Hmmm I do agree. Maybe not crappy software design but a UX design concern. I would like to see the whole export process get an update. I suspect 99% of Sonar users, 99% of the time they do an export are intending to export the entire mix apart from tracks that they have muted and they intend to export the entire duration of the audio including tails, but are not interested in exporting silence beyond that.
 
So taking the above logic, perhaps the export system should default to those settings despite what tracks are selected or what time period is selected. Then for exports that require something more advanced, the user can set those options, and select tracks and time accordingly.
 
So many new sonar users get completely confused by this and I imagine some get put off by it.

35mm
I suspect 99% of Sonar users, 99% of the time they do an export are intending to export the entire mix apart from tracks that they have muted and they intend to export the entire duration of the audio including tails, but are not interested in exporting silence beyond that.

I don't know about 99%, but certainly a very large majority of the time.  Plus, I often end up exporting the song 5 or 6 times.  It is senseless to have to go through this same rigmarole each time.  Just export it the way I did it the last time, for Pete's sake.  I do think it makes perfect sense to allow the user to save a preference for default head and tail length.  That is to say, the export would start hhh seconds before the first clip and would end ttt seconds after the last clip.  I would typically have a 1 second head and a 4 second tail just to make sure my verb tails aren't chopped off.

Before you start lecturing me on UI design, cparmerlee, you should know that that has been my profession for over 40 years.
 
I agree, advanced features are usually best hidden until needed. Being able to specify which parts of a project to export is not what I'd consider an advanced feature. It's pretty basic.

This is amazing. I was just thinking, after all these years, to ask about this. I do the same as many above - control A, mark the start of file, mark the end (making sure the tail is there.) And yes, have many times had the long silence at the end because I neglected to do so. Though you can usually tell. If the export engine is sluggish 9 times out of 10 I have forgotten to mark the end. It's not really that big a deal, though I was wondering why some songs do this and some don't. I used to thin k it was because I had some activity way down the timeline (sometimes I save takes, bloopers, etc. and move them 100 measures after the track finishes.) I don't really know why. Maybe someone does.
 
The only time it is a real bother to me is for instance at the end of a very long project (70 songs to send the raw data tracks to a client) I had to make sure I had the right ending so a bit of a pain. But honestly, not a big deal - unless of course you send it to a client and it has a minute of empty space at the beginning. But this rarely happens as I have been using Sound Forge pretty much since it's beginning and I always put my mixes in there to check clipping, statistics, fades,  etc.
 
 

bitflipper
Being able to specify which parts of a project to export is not what I'd consider an advanced feature. It's pretty basic.

I don't think most DAW users would agree with that, although most SONAR users probably would.  Many here have periodically expressed frustration with why SONAR continues to be regarded as being in a tier way below Protools, Cubase, and most importantly now StudioOne.  I am suggesting the user experience is the primary factor why StudioOne has been so well received.  And frankly, if this continues, i expect it really will be increasingly difficult for Cakewalk to continue. Presonus really should not be underestimated, nor should its consequences on Cakewalk's future business.
 
There were great expectations for extending the user base by offering a Mac option, but that has been abandoned.  My advice to the company would be to work very, very hard on the initial user experience, even if that offends long-term SONAR users.
 
Not to get into a pedigree fight, but my first programming was on a Data General Nova in 1970.  The "UI" was paper tape.  I graduated to an IBM 360-20 whose "UI" was a breadboard, so we have made some progress since then.  I have not concentrated on UI design over the years, but I have consulted on many software business plans, so I do have a little knowledge of what it takes to reach new markets.  SONAR is making a little progress in that regard, but the turn-offs are still too prevalent, IMHO.

Rhytenow
Thanks so much slartabartfast!  How would you suggest I open up the project after I've saved it as a wav file?  

If you are going to be doing a lot of mixing, I would suggest getting a dedicated editor like Sound Forge, Samplitude, Wave Labs or I am sure people here have other suggestions. I have only used Sound Forge and  would be lost without it. 

cparmerlee

bitflipper
Being able to specify which parts of a project to export is not what I'd consider an advanced feature. It's pretty basic.

I don't think most DAW users would agree with that, although most SONAR users probably would.  Many here have periodically expressed frustration with why SONAR continues to be regarded as being in a tier way below Protools, Cubase, and most importantly now StudioOne.  I am suggesting the user experience is the primary factor why StudioOne has been so well received.  And frankly, if this continues, i expect it really will be increasingly difficult for Cakewalk to continue. Presonus really should not be underestimated, nor should its consequences on Cakewalk's future business.
 
There were great expectations for extending the user base by offering a Mac option, but that has been abandoned.  My advice to the company would be to work very, very hard on the initial user experience, even if that offends long-term SONAR users.
 
Not to get into a pedigree fight, but my first programming was on a Data General Nova in 1970.  The "UI" was paper tape.  I graduated to an IBM 360-20 whose "UI" was a breadboard, so we have made some progress since then.  I have not concentrated on UI design over the years, but I have consulted on many software business plans, so I do have a little knowledge of what it takes to reach new markets.  SONAR is making a little progress in that regard, but the turn-offs are still too prevalent, IMHO.

Good to see we have so many qualified people on this forum. On the other hand, to show you how much some users like Sonar, I have a friend who I hire for all of my sessions  (professional drummer, producer) who was going to get a Mac Pro for while he is touring which is often, but now is between a rock and a hard place because he is such an avid Sonar user/lover and found out there will be no Mac version. Of course there is logic, Cubase, Pro-Tools and other software but he wants to stick with Sonar. Many of us are very happy because our main concern is the creative flow and getting a lot done professionally in a short amount of time, and Sonar allows us to do that.

cparmerlee

35mm
I suspect 99% of Sonar users, 99% of the time they do an export are intending to export the entire mix apart from tracks that they have muted and they intend to export the entire duration of the audio including tails, but are not interested in exporting silence beyond that.

I don't know about 99%, but certainly a very large majority of the time.  Plus, I often end up exporting the song 5 or 6 times.  It is senseless to have to go through this same rigmarole each time.  Just export it the way I did it the last time, for Pete's sake.  I do think it makes perfect sense to allow the user to save a preference for default head and tail length.  That is to say, the export would start hhh seconds before the first clip and would end ttt seconds after the last clip.  I would typically have a 1 second head and a 4 second tail just to make sure my verb tails aren't chopped off.

this is a good idea. I would like that.

cparmerlee
 
 
Not to get into a pedigree fight, but my first programming was on a Data General Nova in 1970.  The "UI" was paper tape.  I graduated to an IBM 360-20 whose "UI" was a breadboard,

And that might be an even better reason to step back for a second and say... "Do I really know what this generation wants for advanced features" ?
 
Face it, we are clueless. "US" yes speaking for myself as well, knows nothing about this newer generation and how they work. The only thing we have over them is.. "Common sense" from years of making mistakes.
 
The only changes or suggestions I make are born out of the way I work and that my friend might not be how others work.
That's why I Always hesitate to criticize. 
 
You can say, this is a crappy design all you want but get real.. the only thing you know 100% is that it may be a crappy design for you and only you.

I think the problem comes from trying to do two steps at the same time.
Mixdown = Balancing of the mix and export to a stereo file.
Mastering = Top and Tail and polishing of the stereo file.
 
So for me it's not an issue because I top and tail during mastering.
 
I do this in a Wave editor but pretty simple to top and tail a stereo track in Sonar with slip edit.