yorolpal


I liked the idea someone had way back earlier in this thread about different Sonar lines:

Sonar X1Post  for all us commercial broadcast types
Sonar X1Score   for all the notators and composers
Sonar X1Producer  which would be basically what we've got without the video, post pro and notation sections.
of course you'd still have to have

Sonar X1MaxPro   with everything AND the kitchen sink thrown in but it would cost so much that only Mike McCue might buy it.

I think having the post/video and notation functionalities as add-ons/upgrades is actually a good idea, as they are high-maintenance features that only a subset of users need. I'm a midi guy and I even read/write music to some degree, but since I worked the PRV into my fingertips, I've never used the score view. And post/video is even more specialized. 
 
 
Sven

I think having the post/video and notation functionalities as add-ons/upgrades is actually a good idea, as they are high-maintenance features that only a subset of users need. I'm a midi guy and I even read/write music to some degree, but since I worked the PRV into my fingertips, I've never used the score view. And post/video is even more specialized. 
 
 
Sven

OK, but my points are:


1.  These features already exist within Sonar.  If you take them away, people will be asked to pay more in order to remove features that they may rely on.  Does this really make sense?  How would you sell X2 to them?!


2.  A huge proportion of features in Sonar are only used by a subset of users.  I couldn't care less about Matrix view, for example.  Should it be taken away cos only a subset use it?


3.  It's becoming my life's mission on these boards to explain that no-one is arguing that Sonar be used as a film / tv post-production tool, and Cakewalk shouldn't try (see previous post).  Also, just to reiterate, no-one wants video editing either.


4.  Many of the changes being asked for in terms of video support are not high-maintenance at all, it's simply refining what is already there.  The exception is probably better tempo / meter working, but arguably that would benefit a far greater range of users than those who score to picture.  As for notation, I'd like to hear more from those guys who use it... although potentially it's a bottomless pit, I think there are some easy wins to be had that will help people. 


I'd be curious to see people who argue for split versions of Sonar to respond to these points (and those in my previous post).  It just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

SvenArne

yorolpal


I liked the idea someone had way back earlier in this thread about different Sonar lines:

Sonar X1Post  for all us commercial broadcast types
Sonar X1Score   for all the notators and composers
Sonar X1Producer  which would be basically what we've got without the video, post pro and notation sections.
of course you'd still have to have

Sonar X1MaxPro   with everything AND the kitchen sink thrown in but it would cost so much that only Mike McCue might buy it.

I think having the post/video and notation functionalities as add-ons/upgrades is actually a good idea, as they are high-maintenance features that only a subset of users need. I'm a midi guy and I even read/write music to some degree, but since I worked the PRV into my fingertips, I've never used the score view. And post/video is even more specialized. 
 
 
Sven

When you explain it that way I think you and ol'pal have a good idea, IMO 'addons' when installed are 'tightly integrated' into Sonar, thereby nice workflow, more advanced, 'enhanced features' for Notation and/or Video (score to film) all within Sonar :)


  Next up:

It would also be nice if Cakewalk could do a deal with a video editor software company, to allow direct 'Jump' to and from Sonar for example;

* From video editor > Export Video - 'Jump' to Sonar will automatically open Sonar + import video at best optimized video playback. (although with optional user global settings)

* From Sonar Export Audio - 'Jump' to video editor will open video editor + import audio file.

All that done, ready to go, all setup and done automatically with one click (Jump)!  Sort of what Adobe does with their line of software, 'Jump' allowing users to jump between Photoshop and other programs.

This 'Jump' idea would be cool for those who want to see the progress of their work and have the option to 'Jump' back to redo something such as; the mix.  Jump could also have options to export as separate files, such as; separate 'narration' track thereby; one stereo mix and one mono narration track.


   Oh and.....

Yeah, yeah, yeah, OK! Ok! I also agree that Cakewalk should continue to focus on further enhancing existing features in Sonar.  I've been saying that for years and yeah it's getting old *LOL* {no pun intended}

That said, to be fair....
Cakewalk do listen but they can only do so much with the time and resources they have, and so far from what I've seen and read about X1; it's looking pretty cool, the additional workflow enhancements is worth the upgrade alone. I'm very excited about it :)

-

noiseboy

I think having the post/video and notation functionalities as add-ons/upgrades is actually a good idea, as they are high-maintenance features that only a subset of users need. I'm a midi guy and I even read/write music to some degree, but since I worked the PRV into my fingertips, I've never used the score view. And post/video is even more specialized. 


Sven

OK, but my points are:


1.  These features already exist within Sonar.  If you take them away, people will be asked to pay more in order to remove features that they may rely on.  Does this really make sense?  How would you sell X2 to them?!


2.  A huge proportion of features in Sonar are only used by a subset of users.  I couldn't care less about Matrix view, for example.  Should it be taken away cos only a subset use it?


3.  It's becoming my life's mission on these boards to explain that no-one is arguing that Sonar be used as a film / tv post-production tool, and Cakewalk shouldn't try (see previous post).  Also, just to reiterate, no-one wants video editing either.


4.  Many of the changes being asked for in terms of video support are not high-maintenance at all, it's simply refining what is already there.  The exception is probably better tempo / meter working, but arguably that would benefit a far greater range of users than those who score to picture.  As for notation, I'd like to hear more from those guys who use it... although potentially it's a bottomless pit, I think there are some easy wins to be had that will help people. 


I'd be curious to see people who argue for split versions of Sonar to respond to these points (and those in my previous post).  It just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'm with you on all points here, Noiseboy. Nicely laid out. 

Noiseboy:
These features already exist within Sonar.  If you take them away...

I agree not to take them away.

I also agree to; 'addons' for far more advanced, 'enhanced features' for Notation and/or Video (score to film) all tightly integrated Sonar :)

Other companies do 'Addons' (won't name one particular DAW here)! But that does not mean there is NO core (basic) features in the initial version.

I look at it this way... if you want the additional (addons) 'more advance notation' that blows away those so-called All-in-One competitors (DAW) then I would gladly pay a little more, I think that's fair. ;)

Already, the flagship has been reduced in price, yet with 'suggested' options available for 'addons' whilst keeping Sonar competitive and fulfilling 'individual customers needs and their budgets' I think that's a good idea.

I've said a million times... I would prefer Cakewalk continue to focus on further enhancing existing core features in Sonar that are 'essential needs for the broader customer base'.

That said;
I'll wait until 2011 before I start submitting my 'Feature Requests'... meanwhile there is no harm in posting what is obviously not available in X1 as confirmed by Cakewalk ~ read the X1 forums > threads ;)

-

SongCraft


Noiseboy:
These features already exist within Sonar.  If you take them away...

I agree not to take them away.

I also agree to; 'addons' for far more advanced, 'enhanced features' for Notation and/or Video (score to film) all tightly integrated Sonar :)

Other companies do 'Addons' (won't name one particular DAW here)! But that does not mean there is NO core (basic) features in the initial version.

I look at it this way... if you want the additional (addons) 'more advance notation' that blows away those so-called All-in-One competitors (DAW) then I would gladly pay a little more, I think that's fair. ;)

Already, the flagship has been reduced in price, yet with 'suggested' options available for 'addons' whilst keeping Sonar competitive and fulfilling 'individual customers needs and their budgets' I think that's a good idea.

I've said a million times... I would prefer Cakewalk continue to focus on further enhancing existing core features in Sonar that are 'essential needs for the broader customer base'.

That said;
I'll wait until 2011 before I start submitting my 'Feature Requests'... meanwhile there is no harm in posting what is obviously not available in X1 as confirmed by Cakewalk ~ read the X1 forums > threads ;)

-

That sounds fair enough.  I think (someone else will need to speak with more experience than I) that improving third party notation software support should be a core feature though - integrating properly with other products is basic.  A full-blown feature set to rival Finale would be a good example of a paid extra though.

noiseboy

SongCraft


Noiseboy:
These features already exist within Sonar.  If you take them away...

I agree not to take them away.

I also agree to; 'addons' for far more advanced, 'enhanced features' for Notation and/or Video (score to film) all tightly integrated Sonar :)

Other companies do 'Addons' (won't name one particular DAW here)! But that does not mean there is NO core (basic) features in the initial version.

I look at it this way... if you want the additional (addons) 'more advance notation' that blows away those so-called All-in-One competitors (DAW) then I would gladly pay a little more, I think that's fair. ;)

Already, the flagship has been reduced in price, yet with 'suggested' options available for 'addons' whilst keeping Sonar competitive and fulfilling 'individual customers needs and their budgets' I think that's a good idea.

I've said a million times... I would prefer Cakewalk continue to focus on further enhancing existing core features in Sonar that are 'essential needs for the broader customer base'.

That said;
I'll wait until 2011 before I start submitting my 'Feature Requests'... meanwhile there is no harm in posting what is obviously not available in X1 as confirmed by Cakewalk ~ read the X1 forums > threads ;)

-

That sounds fair enough.  I think (someone else will need to speak with more experience than I) that improving third party notation software support should be a core feature though - integrating properly with other products is basic.  A full-blown feature set to rival Finale would be a good example of a paid extra though.

Excellent post.  Cakewalk - focus on what you do best.  Focus on the core features.
 
Let other companies focus on what they do best and then integrate with them. That way, the cost can remain low. 
 
Keep in mind -We are not only paying for product development, but "support" after we purchase Sonar. If a robust Staff View is added to Sonar then, everyone will have to share the cost for the added SUPPORT of this enhanced feature wether you use it or not.  People who develop/support Sonar at Cakewalk don't work for free.

Put up Craig. I wish to see the proof of your statements of audio's superior abilities to create itself.

 
 
What would you have me put up? Examples of real time phrasing that Midi cannot interpret and write as is. The fact that Midi makes a best guess of those phrasings and writes them into it's own structure?
Sure midi made it possible to do a lot things by bridgeing gap between notation and data for one thing, but midi in and of it's self does not make possible what the synthesizer does, it is the synthesizer that makes that possible. The same midi data sent to two different synjthesizers will give you different results.
I'm not sure what it is you want as proof. I use midi all the time to write music by playing it. But there are things midi can't do that instruments can do in audio.

Just a friendly suggestion but why don't we move the midi discussion to a new thread and continue the debate there?
(pulls steering wheel to the left trying to keep the bus full of screaming passengers on the road and not off into the ravine)

Mike Trujillo [Cakewalk
]

Just a friendly suggestion but why don't we move the midi discussion to a new thread and continue the debate there?
(pulls steering wheel to the left trying to keep the bus full of screaming passengers on the road and not off into the ravine)

I'll shut up.