When X1 was released, a review had come out about how great it was and went in to great detail about how smooth some of the features worked. It turns out that some of the features that were supposedly tested didn't even work when X1 was released. X1 was released with those functions broken and there is absolutely no way that the reviewers could have tested the software. They were just going off the bullet points that Cakewalk released and never even installed the software to check it out themselves.

If I remember correctly some functions were working in the pre-release and not working in the actual release. Possible the review was based on the pre-release.

rabeach

When X1 was released, a review had come out about how great it was and went in to great detail about how smooth some of the features worked. It turns out that some of the features that were supposedly tested didn't even work when X1 was released. X1 was released with those functions broken and there is absolutely no way that the reviewers could have tested the software. They were just going off the bullet points that Cakewalk released and never even installed the software to check it out themselves.

If I remember correctly some functions were working in the pre-release and not working in the actual release. Possible the review was based on the pre-release. 
 

 
I seem to remember that too, and it is likely that the reviews were based on the pre-release version, is it not.
 
But that is far more boring than making up paranoid conspiracy theories, isn't it?
 
I've never reviewed music tech for magazines, but I've done my fair share of record reviews/ interviews for magazines, and have not been told what to say by the editor, or been bribed by the artist.  I think this is nonsense.
 
Whether or not we trust a reviewer's opinion is another matter.  After a while I learn which reviewers I do trust.

Bub

axl59

I'm back.
seen on www.cakewalk.com

Both magazines have they tested Sonar X2? It is true that is pretty, but not finished. Then give positive feedback for software not finished, Cakewalk had to pay the journalist for a nice story.

They are ready to discredit it their business to help Cakewalk. It's beautiful, I will cry.
Meanwhile, given no solution to correct or improve SONAR X2.

No comment

When X1 was released, a review had come out about how great it was and went in to great detail about how smooth some of the features worked. It turns out that some of the features that were supposedly tested didn't even work when X1 was released. X1 was released with those functions broken and there is absolutely no way that the reviewers could have tested the software. They were just going off the bullet points that Cakewalk released and never even installed the software to check it out themselves.

There was another review that posted screen shots of some new features in X1 ... and those screen shots were from Sonar 5 or 6 if I remember correctly? It was a very old screen shot of the Step Sequencer.

I lost all respect/faith or whatever you want to call it, in these online reviews, especially reviews in magazines.

I imagine it's that way with almost everything that is reviewed ... it's just that I caught them in a bold faced lie when X1 was reviewed and it really opened my eyes to the scam these review magazines have going.

That kind of thing drives me up the wall, because then people say "oh, magazine reviews are BS" without realizing that some mags really try to do it right.
 
I can give you plenty of examples. The magazine that ripped off some Sound on Sound reviews, almost word for word. The magazine that wrote a "review" of a product that was a cut and paste job from the product manual I wrote!! And my personal favorite: the one about how Sonar sucked because you couldn't even place the now time where you wanted it (he didn't know to turn off snap to audio crossings).
 
I could go on...well, one more. A reviewer complained about a product not having a specific and very important feature. The manufacturer was confused: "but we do have that feature, read pages 20-22 of the manual." Yes, it was there. I called up the author and told him that feature was described in the manual, did he check out the manual? The immortal answer: "Well, I didn't read the whole manual..." Needless to say, he never wrote another article for us.
 
But consumers have to take the blame for some of this because they want reviews to be timely. It's true that some magazines write "reviews" based on going to a company or trade show and seeing a prototype. EM's policy is to review shipping products, but that means reviews come out later than other magazines. Then instead of people complaining about the quality of the review, they complain that it came out later than everyone else.
 
Finally, I don't believe the point of any review I write is whether I like something or not. The point is to describe the product with such accuracy that the reader can feel like they've experienced using it, and then decide whether it's something they want to check out further or not. Reviewing programs with trial versions are the best, because they I can stick with describing the gestalt of the program; the reader can download the trial and get a real sense of whether it will work for them or not.