Maybe you all can correct my possibly incorrect conclusions.
 
First of all, I consider the original Rapture to be as close as a work of genius in a SW synthesizer as I have ever seen. It is compact, represents a good compromise between power and usability, and it sounds excellent. Also, I can use my own waveforms.  I am not upgrading at this time, for the following reasons:
 
1) I am not a live performer, so the additional features aimed at live performance, for all their potential benefits for a live performer, are of little real interest to me.
 
2) There are no new synthesis features, at least as far as I can tell. (Presumably, no existing ones have been removed.)
 
3) The vector mixer cannot be controlled by an envelope(s) (like a Wavestation, or Alchemy, for example) in a straightforward manner. If this feature was provided, I would seriously consider upgrading. This is the one feature I really wish the original Rapture had. I know that I could automate a facsimile of this feature, but that would not be part of the patch.
 
4) The replacement of numerical entry with knobs seems to have forced the instrument to implement a more numerous set of panels, thus complicating the interface.
 
5) I just watched the demo of the mixer. In it, features that I recall already exist are presented as "new." For example, element chaining was demonstrated as a new feature. If I recall correctly, the original Rapture has this feature, supposedly, to reduce CPU loading. Each element having two effects, and there being a set of global effects, seems to have been presented as new, and the original Rapture has these features as well. At least, I have been using features that I think are identical to these new features.
 
6) Since I don't classify the patches that I create into traditional instrument categories, I do not find the new browser to be of a major benefit to me. In fact, I would bet that the new browser will force me to store "user" patches in a specific location along with the provided patch content.
 
In summary, if Rapture Pro implemented a vector mixing envelope feature, and additional synthesis features (e.g. waveform symmetry or phase modulation), I would upgrade. But since it does not, the original Rapture still provides a nice set of cohesive features for me.
 
Please correct any of my conclusions of they are incorrect. I don't want to eventually regret missing out on introductory pricing.
 
thanks
 
Keith

3) There are X, Y and Inertia automation parameters for the Vector mixer

(1) I'm a "live performance in the kinda studio guy," so this appeals to me. It's also why Mix Recall appeals to me because I see mixing as a performance...but that's another issue.
 
(2) Based on my limited work with Rappro that seems to be the case for Rapture, but not with Dimension Pro, whose patches can now take advantage of far more advanced features. There are many more Dimension Pro users than Rapture users so this is a big deal if you used Dim Pro a lot.
 
(5) Again, Dim Pro couldn't do this kind of thing so it will be new to most users.
 
I did audio engine tests and as much as I love Rapture, Rapture Pro did much better on low frequency sine waves. In particular, Rapture sounded like it had quantization noise on the decays and also generated some grit on the sine waves. Rapture Pro doesn't do that.
 
I do agree 100% Rapture was a masterpiece. I've often said if it never had existed and was introduced today, it would be hailed as brilliant and innovative. However, Rappro's better audio quality ended the debate for me, so I've had a rapprochement with the new instrument In fact I had been working on a new instrument for Rapture and while it's compatible, I'm going to recommend strongly that people load it into Rappro if they have it. The difference is significant.

I think you were wise. This coming from a guy who upgraded immediately. I'm leary of posting this as I'm not interested in flaming, just sharing an honest opinion. Your opinions for not upgrading appear to be well founded. At this point I see very little difference from the component synths. The browser is just OK. It seems that those people who got a little further into the synth are finding various problems with sample location. I've been toying around with it since purchase and soundwise there's just nothing novel or outstanding here. I think cakewalk could have done a lot better perhaps in hiring a top notch sound designer to really show off what the synth can do. Instead, in my opinion only, the rapture pro library is very pedestrian( I'm being nice ). In addition the size of some of the patches is completely ridiculous for the quality of the patch.  For comparison, I also own Komplete 9 ultimate, all the AAS synths, the arturia synths, zeta+2, the Garritan library, UVI Orchestral Suite, Korg M1 and Wavestation VSTs, Wusik 7, Kong Audio Chinee Orchestra, and the Real Guitars in addition to various drum libraries, XLN Audio, Jamstix 3, and Spark. So I guess my expectations were higher than they should be. I was sort of expecting  more of a cross between Kontakt and Omnisphere and that's not what I got. I was very disappointed. Please I'm just trying to express my opinion, I've been with cakewalk from the very beginning( yes, I'm that old) and don't want to start a flame war. Cakewalk needs to step up here and make the necessary changes to the synth and provide us with some good sound design examples. Right now I'm just not sure the program is more than the sum of its parts.

I'm no super user. I think there is a lot of bridge for regular humans to learn to leverage the complex tool.

I also think it is substantially more efficient.

A couple things played in this for me. 1) It seems the user expectations have grown into "patch, patch, patch..." (and this is okay) and 2) I will not pay to be a beta tester again. If a program comes "online" with significant issues, that is how I will remember it. "Descrambling an installation" ranks way up there for me as well in the "never again" category. Every synth I own has been patched one or two times (or upgraded) at most, so I was not expecting the "patch each month" program.
 
It is sad to me how internet access (and assumed "infinite bandwidth") has trained software users to lower expectations for "patches." Years ago, the sale of a product was (often) the only interaction between a customer and a vendor (and still is for some actually).

Leave it 3 months before you upgrade. It's not good enough right now. I reckon though by that time it will rock... Whether the discount will be still available by then is another thing... You takes your choice.. If you buy now it's an investment...

Doktor Avalanche
Leave it 3 months before you upgrade. It's not good enough right now. I reckon though by that time it will rock...

I basically agree with this.
 
My experience was ...
 
install 1 - Program glitches/freezes when switching to certain patches forcing a restart of Sonar. Lots of patches don't work.
install 2 - Program no longer glitches/freezes, but lots of patches don't work. Also in CCC Rapture Pro (Win) is Red as if not installed despite following Cakewalk's uninstall/reinstall email directions to the letter.
install 3 - Same as install 2.
 
The Rapture Pro does seem somewhat more efficient than Rapture. It is not as easy for me to cause the app to glitch/freeze just by playing it hard.

A postscript on the audio engine thing...after checking for an instrument's compatibility with Rapture, Rapture LE, and Rapture Pro, I'm not seeing the same kind of difference in the audio engine. However, I have done multiple revisions/tweaks to the original samples and SFZ files that make up the instrument...I'm not sure what there was about the original files that caused the difference, but the difference is no longer there.

This thing isn't anywhere near production ready. It is a serious bummer.