azslow3

SquireBum
If it were not for "whiners" and those expressing negative opinions, then nothing would ever be improved.  For example:
  1.  The United States would not exist if the "whiners" in the colonies had not revolted and demanded independence from Britain.
  2.  Slavery would still exist in the U.S. if abolitionist "whiners" had not spoken up and gained the moral high ground.
  3.  Apartheid would still exist in South Africa if the majority of the western world did not "whine" about the social injustice.
  4.  Women would not have the right to vote in many countries if the suffragettes had not "whined" and marched for their rights.
  5. On a much smaller basis, Sonar would not have real-time Synth recording and AUX tracks if a number of passionate users had not continuously and passionately "whined" on this forum with negative comments about Sonar lacking this feature.

May be I am in minority, but I have no problem if first 4 are not there
 
After (1) they have made the half of the world own colony, partially applying (2).
About (3)... I know several people which has visited SA after that has happened...
(4). I am not a women and I have no right to vote in the country I am in
(5). I have participated in that discussion.  So I think this (and only this) make sense ;)

Azlow, I will be glad to remove them in the interests of political neutrality. 
 
-- Ron

SquireBum
Azlow, I will be glad to remove them in the interests of political neutrality. 

I agree, lets return to LANDR and Analytics

chuckebaby
its all good man, we are who we are. some are passionate about things and can control themselves while others are passionate and can NOT control themselves. I of course am not singling anyone out.
I've had my share of complaints here in the past but I have been very happy for the majority of the last few years.
 
I look back on some of my rants and I feel embarrassed. I wish I never said anything.
but we all make mistakes, and hopefully we learn from them. (like me with my spelling + grammar)
this place would be boring if there weren't a couple concerned users rocking the boat once in a while.
as producers, musicians, we are a passionate bunch.

+1 That's a great response Charlie. 

John T
 
This doesn't apply to everyone, nor to every issue raised, but there are some people who seem incapable of imaging anything other than the worst possible version of everything, based on the worst possible intentions, and who are certain, that this time, the sky really is falling and Sonar is about to become one of these:
 

This is true - but equally as annoying are those that even if Sonars sky was falling, they would be mindlessly attacking those reporting it, claiming they should stop whinging about the lack of sky, all the while sycophantically complimenting the emperors fine new clothes.

 
Maybe people could just express their opinion (which was solicited in all cases) and that would be it.
 

Paul P
 
Maybe people could just express their opinion (which was solicited in all cases) and that would be it.
 

+1

...and in an ideal world, express informed opinions. Y'know, based on facts 'n' stuff.

Except that the "facts" in this instance relate to Cake's INTENTIONS only, (as analytics has yet to be made available). Views expressed with respect to potential risks of the feature (potentially skewing use metrics, consuming resources) are therefore equally as valid as those which express the opinions that analytics can only be a good thing.
They're only opinions, right?

Brando
Except that the "facts" in this instance relate to Cake's INTENTIONS only, (as analytics has yet to be made available). Views expressed with respect to potential risks of the feature (potentially skewing use metrics, consuming resources) are therefore equally as valid as those which express the opinions that analytics can only be a good thing.
They're only opinions, right?

Absolutely correct. I don't recall anyone saying "yes, the analytics are great!" or "hey, the analytics are skewed!" because they don't exist yet. So at this point any opinions have to speculative in nature. That's not what I'm talking about.
 
I'm talking about saying something like LANDR is a dynamic EQ and multiband compressor hosted in Reaper. That may be an opinion but can't be a fact if, as can be determined by a experiment, LANDR changes how it processes based on the program material received as input. If someone can indeed put a dynamic EQ and multiband compressor in Reaper and get the same results, then that opinion would be a fact.
 
Or like when I said SONAR Artist was in the top 10 selling software titles in December based on an industry sales tracking report, and someone said because I said it was in the top 10, therefore it couldn't have been very high up in that top 10 or I would have said "it was number 4" or whatever. But the fact is that those reports cost a lot of money, are copyrighted, and highly proprietary. I've wanted to quote specifics from them before in articles, and was always turned down. Fair enough. But they did say I could present general information that couldn't be tracked back to specific sales or a competitive situation. This company does Top 10 lists. I felt saying SONAR was in the top 10 would be sufficiently general that I wouldn't violate our agreement, especially because I didn't mention any other companies (e.g., there was no competitive situation mentioned, like "SONAR outsold 'X'"). But to be any more specific would violate an agreement regarding proprietary intellectual property.
 
I would prefer if instead of making assumptions that require being refuted if this forum is to contain accurate information, people would ask questions so others would have the opportunity to clarify if there was any point of confusion...come to think of it, like you just did, Brando . Hopefully others will follow your example. 

azslow3
more worries is will be or one of those...

Whats wrong with that? It has that warm analog sound.