Clean sheet of paper

RE: Clean sheet of paper (Marah Mag)

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 01:10:05 GMT

ORIGINAL: slartabartfast

Gosh, I hate to go from the sublime to the ridiculous regarding DAW & plugin design. But am I the only one who thinks that a GUI which is a caricature of a hardware device is anachronistic and makes the human digital interface less, rather than more intuitive.

You're not the only one, no.

I understand why they'd model the GUI on a hardware device. That's what the model was. I don't know if you can totally escape doing that. Any more than you really can escape the model of layers of horizontal tracks. But there's no need to. These are not at all bad models.

The question... and the challenge... isn't how much you escape those models, but how slavishly you follow them.

Tracks flow, through outputs and sends, and are funneled down to busses, which can flow to other busses, and eventually funnel down to a single out. It's lovely. It's logical.

So you set up a GUI to follow that flow and that logic. And behind the scenes the code does the same.

And so you wind up building a software model of hardware. And you call it a DAW and it's a good and wondrous thing.

And then, slowly, it starts doing things that hardware can't do. It sprouts infinite track counts. And infinite sends. And tracks can be cloned and reordered.

And after it replaces the tape machine with its own built-in storage-retrieval, it starts doing things that tape can't do either.

And effects and processors can be added and copied infinitely and moved instantly.

And at some point you find you're no longer simply working with virtualized hardware but, increasingly, with software itself.

And so in time, software that conforms to a physical hardware model, while also allowing for software-only extras, yields to software where those post-hardware "extras" are fully accounted for in its initial design, and which echoes the harware model only to the extent it remains useful in a software context.

That's clean-sheet design.

Just one example:

Once upon a time, studios had rows and rows of patch bays that exposed every in and out in the place. And by the end of a session it was a massive tangle of cables. And if you forgot, or someone else wanted to know, what was going where, you could find one end point and feel down the cable to the other end point. And by doing that, and by looking at the buttons on the console channels, you could find out what was what. You could even document your session that way.

Now, imagine that studio without a patch bay, but with a collapsible console where the more channels you had, and the more visible they were, the less you actually saw of them.

I say that such a studio corresponds to a DAW without a functional routing matrix. And that a DAW without a functional routing matrix is, simply, not finished. And that a functional routing matrix is worth a whole lot more than lots and lots of other things.

Software is not hardware. Even when they do the same things. DAWs are software. Unnecessary adherence to a hardware model, doing things the way hardware did because that's the way it was done, and not doing things that hardware didn't do because there's no precedent for it, leaves DAWs in the dust.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AT)

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:30:03 GMT

One of the things being missed here is the fact that Pro tools has the "high end" recording studios locked up. 9 out of 10 bands/producers/promoters won't even look at a new studio that doesn't use ProTools - the same way avid has most of the bigger video houses locked up. There are plenty of exceptions, but that just proves the rule. If I didn't know the difference, I'd go with ProTools, too, since I would at least know the name.

But for every studio trying to sell time there are dozens of musicians etc. I know that have a home studio. That is more the market Cakewalk (and Steinberg and Logic ... er... Apple) are fighting over. And yes, the glitches/bugs are a ****. I have the same kind of complaints about MS Word- but I still use it. Cake should fix them and make everyone happy. On the other hand, bug fixes seldom sell new copies and that is what Cakewalk does. As much as we want them to make the program work the way we want to work, shiny new toys like a tube leveler or step sequencer are more likely to get more people to shell out money. I thought the step sequencer was a big selling point, but went back to Fruity Loops for doing that kind of thing. And I have plenty of other soft FX, but I still find this or that new inclusion something I really want.

Every technology is a compromise - I use to curse my analog 8 track, too.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:40:32 GMT

ORIGINAL: B San

I would like to be able to show off Sonar to my clients/friends in the industry without having to make excuses for it...

Example:

Them:
Why do you keep stopping and playing it again? Why don't you just loop it?

Me:
The looping function doesn't really work too well when I'm this deep into a project... alotta advanced stuff goin' on, y'know... but hey, look at this digital tube plugin!

Them:
What's that sound when you keep starting and stopping?

Me:
Uh... it's a feature called 'motor boating'... yeah... but uh... check it out ... I can go to the colors menu and make Sonar look like Nuendo!

Hmmmm...I guess since I don't really use the looping features and I haven't had motorboating since 7.03 I was unaware there were still significant issues like this. I do see your point if these kinds of things are happening with you.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:36:45 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

I have to admit,

I think Keith did a great job of describing my feelings more accurately than I did in the previous posts.

And the truth is I'm more concerned with the lack of progress in bug fixes more so than I am the inclusion of "all things"

I think Sonitus Compressor works great... I despise Boost 11 and the way it encourage people to avoid learning how to use a compressor.

I'm frustrated with LE synths being used to add value when bug fixes are put off year after year.

The loop gap whereby content the size of your latency buffer is lost forever is my big pet peeve... loop recording mode is the single most powerful thing I can think of that separates tape decks from DAWs... I want it to work correctly. But I've been told the gap "is hardly noticable". Now to me that seemed like a "dumb" statement.

I shouldn't really care, but track icons just seem so cheesy... I doubt I could express my true feeling with out upsetting someone. I was trained to run large consoles without console tape ID markings... you're either paying attention or you're not. I use console tape now... but the lesson learned about paying attention was well instilled in my work habits.

I'd like to see enhancements that really drive Digtal Audio editing beyond the limitations of analog tape... more powerful marker navigation, better selection tools, super easy to work with enevelopes... that sort of stuff.

It took me about a half hour to find repeatable and easily confirmed bugs in Audio Snap last fall... unfortunately, although I was late to try AudioSnap... it had been realeased in the previous version and been out for a year and a half before I tried it... no one else had bothered to discover the obvious problems. I'll refrain from using the word dumb... it wouldn't be nice.

I'd like to use TTS-1 as a simple replacement for my Roland SC-880... but it's a total pain to keep the custom settings... hey that's one of the few full version synths you get... but the bug is 4 years old.

I did enjoy using Dimension LE for a "real" bass instrument... everyone loves getting Dimension LE bundled right? Well, the bass is not in tune.
I can't wait to get Dimension Pro... just kidding... the bass will still be out of tune.

The idea of being served a Tube leveller makes my stomach growl... I've got lot's of tube gear AND I'm bought into digital audio big time. I don't need someone to hand me a digital tube... just not interested in being spoken too like that. (And I do apologize to anyone whom I might have offended with that comment)

I could go on... but I dislike being mean spirited. I know the Cakewalk guys work hard and I've learned a lot by using the new tools. Groove Clip looping, to me, is one of the great revolutions in audio editing. I like to make my own loops and work in a Eno workflow. It's so powerful... I don't see why anyone would need a loop explorer to work with someone else's loops (OK I do understand why others might wish to... and I'm not judging them) but I don't see how manipulating pre made loops is part of the forward evolution of audio editing... it's more like filling in the envelope of possibilities... and I enjoyed thinking it was hidden from me by means of providing P5 to those who found that work flow compelling.

Anyways, I imagine I've shared a bit more than I should have.

FWIW I'm sending in my subscription payment on Sept 22 either way.

all the best,
mike

I don't think anything you have said is offensive or mean-spirited(if people get upset over someone not liking track icons, they don't deserve to be part of the conversation IMO...). In fact, you have made me think of a couple of things more critically. All in all, good points. I wasn't aware of the out of tune bass in DimLE or the missing buffer issue, for example. Those should be fixed easily. I use Audiosnap and haven't run into "bugs" per se...but I haven't pushed it's limits and some of it's workflow is tedious and non-intuitive, so I am somewhat with you there. One thing I noticed today that fits under your descriptions that was annoying the crap out of me...why do the track envelopes get edited if I move a clip in the timeline? Very annnoying. ThanX for posting.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (B San)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:29:33 GMT

I would like to be able to show off Sonar to my clients/friends in the industry without having to make excuses for it...

Example:

Them:
Why do you keep stopping and playing it again? Why don't you just loop it?

Me:
The looping function doesn't really work too well when I'm this deep into a project... alotta advanced stuff goin' on, y'know... but hey, look at this digital tube plugin!

Them:
What's that sound when you keep starting and stopping?

Me:
Uh... it's a feature called 'motor boating'... yeah... but uh... check it out ... I can go to the colors menu and make Sonar look like Nuendo!

RE: Clean sheet of paper (B San)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:16:11 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

And the truth is I'm more concerned with the lack of progress in bug fixes more so than I am the inclusion of "all things"

It seems that is to be the general consensus amongst those who have been exposed to other professional DAW apps... Sonar is soooo close in many aspects to being in the top tier... but when the basic principles of a solid app seem to get overlooked every year, frustration grows...

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:10:57 GMT

Oh GEE,

I forgot to mention step sequencer... thank's Andy.

That version of Step Sequencer is cripple ware intended to make "____" people comfortable with SONAR?

Why not spend the resources showing people how to do everything SS does and more with PRV and MIDI Groove Clip?

And why spend a single penny developing Step Sequencer when the bugs I've mentioned remain unattended too?

And while I'm at it I think rather than fly Brandon across the globe doing the dog and pony that continuous production of hi resolution tutorial videos (rather than the low res and very dated marketing hype videos posing as tutorials that we get to see) would sell SONAR and it's upgrades to the curious.
I think Cakewalk should create customer awareness and then the vendors will respond. Push marketing hi technology downwards through vendors who primarily think in terms of SKUs isn't an effective way to infiltrate a market... it's too much work for the vendors no matter how cool the stuff may seem to them... that's why it took MIDI twenty years to make inroads into the market.

:-),
mike

RE: Clean sheet of paper (B San)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:59:59 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

Andy,
Your logic is sound... but neither of us put the "Pro Audio", "XL" or "Producer" on the box.

Agree fully!!! It was Cakewalk who chose to run ads in which they go up against Pro Tools!!!

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I just want the bugs fixed... and the program to remain uncluttered.

I'd settle for the bug fixes.

best regards,
mike

Once again, I am in total agreement!!! Let's get a working external insert, and an improved audio engine!!!

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:55:24 GMT

I have to admit,

I think Keith did a great job of describing my feelings more accurately than I did in the previous posts.

And the truth is I'm more concerned with the lack of progress in bug fixes more so than I am the inclusion of "all things"

I think Sonitus Compressor works great... I despise Boost 11 and the way it encourage people to avoid learning how to use a compressor.

I'm frustrated with LE synths being used to add value when bug fixes are put off year after year.

The loop gap whereby content the size of your latency buffer is lost forever is my big pet peeve... loop recording mode is the single most powerful thing I can think of that separates tape decks from DAWs... I want it to work correctly. But I've been told the gap "is hardly noticable". Now to me that seemed like a "dumb" statement.

I shouldn't really care, but track icons just seem so cheesy... I doubt I could express my true feeling with out upsetting someone. I was trained to run large consoles without console tape ID markings... you're either paying attention or you're not. I use console tape now... but the lesson learned about paying attention was well instilled in my work habits.

I'd like to see enhancements that really drive Digtal Audio editing beyond the limitations of analog tape... more powerful marker navigation, better selection tools, super easy to work with enevelopes... that sort of stuff.

It took me about a half hour to find repeatable and easily confirmed bugs in Audio Snap last fall... unfortunately, although I was late to try AudioSnap... it had been realeased in the previous version and been out for a year and a half before I tried it... no one else had bothered to discover the obvious problems. I'll refrain from using the word dumb... it wouldn't be nice.

I'd like to use TTS-1 as a simple replacement for my Roland SC-880... but it's a total pain to keep the custom settings... hey that's one of the few full version synths you get... but the bug is 4 years old.

I did enjoy using Dimension LE for a "real" bass instrument... everyone loves getting Dimension LE bundled right? Well, the bass is not in tune.
I can't wait to get Dimension Pro... just kidding... the bass will still be out of tune.

The idea of being served a Tube leveller makes my stomach growl... I've got lot's of tube gear AND I'm bought into digital audio big time. I don't need someone to hand me a digital tube... just not interested in being spoken too like that. (And I do apologize to anyone whom I might have offended with that comment)

I could go on... but I dislike being mean spirited. I know the Cakewalk guys work hard and I've learned a lot by using the new tools. Groove Clip looping, to me, is one of the great revolutions in audio editing. I like to make my own loops and work in a Eno workflow. It's so powerful... I don't see why anyone would need a loop explorer to work with someone else's loops (OK I do understand why others might wish to... and I'm not judging them) but I don't see how manipulating pre made loops is part of the forward evolution of audio editing... it's more like filling in the envelope of possibilities... and I enjoyed thinking it was hidden from me by means of providing P5 to those who found that work flow compelling.

Anyways, I imagine I've shared a bit more than I should have.

FWIW I'm sending in my subscription payment on Sept 22 either way.

all the best,
mike

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:32:44 GMT

ORIGINAL: keith

I don't intend to speak for Mike, but I think "watered down" might be what people are looking for -- as in, the perception is that it's trying to be too much to too many, and from a single perspective (e.g., "pro audio") the feature set gets stretched too thin to accomodate the breadth of the product.

OK...I can see that point...but the counterargument is that you only have to use what you want...for example, I have never used the Step Sequencer....but I know it was THE thing for a lot of people. I kinda like that SONAR has such a broad appeal.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:28:15 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

Boost 11?

OK..the name may be "cute"...but in fairness, it *is* a decent limiter plug and it was developed for CHS(if I remember correctly) and was included in S7 simply because it was part of CW's stable of plugins and was easy to include. IMO it didn't "dumb down"...it simply added an additonal *product*(I don't think it is fair to call a VST a "feature") to the S7Pro package. We can argue about the value of other bundled products all day I suppose, and if your point is that time was taken to develop Boost 11 vice improve some other core feature of the app I could see your point but I think Boost11 is a poor choice to make your point.

Here's a counter example...Universal Audio....a very highly regarded po audio company with a very high end pro product(UAD) named their guitar plugin "Nigel". Were they "dumbing down" the UAD line?

RE: Clean sheet of paper (keith)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:25:35 GMT

ORIGINAL: AndyW

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Cakewalk responds by dumming the $600 program down while pretending they are moving forward with the original agenda... which was to develop pro features at a VERY COMPETITIVE price point. I think they've created their own trap and now seem to spend more resources catering to smoke and mirror features.

Really? I haven't seen a "dumbing down"...the product only gets more complex...you could almost say "in spite of" the "tedium" bleaters... What do you think has been "dumbed down"? I am not being condescending, I am truly curious....maybe I've missed something.

I don't intend to speak for Mike, but I think "watered down" might be what people are looking for -- as in, the perception is that it's trying to be too much to too many, and from a single perspective (e.g., "pro audio") the feature set gets stretched too thin to accomodate the breadth of the product.

Personally, I'll wait to pass judgment until I see the actual list of enhancements in v8... It seems to me that while it's been an up and down ride for any, Cake seems to come through with major and minor releases with many features and enhancements requested by users.

The test will be: do we see a thread from somebody like MM or Undertow (or many others) that declares "now we're making progress!"... if so, we'll know we're on the right track!

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:21:34 GMT

Boost 11?

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:18:00 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

Andy,
Your logic is sound... but neither of us put the "Pro Audio", "XL" or "Producer" on the box. Cakewalk already has a full line of user friendly products, but it seems the situation is that a lot of folks want Home Studio features yet will not buy Home Studio because it's too cheap.

They buy the $600 package and then claim it's too tedious to use.

Cakewalk responds by dumming the $600 program down while pretending they are moving forward with the original agenda... which was to develop pro features at a VERY COMPETITIVE price point. I think they've created their own trap and now seem to spend more resources catering to smoke and mirror features.

Really? I haven't seen a "dumbing down"...the product only gets more complex...you could almost say "in spite of" the "tedium" bleaters... What do you think has been "dumbed down"? I am not being condescending, I am truly curious....maybe I've missed something.

The thing that is hard to quantify is what is a "smoke and mirror" feature. All of us have varying opinions. For example, I though track icons were silly at first...now I use them and find them very useful.

I just want the bugs fixed... and the program to remain uncluttered.

I'd settle for the bug fixes.

best regards,
mike

Understand about bug fixes or "features" that I think are close to bugs in how they are implemented. Personally, I find SONAR to be a remarkably stable and bug-limited product. As far as uncluttered...I find it amazing that CW gives the USER the choice on a lot if things. Don't like track icons? Don't use 'em. Don't like the menu or TV layout? Customize it. I don't find SONAR cluttered at all for my workflow. In any case, we, as consumers, should all vote with our dollars(and if we are witholding dollars politely tell the company why). I promise CW will listen.

This is a good discussion...

RE: Clean sheet of paper (keith)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:17:25 GMT

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I was speaking specifically about the online rendering possibilities... I'm not trying to be a wise guy... do you think LE has the features you want?
I have zero experience with LE.

Yes it does but much more importantly, so does Sonar! Well nearly. All Cakewalk have to do is make it available to the user. All the hard work has already been done. Sonar just needs to use the Radius algorithms for the online processing.

It might be a licensing thing then... In which case for cakewalk it'd be a cost per unit decision.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:06:40 GMT

Andy,
Your logic is sound... but neither of us put the "Pro Audio", "XL" or "Producer" on the box. Cakewalk already has a full line of user friendly products, but it seems the situation is that a lot of folks want Home Studio features yet will not buy Home Studio because it's too cheap.

They buy the $600 package and then claim it's too tedious to use.

Cakewalk responds by dumming the $600 program down while pretending they are moving forward with the original agenda... which was to develop pro features at a VERY COMPETITIVE price point. I think they've created their own trap and now seem to spend more resources catering to smoke and mirror features.

I just want the bugs fixed... and the program to remain uncluttered.

I'd settle for the bug fixes.

best regards,
mike

RE: Clean sheet of paper (AndyW)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:45:13 GMT

ORIGINAL: B San

ORIGINAL: Warning, I'm in rant mode.

There are core issues like gapless looping, gapless changing of loop points, even turning loops on/off causes gapping...

Cakewalk's marketing (at least until now) seems to indicate that they would like to take on the likes of Digidesign. For that they need to break out of the prosumer market and start considering the needs of professional users. They won't be able to do that by listening to the wishes of their prosumer customers as these customers just don't know what is out there and what a professional DAW can do.

Thank you!!! I fully agree!!!

We can sit here and pretend that the market doesn't come into play here...but it does. Digidesign has the benefit of being the Elephant in the "Pro" market and thus, can charge a premium price for everything. CW wants to penetrate this market but made choices so that various "levels" of it's software have a larger appeal(ie: more people will buy it/more companies will bundle it). I think, if you compared the sales numbers of SONAR to Nuendo, for example, you would find SONAR outsells Nuendo by a hefty margin. What is the better marketing decision...continue to make a $500 app that has broader appeal and is designed to have scaled down versions accessible to the masses(CHS), or take all the "fluff"(and BTW, I don't think track icons and the like are fluff) and only sell $2000 copies to the pro audio "elite"?
I am not privy to the sales and users numbers for either app but obviously CW has made their choice and appear to be doing OK. if the argument is that there should be another "Pro" product above SONAR PE in the product line that in some somewhat arbitrary way is "more professional" I could sorta see that...but this is the same argument for Microsft to make a "streamlined" version of XP...is that ever gonna happen? No. Why? because there isn't enough money in it to justify the effort. i guarantee if CW did what some are suggesting in this forum and made SONAR a pro only app people would be griping about it's pricetag and revenue would probably go *down*.

Anyway, all I was really wanting to point out is that there are other factors at stake here. For CW to suddenly become like Digidisign or Steinberg in only producing a very expensive "pro" product would alienate the largest segment of CW customers. It would appear snobbish and people would vote with their dollars. JMHO.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (slartabartfast)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:46:35 GMT

Gosh, I hate to go from the sublime to the ridiculous regarding DAW & plugin design. But am I the only one who thinks that a GUI which is a caricature of a hardware device is anachronistic and makes the human digital interface less, rather than more intuitive. Manipulating a cartoon knob by moving a mouse in a linear pattern like a slider on your desk, while trying to determine the analogue to digital conversion equivalent to moving the knob roughtly 1/6th of roughly 5/6ths of a circle (the range of the imaginary knob is never 360 degrees) is just plain a dumb way to tell a machine to increase a parameter by 15%. Every parameter control should announce its numerical output which should be in some linear (mapped to logarithmic where appropriate or better yet customizable) input, with the option to type in the number you need to change.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (B San)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:17:30 GMT

ORIGINAL: Warning, I'm in rant mode.

There are core issues like gapless looping, gapless changing of loop points, even turning loops on/off causes gapping...

Cakewalk's marketing (at least until now) seems to indicate that they would like to take on the likes of Digidesign. For that they need to break out of the prosumer market and start considering the needs of professional users. They won't be able to do that by listening to the wishes of their prosumer customers as these customers just don't know what is out there and what a professional DAW can do.

Thank you!!! I fully agree!!!

RE: Clean sheet of paper (kb420)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:36:56 GMT

ORIGINAL: candlesayshi

ORIGINAL: UnderTow
I suspect that the real reason is because Ableton came out with a much better and much more evolved product more or less at the same time. Ableton Live! was and is by far superior to Project 5. Ableton showed a vision and imagination that Cakewalk lack(ed) for this type of application.

To start, in terms of Cakewalk software, I'm a Project5 user, not a SONAR user. The two applications I use are Live and Project5. I use them both, because they complement each other well. I don't really see them competitively. Project5 covers a few holes that Live has (mostly MIDI sequencing in general, among other things) and Live covers a few holes that P5 has (mostly audio).

For the record, Live was released years before Project5, and I don't think that Live is the reason for P5's apparent "lack of acceptance".

I believe it is simply because Cakewalk has no idea whatsoever how to really market to electronic musicians.

That's funny. I own Project 5 version 1 and 2. I also own Ableton Live, and I don't see any reason a Live user would use P5 at all, except maybe to use some dxi synths since Live doesn't support dxi.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (The Kiosk Project)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:06:29 GMT

mike_mccue said

So having said that I'd like to place my thoughts in a context of music making.

Very thought provoking post Mike, the kind of intelligent contribution that this place should see more of.

Just to provide some background on my experience... I've made and helped others make quite a bit of (to the extent it's possible) non linear sound. I've worked with guys that got grants to beat on stuff they collected and dragged around in shopping carts to performance art festivals and such. I've made a lot of non music and random noise. I never found these forms of authentic chaos to provide any sort of inspiration or epiphanastic experience.

It's my opinion that one doesn't really tap into the universal energy that music serves as a portal too until one surrenders to the experience of harmony and rhythm as it is realized along parallel time lines.

You make a valid point Mike, music is linear just as we are linear, and unless you are a creationist, evolution has and will serve us well in the future. Having said that, I always have a little room for faith..............

Peace Love and Understanding

Garry Kiosk

RE: Clean sheet of paper (Fog)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:05:30 GMT

ORIGINAL: candlesayshi

For the record, Live was released years before Project5, and I don't think that Live is the reason for P5's apparent "lack of acceptance".

I believe it is simply because Cakewalk has no idea whatsoever how to really market to electronic musicians.

I would say "reason" had more to do with the acceptance thing.. As that was the same sort of price range, and what sort of market it was aimed . I remember seeing both at the time.. and someone asking which to go for in a mag... "if you want audio in / vst" access then go for p5... and the reason they gave for reason was integrated / all in one..

RE: Clean sheet of paper (UnderTow)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:56:42 GMT

When was Project 5 released? Live was released in 2001. Craig Anderton reviewed Project 5 for SOS in June 2003. But fair enough. I don't use Project 5 so I could well be wrong about it's merits.

UnderTow

RE: Clean sheet of paper (candlesayshi)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:49:12 GMT

ORIGINAL: UnderTow
I suspect that the real reason is because Ableton came out with a much better and much more evolved product more or less at the same time. Ableton Live! was and is by far superior to Project 5. Ableton showed a vision and imagination that Cakewalk lack(ed) for this type of application.

To start, in terms of Cakewalk software, I'm a Project5 user, not a SONAR user. The two applications I use are Live and Project5. I use them both, because they complement each other well. I don't really see them competitively. Project5 covers a few holes that Live has (mostly MIDI sequencing in general, among other things) and Live covers a few holes that P5 has (mostly audio).

For the record, Live was released years before Project5, and I don't think that Live is the reason for P5's apparent "lack of acceptance".

I believe it is simply because Cakewalk has no idea whatsoever how to really market to electronic musicians.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:48:31 GMT

I've been assuming that the offline stuff was considered too CPU intensive and that's why I suggested the possibility of acceleration as a requirement. I certainly can't wait to do the offline render because the online is barely listenable... it took me a while to be confident that my test plays before render represented worth while work... because I never like the results until I render.

Anyways, that's what I was thinking when I asked the question :-)

best,
mike

RE: Clean sheet of paper (UnderTow)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:40:37 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
I was speaking specifically about the online rendering possibilities... I'm not trying to be a wise guy... do you think LE has the features you want?
I have zero experience with LE.

Yes it does but much more importantly, so does Sonar! Well nearly. All Cakewalk have to do is make it available to the user. All the hard work has already been done. Sonar just needs to use the Radius algorithms for the online processing.

UnderTow

RE: Clean sheet of paper (Marah Mag)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:36:32 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

Gosh Marah,
I sincerely thought you were speaking of a new paradigm... something like the way the guy in the matrix surfed the net...

I really didn't mean to upset you.

I totally agree with everything you've explained further.

And, I think track icons are living proof that SONAR is catering to people from the home studio world (maybe next year we'll get animated track icons... wouldn't that be cool)... while ignoring fairly obvious problems.

best,
mike

Oh I'm not upset. I'm... aaaa... exuberant!! hehehehehehe

RE: Clean sheet of paper (UnderTow)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:33:37 GMT

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

ORIGINAL: AT

Cakewalk did start with a clean slate a few years ago. P5 had a separate engine, was loop centric, etc etc. It hasn't done as well as it should. Partially it is the programs fault, partically it is because Cake has concentrated on SONAR. But still, that fact would give me pause before killing the golden goose, if I was putting up my money.

Isn't the real problem with P5s marginal or questionable success the fact that many users of traditional multi track workflow don't even care if it exists?

I suspect that the real reason is because Ableton came out with a much better and much more evolved product more or less at the same time. Ableton Live! was and is by far superior to Project 5. Ableton showed a vision and imagination that Cakewalk lack(ed) for this type of application.

In my self admitted myopic opinion it seems to have been a flirtation with a very limited user base... albeit one that was getting a lot of attention at the time.

There will continue to be an ever increasing number of audio editors doing traditional editing work for the continual expansion of media outlet opportunities but the 20 to 30 year old disco crowd is going to stay about the same size as it always has been.

I think you are very very wrong there. I believe that the dance music/loop based music market dwarves the entire Sonar market by several orders of magnitude.

UnderTow

RE: Clean sheet of paper (mike_mccue)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:27:07 GMT

ORIGINAL: UnderTow

ORIGINAL: mike_mccue

I guess one way to answer that question might be to ask if the feature is available on PT LE... any idea?

Good thinking. Yes it is available in PT LE: http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?langid=100&navid=234&itemid=5383

UnderTow

I was speaking specifically about the online rendering possibilities... I'm not trying to be a wise guy... do you think LE has the features you want?
I have zero experience with LE.

RE: Clean sheet of paper (UnderTow)

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:21:54 GMT

ORIGINAL: tcaylor

ORIGINAL: Marah Mag

I don't see that it has anything in the world to do with file systems and operating systems or anything all that esoteric or new fangled or revolutionary. Those are just excuses and distractions.

I realize that I am singling out one statement of a very well thought-out and articulate post, but it has everything to do with file systems and operating systems and drivers and every other type of low-level interface between equipment and application and user. When all is said and done, the project has to be saved which is a file/operating system function.

Sure, top level design strategies can ignore these in the short term for new features but most of the bug fixes and stability issues more frequently are related to these lower level considerations. Some issues are actually caused by a designer not following the requisite protocol for interfacing their product or have not accomplished enough empirical testing to ensure stable operation.

It is still irrelevant to this discussion as any changes Microsoft might make to the File System would need to be taken care of by Cakewalk regardless of anything else.

UnderTow