I assume some of you haven't been in any third party forums and mentioned Sonar as a side topic, you may be surprised at the response, often the "bug" word comes out. My natural response was to defend it as well, I would say... yeah but it's getting and has got a lot better, which it had, but I knew only too well what the problems were.
 
Regardless what some of you are saying is probably true because bugs was only part of it.

Marketing was not delivering what users want was one thing (of course a lot of people here in these forums would simply lap up whatever Cakewalk and the evangelists threw at them).

Probably the most important thing was not delivering what potential new customers wanted, and failing to sell it to a new generation.
 
Just my opinion in this discussion.

stratman70
Well, I do not understand why the people that are trashing Sonar are here at all? Is it to convince folks like me and many others that we should MOVE away from Sonar. We shouldn't care about the DAW we like and use everyday because YOU have issues?  Why should that matter to me?
It doesn't because I DO NOT HAVE ISSUES WITH SONAR. 
 
There are so many here ( the majority by far) bummed that Sonar will no longer be developed and more importantly will they really have a way to reinstall the programs THEY WANT TO USE. See the key is they (being me and many others) want to use. 
 
If I had all the issues with Sonar that some keep on harping about and had already moved on to another daw I would NOT be here posting. 
Whats your point? Is it to tell us we are stupid or amateurs because we use this program but do not find it unbearable and cumbersome? 
We are idiots for not moving on to a new daw now or even before?
I see NO other reason for you folks to be here in this conversation. Oh wait, you spent $$$ and time on Sonar. Your entitled. Entitled to What?  To what? Most of us are worried about what is happening. You are just here to trash it. So?

You really need to stop taking things so personally and stop perceiving criticism of Sonar as criticism against those who use it. This kind of thing has always been a problem on the forum. Anyone who had serious issues with the program had to face a constant barrage of "it's your fault, not Sonar's," or "you seem to be here just to bash it." Interpreting criticism of Sonar as a personal attack against those who use it is, I'll admit, a new level of irrational. 
 
I don't know why you seem to feel that criticism of Sonar doesn't belong here. This is a free flowing discussion about the program and its future - there are going to be those who plan to use Sonar to the death, and those who feel like they should invest in another DAW. Both camps are free to give their reasons why. You're not going to see a discussion like this without the pros and cons of Sonar appearing as a side topic. Regardless of what you experience with your Sonar workflow, the program has some very real, tangible problems which are serious enough to cause loss of work, and anyone considering whether or not to use a completely unsupported DAW with no forthcoming bug fixes should take them into consideration. Regardless of whether or not you think talking about them is "trashing" the program. 
 
 
 

dubdisciple
The bug thing is a red herring. Cakewalk did not fail because of bugs. The list of bugs for most programs is likely to be as long. The fact that people most likely to have compiled such bug lists are paying customers kinda negates such a concept. My friends and associates that did not bother with Sonar were completely unaware of most of that list because they were uninterested.

They might not have been aware of any specifics on that bug list, but to be fair, a program can have a reputation as being buggy without the specifics of it bugs being common knowledge. If a program has a reputation for being especially buggy, what that generally means is that it's generally considered to be buggier than its competitors. And a reputation like that will almost certainly influence sales to some degree. 

This (both posts) ^^
 
Not sure how anybody can "trash" something that is already dead and done, this is the obituary.
But I digress.

sharke

dubdisciple
The bug thing is a red herring. Cakewalk did not fail because of bugs. The list of bugs for most programs is likely to be as long. The fact that people most likely to have compiled such bug lists are paying customers kinda negates such a concept. My friends and associates that did not bother with Sonar were completely unaware of most of that list because they were uninterested.

They might not have been aware of any specifics on that bug list, but to be fair, a program can have a reputation as being buggy without the specifics of it bugs being common knowledge. If a program has a reputation for being especially buggy, what that generally means is that it's generally considered to be buggier than its competitors. And a reputation like that will almost certainly influence sales to some degree. 

Too my knowledge cakewalk did not have that reputation more so than any other product. I would say that in the big picture sonar was ignored too much . Your experience may vary, but my experience was that sonar was rarely discusses outside of users. I know very few people who know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

dubdisciple
Too my knowledge cakewalk did not have that reputation more so than any other product. I would say that in the big picture sonar was ignored too much . Your experience may vary, but my experience was that sonar was rarely discusses outside of users. I know very few people who know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

This is a google search excluding Cakewalk websites, just poke around the results for a few minutes I suggest:

https://www.google.com/se...k+-site%3Acakewalk.com
 
 

I think there are 3 camps, the third one are those who irrationally trash Sonar, instead of liking to use it as long as possible or go forward to another DAW.

CakeAlexSHere

dubdisciple
Too my knowledge cakewalk did not have that reputation more so than any other product. I would say that in the big picture sonar was ignored too much . Your experience may vary, but my experience was that sonar was rarely discusses outside of users. I know very few people who know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

This is a google search excluding Cakewalk websites, just poke around the results for a few minutes I suggest:

https://www.google.com/se...k+-site%3Acakewalk.com
 
 

I believe any DAW will show the same results.
Do that same search only put Reaper, Studio one or Cubase.
I just did and guess what ?
 
Cubase
Reaper
Studio one
 
 
Studio one has pages and pages. Yet I still bought it.
The problem with Software is its not like a can of soup you can bring home and say "That's gross".
Its not a "All by itself product" like a can of soup.
There are so many other things like Mobo/CPU combinations, Hardware, Controllers, drivers, exc.
All these things need to work together.

marled
I think there are 3 camps, the third one are those who irrationally trash Sonar, instead of liking to use it as long as possible or go forward to another DAW.

How is any of this rational?
 
How can "trashing Sonar" be... a thing? It's dead.
Many people are still using Sonar, good for them.
Many of us including me occasionally use Sonar, good for us.
Many people have moved to other DAWs (including me), good for us.
 
But in actual reality .... why should any of this be "good" or "bad"? It's just what people are doing.

dubdisciple

sharke

dubdisciple
The bug thing is a red herring. Cakewalk did not fail because of bugs. The list of bugs for most programs is likely to be as long. The fact that people most likely to have compiled such bug lists are paying customers kinda negates such a concept. My friends and associates that did not bother with Sonar were completely unaware of most of that list because they were uninterested.

They might not have been aware of any specifics on that bug list, but to be fair, a program can have a reputation as being buggy without the specifics of it bugs being common knowledge. If a program has a reputation for being especially buggy, what that generally means is that it's generally considered to be buggier than its competitors. And a reputation like that will almost certainly influence sales to some degree. 

Too my knowledge cakewalk did not have that reputation more so than any other product. I would say that in the big picture sonar was ignored too much . Your experience may vary, but my experience was that sonar was rarely discusses outside of users. I know very few people who know enough about it to have a strong opinion.

Well of course none of us have access to any studies showing what people did or didn't think of Sonar, but from years of browsing audio forums you do occasionally get the chance to see what the general impression is. For instance, every now and then someone on an EDM production forum will ask "hey what do you guys know about Sonar," and invariably the reply will come back along the lines of how it's a quirky DAW with a lot of bugs and problems since X1. I've seen potential sales of Sonar evaporate into thin air along those lines on forums such as Reddit, Gearslutz and KVR. It's not so much that it has a common knowledge reputation for being buggy - more that when anyone asks for more information about it, there will almost always be someone present who criticizes it along those lines.