Susan,
 
While I am not in any way connected to Cakewalk, it would be pretty foolish of the developers, and the company as a whole, to not monitor the feature requests forum regularly. I don't think that it matters that a request falls off the first page or not. I would assume that they are taking highly voted feature requests and adding them to a to do list for (possible) future releases. While I, and probably most of us, would love to know which requests Cakewalk is taking into consideration, I'm sure they don't want to commit to any particular request publicly due to the way the forum can get all twisted up with unrealistic delivery expectations.
 
I think it is a good thing to make intelligent feature requests for features that are available in other DAW's and cannot be performed in Sonar at all, or the workaround is so convoluted that it isn't worth the effort. If the request gets rated high enough, I am sure Cakewalk takes notice.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

Susan G
Hi-
 
I use R heavily and daily for non-musical work (transcriptions from spoken word recordings) because it's so highly customizable and I can integrate it tightly with Microsoft Word using AutoHotkey scripts. I realize this is a specific use case, but it’s my use case and there’s no way I could do what I can with R with SONAR.  I could detail some of it, but that would be really boring and has nothing to do with music…
 
However, R’s customizability is, IMO, both a strength and a weakness. There are SO MANY options & preferences that it’s easy to get lost in them.
 
OTOH, I think R’s Action List implementation is wonderful. It’s so easy to find actions and what keys are assigned to what. I don’t think SONAR’s keyboard shortcuts list is nearly as well designed.
 
I’ve also used FL Studio (formerly Fruity Loops) for almost as long as I’ve used Cakewalk products, not because I use loops—I don’t—but because I like being able to compose using the techniques it offers. When I stopped using SONAR before, the Matrix View couldn’t output to hardware synths. Now it can, so that’s good.
 
I paid full price for P5 when it first came out and that was long ago way discounted and finally abandoned. (I can, however, rewire it into 64-bit apps, thanks to this: http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/alipapa_p/63031495.html)
 
I’m not sorry I bought SONAR Platinum, but truth be told, that’s mostly because of the add-ins so far. I also like the way it looks, for the most part.
 
I have no confidence that user-requested Feature Requests will be implemented, nor that user-reported Bug Reports will be fixed. I’ll continue to report bugs, but only when the automatic Crash Reporter or whatever it’s called comes up. It would be nice if we’d hear something back from Cakewalk about those so we don’t feel like we’re sending it off into the ether, never to be heard from again.  Feature Requests fall off the first page radar so fast that it’s basically not worth it to even post them. IMO.
 
-Susan

Hi Susan -
Good post. Your absence as a long standing Cake/Sonar user, along with Dave Mod's was duly noted, as was your return. Both of you are expressing concerns about Sonar - either missing what are felt to be key features that the other Daws have - Most notably Reaper in your case, and Pro Tools in Dave's case, or continuing to have some bugs or "quirks" compared to how the other programs work.
There isn't a lot of patience on these forums for obvious trolls, and sometimes people who come across as trolls but aren't - don't get a fair shake when they come out with guns a blazin'.
I personally have lashed out way too quickly and regretted it later.
I'd be surprised if anyone sees either you or Dave that way ( as "trolls" or malcontents) - in fact quite the opposite. I personally welcome all your ideas and comparatives as necessary to help SONAR improve. You're both knowledgeable DAW users and have good insights into how something that works in another DAW could/should work in SONAR.
I hope you both will stick around, (persevere through the inevitable snipes), and continue to bring your ideas forward as Feature Request/Problem Reports. Understand that takes time and detracts from time to make music.
Thanks again.
<Edit to add> I share Dan's view that Cake will definitely mine the depths of both the Feature Request and the Problem Report sub-forums - maybe not as quickly as individual submitters might like, but it'll definitely help to move the program forward evolutionarily, if not revolutionarily.

Also, Susan - thanks for the link to the Rewire bridge. I had been using Rewire VST to convert Kinetic to a VST, which then had to be wrapped in Bitbridge. Worked ok but prefer not to have 32 bit plugins unless absolutely no option. I don't even have Project 5 installed anymore - Might have to hunt it down. Uggh...
On EDIT - (Well I found my P5-2 CD and I have my installers for 2.01, 2.5 and 2.51. (Does anyone recall if 2.51 is the last one)?
Nervous about gunking things up, so I am holding off for now. Is anyone (Susan, Swamptooth) really happy they (re-)installed P5?
Not sure it's worth the effort.
Cheers)

I love the macro implementation in the R-word.  For example, one of the things that I learned to appreciate in PT11 was the one key clip editing shortcuts.  Trim to beginning, Trim to End, Fade to beginning, Fade to end.  The R-word doesn't have these as part of their menu system as well but I noticed that the Actions list had these commands and it would be easy to set up your own hot keys for them.
 
But there are times when I'm in PT that I miss a command that SONAR has.  Groove clips for example.  In PT you have to duplicate a clip over and over again whereas in SONAR (once you've created a Groove Clip) you can simple stretch it out over a period of time.
 
Markers are more powerful in PT because it's easier to get to them.  But I don't see how Sonar would ever implement the same sort of thing because of two words - legacy compatibility.  I think all DAWs are locked into certain behaviors for the same reason and now they can't change.
 
But one thing I will grant the Cakewalk team is that they DO listen - a lot more than I believe the other DAW developers do.  I know they hear us because I saw two things change in the Console view (FX Rack and extended Sends).  If I could only get them to implement another track size (Normal - Medium - Narrow), I would call the Console view - "DONE."   I know a lot of the size constraints are due to touch screen implementation and that's a direction that the CW team has decided that sets them apart.  
 
The R-word team listen too but it seems if you get their attention with a request they take whatever suggestion you have, run it through a green light session, add a hundred variations on your theme and then implement a three tiered menu system to cover it all.  Haha.
 
It's good to be back among you all and good to see Susan back as well.  I was always here lurking and waiting for SONAR to tack back in my direction.

Brando
Also, Susan - thanks for the link to the Rewire bridge. I had been using Rewire VST to convert Kinetic to a VST, which then had to be wrapped in Bitbridge. Worked ok but prefer not to have 32 bit plugins unless absolutely no option. I don't even have Project 5 installed anymore - Might have to hunt it down. Uggh...
On EDIT - (Well I found my P5-2 CD and I have my installers for 2.01, 2.5 and 2.51. (Does anyone recall if 2.51 is the last one)?
Nervous about gunking things up, so I am holding off for now. Is anyone (Susan, Swamptooth) really happy they (re-)installed P5?
Not sure it's worth the effort.
Cheers)

Hi Brando-
 
Yes, 2.51 is the last P5 update. Installing it didn't gunk anything up on my Win 8.1 system. When I first installed it lo those many years ago, I couldn't make heads nor tails of it and that ticked me off (with myself), since it wasn't cheap (initially--over time, it definitely was). The first version didn't even provide for hardware synths, but they rectified that in like 1.5 or something, IIRC.
 
I was motivated to take another look because I like the Performance Mode in FLS, but you can't simultaneously record while you're playing back the Performance.  You can mix the two with P5. I use pattern-based sequencing such as what FLS and P5 offer when I'm composing to easily try out different ideas. I just find it easier to experiment that way than with a linear sequencer.
 
Is it worth the effort to re-install P5?  Honestly, I don't know. I guess it depends on what you want to use it for. I'm glad I did, if only because I get (most of) it now. I still don't know how much I'll actually use it. I *can* say that that ReWire 32 to 64 app works great, though!
 
-Susan
 
 

dcumpian
Susan,
 
While I am not in any way connected to Cakewalk, it would be pretty foolish of the developers, and the company as a whole, to not monitor the feature requests forum regularly. I don't think that it matters that a request falls off the first page or not. I would assume that they are taking highly voted feature requests and adding them to a to do list for (possible) future releases. While I, and probably most of us, would love to know which requests Cakewalk is taking into consideration, I'm sure they don't want to commit to any particular request publicly due to the way the forum can get all twisted up with unrealistic delivery expectations.
 
I think it is a good thing to make intelligent feature requests for features that are available in other DAW's and cannot be performed in Sonar at all, or the workaround is so convoluted that it isn't worth the effort. If the request gets rated high enough, I am sure Cakewalk takes notice.
 
Regards,
Dan
 

Hi Dan-
 
I agree. Saying I have "no confidence" was harsh, and not really how I feel. I have "some confidence," I guess, but it really does seem like FRs generally generate some interest when they're new and then when they fall off the first page or two, they don't get any more votes unless someone resurrects them. Since it's "bad etiquette" to bump your own post, that's pretty much that.
 
I really have no idea how CW prioritizes FRs, but they have to fit in with their overall plan, not just be "popular," I'd think. I only learned recently how the "star" system works. I thought "1" was "mild approbation," not "genuinely feel that the Bakers time would be better spent on something else."
 
-Susan

Dave Modisette
I love the macro implementation in the R-word.  For example, one of the things that I learned to appreciate in PT11 was the one key clip editing shortcuts.  Trim to beginning, Trim to End, Fade to beginning, Fade to end.  The R-word doesn't have these as part of their menu system as well but I noticed that the Actions list had these commands and it would be easy to set up your own hot keys for them.
 
But there are times when I'm in PT that I miss a command that SONAR has.  Groove clips for example.  In PT you have to duplicate a clip over and over again whereas in SONAR (once you've created a Groove Clip) you can simple stretch it out over a period of time.
 
Markers are more powerful in PT because it's easier to get to them.  But I don't see how Sonar would ever implement the same sort of thing because of two words - legacy compatibility.  I think all DAWs are locked into certain behaviors for the same reason and now they can't change.
 
But one thing I will grant the Cakewalk team is that they DO listen - a lot more than I believe the other DAW developers do.  I know they hear us because I saw two things change in the Console view (FX Rack and extended Sends).  If I could only get them to implement another track size (Normal - Medium - Narrow), I would call the Console view - "DONE."   I know a lot of the size constraints are due to touch screen implementation and that's a direction that the CW team has decided that sets them apart.  
 
The R-word team listen too but it seems if you get their attention with a request they take whatever suggestion you have, run it through a green light session, add a hundred variations on your theme and then implement a three tiered menu system to cover it all.  Haha.
 
It's good to be back among you all and good to see Susan back as well.  I was always here lurking and waiting for SONAR to tack back in my direction.

Hi Dave-
 
Good to see you here and thanks for the welcome back, too!
 
Macros in R, yes, huge for me, and it's *so easy* to build them and to assign a shortcut and see which are already assigned to what.
 
And then you have to deal with the menus and preferences and yes, "a hundred variations" on the theme, and your eyes glaze over even reading them all...
 
-Susan

So Dorchester cometh.
 
Other than the fix for the Control Module, I have no interest in it.
 
-Susan

Susan G
So Dorchester cometh.
 
Other than the fix for the Control Module, I have no interest in it.
 
-Susan

I was very underwhelmed with the initial release, so I didn't bother and decided to see how it panned out. 1/3rd of the way through I still see nothing that is making me think of it as a worthwhile upgrade. I also don't buy into all the happy clapping over fixing things that didn't work properly as that should be a given, not a privilege of membership IMHO. I'm hoping that CW will make me change my mind by the end of the 12 month period, but they have a way to go yet. X3 will do me fine for now.

ston
I don't see why this forum won't be as good a place as any really most people seem pretty mature and level headed  

lol