subtlearts
Hi all. A few thoughts:
1. I personally absolutely support the proposition (a few versions old now at least) of including traditional varispeed functionality in Sonar, i.e. sample-rate-based, which modifies pitch and time simultaneously, as it is implemented in Reaper. I probably wouldn't use it much myself but I can absolutely see the usefulness of it, if only because it's a long-standing studio technique which can be and has been used to great creative effect (Les Paul anyone?).
2. Yes, there are workarounds to get generally the same effect; no, none of them are exactly the same thing, and none of them are as simple or elegant as just including the feature. So why the resistance?
3. I guess that from the perspective of people that don't have any use for the feature, they don't want CW to 'waste' dev resources on something that they won't use (the same argument usually used to beat down the Staff View enthusiasts who hope without hope every year that something will have improved in that area); but from the perspective of those who would really like the feature, not a workaround, it's hard to see why people are so upset at the proposition.
4. I would also be happy to see some kind of robust implementation of pitch-and-time-independent variability, along the lines of what is now implemented in Reason (as of the inclusion of the Record functionality in v6). This is not the same thing, however.
5. I am both a piano player and a piano tuner; suffice to say that tuning a piano is not something for the uninitiated to attempt with (or without) a strobe tuner. A Rhodes, OK, but a piano is a horse of a different feather. Due to the double/triple strings, the interaction of said strings stretched under high tension over a bridge mounted on a thin wooden soundboard, and the pins-in-wood tuning mechanism, not to mention the inharmonicity of individual strings and the innate tension between high harmonics of low strings and the fundamentals of high strings, usually solved by a degree of 'stretching'... suffice to say it's a non-trivial endeavour.
6. Don't even get me started about accordions.
7. A-440 is nowhere near as universal a standard as people seem to think, certainly not here in Europe in any case; modern orchestras regularly (almost universally) tune considerably higher, whereas 'period' instruments in, say, Baroque orchestras are often much lower, the instruments having been built with (then-standard) lower tunings in mind. In some cases they literally cannot be made to play in tune at modern pitch. When I tune an older piano I am often faced with a dilemma - try to get it up to a modern pitch (or higher - 442 is sometimes requested over here) where it will probably not stay in tune very well, or leave it where it is and put it in tune with itself. It depends on how the instrument will be used.
8. I say all this to illustrate that the 'everybody should just play in tune and everything will be OK' line of reasoning is not very realistic, since 'in tune' is really a relative concept - our entire system of tuning, equal-temperament, is actually just a kind of compromise to get around physical/mathematical tuning problems that are built in to the universe, and if you took a modern piano tuned to equal-temperament at A-440 back in time and played it for people 400 years ago they would find it horribly out of tune. Even today, orchestral instruments capable of just-intonation tune their intervals more dynamically while playing, because, well, it sounds better. When I was at university I played French Horn as a second instrument (I was in the jazz piano program), and played in a couple of classical ensembles where learning to bend notes up or down based on whether we were playing the 5th or the 3d of a given chord was a big part of making the ensemble sound more in tune. It's not as simple as sticking a tuner on the instrument and getting the needle to line up. Tuning is subtle, difficult, complicated stuff.
9. 'Varispeed' in any manifestation will obviously not solve all of these problems, but it's a handy tool to have in the arsenal for an engineer to solve a problem quickly, and/or it can be used really creatively, so maybe we can keep the idea separate from how anyone feels about Mike or how he presents his ideas or suggestions? If we were able to maintain that as a guiding principle - try to focus on the idea at hand, not whatever personal baggage might be floating around, it might help things stay more constructive and less combative around here... just a thought. I don't know, I've been away for a while, and I know it's easy to get caught up in these things, but that's my observation about the general tone.
To recap Mike, this is the post that fits the title you put forward.
Nothing you've said so far came close.
Can you see that this answers
Why/How/When SONAR X users can benefit from Varispeed so much better than your half-baked sideways swipe? It even covers your little Hammered Dulcimer concern and shows how everyone else can benefit too, and even without any trace of the famously noted and customary appendige swinging manner you are renowned for adopting. When you can cite others of a focus on trying to portray many ideas in a cursory jovial manner, you will understand the importance of the feature you are suggesting should benefit from the considered and thoughtful attention it was given by the poster I've quoted rather than just a face saving excercise by yourself to justify kicking off the topic on the wrong foot. The trivial job you require it to do in the OP is easily catered for already and you've been given a number of suggestions of how to deal with it. As has been suggested I may as well reason with the dining table but at least I tried, and because I believe it would put Sonar in the driving seat currently as nothing out there as yet fulfils the remit outlined above fully as yet, because it is not as trivial an ask as you tried to make out.