vintagevibe

Funkybot

4. Real VST support: Sonar is still using a wrapper at it's core. VST support is not baked in. This is probably part of what makes Sonar so unstable, and why developers often dislike it as a DAW (as they have to work around Sonar specific "features")

What makes you think that?

I've been a Sonar user since version 1, and had used Pro Audio 9 before that. To get VST plugins to work, you used to have to use the Fxpansion VST wrapper, which turned VST plugins into DirectX plugins. Then Cakewalk bought the FXpansion wrapper outright and basically built it into Sonar. This is why the "plugin properties" screen has things like "Enable Tempo Sync'd Effect" or "Configure as Instrument" whereas other VST hosts don't. Why? Because these are still wrapped plugins. That's why you sometimes need to tell Sonar a plugin is a tempo sync'd effect when you don't in other hosts, or why some effects need to be configured as synths in Sonar when they don't in other hosts. They're essentially wrapped plugins, with the wrapper built into the DAW (think BitBridge).

dimelives1

Funkybot


5. Improved Audio Routing: really guys? I still can't route a VSTi output to an audio track input? I'm not even asking to send one track's audio output to multiple tracks audio-input (ok maybe I am). 

Sorry, I'm a little new with the program. Can you speak more about this point? Are you saying that we can't record something we're playing on a VST in Sonar? For instance, if I'm manually playing something on my keys which is routed though Dim Pro or another VST, it can't be recorded?...

You can bounce to audio, but you can't record.


Let's say you're playing a synth part, and in realtime, you want to use the output of the VSTi as the input of your audio track and record it like you would a physical instrument. You cannot do that in Sonar. Instead you have to record the MIDI performance, then you can bounce it, or freeze it after the fact.

Jlien X

Edit: BTW, what is real instrument tracks?

They're kind of like "Simple Instrument Tracks" only not simple. Sonar sees Instrument tracks as at least 2 channels: 1 MIDI track, and 1 Audio Track. Only, lately, it's gotten more clever about how it displays them. But try this:


1. Open an instrument as a "Simple Instrument Track"
2. Go to the mixer/console view
3. Add a MIDI FX to that track


Wait. Where are the MIDI FX? Oh, they're not visible there. They're only available in the MIDI track. You can add them in the Track View if you expand the track helper on the left to show both the audio track/bin and the MIDI track/bin (see, I told you they were two channels just being made to look like one), but otherwise, you can't add MIDI effects to a track on the console. If you want to see both in the console you need to use a non-simple Instrument track, which shows one audio track and one MIDI track everywhere. 

Whereas Studio One or Reaper basically treat instrument tracks as both MIDI tracks and audio tracks at the same time, without having to differentiate. Logic does the same thing. I'm pretty sure Cubase does too.

So Sonar has improved here somewhat over the years, but again, it's something I feel they should have just done right when they integrated virtual instruments years ago and haven't changed since.

Same for how Sonar handles multiple outs. I either add them all as stereo outs, add them all as mono outs, or add them manually. In Studio One, I load the instrument track and it adds the first out by default, then I check the box next to the available outputs I want to use in the Mixer and it adds the additional channels based on those selections. It takes a few seconds to setup multi-outs on an instrument with both mono and stereo outputs that way (think BFD2 or Superior Drummer).  

Jlien X


@Funkybot: I think the "Things they should have done but didn't" section isn't fair because it's not comparing X series and 8.5. As you know, there are so many things that S1 also should have but don't, such as track templates, staff view, separate timing/velocity randomize options, MIDI effects, customizable drum maps, instrument definition, clip lock, MIDI panic button, etc. etc.

That's a completely valid set of missing features, and very closely matches my personal "Studio One top feature requests."


Do you know what I personally feel is the biggest difference between Studio One and Sonar?


Studio One is missing some key things, but I'm optimistic that everything on that list (except a staff view) will get added soon. But what Studio One does do, it does very well and it's stable.


Sonar, has come to have way more than I'd ever want or need (in trying to be all DAWs to all people), doesn't do a whole lot really well (half-Bakewalked), and when it comes to future development I wonder if what the project managers at Cakewalk feel are important are anything even close to what I feel should be done, so I'm not even optimistic for the future anymore. 


If Cakewalk just focused on Sonar's core features, and really improved those, I'd be thrilled. And by core I mean:


1. Solid, efficient audio engine
2. Great VST plugin integration (instruments/effects)
3. No Disk May Be Full or Corrupt Project Files
4. Modern audio routing system
5. Easiest/Fastest comping, including audio, multi-tracked audio, and plugin comp'ing
6. A smaller (or God forbid scalable) GUI that showed more channels in the mixer and maybe offered a full screen mode
7. Kick ass MIDI quantiziation options built right into the PRV with sliders to set the level of correction and undo it in a non-destructive manner
8. Simple tempo mapping, audio/groove quantization
9. Built in MP3 support (seriously CW, how is not having MP3 built-in acceptable?) 
10. Make it easier to use (more intuitive, faster workflow)

Really, how much of the above is going to happen? And I'm not even getting into esoteric stuff I want to see like a Reaper-style Varispeed playback, the above list is all stuff any DAW should always be striving for. I'm not even talking about VST3 support either, though lord knows, now would be the time to start over with VST in Sonar.

Instead, I have a feeling Sonar X3 will look something like this:

1. New effect plugins!!!
2. Rapture 3 or Dimension Pro 3!!!*
3. New Pro-Channel Module(s)!!!
4. Take Lanes 2.0 (now we made it work - but it'll still be harder to use than Logic's comping)!!!
5. Matrix or Step Sequencer version 3!!!
6. V-Vocal version 35!!!
7. Audio Snap version 10, now 5 times more complicated than before!!!
8. Even more touch screen (Gianter icons/GUI for gooder touching)!!!
9. 128 bit mix-engine for +123,456,789db internal headroom!!!*
10. R-Dither ZXY!!!*


*Producer Only

pbognar,

That was a great catch. I watched the video on Music creator 6 but I missed that.

Funkybot

Jlien X

Edit: BTW, what is real instrument tracks?

They're kind of like "Simple Instrument Tracks" only not simple. Sonar sees Instrument tracks as at least 2 channels: 1 MIDI track, and 1 Audio Track. Only, lately, it's gotten more clever about how it displays them. But try this:


1. Open an instrument as a "Simple Instrument Track"
2. Go to the mixer/console view
3. Add a MIDI FX to that track


Wait. Where are the MIDI FX? Oh, they're not visible there. They're only available in the MIDI track. You can add them in the Track View if you expand the track helper on the left to show both the audio track/bin and the MIDI track/bin (see, I told you they were two channels just being made to look like one), but otherwise, you can't add MIDI effects to a track on the console. If you want to see both in the console you need to use a non-simple Instrument track, which shows one audio track and one MIDI track everywhere. 

Whereas Studio One or Reaper basically treat instrument tracks as both MIDI tracks and audio tracks at the same time, without having to differentiate. Logic does the same thing. I'm pretty sure Cubase does too.

The S1 treating instrument tracks as both MIDI tracks and audio tracks may be true, but I couldn't tell because the daw is yet to have MIDI effects (if I'm not mistaken). Do you think MIDI plugins would appear in the [Inserts] box of the console? Also, Instrument track strips in the Arrange view don't have volume and pan controls, so maybe there are users who find S1 Instrument tracks not as convenient as Sonar's simple instrument tracks. I don't know.

I definitely prefer SONAR's implementation, regardless of what it is at its core.   I always use SITs when I don't need multiple outputs and I've never had a problem with switching between MIDI and Audio tabs in the TV.  But this is one area of S1 that's had its share of complaints, since having two different displays between the TV and CV can seem a little odd.   I get it, I just don't care for it.
 
The other thing is that I've never really had much in the way of VST "issues".  Sure, I've found a plugin or two that can have issues with Bitbride, but I know what they are and they're freebies anyway.   For everything else, it just works.  Literally.
 
Anyhow...  that was a really good catch by the OP.   So I guess we'll all find out in the near future what's coming next, X2b or X3.  I don't really care much either way myself, though X2b would be nice... if it included some Track Lane enhancements.   Otherwise, I'm sure I'll upgrade to X3 at some point, just like I always do.
 

Everything else aside, I find X2 to be simply beautiful visually.

The sharpness, the cleanliness, the 3D reality of it.
The buttons and things of the GUI blow away those of any other program I have ever used.

No other daw out there comes even close.

Paul I have to agree with you. I'm very glad you said that.  I wouldn't go quite as far as you but your point is more than just valid. 

I was looking at the Control Bar and how crisp everything is on it. The program is very easy to look at. My very few gripes are with the silly gray on dark gray text in some of the most unfortunate places.

I just wish it was more stable. I now auto save every three minutes.  X2 crashes almost every session at one point or another. It usually is due to a VST on one or another tracks. I even bought PT10 and Cubase to see if they were better. PT10 is steady but is the most counterintuitive software I have ever used.  I have not really gotten into Cubase enough to know.  I own a V-Studio 700 system that I really like, but as many others have found.... it is essentially a doorstop with other DAWS.  I don't want or need esoteric software functions. I want a Cakewalk solution that is rock solid and works with the hardware that was supposed to be the "cats meow" for Sonar. I would point out one thing however. Just be glad you are not locked into ProTools.  There new upgrade policy and pricing to PT11 making owners cough up an extra $1000 for the complete tookit they've already paid for is draconian to say the least. Pro Tools forums are literally seething over this.

I just want a solid, stable Sonar!