Hmmm seems that there are several "samplers" already built into SP, how many do you need?

Anderton
Okay, what if I proposed to Cakewalk an integrated, sampling-based instrument something like the following:
 
1. You drag in an Acidized Groove clip.
2. The instrument automatically slices it at the transients defined by the Groove Clip.
3. You could drag any slice to any of 16 pads (if it was just a standard WAV file, you could split at transients using AudioSnap, then drag them in like Alexey mentioned with the TX16W...not quite as "automatic," but it would work).
4. You could assign those pads to a 4 x 4 MPC-style pad hardware controller if you wanted, or trigger them at the instrument if you didn't have a suitable controller. 
 
As extras, it would be cool if could stack multiples samples on each pad, change pad pitch/level/pan, and have separate audio outputs for each pad (not that difficult, a lot of samplers and drum machines let you have individual outputs for each sound).
 
It would be even cooler if you could have a step sequencer built into the instrument itself, or click on something that opens up SONAR's step sequencer if you wanted to take things further...
 
Seems to me this would do what a lot of what people want.

 
That would be cool, and make the MCP pad touch virtual, too.

Anderton

azslow3
Playing a bit with TX16 and following some proposals in this thread:
* I have enabled AudioSnap, detected transients and pressed "split". So I see N clips.

Next, turn off AudioSnap, select all the split clips, and choose Clips > Apply Trimming. Now when you drag them, the clip boundaries will be retained.

Thanks! I somehow was always using bouncing...

Anderton

forkol

Anderton

bladetragic
@forkol
 
Well stated.  The stair/elevator analogy was spot on.

I disagree. It's not that there's the choice of either you use a particular elevator or you use the stairs. You can use the VST elevator instead of either one.

No, in this case, now you want me to pay to install and use my own elevator, or just be content using the stairs, when other buildings the same height on the same block have a operable elevator that I can use without extra cost.

 
This is why analogies are worthless. The reason why other programs have particular functionalities at "no extra cost" is because they're not spending money on functionality that SONAR includes at no extra cost. You could just as easily go into the forums for other programs and ask why they force users to spend money on vocal alignment, linear-phase mastering tools, console emulation, tape emulation, multitrack REX file players, etc. After all, SONAR has them at no extra cost...so shouldn't they have those features at no extra cost? How much should companies be willing to raise their price point to satisfy every possible group of users?
 

Ironically, going by the train of thought that many seem to have in this thread, Cakewalk should have never bothered to develop and include those tools either b/c there are already third party options available.  They should've spent their development time and resources on other things instead.

Anderton
Okay, what if I proposed to Cakewalk an integrated, sampling-based instrument something like the following:
 
1. You drag in an Acidized Groove clip.
2. The instrument automatically slices it at the transients defined by the Groove Clip.
3. You could drag any slice to any of 16 pads (if it was just a standard WAV file, you could split at transients using AudioSnap, then drag them in like Alexey mentioned with the TX16W...not quite as "automatic," but it would work).
4. You could assign those pads to a 4 x 4 MPC-style pad hardware controller if you wanted, or trigger them at the instrument if you didn't have a suitable controller. 
 
As extras, it would be cool if could stack multiples samples on each pad, change pad pitch/level/pan, and have separate audio outputs for each pad (not that difficult, a lot of samplers and drum machines let you have individual outputs for each sound).
 
It would be even cooler if you could have a step sequencer built into the instrument itself, or click on something that opens up SONAR's step sequencer if you wanted to take things further...
 
Seems to me this would do what a lot of what people want.

 
sounds like the old DR-008, only tricked out....add rex functionality and an option to manually slice samples and that could work.

trgtdron
Hmmm seems that there are several "samplers" already built into SP, how many do you need?

 
Most of the so-called 'samplers' are either DXi's and/or 32-bit only, and haven't seen any real updates in many years.  You could ask the same question for any of the other types of VST/VSTi's provided by Sonar.
 

bladetragic

Anderton

forkol

Anderton

bladetragic
@forkol
 
Well stated.  The stair/elevator analogy was spot on.

I disagree. It's not that there's the choice of either you use a particular elevator or you use the stairs. You can use the VST elevator instead of either one.

No, in this case, now you want me to pay to install and use my own elevator, or just be content using the stairs, when other buildings the same height on the same block have a operable elevator that I can use without extra cost.

 
This is why analogies are worthless. The reason why other programs have particular functionalities at "no extra cost" is because they're not spending money on functionality that SONAR includes at no extra cost. You could just as easily go into the forums for other programs and ask why they force users to spend money on vocal alignment, linear-phase mastering tools, console emulation, tape emulation, multitrack REX file players, etc. After all, SONAR has them at no extra cost...so shouldn't they have those features at no extra cost? How much should companies be willing to raise their price point to satisfy every possible group of users?
 

Ironically, going by the train of thought that many seem to have in this thread, Cakewalk should have never bothered to develop and include those tools either b/c there are already third party options available.  They should've spent their development time and resources on other things instead.

Let me explain how this works.
 
First, it's an incorrect assumption that all third party options are the same, or cost the same amount to develop no matter who develops them.
 
Second, when you have a technology platform like SONAR, Cakewalk often develops technology where ancillary products "fall out" of that technology. Therefore they can be implemented with little cost or risk whereas if they had to create something from the ground up, it would indeed not be worth doing.
 
Third, there obviously is a major difference between being able to get a free sampler that does what most people need so why develop it, compared to a vocal alignment tool that if you didn't get it with the program would have cost $300. 
 
Now let's get to the heart of why the premise "They should've spent their development time and resources on other things instead" is flawed.
 
There's more than one DAW. They all try to gain a competitive edge that relates to their target audience. Therefore, their goal is to cultivate what's called unique selling points (USP) that are hopefully compelling to their target audience.
 
At the time Cakewalk included vocal alignment, the least expensive equivalent was $300. Cakewalk did a scaled-down version that did a lot of what the "big boy" did, for a lot less money - a USP that added value to the package (without costing more than the upgrade itself). And of course, you can buy a linear-phase EQ from Waves for $150 but AFAIK it doesn't have mid-side processing. Come to think of it, I can't think of any DAW offhand that has linear-phase EQ with mid-side processing and linear-phase multiband compression. They extend SONAR's capability as a mastering platform. Another USP...especially if someone knows anything about mid-side processing, or has to prepare releases for vinyl.
 
Cakewalk's ProChannel is yet another USP. Other DAWs have channel strips, but I know of no other DAW that lets you create your own channel strip mixer architecture that's fully integrated with the DAW (i.e., not dependent on standard plug-ins). In fact the ProChannel was mentioned as the very first item in the article by the Mac guy who gave four good reasons to get excited to SONAR, and bought a membership.
 
To enhance that USP even further, note that the Tape and Console Emulation are ProChannel modules that are integrated into the program. This means you can use techniques like Quick Grouping to vary all their parameters at once across all channels - almost essential for console emulation - and include them easily in templates. Also, the only other program I know of with a dedicated multi-channel REX file player is Reason (and Dr. Octorex came out after SONAR had that capability anyway, so the point is moot), and I don't think people are going to buy Reason just for that. And I didn't even mention the Drum Replacer. Sure, you can buy one - but it won't integrate as tightly with SONAR because it won't be based on ARA. Another USP.
 
So no - you cannot duplicate what Cakewalk did by buying third-party plug-ins.
 
When it makes sense for Cakewalk to use third party solutions instead of develop them, obviously they do. They didn't create their own pitch correction, amp sim, convolution reverb, or create a full-fledged drum module; they licensed Melodyne, TH3, ReMatrix, and AD2 respectively. 
 
I understand that most of the users here don't want to think about the realities of business and since they just want to make music, they see everything through the lens of their personal wants. But the reality is that all DAW manufacturers have to make choices. 

Anderton
I understand that most of the users here don't want to think about the realities of business and since they just want to make music, they see everything through the lens of their personal wants. But the reality is that all DAW manufacturers have to make choices. 

I know you suggested that beats oriented "features" are on the way, but between your "heavy on the effects" (and utilities) post above and the quote below, I'm left with the impression that Cakewalk has lost interest in developing instruments. I know Rapture and Z3TA+ got major updates, but Cakewalk's beats oriented instruments have been stagnating for quite some time now. I'd like to know why, but maybe we'll never know.
 
It makes sense if Cakewalk's primary focus is taking away from Avid's dollar share and not competing with the likes of Ableton and FL Studio.

Anderton

The recording software market is a declining market. Because it’s not being fueled by a lot of new users, taking away overall market share from other companies is another way to fuel growth. But, it’s not easy to get people to switch.

I can’t give a lot of stats because the material from market research firms is proprietary. But I can give some generalities. Avid has about five times the dollar share of any other DAW company in this industry. So for any company that wants to take dollar share, Avid is the most logical target because that’s where the dollar share is. Everyone else is fighting it out at a much lower level, and there are more similarities than differences in dollar share among those contenders than you might think. The good news for Cakewalk is that in a declining market, SONAR has managed to hold its own.

telecharge

Anderton
I understand that most of the users here don't want to think about the realities of business and since they just want to make music, they see everything through the lens of their personal wants. But the reality is that all DAW manufacturers have to make choices. 

I know you suggested that beats oriented "features" are on the way, but between your "heavy on the effects" (and utilities) post above and the quote below, I'm left with the impression that Cakewalk has lost interest in developing instruments. I know Rapture and Z3TA+ got major updates, but Cakewalk's beats oriented instruments have been stagnating for quite some time now. I'd like to know why, but maybe we'll never know.
 
It makes sense if Cakewalk's primary focus is taking away from Avid's dollar share and not competing with the likes of Ableton and FL Studio.

 
You'd have to ask Cakewalk what their primary focus is. Please remember I'm giving my insights on the industry as a whole, and how it works. For example I said "So for any company that wants to take dollar share, Avid is the most logical target because that’s where the dollar share is." I didn't say Cakewalk's focus is to take dollar share from Avid. They've never said anything to me that would indicate it is - or isn't - their focus. 
 
Think about this, then extrapolate ahead five years...there are companies like Zynaptiq making incredible, but very CPU-hungry, plug-ins that will bring a DAW to its knees. Which provides more of a contribution to the SONAR community - duplicating Zynaptiq's efforts, or inventing plug-in load balancing so there's a host that's actually capable of running lots of these really cool plug-ins?
 
It's very important to remember that SONAR, Pro Tools, Logic, Live, etc, are hosts. Personally, I want these companies to devote their efforts to creating a great host, then letting me decide how I'm going to customize it for my particular needs. Remember that like the "staff view" people and the "beats" people, I have my own desires of what I want a program like SONAR to be - which is to be a great, versatile, stable host. 

That's a personal preference, but it's just as valid as people who'd rather see more instruments and don't care how many plug-ins SONAR can run. In any event, never rule out anything when it comes to Cakewalk. This forum is littered with a zillion predictions that were so far off the mark they didn't even know where the mark was. 
 
To quote Yoda, "Always in motion is the future." Let's just leave it at that   
 
 

Anderton

bladetragic
Ironically, going by the train of thought that many seem to have in this thread, Cakewalk should have never bothered to develop and include those tools either b/c there are already third party options available.  They should've spent their development time and resources on other things instead.

Now let's get to the heart of why the premise "They should've spent their development time and resources on other things instead" is flawed.

I think you mistook my comment for my own personal thoughts.  I was giving an example of how the logic that some users have can be applied to other areas as well.  I don't personally share that same train of thought.