azslow3
The number of views always correlate with provoking title and the fact some users keep it "on top". Either that number correlates with the number of potentially interested users is an open question.

 
I'm assuming you meant "Whether that number...."  and I never said anything about the thread indicating the number of potentially interested users.  So I'm not really sure what you're talking about.  I assumed this thread would get dismissed fairly quickly, but there has been more back and forth discussion than I anticipated.
 

azslow3
Apart from one interesting link, the moto of this thread:
a) "other DAWs" have it... my drumset does not need 88 keys because my piano has them. Also adding them so "a keyboard player choose to buy these drums" sound like a strange advice for me. Making Sonar DJ/Beat oriented means much more then adding one sampler plug-in, and just adding that one sampler plug-in will not improve Sonar as a DAW. If we speak about Sonar as a package, CW has declared that only new "core" plug-ins will be included, the rest are payed "add-ons".

 
Why would a drum set have 88 keys?  I don't get how this analogy correlates at all.  A DAW IS expected to work with samples.  A drum set is not expected to have 88 keys.  Sonar advertises itself as "The most complete music production package" right at the top of the Sonar web page.    A drum set does not advertise itself as an instrument for keyboard players.  Nor, is a drum set really a competing product to a keyboard.  Sonar is in direct competition with "other DAWs", so lacking functionality that your competitors have is an important issue. I really don't get what you're trying to say here.
 

azslow3
b) "third party plug-ins are not the same as CW plug-ins"... If you check precisely, most bundled plug-ins (including "build-in" ) are not developed by CW (or not by people which are currently working there). That is not a secret, check file names and "about"s. So the difference is only in "label".

 
The point is, they continue to find ways to include the same types of tools over and over even though there is a plethora of them already included and vast third party options.  Who knows, maybe they'll find a third party to develop a decent included sampler.
 

azslow3
c) "that will attract more users"... till deep marketing research is done, also using resources/man power/foreseen development costs into account (and that part is unknown for anyone outside CW), such statements have no meaning.
 

 
I started this thread saying this was my opinion based on my experiences and encounters with lots of producers/musicians, and being in a lot of different studio and music creating environments.

LJB
As an aide, kinda, and IMO, the reason why most film scores and jingles sound so lifeless these days is EXACTLY because of Kontakt. No one makes their own unique samples anymore - I can spot all the libraries time and again whilst trying to watch even some pretty high-end films and TV programs. It's the same reason Hip Hop and Rap artists should steer clear of Fruity Loops etc. You borrow from the collective pool, you're going to sound generic...

Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vfqkvwW2fs
 
 

I somewhat agree about lack of creativity, but I think that's more about the individual.  Not really about the tools.  To me, the tools are just a means to get our creative ideas out.  I know hip-hop and rap artists/producers who make the same old sounding stuff with FL Studio, but I also know some people who make some incredible stuff with it as well.

Sure, it's ALWAYS up to the individual. I just think amazingly powerful plugins like Kotakt are also amazingly sturdy crutches :O)

bladetragic

azslow3
The number of views always correlate with provoking title and the fact some users keep it "on top". Either that number correlates with the number of potentially interested users is an open question.

I'm assuming you meant "Whether that number...."

You are right, after checking several discussions in Google I have understood the difference

  and I never said anything about the thread indicating the number of potentially interested users.  So I'm not really sure what you're talking about.  I assumed this thread would get dismissed fairly quickly, but there has been more back and forth discussion than I anticipated.

My point was in the first sentence. More strait: (a) your subject is aggressive (as you could read, I am not the only one with such opinion) (b) every new post keep this thread "on top". Threads which these 2 properties are usually growing fast (in posts and views), completely independent from the subject...
 

azslow3
Apart from one interesting link, the moto of this thread:
a) "other DAWs" have it... my drumset does not need 88 keys because my piano has them. Also adding them so "a keyboard player choose to buy these drums" sound like a strange advice for me. Making Sonar DJ/Beat oriented means much more then adding one sampler plug-in, and just adding that one sampler plug-in will not improve Sonar as a DAW. If we speak about Sonar as a package, CW has declared that only new "core" plug-ins will be included, the rest are payed "add-ons".

Why would a drum set have 88 keys?  I don't get how this analogy correlates at all.  A DAW IS expected to work with samples.  A drum set is not expected to have 88 keys.  Sonar advertises itself as "The most complete music production package" right at the top of the Sonar web page.    A drum set does not advertise itself as an instrument for keyboard players.  Nor, is a drum set really a competing product to a keyboard.  Sonar is in direct competition with "other DAWs", so lacking functionality that your competitors have is an important issue. I really don't get what you're trying to say here.

From the Roland site (for TD-50): "V-Drums redefined: ultimate expression for pro performance and studio work". "to play drums" is not written, but assumed. I guess there are many users of Sonar which do not create new samples every day (if at all). Most discussions in this forum are about mixing/mastering, where Sonar tries to be "most complete", adding related tools. There is no claim Sonar pretend to be the best for everything. Different programs target different workflows. Based on that, I think Sonar is not in direct competition with DJ/Loop oriented programs/DAWs, that was also discussed several times.
 

azslow3
b) "third party plug-ins are not the same as CW plug-ins"... If you check precisely, most bundled plug-ins (including "build-in" ) are not developed by CW (or not by people which are currently working there). That is not a secret, check file names and "about"s. So the difference is only in "label".

The point is, they continue to find ways to include the same types of tools over and over even though there is a plethora of them already included and vast third party options.  Who knows, maybe they'll find a third party to develop a decent included sampler.

They update/add tools which they (CW) think should be added/updated. As I have just mentioned, they targeting mixing/mastering. And to keep things up to date, they are forced to do what they do.
 
No one wrote in this thread that having some sampler bundled with Sonar is a bad idea. But there is a big difference between "nice to have" and "Sonar needs it".
 

azslow3
c) "that will attract more users"... till deep marketing research is done, also using resources/man power/foreseen development costs into account (and that part is unknown for anyone outside CW), such statements have no meaning.
 

I started this thread saying this was my opinion based on my experiences and encounters with lots of producers/musicians, and being in a lot of different studio and music creating environments.

Does that means that you know many producers/musicians which will SWITCH to Sonar in case there will be CW sampler plug-in?

My question would be: what features should the "SONAR sampler" have?  What should it do that Kontakt or Rapture or whatever don't do (apart from be "free")?

KPerry
My question would be: what features should the "SONAR sampler" have?  What should it do that Kontakt or Rapture or whatever don't do (apart from be "free")?

I think it would be really cool if it looked like this
http://www.pluginboutique...ment/1554-Transfuser-2

My main thing is how ?
where is Sonar supposed to come up with this Sampler ?
are they to make one from scratch ? use a 3rd party and pay a royalty fee ?
 
it might seem simple to do but designing any kind of plug in, to work well within Sonar isn't just a matter of throwing together a GUI with some buttons.
 
I think there is a little more to it than just "here is your Sampler'

chuckebaby
My main thing is how ?
where is Sonar supposed to come up with this Sampler ?
are they to make one from scratch ? use a 3rd party and pay a royalty fee ?
 
it might seem simple to do but designing any kind of plug in, to work well within Sonar isn't just a matter of throwing together a GUI with some buttons.
 
I think there is a little more to it than just "here is your Sampler'

 
Not really, they already have a few integrated tools that could just be tweaked to give more options.  RXP could easily be updated to include looping options and a few extra must haves in a good sampler.  Also SFZ could too, but RXP is already setup a little better for sampling than SFZ is. But then there is also Dropzone, which is their designated sampler.  I've never really looked into it much, but maybe to make it as expected just a couple tweaks are needed.  I know Rapture is included and it is a very good option for a sampler, however it being outdated by it's newer bigger brother, Rapture Pro, it's not going to get an update ever again, however Rapture Pro could be tweaked to have more looping options as well.
 
All in all it would be nice to see since they even advertise it right on the main Sonar product page that it Sonar is good for Re-sampling and the first genre they recommend Sonar for is EDM which would HUGELY benefit from even just an expected sampler 

chuckebaby
My main thing is how ?
where is Sonar supposed to come up with this Sampler ?
are they to make one from scratch ? use a 3rd party and pay a royalty fee ?
 
it might seem simple to do but designing any kind of plug in, to work well within Sonar isn't just a matter of throwing together a GUI with some buttons.
 
I think there is a little more to it than just "here is your Sampler'

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but one would hope the bakers could reuse code from Beatscape, Scratchpad (iOS), or even Kinetic -- as well as RXP ,SFZ, Drop Zone, and Cyclone mentioned previously. It seems to me the pieces are all there.
 
I find myself wondering how much the departure of René G. Ceballos (the rgc of rgc:audio that Cakewalk purchased in 2005) has affected the direction of Cakewalk? He had his hands on a lot of this stuff.

The OP has a valid point.
 
For a long time, CW has advertised Sonar with the word RECORDING as the paramount activity, and based upon the program that may or may not be accurate based upon your view and perception.
However, when CW makes a leap and state that Sonar is now "The most complete music production package", and do not have an included sampler, then sorry, from my perspective CW looks at best out of touch with the market and the competition.