Hey fellow SPLATters, hope you're all well and happy.
I have been mulling over this for quite a while and I'm kinda ready to bring my thoughts to your attention and invite a constructive debate.
Before I start explaining my idea, I want to say that of course all my opinions are subjective and offered as a contribution to help making Sonar a better software.
I admit that this post was triggered by the slightly underwhelming update this month.
A bit about me so you know where I'm coming from. I am a very active independent producer / songwriter from London. One of my main gigs is to coach and develop artists that bring me their ideas; on top of that I also do E - sessions and write with major label artists. I own and use Sonar as well as Cubase, S1, Pro Tools, DP9, Bitwig, Samplitude, Reaper and I get to know and interact with Logic and Live workflows because of clients or studios where I go and work. I use all those daws and, spoiler alert, they all have strong points and huge weaknesses, no exception. Me, I'd very much like to use SONAR 100% of the time.
Its core functions are great, the Skylight interface is a beautiful place to work in and, kill me for saying that, it just sounds better. I have mixed the same tune in Sonar, Cubase, Samplitude and S1 and Sonar sounded better. I had a few producer friends doing a blind test and they all concurred.
Now coming to the main topic
I used to enjoy the monthly updates because, as a fellow forum dweller said, it's like Christmas every month. Having said that I appreciate how having a deadline puts the Bakers under pressure to be delivering something at the end of the month.
Now, because of my familiarity with a number of new generation DAWs, I would like to offer an insight on what IN MY OPINION would make Sonar a more modern DAW and a palatable product for the new generation of up and coming producers. I am not inviting you to change your mind, I am just sharing my thoughts
All the new generation DAWs have a few shared traits that make me perceive them as "flexible" and "modern".
in no specific order:
 
Vectorial sizable GUI, with skinned menus and option windows (so they don't look like system windows, in short)
Advanced time stretching facilities (no need to bounce; simpler multi - track workflow)
In the flow workflow (ability to do as many operations as possible without having to stop playback)
Non - destructive quantisation
Retrospective MIDI recording, Audio pre - record (having an audio buffer that records a few seconds before you hit REC)
 
I don't know if any of these features are on the Bakers' "to do" list, but that's kinda beside the point, this is not a wish - list post (if it was I would ask to fix the Score Editor and have the Tempo / time signature track in the main window)
My point is that it's fair to believe that any of those upgrades to Sonar would mean to gut the sofware and re - build part of its code to accommodate the new feature. It's also fair to say that such an operation would take way more than one month to be implemented. I am sure the Bakers have great things in mind for my favourite DAW but I am not sure the monthly update thing would allow them to fully feel free to get their hands dirty and evolve the program past the DAW 1.0 status. And if they are doing that, I'd rather them concentrate on it than having to implement something they can achieve in a 30 days work cycle and keep the bigger stuff in the background.
All I'm saying is: I'd rather wait for the juicy stuff. Then again, maybe it's just me and my expectations which are indeed my own.
 
I think the Bakers are doing a great job to keep their promises and some of the updates were truly useful, BTW
What do you all think?

Thank you.
I think Cakewalk is also working on complex updates. For example "Ripple editing" was something like that, where they have certainly worked for many months. Sometimes we get a monthly update with smaller improvements, and then with big improvements, where they have worked very long time.
This year Cakewalk doesn't tell us anymore on which improvements they are working. So they are not under pressure. So they can work on great functions a half year and bring as monthly updates with fixes or smaller improvements, which are made alongside.
I'm sure that they are testing and planning long-term functions where they need many months of work. But at the same time they work on smaller improvements.
I guess they work safely on ten things at the same time with several people.
 
Audio-Pre-Record +1

THambrecht
Thank you.
I think Cakewalk is also working on complex updates. For example "Ripple editing" was something like that, where they have certainly worked for many months. Sometimes we get a monthly update with smaller improvements, and then with big improvements, where they have worked very long time.
This year Cakewalk doesn't tell us anymore on which improvements they are working. So they are not under pressure. So they can work on great functions a half year and bring as monthly updates with fixes or smaller improvements, which are made alongside.
I'm sure that they are testing and planning long-term functions where they need many months of work. But at the same time they work on smaller improvements.
I guess they work safely on ten things at the same time with several people.
 
Audio-Pre-Record +1

That's a very good point, cheers;
I have observed my own behaviour (I must have refreshed the forum page at least 40 times the other day to see if they dropped the update) and at the same time I saw how people in the forum started questioning whether the update was going to happen or not, etc...
I imagine that must put some kind of pressure on the developers, hence my question. I wonder if they feel compelled to have to deliver every month and if that takes time / resources from the developement of more radical upgrades

Personally I'd rather they spent all their time fixing what is known to be broken than spending it on things that aren't, like fiddling with menus like they have in the last couple of updates.
 
Have to admit that I'm struggling to understand the concept of, or use for, a pre-recording recording. How would it know when to start if you haven't told it that you want to record yet and what useful content would you capture if it did ?

trtzbass
I am not sure the monthly update thing would allow them to fully feel free to get their hands dirty and evolve the program past the DAW 1.0 status. And if they are doing that, I'd rather them concentrate on it than having to implement something they can achieve in a 30 days work cycle and keep the bigger stuff in the background.
All I'm saying is: I'd rather wait for the juicy stuff. Then again, maybe it's just me and my expectations which are indeed my own.
 

Many of the updates have taken months to do; they don't have to be completed within a 30-day cycle. Generally if there's a "light" update, it means that other things are happening in the background that are either in development or "not yet ready for prime time."
 
You'll also notice that some of the bigger updates are rolled out in stages. For example when Ripple Editing appeared it was mostly for audio. A later update added MIDI. The PRV updates also occurred as consecutive updates, as did comping. Finally, the updates that involve speed improvements may not have the "sex appeal" of new features, but my understanding is that some are relatively time-consuming because they affect multiple areas of the program, which means significant QC efforts. These kind of improvements tend to fly "under the radar" until the day comes when you need to, say, clone a track 30 times and you realize it happened in the blink of an eye.
 

I have mixed the same tune in Sonar, Cubase, Samplitude and S1 and Sonar sounded better. I had a few producer friends doing a blind test and they all concurred.

Not to derail the thread, but I too use multiple programs in the course of my gig, and obviously I prefer SONAR. I've heard several people who use multiple programs say they think SONAR sounds better. You mentioned mixing as sounding better, but do you find that also translates to the final two-track mix?

paulo
Personally I'd rather they spent all their time fixing what is known to be broken than spending it on things that aren't, like fiddling with menus like they have in the last couple of updates.
 
Have to admit that I'm struggling to understand the concept of, or use for, a pre-recording recording. How would it know when to start if you haven't told it that you want to record yet and what useful content would you capture if it did ?

The Pre record buffer captures the few seconds before you press the record button, meaning the software is permanently in record mode and attaches let's say an extra 5 seconds to whatever it is you are recording. Kinda like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_WocJDHtsI
I can tell you when that has been useful to me.
I was recording a guitarist's solo. Dude feels inspired and decides to play this super badass run before the punch in point. Now, because I was using a DAW with that feature, I could simply grab the left boundary of the audio clip and there it was.
Another situation: Sometimes singers want to reherarse a section of a tune. I normally record everything, but in an 8 hour session several things happen. In that specific situation, my singer did this fabulous ad lib no one was expecting, just when the executive producer decided he wanted to discuss a part so I was distracted.
As soon as I heard her, I pressed record but of course missed the first three second of it.
Again, the pre record buffer saved the situation and I had her full performance down. 
It is a little feature that I find useful more often than not

trtzbass
Vectorial sizable GUI,

don't hold your breath - if that was ever going to happen, skylight was the opportunity

Anderton

trtzbass
I am not sure the monthly update thing would allow them to fully feel free to get their hands dirty and evolve the program past the DAW 1.0 status. And if they are doing that, I'd rather them concentrate on it than having to implement something they can achieve in a 30 days work cycle and keep the bigger stuff in the background.
All I'm saying is: I'd rather wait for the juicy stuff. Then again, maybe it's just me and my expectations which are indeed my own.
 

Many of the updates have taken months to do; they don't have to be completed within a 30-day cycle. Generally if there's a "light" update, it means that other things are happening in the background that are either in development or "not yet ready for prime time."
 
You'll also notice that some of the bigger updates are rolled out in stages. For example when Ripple Editing appeared it was mostly for audio. A later update added MIDI. The PRV updates also occurred as consecutive updates, as did comping. Finally, the updates that involve speed improvements may not have the "sex appeal" of new features, but my understanding is that some are relatively time-consuming because they affect multiple areas of the program, which means significant QC efforts. These kind of improvements tend to fly "under the radar" until the day comes when you need to, say, clone a track 30 times and you realize it happened in the blink of an eye.
 

I have mixed the same tune in Sonar, Cubase, Samplitude and S1 and Sonar sounded better. I had a few producer friends doing a blind test and they all concurred.

Not to derail the thread, but I too use multiple programs in the course of my gig, and obviously I prefer SONAR. I've heard several people who use multiple programs say they think SONAR sounds better. You mentioned mixing as sounding better, but do you find that also translates to the final two-track mix?

Hey Craig, thanks for participating, it's a real pleasure meeting you (even if it's just 'in digital')
I welcome your insight and thank you for that; I truly am in two minds regarding the topic and I'm trying to form an opinion.
 
RE: sound
hell yes! Definitely. Now I know many might disagree with me saying all DAWs sound the same, etc; I can tell you my SPLAT mixdown was a little bit wider with a bit more "space" between the instrument and a slightly tighter bass response. The mix was ever so slightly more "in your face" Yes the pan law setting was the same for all the DAWs.
Might be placebo effect, but not for four different unbiased pro producers here in London.
I am only sorry I deleted the mixdowns as it was a couple years ago.

paulo
 
Have to admit that I'm struggling to understand the concept of, or use for, a pre-recording recording. How would it know when to start if you haven't told it that you want to record yet and what useful content would you capture if it did ?

At first I didn't see the practical reasons either, until I remembered the time I was punching in manually and I was daydreaming and cut the 1st word clean in half.
 
Or how about when you are just playing around and you do something you know you can't do again, by the time you think I wish I could have recorded that, push REC
 
EDIT:  This actually sounds like a really nice feature to have, Start warming up on your instrument, trying to find an idea for a new song, and when something sparks, hit the footswitch to start recording.
 
EDIT: 2  just looked to see if I was going to invent the usb footswitch, not a chance.  But I was thinking we could use two foot switches, one for good talent on the right, when you press softly, it pre-records the whole warm up performance, and the one on the left, with bad talent, when you stomp it, it deletes all tracks and shuts the computer down.

trtzbass
I truly am in two minds regarding the topic and I'm trying to form an opinion.

 
Well there are always features and bug fixes happening in parallel, so there's no real reason not to release the "simple" stuff when it's ready (and at least something's always ready during any given month). There are some people who don't update every month, but prefer to update every quarter or whatever, perhaps because they don't want to be bothered with updating for something they don't feel is crucial to what they do. They're willing to wait until something they really need comes along, and then they update everything at once.