  I'm sure it is not that difficult, I'm sure, but there is the worry that it won't just be plug and play.  Been there, done that and burned a lot of time while I got stuff to work.  That fear, as Hamlet said, "makes cowards of us all."   For me, it doesn't matter whether it is the technology or the end user, it is all just wasted time.  I think I speak for a lot of users and musicians.  We want stuff that just works without having to break a mental sweat.

Too much to ask?  Maybe.  I don't expect a perfect world.  Or perfect controller, but I can ask, can't I?

@

@

No offense to cakewalk, but
Back to reality: 
Is it wise to even think about creating a Cakewalk iOS app with such a troubled development process already in place on PC platform?

My concern is that Cakewalk's processes don't even come close to the quality requirements Apple places on its products. 
I feel that's the main reason Sonar is not available on MAC. 

Thanks,
-D

DJSur

My concern is that Cakewalk's processes don't even come close to the quality requirements Apple places on its products. 
I feel that's the main reason Sonar is not available on MAC. 

Thanks,
-D

You can't be serious.  To my knowledge, Apple doesn't have any requirements for or input into applications other than its own branded applications (except on iPhone). I can't imagine that they are testing and/or approving Cubase or Live or Pro Tools, etc. Apple is not a QA center for other company's programs and the quality or lack thereof has no bearing on SONAR not being available on the Mac.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

DJSur

My concern is that Cakewalk's processes don't even come close to the quality requirements Apple places on its products. 
I feel that's the main reason Sonar is not available on MAC. 

Thanks,
-D

You can't be serious.  To my knowledge, Apple doesn't have any requirements for or input into applications other than its own branded applications (except on iPhone). I can't imagine that they are testing and/or approving Cubase or Live or Pro Tools, etc. Apple is not a QA center for other company's programs and the quality or lack thereof has no bearing on SONAR not being available on the Mac.

Brandon,


Forgive me, I am serious, but that's a whole different topic neither one of us knows the answers to.
I'm just feeling a bit let down with all the issues for a major release I'm reading about (no I haven't upgraded yet to have any hands on feedback to offer) It just seems to get worse with each release since I switched from a different DAW to Sonar at version 7. This overall experience has made me decide to wait on any further upgrades past 8.5. The thing for me is that what I've learned and am able to do with Sonar, I really really love and won't go with another DAW on PC. So, this is a hopeful complaint. One more gripe: The whole "It works on our machines at Cakewalk fine" is not useful to customers. 


Thanks,


-D