chuckebaby
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 take your point.  But we actually do "know" some other things, or at least see significant evidence for other things.  I particularly note the market acceptance of StudioOne.  From where I sit, that appears to be the DAW that has made the biggest market move since Reaper.
 
Clearly the allure of Reaper was low cost -- almost free.
 
And it seems clear to me that people are greeting StudioOne warmly because it seems more accessible to them, while still having the capabilities of a full-function DAW.  We can debate exactly why StudioOne is getting such acceptance -- or there could even be a debate about whether that is a widespread development.  But what I do not think is productive is to adopt an insular attitude that says SONAR has its way of doing things and anybody who doesn't get it should move on to other programs.
 
Bottom line, this isn't a charity.  It takes money to fund development.  There are probably 15 DAWs out there with some credibility today.  I have never seen the software market that could hold more than about a half dozen successful products in a class over the long haul.  I could be completely wrong, but this is my experience working with businesses across many software categories over the years.
 
For now, Protools is one of the survivors. Cubase certainly is. And lately it looks like StudioOne has joined that list.  The list also includes Logic and probably DP.  And while Live isn't exactly the same category, it is close.  And you have to include Reason as a survivor at the low cost end.  That's 7 survivors before we get to the tier that includes SONAR.  That's a precarious position, IMHO.  I'm not saying these things to be trollish or snarky.  The company has made a big investment to improve quality and it is making a real difference to the existing base.  But I have not seen any evidence that it is changing much outside the long-term base.  If not, I doubt it is sustainable.  In other words, we all have a very strong interest to see the product evolve to where it can be more attractive to new users.
 

Where do these bizarre numbers come from? 99% of Sonar users do this and most Sonar users do something else. At best you are just making guesses that seem to add strength to your point of view.

Head over to the Bakery and discuss it over there and see what sort of support your ideas get. You never know maybe Cakewalk and the forum members will see merit in your ideas and make changes that please you.

In the mean time i dont think you have a clue as to what the average user wants or thinks about Sonar. It's just speculation that sounds authoritative but really has no substance tio back it up.

Sorry, but i get sick of threads that always want to promote gloom and doom on Cakewalks business model, their expertise at GUI design, programming and the list goes on. For goodness sake if the softwares that bad go use Studio One. I regularly use Studio One for a few special tasks but thats because no software has it all. Not Sonar, Cubase, Pro Tools or any other for that matter.

I just put my loop markers at the beginning and end of the project (allowing space at the end for reverb fades and the likes), hit edit>select all, then right click on the timeline and ‘select loop region’.

mudgel
Sorry, but i get sick of threads that always want to promote gloom and doom on Cakewalks business model, their expertise at GUI design, programming and the list goes on.

+1
 
The more some things change, the more they stay the same.

cparmerlee

chuckebaby
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 take your point.  But we actually do "know" some other things, or at least see significant evidence for other things.  I particularly note the market acceptance of StudioOne.  From where I sit, that appears to be the DAW that has made the biggest market move since Reaper.
 

im sorry, I might be missing something but what "evidence" ?
If your referring to "Polls". as in "we asked a 100 people". that doesn't fly as evidence.
 

chuckebaby

cparmerlee
But we actually do "know" some other things, or at least see significant evidence for other things.  I particularly note the market acceptance of StudioOne.  From where I sit, that appears to be the DAW that has made the biggest market move since Reaper.

im sorry, I might be missing something but what "evidence" ?
If your referring to "Polls". as in "we asked a 100 people". that doesn't fly as evidence.

 
Well, I do have evidence; it's my gig to know these things. cparmerlee is clearly not sitting in a place where sales figures of the leading DAWs are visible , especially since he didn't mention the program that is often in the #2 or #3 slot. Also you need to differentiate between share by # of units, and # of units by price point.
 
Most of the assumptions were wrong, except that despite slippage, Pro Tools is still at the top of the heap. I do agree 100% that the key to future success for any DAW, including SONAR, is attracting new users. However while that's a nice idea in theory, the market for DAWs in general is in decline (which is interesting, given that interfaces outsell DAWs by about 7 or 8 to 1...then again, you can't download interfaces from torrents). So the main way for a DAW to gain "new users" these days is taking market share from other DAWs. In that respect, all DAWs are scrambling to seduce the Pro Tool users who don't like Avid's subscription mode and are jumping ship, and the Mac users who are moving to Windows. But it's equally important, if not more so, for a company to make sure their existing user base remains loyal, so fewer of them switch. 



 
 

Anderton
the market for DAWs in general is in decline

Surely that is largely a function of a one-time transition form hardware to software-based studios, small and large.  That is to say, we are probably past the crest of that migration. A marketing effort would normally separate that one-time wave from the underlying ongoing demand.

We can go over this a million times but most of this is pure speculation and really it does not matter to the majority of us who like what we have and will probably stick with it even if the company goes belly up... We'll still have a DAW that does what we want. I really could care less about how many people use DAW X. All software is quirky as far as I can tell and if you don't like that fact then go dust off an old multi track ADAT and have at er.. It's all about what plops out the other end... I love my results and even though it is flawed sometimes Sonar is still as good as it's going to get for me.   

cparmerlee

Anderton
the market for DAWs in general is in decline

Surely that is largely a function of a one-time transition form hardware to software-based studios, small and large.  That is to say, we are probably past the crest of that migration. A marketing effort would normally separate that one-time wave from the underlying ongoing demand.

That "one-time" wave ended in the mid-90s, 20 years ago. There are simply fewer people making music. Apparently they find Facebook more compelling 
 
And before someone says "that's because of all the DJs," that has been in decline as well. However, ukuleles and acoustic guitars are on the upswing.

Anderton
That "one-time" wave ended in the mid-90s, 20 years ago.

Now who is making claims without evidence?  Your statement is 180 degrees from what I see in my world.  As of 10 years ago, every major studio in my area still was heavily stocked with loads of hardware.  They used ProTools for sure, but mainly as a replacement for tapes. About half of those studios have shut down.  The others have continued to migrate more and more to software-based processes.
 
But the key question is WHY those studios shut down?  That was partially due to the general decline in earning potential through records.  But it was also due to many people setting up pretty decent studios in their basements.  And that wasn't 20 years ago in my neck of the woods.  It was much more recent.  (I should note that the move to home studios is closely related to the decline in record revenues.  I know a significant number of working musicians who are producing in low budget studios and self-distributing on CD Baby and elsewhere, bypassing the overhead of large studios and record companies.  It can work.  It can be a better business model for a working musician these days.)
 
I realize my experience isn't necessarily the same as what others will see elsewhere.  It certainly isn't reflective of what one might find in LA, NY, or Nashville.  But I have a rather large circle of musician friends.  Almost none of them were involved in DAWs in the 1990s.  Now a fair number of them are working in DAWs or collaborating with other musicians who have DAW expertise.
 
All of this is somewhat beside the point.  Whether the market is collapsing or whether it is just settling in after a one-time transformation, it is not healthy for a product to be in 5th place or 10th place.  I am sorry if my comments have touched a nerve.  But I do think almost everyone would agree that StudioOne has gained a significant share, and I was simply trying to provide some examples of why that is.  But obviously, that isn't welcome discussion here, so I will sit down and shut up.  In the end, it doesn't affect me too much.  I'd like to see SONAR have a strong future.  If that isn't in the cards, I already had to buy the full StudioOne in order to collaborate with colleagues.  And I am likely to switch from Finale to Dorico in the next year, which in turn may push me to buy the full Cubase environment as well.