Earlier today in another thread, someone posted a link to an interview with Cakewalk founder Greg Hendershott from late last year. I can't find the post or the thread and don't remember who it was, but it was an interesting read. So whoever it was, thanks for posting it. For anyone who missed it and might be interested, here's the link again.

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/11/12/interview-cakewalk-founder-greg-hendershott-20-years-on/

This part of the interview was particularly interesting, where Mr. Hendershott talks about the need to sometimes take "a clean sheet of paper and say, how would we design it today? Which is not to say that Logic and Cubase and SONAR are bad, but they definitely [represent] a certain philosophy of how things should work. For a lot of people that’s perfect, but it’s not the only way. So I think it’s really fun and refreshing to see people take out the clean sheet of paper."

I think we're at that point now, where what's needed is a new design drawn on a clean sheet of paper.

Here'a bit more of the interview (although the entire thing is good.)

Were there times when you did a clean sheet, or “reboot”, of Cakewalk’s software? SONAR, I suppose was a kind of reboot, right?

Behind the scenes, pieces of the engine, going from Pro Audio 9 to SONAR 1 there were still huge tracts of code behind the scenes that were basically the same. But we definitely took out a clean sheet of paper with the user interface, and behind the scenes pretty big chunks of the engine and code did change significantly to support other technology. For us, coming from DOS to the first Windows versions was a pretty big change. That was an opportunity to rethink some of the feature set and user interface. And then going from those Windows versions of Cakewalk Pro Audio to SONAR was another opportunity. And then doing Project5 was another opportunity.

The increased closeness of Cakewalk's relationship with Roland is another opportunity. It makes it possible for CW to start and continue "clean sheet" development of a new project without having to release it less than fully formed as they did with Project5.

I used a piece of paper the other day to write a letter. I got a cramp in my hand.

:-)

best,
mike

I used a blank sheet of paper the other day to write down my thoughts.....

The paper is still blank.




Peace

Cakewalk and I are going places together!

Marah, you've hit the nail on the head. There's a path of evolution, where a software application builds on what went before. Where an "upgrade" gives you a few new effects and soft synths and tweaks to the concept. And then there's a complete re-evaluation of the paradigm. Dare to dream! Let's hope SONAR 9 is something that blows us away with its audacity.

Yes! I have some BRAND NEW Sonar-tunes at:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pageartist.cfm?bandID=410752

The increased closeness of Cakewalk's relationship with Roland is another opportunity. It makes it possible for CW to start and continue "clean sheet" development of a new project without having to release it less than fully formed as they did with Project5.

Just curious ... why do you think that?

ORIGINAL: ChristopherM

The increased closeness of Cakewalk's relationship with Roland is another opportunity. It makes it possible for CW to start and continue "clean sheet" development of a new project without having to release it less than fully formed as they did with Project5.

Just curious ... why do you think that?

Hi. Thanks. Well, who knows if it would actually work out this way. But, at least theoretically, Cakewalk could have a longer development horizon, and less pressure to push something out prematurely, with Roland for a sugar daddy.

Whether P5 was released less than "fully formed" (as I said), I guess that's kind of subjective. I recall seeing the initial release of it and thinking it didn't seem all there. Like there were good ideas, but maybe they didn't come together as well as they could. On that basis I might not have taken a second look at it, although I did, and now own it. I'm pretty sure the first iterations of P5 didn't have the Groove Matrix, which at this point is (IMV) really the most distinctive and innovative thing about it. So it might have made a bigger splash if the earlier vers had that, or if CW had waited (or been able to wait) to release P5 until the GM had been implemented. But even with the GM, the latest version still doesn't feel fully formed. Just my opinion of course.

It's all subjective. All softwares have personalities. And fully formed doesn't mean that there's nothing missing or no room for improvement. I think there are things missing from Sonar but I wouldn't say it seemed premature. Oddly, maybe, the things that are missing can actually make it seem overly mature, like it can't move with the flexibility necessary to be more complete, or to backtrack and improve on initial implementations.

That maturity is a bascially good thing, cos you're getting a major powerful application. But the downsides of that are why new "clean sheet" designs can be so compelling, and are eventually necessary.

Interesting that you think that Roland will act as sugar daddy. In so far as I have a concern about Roland, it is that it may sap the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of Cakewalk ... but who knows?

Marah,
The way I see it is that the "old" Paradigm is the result of 500 years of experience shared thru the generations. I guess perhaps it's a philosophical issue for me. I don't see merit in eschewing tradition with an expectation that the future will provide original opportunities.
I see the human experience and potential as having been available since day one. I feel that in general it's reluctance or refusal to incorporate our shared history into a realization of the now that seemingly holds us back as society.

For example, just last week I was listening to political pundits on the radio and lamented to my friend that we as a society are 500 years into the age of reason and yet the legacy of medieval superstition continues to strangle our society and prevent us from realizing universal tolerance, peace, love, and understanding.

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

Ever since the first pair of sound sources was combined people have thought in terms of combining "instruments" along a parallel time line. That seems to work for us and acquiesces to the phenomena whereby we all seem to agree that time is moving in one (commonly thought to be a forward) direction.

The point I'm trying to make is that the visionary idea that "instruments" coexist in parallel timelines is ancient (and has been formally described in western music for at least 500 years).

This model as extended to the technology of multi track tape machines and mixing console routing is a very natural and intuitive way to envision the structure of a sound composition.

The idea that DAW programs mimic multi track tape deck formatting and mixing console routing is actually the culmination of 500 years experience in orchestrating and arranging formally composed music.

The advent of hi powered editing capabilities allowed music technology to incorporate ideas and styles employed by non western cultures. For example the great contribution of complex rhythms and call and response song form as realized in Mali and Nigeria can be mimicked electronically. One reason the technology can be applied effectively is that even though the music was from a non western culture it also shared that basic human perception that the instruments were moving forward along parallel time lines... regardless of how complex or subtle the timing might be.

Another example is the highly complex tonal scales of Eastern music. Western staff notation may be insufficient to describe the nuances of, say for example, a shakuhachi flute, but again the concept that the performance is moving along a timeline seems universally accepted.

Having said all that, I would point out that the basic model of multiple tracks traversing a shared timeline is the most intuitive and natural way to envision a musical performance.

When I see people suggesting that current DAWs are somehow hampered by the conventions of multi track tape recording and mixing console routing I think there is a really basic point that is not being addressed. Those conventions were not "invented" in 1955... they were adopted from much older and time proven methods of describing, notating, and performing musical compositions for multiple instruments.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at, thinking about, or imagining as a possibility for some how revolutionizing how people think about and make music so I don't know if my response was pertinent to this discussion but I wanted to share my thoughts on the subject. If we are just talking about the mundane coding architecture of SONAR and the idea that it could be engineered to run smoother and more efficiently I guess none of my thoughts are pertinent, but if we are talking about revolutionary non linear non directional signal routing then I think it might be.

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.

That is why I think the metaphor employed by tape machines and "traditional" DAWs is very useful and appropriate because it's a powerful yet very simple way to mimic what is happening in the natural world regardless of our presence.


So, In closing it's my general philosophical opinion that most revolutions are merely expansions towards an envelope that has been described for generations. It seems to me that most expressions of dissatisfaction with the present and suggestions of radical and imaginary solutions are based on a lack of accomplishment with regards to the realization of ideas that we as a society have had available for long long time.


very best regards,
mike

Yes, music, and drama and dance, are linear arts. They gain their power from that format. Painting and sculpture are nonlinear, though. Since we're in a philosophical mood, I can't help but wonder what it would be like to conquer the dimension of time so that a musical composition could be viewed and considered and studied like a sculpture. Imagine some sort of structure or container or form that could contain all that there was about the music , it's energy, technique , and musicality, and we could stand there for hours walking around it, "Listening" to it, end experiencing it. A 4D composition experienced in 3D.

Paul Baker
Baker's Jazz And More
http://www.bakersjazzandmore.com

Well just this morning I found a worm hole.

I used to be a bicycle person (I guess I still am) so this morning I went to a fund raising race with a time trial (race against the clock) format.

The fund raiser included an opportunity to buy minutes off your final time so you could pad your time for a better finish placing.

Racing the bike almost killed me... I mean it... I am out of shape, but I brought enough cash to end up with the winning time of negative 8:55 minutes. I actually got to the finish 8:55 minutes before I started. :-)

Does that count?

best,
mike

I pulled out a clean sheet of paper today, and got a paper cut. So much for clean sheets of paper...

Hi Marah-

I didn't read the whole interview, but thanks for the link, and I'll weigh in regardless.

Starting with a "Clean sheet of paper" is one thing, "Re-inventing the wheel" is another.

I know you've been looking at REAPER, as have I. No doubt Cockos has some excellent ideas, but so does Image-Line (their Piano Roll/MIDI editing blew SONAR's out of the water until S7.)

My impression is that REAPER started with a "Clean sheet of paper" and did some great stuff, but with more interest from other DAW users, it's not so easy for them to keep up now. I don't mean that to sound pejorative, but some of the things that other DAWs have sorted out long ago, REAPER hasn't yet.

-Susan

why one, when you can have hundreds





logic/cubase/Protools

roland:tb-303, 2* tr-606, tr-808, tr-909, juno-60, juno-106, sh-101 / korg: polysix, monopoly /  solton ketron project 100, siel opera 6, doepfer dark energy, elka em-22.... and some other funky analog stuff...audiocards: tc electronic konnekt 48 (fw) / rme hdsp 9652 (pci) / mbox (usb)....running xpsp3 32 with sonar 8.52pe (64bit doesnt matter ;-)

Hi Mike.

Thanks for that interesting and thought-provoking post.

I actually agree with everything you're saying. In fact, one of your main points is something I'm struck by often. Music recorded on a staff, on magnetic tape, or in a DAW, follows the same basic structure: parallel layers, representing sound, moving forward, at some speed, against an always changing Now Time. Even vinyl and CD disks adapt the same structure, spiralized. The main differences through history are in the nature of the representation and the means of production and reproduction. The song remains the same.

What I'm not sure of is how my riffing about a "clean sheet" design (an image I carried over from the GH interview), or my criticisms of or wishlists for Sonar, would come across as a call for a full fledged new paradigm, or metaphor, or anything especially revolutionary. I certainly don't think of it that way.

I'm not looking for or need any kind of revolutionary tools to redefine music as we know it. I like my alt-fill- in-the-genre at least as much as much as the next poseur but I've got no pretensions about my pretensions.

I do pop. I'd like to think it's somewhat original and cumulatively distinct, lyrically, musically, and productionwise, with its share of artiness and noises and dissonances and structural discontinuations and gimmicks, but in the end, it's recognizably ze pop muziq. If it makes people want to laugh or think about themselves and the world or feel like making out, then I've done my job and I'm a happy popartist.

As far as Sonar and DAWs go, I'm just looking for elegance, minimum frustration, maximum flexibility, unimpeded workflow, and better integration of functionality with interface.

In practice, this is often boring stuff, like resizable non-modal dialog boxes. Or more functional markers, and regions, and not having to click and type and scroll as much. Or think as much. I'm not looking for a DoItAllForMe or GiveMeTalent plugin.

When you come down to it, none of it has much to do with music or recording -- other than the fact that music and recording is the purpose of the software. But that's where the functionality meets the interface, and where their integration matters. And that's where a "clean sheet" design can be useful.

I know Sonar fairly well and I'm just starting to know Reaper. I can get around Sonar much faster and more confidently. I've not yet done any sustained real work in Reaper, and have used it only as a secondary "studio" for Sonar production. The two are more similar than they are different, and there doesn't appear to be much core stuff you can do with one that can't also be done with the other.

But there are differences between Sonar and Reaper that go beyond feature-for-feature comparisons and which-has-this-or-that and which-does-something-better, which is usually where all DAW (and all software) comparisons start and end. But that doesn't always tell the story.

The real differences between Sonar and Reaper are not easy to describe briefly, and definitely not without appearing to "whine and advertise for Reaper" as someone so whiningly put it in another thread. The differences don't revolve around features so much as a design aesthetic. I believe they can mostly be attributed to the advantages of a from-scratch clean-sheet design that allows for the kind of integration of functionality with interface that simply is not possible when functions are added over an extended period of time to an established, older design that must continue conforming to the expectations of an established user base and business model. (Just to be clear, when I use words like "design" and "aesthetic" I'm not talking about how these things look, but about how they work and breath and flow.)

I don't see any of this as a whining criticism of Sonar but rather a fairly obvious statement of fact. Nor do I think it says anything at all about Sonar's suitability for real work -- Sonar is still my main production app and may well remain so. But, if it doesn't, it won't be because Reaper (or some other program) does anything revolutionary to overthrow generations of musical practice, or even because it gives me more features and functions -- feature lists converge over time. It will be because it gives me a more modern (flexible, customizable, faster) software environment with smarter access to and control over the features and functions I need to produce my dopey pop songs.

Hello,

I'm curious. Did our prior discussions when I mentioned the two interviews spark your interest? I'm going to get the to the "clean sheet" subject but first since you dug this up I'd just like to point out, quoting the Hendershott interview:

Were there times when you did a clean sheet, or “reboot”, of Cakewalk’s software? SONAR, I suppose was a kind of reboot, right?

Behind the scenes, pieces of the engine, going from Pro Audio 9 to SONAR 1 there were still huge tracts of code behind the scenes that were basically the same.

This is interesting to me as someone who was considering migrating from Pro Audio to Sonar. "They" meaning Cakewalk marketing, told us (the users) at the time that Sonar was brandy new. But what they really meant was "the interface and 'some' parts" were brandy new. I'd call that deceptive advertising for sure. And I didn't believe it. To me Sonar felt like the same old Pro Audio (which felt like audio grafted on to wincake.exe) with a different (not necessarily better) face. Which leads me to believe that if Sonar 5.2 (which is what I have) is a descendant of Sonar 1 and Sonar 1 actually has significant parts of the Pro Audio engine, then this program has portions that are indeed very old.

Now to someone on the PC platform at the time (circa 1995, I think) Pro Audio would have been the cat's meow. But I had a business with Mac workstations loaded with RAM, 20" pre-press RGB monitor, DigiDesign AudioMedia sound card, with a host of apps, Alchemy, MasterTracks, Deck II, SoundDesigner and Digital Performer so the PC with Sonar 1 looked pretty bare by comparison. Which is why I decided to familiarize myself with Cubase (first because I was under whelmed by Sonar 1 and also because I fully expected to working with my Macs at work (which never actually happened - funny how you plan for things). Circa 2000, I went to a Steinberg "dog and pony" show at the local music superstore and left with a $700+ package (VST24 which included WaveLab, the -extremely valuable- Waves Renaissance Compressor and a host of other plugs that I still use today. VST24 was soon upgraded to VST32. Cubase VST32 shamed Sonar 1 and many VST32 features only started showing up in Sonar around version 4.

Back to the clean sheet. I realized after I had replied in the other post that Steinberg had done just what you are discussing, started from scratch. (You have to forgive my chronologies - I have no journal, only sketch memory to rely on). At some point after Steinberg issued VST32 (which I think was free) to everyone. The cubase.net forum was continually a-buzz with the host of complaints about features (their performance and existence), especially (if I remember correctly) the vaunted PDC (plug-in delay compensation) which had not been implemented in VST 32. Steinberg was still privately owned back then. Charlie used to book these "round table" discussions that forum members could tune into where he and Steinberg marketing would answer user questions and complaints mostly from the forum power users. Sometime in 2001, Steinberg (the man and the company) became very quiet (as far as responding to open issues on the forum) and the time passes that we should have received an upgrade to VST32 and or the news of what was on the horizon. But nothing seemed to be forth coming and the forum grumbled.

Then the hints that a big announcement was coming started to pop up on the forum and eventually on the company site. And then comes the big announcement. Something entirely new was coming – Cubase SX and the users cheered, but there was more also coming was the much more expensive new, new Nuendo! Steinberg apologized for keeping us waiting. The reason was they needed to develop and entirely new code base that Cubase SX and Nuendo shared. So that any improvement to Nuendo audio immediately would also be incorporated into Cubase SX and any MIDI improvements made in Cubase SX would turn up in Nuendo. Now to me that is pretty good proof that Steinberg threw VST32 away and re-coded the app. I don’t recall if SX was claimed to be backwards compatible.

So if Cubase SX is a complete DAW re-write and Sonar still actually has some of the sins of the father (Pro Audio) visited upon it, it is really not apparent when comparing the sound and performance of Sonar to my version of Cubase SX (1.06). I like the sound of Sonar very much; I find the interface quite workable, I prefer the universal buss system, Sonitus EQ and the Pantheon reverb, and, although I haven’t fired SX up in quite some time I had absolutely no complaints about the sound of SX but I do prefer Sonar’s busses over SX’s “group busses”.

So starting over did not necessarily yield strikingly different results for me. And when Sonar got to Version 4 the suite of plugs was very nice. But version 5 with the Sonitus EQ has been (like Goldilocks) “just right” for me.

Here’s the other problem with starting over. Regarding the “real” features that should be in the new DAW, who are the developers to listen to? Look at how many suggestions and counter-suggestions have been put forth here on any single feature. Then there are those who say make it more like SX or more like Reaper, etc. How much more like those and what features should be co-opted?

The answer is there really is no “clean sheet of paper.” A fresh start may end getting to the same place you were at only you’ve expended a lot of time and money.

In the case of Steinberg, I wouldn’t be surprised if Greg is envious of Steinberg for (a) being cross-platform and (b) being able to make that break from their old code and still be cross-platform.

I think the time for a Sonar re-write would be to coincide with a really new operating system from MS (hopefully Windows 7) - a new operating system that understands the new multi-core chips, offers a professional, low latency audio subsystem and fast video processing. I like your idea that Roland could help out – it could certainly be in Roland’s interest. But like I said I think it all depends on a new powerful operating system

GK

George Kaufman
www.gmkmg.com
www.the-nails.com

"What I'm not sure of is how my riffing about a "clean sheet" design (an image I carried over from the GH interview), or my criticisms of or wishlists for Sonar, would come across as a call for a full fledged new paradigm, or metaphor, or anything especially revolutionary. I certainly don't think of it that way."

My mistake!!! :-)

FWIW, both of you left us with some very thoughful posts... lots to think about.

thanks,
mike

Marah Mag,

I'm with you 100%.

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, saving causes gapping and sometimes total desyncing of the audio engine etc that have never been resolved. (Things that Cubase does absolutely seamlessly). There are "newer" issues like the inefficient engine compared to Cubase or Reaper. There is also the feeling that every new feature is only half implemented. Not enough thought and planning seems to go into features. Some of these are really simple, easy and quick to implement. One example was how long it took Cakewalk to add 64th and 128th note values to some of the menus. I kept hammering on about this on the forum until Ron Kuper just added them and even admitted on the forum that it took him less than 5 minutes to do! A pity he missed quite a few menus.

Frankly, I have continuously been losing hope in Cakewalk ever since Ron Kuper wrote to me that Pro Tools had one of the worst GUIs on the market. WHAT? He had obviously never spent any real time with the application or he would never have written that. IMO, Noel Borthwick and a few other Cakewalk developers should get ProTools certifcations (and a few other apps) before even thinking about working on Sonar 9. Cakewalk just don't seem to know how to other applications work and how much better some of the features could be implemented. Or they could hire some high-end developer(s) that has/have worked for the likes of Magix (samplitude), Merging (Pyramix), Fairlight, Soundscape, Digidesign or even Steinberg.

Cakewalk have IMO wasted a lot of time and resources on things that did not really improve the every day workflow of using Sonar for the vast majority of users at the time. (The whole x64 bit thing for instance). Also, although Cakewalk do listen to their users to a certain extent, IMO they shouldn't. Or rather, they should be much more selective of who they listen to. There are features being added that to me are just gimmicks for amateurs (The track icons come to mind) while other serious features are not (pen tool, proper cross-fading etc come to mind).

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.

I have a feeling that Sonar 8 will be more of the same. When I read an ad that says things like "New Loop Explorer View For Audio & MIDI" all I can think is "What do you mean new loop explorer? I want a full media manager with full multi-search functions, sample and midi pools import/export, session data import, Plugin presets management, FX bin presets etc etc".

Just for kicks I dug up a document I wrote nearly 5 years ago. Here are some of the suggestions I made at the time. (Some have been implemented, many haven't. At the time, some of the suggestions were unheard of in the DAW world like the external insert delay compensation suggestion. Cakewalk could have been the first...).

ORIGINAL: UnderTow in 2003!
Sonar 3.1 or Sonar 4 new feature suggestions:

Fixes:
======
- Gapless looping. If for some reason this would use alot more resources or increase the latency considerably, one should be allowed to choose between the current mode and a new gapless mode.
- Remembering the console view layout so that you don't need to resize everything each time you open the console.

Nice feature ideas:
===================

- Metronome.
- Envelopes editor. (At least S-curve envelope slopes and proper cross-fading).
- External delay compensation tool.
- Regions and loop playlist. Click to next loop function.
- CAL script automation.
- X0X style step sequencer.
- Sample rate conversion.
- Sample rate independant audio engine.
- Printable project sheet: track, bus, plugins, etc list.
- bus sources list. (The idea about shading won't work as
a track could have many sends. I often even have the main output off and just use the sends).
- Plugin management.
- Adjustable grid background in arrange view.
- Clips groups (Or proper multitrack multi-clip editing)
- Purge button: Remove all muted and/or archived elements.
- Pattern/Clips bin with media management.
- Delete time. Basicly the opposit of insert Time/Measures.
- Elastic time-line (tm) ;) : 1) When nothing is selected: CTRL-MOUSE_DRAG the timeline so that the entire timeline stretches/shrinks relative to the project. Video view follows the mouse movement 2) When there is a selection in the timeline: CTRL-MOUSE_DRAG the edge of the selection so that only that part stretches/shrinks relative to the project, video view follows the mouse movement, tempo changes are automaticly generated OR timeline doesn't have to be linearly scaled. (Maybe this also should be an option).
- There should be an option to make the now time move to the beginning of a clip when you select a clip (as opposed to wherever you click on the clip). This would mean the video would jump to the beginning of a clip when you select it.
- TAB jumps the now time to next clip boundary.
- When you drag a clip (boundary), the video should follow so that you can edit to video.
- Audio pool. Idealy the pool should have an explorer type view so you can sort stuff by category into folders and, this is where it would get interesting for me, save individual pool folders to be reusable in other projects. There would be a default folder where everythin ends up that isn't specificaly assigned to a seperate folder. Fool clips management (Select unused clips, clear from project, delete from disk, etc etc).

I have more or less stopped making feature requests because they either don't get implemented at all or only get implemented years later when every other DAW under the sun has already implemented them. (In other words, they are not being implemented because I suggested them so why bother?) Also when discussing features on the forum there is the constant attacks from the peanut gallery from people that take any criticism of their DAW of choice as a personal attack on their person.

And to close off, I'll just repost a picture I posted recently as a kind of features suggestion. Pay attention to the Fade Editor., The media Manager (With the search filter opened), The routing matrix, the automation menu... Oh an before anyone starts talking about price class differences, this is a 600$ application...



Ok, now you can all flame away.

UnderTow

Why Flame,

You said everything I feel about the direction SONAR is heading.

I don't have a comment about the Pyramix stuff... I'd have to drive it for a day or two.

best regards,
mike

Mike,

I wasn't expecting a flame from you but others might join in this thread.

UnderTow

Marah Mag, Greg's article made interesting reading, never saw it before.

Although with say cubase/clab-notator then logic, they did have a head start with even branding .in the sense say from 88 onwards till about hhm 96 where people see a PC as business computer and every studio I used to go (even 1 that had racks of equipment and stupid amounts of money spent...) all ran atari ST , some switched to mac then or pc only when they saw the possibilities of things.

Since we're in a philosophical mood, I can't help but wonder what it would be like to conquer the dimension of time so that a musical composition could be viewed and considered and studied like a sculpture.

They already have that. It's called a score.

ORIGINAL: UnderTow
There are features being added that to me are just gimmicks for amateurs (The track icons come to mind) while other serious features are not (pen tool, proper cross-fading etc come to mind).

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.

I agree. I always thought the track icons were silly, apparently copied from Garage Band. Such things have a place in SONAR Home Studio or Guitar Tracks or whatever but this is their flagship app we're talking about.

Yes! I have some BRAND NEW Sonar-tunes at:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pageartist.cfm?bandID=410752

ORIGINAL: enharmonic

Since we're in a philosophical mood, I can't help but wonder what it would be like to conquer the dimension of time so that a musical composition could be viewed and considered and studied like a sculpture.

They already have that. It's called a score.

Point taken, but a score is only a blueprint - pre performance. I was referring to the actual performance itself. The actual music, not just the instruction set.

Paul Baker
Baker's Jazz And More
http://www.bakersjazzandmore.com

ORIGINAL: j boy

ORIGINAL: UnderTow
There are features being added that to me are just gimmicks for amateurs (The track icons come to mind) while other serious features are not (pen tool, proper cross-fading etc come to mind).

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.

I agree. I always thought the track icons were silly, apparently copied from Garage Band. Such things have a place in SONAR Home Studio or Guitar Tracks or whatever but this is their flagship app we're talking about.

Hmmm. I dunno. I find the track icons immensely useful as part of my workflow. Especially for vocals. We have sometimes 4-5 tracks of vocals with different vocalists and putting our photos on the tracks makes distinguishing them at a glance a breeze during production. Much better than trying to type and names, or reading abbreviations. A quick glance and I know what's what. I've even created my own icons for my own equipment and that makes things REAL easy for me - someone that sometimes has 30-35 tracks.

VS. that Pyramix GUI, above, I'd say we're in hog heaven. I'm sure some of us use features some others don't, if you don't like it, don't use it.

ASA's "Moloko & Ultraviolence" out 12 MAY 2009

I like the clean sheet of paper approach. The only negative I see is that when you're done, you probably have an improved file system that is incompatible with the current system and then you have all of the code to add that interfaces to everything already supported by the existing system. It's easy to see why an existing product is easier to tweak with new features and bug fixes as opposed to reinventing the wheel.

If you end up with a totally new product that is better but not compatible, your installed user base feels betrayed that their years of upgrade loyalty have been ignored. I hear things like that in this forum and we still have a compatible product. The software life cycle is a complicated organism that tries to meet the needs of a large group of diverse users with varying levels of expertise. The only problem is that the "needs" are a moving target and shorter grows the period between saying "Wow, that is so cool" and "But, I really wish it could do that".

Tom

My Soundclick Page

S8PE, Intel Quad Core, 2GB RAM, XP Home SP2, Firepod, UA LA-610, Dynaudio BM 5A monitors, Peavy Wolfgang, 1990 Strat Ultra, Alvarez PD-80SC Acoustic

ORIGINAL: tcaylor

I like the clean sheet of paper approach. The only negative I see is that when you're done, you probably have an improved file system that is incompatible with the current system and then you have all of the code to add that interfaces to everything already supported by the existing system. It's easy to see why an existing product is easier to tweak with new features and bug fixes as opposed to reinventing the wheel.

If you end up with a totally new product that is better but not compatible, your installed user base feels betrayed that their years of upgrade loyalty have been ignored. I hear things like that in this forum and we still have a compatible product. The software life cycle is a complicated organism that tries to meet the needs of a large group of diverse users with varying levels of expertise. The only problem is that the "needs" are a moving target and shorter grows the period between saying "Wow, that is so cool" and "But, I really wish it could do that".

Interesting that all software development discussions like this come back to what is basically the Microsoft paradigm vs the Apple paradigm...just an observation.

Best,

AndyW

OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

www.soundclick.com/andyw

ORIGINAL: AndyW

Interesting that all software development discussions like this come back to what is basically the Microsoft paradigm vs the Apple paradigm...just an observation.

Apple did their marketing well. They managed to make people forget that Microsoft took the decision to start with a clean slate much earlier than Apple. It was called Windows NT.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: tcaylor

I like the clean sheet of paper approach. The only negative I see is that when you're done, you probably have an improved file system that is incompatible with the current system and then you have all of the code to add that interfaces to everything already supported by the existing system. It's easy to see why an existing product is easier to tweak with new features and bug fixes as opposed to reinventing the wheel.

If you end up with a totally new product that is better but not compatible, your installed user base feels betrayed that their years of upgrade loyalty have been ignored. I hear things like that in this forum and we still have a compatible product. The software life cycle is a complicated organism that tries to meet the needs of a large group of diverse users with varying levels of expertise. The only problem is that the "needs" are a moving target and shorter grows the period between saying "Wow, that is so cool" and "But, I really wish it could do that".

There is no reason why a completely new design can't support older project files. Digidesign changed their project file architecture when going from ProTools 5 to 6. You can still load and save PT 5 session files. Also, it might seem easier to tweak the current code but apparently Cakewalk haven't really managed to do that. You still get audio glitches when saving during playback or changing loop points etc. The engine is much less efficient than that of the direct competitors. I think the fact the we are having this discussion is a clear indication that Cakewalk are having trouble with all the old code.

Ig Cakewalk managed to fix the underlying issues, this thread wouldn't exist.

UnderTow

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.

It has to do with sleek and smart and low-click implementations of features that are obvious within the context of the application. We call that application 'DAW': digital audio workstation. But at this point the term obscures what's really going on here. "Audio workstation" sounds really glamorous and it flatters everyone who says it and uses one. But it's about recording and playing back and mixing and routing audio with a computer. It's an amazing thing to be able to do. But let's deglamorize it and look at it in the cold light of day.

There's been an uptick here where almost daily there's a post from someone looking to streamline the creation of clip envelopes (and that's not counting my regular whining about it.) Other simple things like that are regularly asked for: Better ways to edit and manage envelopes. Subfolders. Routing MIDI to more than one synth. Better ways to move or copy and rearrange multi-track regions. These are all missing from Sonar. There's nothing way out about any of them. These things aren't even *features* in any real sense. When they're first introduced, they're "featured" on a "new features" list but these things are all core functionalities that are either lacking or in need of enhancement.

V-Vocal is a "feature." Audio Snap is a feature. Dimension LE and Zeta and Session Drummer and all the extras like that are features -- kind of like sub-applications; there's a reason they call plugins "plugins": They are not core. Neither is barely-implemented CD burning and web publishing. All of those things are relatively easy to piñata into an application. They are "included." They can later be excluded, and sometimes and eventually are.

The only reason Sonar 8 is coming with an LE version of Guitar Rig, and not the LE version of the Line 6 Gearbox plugin, is because Cakewalk didn't do the deal with Line 6. Ditto any other plugin from any other developer. If it made sense business-wise, there's no end to what they could add. None of them would be core. They're peripherals. And if you don't need a guitar sim or a pitch corrector or a timing fixer or yet another comp/lim variation or an over-hyped synth that you'll probably never really learn to program beyond cutting the gobs of reverb and delay that smother most of the presets, then it's worthless.

What matters is being able to record audio and MIDI and control and manipulate and arrange and mix sound -- whatever the source. And being able to easily navigate your workspace and manage your assets. And play it all back reliably and stably. That's core functionality. It's boring. It's not sexy. It doesn't impress on feature lists.

Things like subfolders and clip envelopes and regions and loop lists and consistent commands and flexible envelope editing and color management and file management and plugin management and command macros are core functionality. Integrated synth tracks is core. A functional routing matrix is core. Even if a given user doesn't need one or more of those things, they still form the basic toolset and structure of a software recording environment. These aren't thought of as being "included": they're supposed to be there.

And when those things have been neglected, in some cases for several upgrades and the better part of a decade, they probably get harder to go in and simply address, and despite good intentions, the enthusiasm for doing so probably isn't too high.

That's why the "clean sheet" design becomes necessary. Ask Greg Hendershott. Ask Justin Frankel.

ORIGINAL: spindlebox

Hmmm. I dunno. I find the track icons immensely useful as part of my workflow. Especially for vocals. We have sometimes 4-5 tracks of vocals with different vocalists and putting our photos on the tracks makes distinguishing them at a glance a breeze during production. Much better than trying to type and names, or reading abbreviations. A quick glance and I know what's what. I've even created my own icons for my own equipment and that makes things REAL easy for me - someone that sometimes has 30-35 tracks.

I more often than not have 100 tracks in a project. Sometimes it goes up to 200. Still, I have no use for track icons. I remember where everything is. I would find sub-folder tracks much much more useful for project organisation. I can't believe this can be too hard to implement...

VS. that Pyramix GUI, above, I'd say we're in hog heaven.

Because of the way it looks? To me that is irrelevant. I'm am just learning it now. I can already tell you that editing is much easier and faster than in Sonar and I've been using Cakewalk products on a daily basis since CWPA 7. IMO this is a good example of those prosumer vs professional user needs. (No offence meant).

I'm sure some of us use features some others don't, if you don't like it, don't use it.

I am not objecting to the track icons as such. I am objecting to the fact that they were included while there are IMO much more important features that have not been included or streamlined/enhanced.

UnderTow