Workflow, Workflow, Workflow! Aspirations for Sonar Moving Forward in My Studio

Workflow, Workflow, Workflow! Aspirations for Sonar Moving Forward in My Studio

This is one of the toughest posts I've ever written in this forum, but I feel right now is the time to be completely open about my experience in certain areas of Sonar in the hopes that Cakewalk will take a good, hard look at what I consider to be its greatest shortcomings. And it all starts with workflow. Project workflow. Particularly automation workflow. Editing workflow. MIDI workflow. Creative workflow. Or just plain workflow in general.

Those who know me, know that I'm an advocate and sometimes even a fan of what we affectionately call "the Bakers." I genuinely want Sonar to be the go-to centerpiece of my studio, and with each update/upgrade it gets closer to that role. Sonar has continued to impress me and I congratulate the Bakers on their fine work. I have a good relationship with some of them, and I have a great deal of respect for their technical prowess and dedication to making Sonar the best it can be. Plus, they're nice guys. And I want nice guys to finish first. :)

However, right now, I still have no centerpiece to my studio. I haven't had a centerpiece since my Logic days. For years, I've been all over the place. I prefer Sonar for certain tasks, but I also use Cubase, Live, Reaper and (unfortunately) ProTools when I have to. I've owned and used just about everything else. Originally, I was a Logic refugee (from the eMagic/Apple abandonment era) and over the years I developed a multi-DAW approach that has served me well. But this approach also has its drawbacks, and I've been trying to streamline and simplify lately.

Recently, in another thread ( http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?&m=1852337 ), I detailed what I went through to get a new DAW up and running with Sonar x64 and Win 7 x64. This is not the first time I've attempted to move to x64. Sonar always attracted me because it led on the x64 front, and with the release of Sonar 8.5 and Win 7 I was determined to make it work for me this time.

And, I'm happy to say, I'm up and running with Sonar x64. With several workarounds and help from a number of great folks here in the forum and at Cakewalk as well, I have 95%+ of all my plugins running just fine in the Sonar x64 environment on Win 7. That's a great achievement and I'm now fully (and finally) committed to the x64 platform. Hats off to Cakewalk for pulling this feat off. This is the first "major" DAW to pull it off for my needs. Finally.

Now, I also decided that this was the time to make Sonar the centerpiece of my studio, and begin migrating most of my non-Sonar projects over to Sonar. I figured it deserved the focused attention since I was so successful moving to x64 with it. Now was the time for me to delve deeper than ever into what Sonar could accomplish and push it harder than ever. Now was the time for me to finally, fully ditch Cubase.

Ahhhh, Cubase. What to say about Cubase? What to say about Steinberg? A frustrating experience to say the least. Steinberg has been one of the worst experiences I've ever had in dealing with a software company. What surprises me the most is how consistently, chronically unpleasant it has been dealing with them, and how oblivious they seem to pay attention to good client relations.

But love 'em or hate 'em, Steinberg writes good software. Well, when they're not writing crappy software, that is. :)

Some of you who know me, know that when Cubase 4 came out I was so disappointed (in both the company and software itself), I decided to move as much as possible to Sonar. I kept Cubase around and tried hard to phase it out, but it never disappeared off my DAW. To make a long story short, I was forced to continue to use Cubase for some critical projects when the Sonar motorboating got the best of me (this forum chronicles the ordeal somewhere), and even though Cakewalk responded quickly and fixed motorboating, Cubase's role had increased in my general workflow.

I hate that Cubase "came to save the day" on that occasion, but I'll be honest, when I fired it up to save my project and prevent the great embarrassment of having motorboating in front of a paying client -- a TV pilot scoring job BTW -- I was impressed at the general workflow of Cubase, from project management down to tiny edits. From automation down to track/clip editing. I dismissed this at the time as prior familiarity and that I was still learning the ins and outs of Sonar.

From that point on, I allowed Cubase more "room" in my studio and it was with Cubase that I finished most of that scoring job. For subsequent jobs, I continued to keep Cubase somewhere in the workflow even as I became more familiar with Sonar's features and workflow. I used Sonar quite a bit on several projects, but mainly from the compositional end -- not much from the mixing, editing or post end.

I also brought Live and Reaper into the equation, so I was covered on a lot of fronts. Sonar has been a valuable part of that workflow. I wanted to promote it to "go-to centerpiece" but it still lacked some editing features I needed.

However, Steinberg once again continued their shenanigans and with their poor handling of x64, their stunning failure to write a decent VST Bridge, and some other issues with Cubase 5 and yet more customer relations issues, I once again was very "inspired" to dump Cubase. This time for good. I tried and tried. In fact, I even promoted Reaper up the chain of command in my studio to fill in for Cubase in some areas and I used Live more and more... Even ProTools got a refresher (but was quickly demoted again for various reasons).

Fast forward to today.... I now have a very stable, wonderfully-working Sonar 8.5.1 x64/Windows 7 x64 DAW up and running. Almost all my plugins work great. Reaper x64 is also working quite well (and yes, Reaper now has a fairly decent bit-bridge feature too). All I have to do is install Live, and I'm good to go, right? The era of Cubase on my DAW is over, finally, right? I was just going to leave Cubase on my old DAW to transition projects over to the new machine, right? Then I'd finally be free of Steinberg, right?

Wrong. I'm sorry to say, the era of Cubase on my DAW is unfortunately not over. Today, I have broken down and will be installing Cubase along side Sonar. And this is why: Workflow, workflow, workflow.

With my attempt to begin moving more of my projects over to Sonar, I delved deeper into Sonar than I ever did before. I pushed its features in ways I didn't before. In the past, I would write songs in Sonar, and score short clips, and it worked great. Sure, I'd use a ton of VST, VSTi, etc., and get some crazy track-counts at times, and Sonar handled it well. However, I never had to get too far into the weeds with Sonar... deep into microscopic (and macroscopic) editing, and re-flowing and mixing large projects, and more complex/lengthy scoring with more automation. I never tried editing/mixing 45+ minutes of an audio drama on it... until now.

And what I realized was something that had been invisible to me before, or was just a minor annoyance that I was willing to overlook. I've determined that it's not "me" anymore getting used to how Sonar works, and I've taken off the rose-tinted lenses. I've been at it long enough to know Sonar's (and the other DAWs') approach and what it boils down to is basically this:

Despite all the great qualities of Sonar -- and there are many notable, unique, praiseworthy qualities and features -- it is still lacking in several fundamental workflow areas that other DAWs have continued to refine over the last few years. While Sonar excels in several areas (x64 being a good example), it is suffering when you have to get into the weeds of tiny edits of large projects. Some things just take too long to do in Sonar, and some things in automation are just kludgey or simply impossible. In short, Sonar still needs a lot of refinement when it comes to workflow, particularly in the track view (manipulating, tweaking, moving, selecting, editing clips, MIDI, etc.) and especially with automation, which will affect every other aspect of workflow.

Project workflow. Automation workflow. Editing workflow. MIDI workflow. Creative workflow. Any and all of these areas should be addressed, in my opinion. I really want Cakewalk to succeed, but I fear these areas are now the areas that pros and aspiring pros will notice the most.

Now, for this post, I don't mean to get into the specifics since so many of these issues have been covered by great posts on this forum -- over and over. Plus, this post is long enough already. :) The bottom line is that Sonar needs a huge amount of work in improving all phases of workflow so it is smooth, quick, intuitive, consistent and robust. ALL of us stand to benefit from improvements in this area, and I would personally prefer that all focus be put into workflow issues more than any other possible feature for the next version of Sonar.

Recently, I've posted about and sent in feature requests for things like ripple editing and improvements to automation -- from automation lanes to more modes of automation, etc. etc... I know others have too.

As I continue to use other DAW apps in my workflow, I can see how one doesn't have to go far to see where Sonar could be improved in all workflow areas. Other DAWs borrow liberally from Sonar, and I think it's appropriate to highlight how Sonar can borrow some more things from them.

First, I'll mention Cubase/Nuendo. If you take a good, hard look at Cubase 5's (and Nuendo 4's) workflow -- particularly for automation -- there are lot of lessons that can be learned. In short, not only can you deal with more complex automation more easily and ergonomically, but it has many more modes of automation, far more automation tools, and it also takes fewer clicks to do it and/or visualize it and then edit it... in sum, it's complex and streamlined. Workflow ideas abound there. While Cubase has other workflow shortcomings, its automation is far more advanced than Sonar's. Cubase/Nuendo automation simply works great for longer (30+ minutes), more complex projects. Just try putting together a big project with tons of automation for plugins (VSTi and on audio clips/tracks) and then editing and moving those bits and pieces around in Sonar... then try that in Cubase or Nuendo. I'll leave it at that for now.

Next, since this is an honest post, I have to mention Reaper. I know less about Reaper than I do about Sonar, and even with all of Reaper's shortcomings and occasionally confusing design decisions, I have been blown away by how far it has come with the current version. Take a look at automation and basic editing, for example, since those have such a huge impact on overall workflow. First, I will have to say that Reaper's automation has come into its own recently. Still has a ways to go, but automation lanes work as you would expect them to, intuitively, predictably and it even offers some very creative modulation tools that work with automation -- you can even modulate any plugin parameter from another track (i.e.: imagine "sidechaining 2.0") or with an LFO! It's extremely well thought out. The modulation feature is just plain inspiring, and it works wonderfully with automation. Maybe not so much a workflow benefit, but it shows how carefully designed the automation is now in Reaper. Couple the automation lanes with ripple edit modes (which work beautifully), nestable track folders, powerful macros, good extensibility, or even simple things like plugin parameter filtering when you want to arm something or create a lane, etc., and Reaper is making inroads that even hard-core post-production guys will take notice. Time is money, right? Well, on a large project with tons of small edits to make, Reaper does surprisingly well and will save you time. I will admit that Reaper is inconsistent in its approach -- there are some functions that take several clicks to execute (or even find in the settings or menus) -- but several aspects of Reaper's workflow are now so tight and powerful it might surprise you.

I won't say much about ProTools or Logic or Samplitude or even Live... or any of the other apps out there -- that almost goes without saying -- there are many examples of simple workflow enhancements -- project, automation, editing, MIDI, and creative areas -- that Sonar could benefit from. The lines for what Sonar is being used for are blurring. There have been some workflow improvements recently, but when you get down into the weeds with Sonar, manipulating automation, clips, tracks, complex projects, I've found it takes many more clicks and much more time in many situations than its competitors. 

This is disheartening because it just takes more time to manage a complex project than it should nowadays. And when we get deep into automation, I find it almost impossible to work with Sonar. As soon as I start moving tracks and clips around with lots of automation, it's not nearly as robust as I would hope, and with lots of automation visible, it is ergonomically insane. You know what I'm talking about. I find I make a lot errors, and strange things sometimes happen. These could be automation or track-view bugs or human error, but I find I have to be especially careful and double-check what automation or clips got moved when I work with Sonar, which is never the case when I work with ProTools or Cubase. Now, even Reaper is quite impressive in this area. The ripple-editing modes alone are major time-savers in Reaper for someone coming from the video-editing world or for someone who has to edit dialog or performances not locked to a timeline/tempo.

Now, please don't be tempted to dismiss the urgent need to improve workflow issues here just because Sonar does something else a lot better than one of the other DAWs... of course it does. There are plenty of areas that the other DAWs can learn from Sonar. But it would be very short-sighted to ignore what other DAWs bring to the table, and particularly when it comes to everything surrounding track/clip editing and automation we can stand to have some big improvements that will lead to much better workflow in all areas.

A deep analysis of how track views work in Cubase/Nuendo, ProTools, even Reaper, (not to mention the latest versions of Samplitude, Digital Performer, ACID Pro) and perhaps looking at the video editing world (Final Cut Pro, Vegas Pro) can provide a wealth of ideas for an overhaul. That would drastically improve workflow in a lot of areas. Just dragging, editing, tweaking, selecting clips/tracks or groups of clips/tracks plus automation takes too long and is too clumsy when you compare that to several other DAWs right now. With all the refinement that Sonar has received lately, this area seems to be one of the key areas that is showing its age.

There have been numerous threads posted with some specific ideas in this forum. I've submitted a couple of feature requests that would help me the most, and I know many other Sonar users have too. I know Cakewalk listens... I just hope the chorus of voices is loud enough on this issue, so we can see some real improvement soon.

For now, unfortunately, my workflow will have to continue to use several DAW apps. I hate the idea of having to install Cubase on my new DAW along side Sonar, but getting work done trumps the other issues. Sonar is SO CLOSE to being able to fully replace both Cubase and ProTools for me, I just hope Cakewalk can take a few more steps forward soon.

Best Regards,
James Durham

Matrix view seems like  a very creative tool that I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate. But alas, not really a priority for what I need. :) BTW, as an inveterate Windows user, are you hinting at your own direction?

mike_mccue


I just want to be happy when I work.

The envelope thing is getting tiresome.

:)

LOL, I didn't succumb to any charms, Jose. <sigh> It's not a happy day that I have to install Cubase on this DAW along side Sonar, but work is work. And I have to be honest with Cakewalk here. I really want Cakewalk to thrive. I can live with Sonar's quirky, messy, unrefined automation for many types of projects... but not all... and Sonar's workflow doesn't bother me when I'm doing general composing/songwriting less than 8-10 minutes in length. It's great for that, maybe nearing ideal for that with minor improvements. Just automation lanes might be enough of an improvement for that type of project.

But for certain types of complex projects with lots of edits, particularly with lots of automation, it just is not cutting it, when I know I can save time even in Reaper for certain tasks. How the hell did Reaper come so far in the last version, I have no idea.

Truthfully, I should upgrade to Nuendo for more post features, but there's no way I'll support Steinberg that much. For anything resembling post work, larger project workflow or for more complex editing with lots of automation, my prior workflow will have to do... which includes Cubase, etc. :(

Man, am I bummed out. Anyway, it's nothing different than what I've been doing. I just thought I could get rid of Cubase by now. Damn.

As for getting the message to Cakewalk, I'm not sure of the best way -- I defer to your forum wisdom. I figured I'd submit some feature requests, contact some Cake people, and support threads that cover similar territory. I don't know how much momentum we can get -- in this thread or anywhere -- or what will for sure raise the proper red flags up at Cakewalk. An urgent bugfix is one thing, but a massive overhaul of a major section of the application is quite another. I know they do listen, and I have enjoyed many exchanges with Cake folks, but some people have been talking about automation/envelopes here, for example, for a LONG time, with little being done. Maybe that's already on the internal Cakewalk list? This, along with notation, seem WAY past due for a major update.

I take any suggestion you have to raise the profile of this particular issue, though! :)

Firstly, thanks for the well written (and lengthy) post. It lays out in a clear and non confrontational way what you believe needs to be improved in Sonar.

I hope that you copied that post into Word and then printed it out as a letter and mailed it to Cakewalk as well. As you can already see you are preaching to the choir here in the forum, but as Jose points out it may or may not get seen by anyone who can do anything about it at CW.

I'm afraid that in today's world software development is driven by the marketing department, and "work=flow improvements" are not sexy. Dozens of VST(i)'s interface windows are easy to put in an advertisement. Pictures of proper behaviour when envelopes are being moved probably doesn't sell software. The marketers will have their surveys and research that shows that the average user wants more features every time they upgrade.

Perhaps they have statistics showing that most of their user base does not use the program in deep enough way to ever discover these work flow issues. If so, then I'm guessing that they have determined that a smaller percentage of users are going to jump ship if they ignore work flow feature requests than if they don't add more "gizmos' every update.

Maybe if more people filed feature requests instead of just complaining about issues here on the forum we could make it clear to marketing that we do care about work flow. The only thing they might respond to is numbers...the more "formal" requests they get the more they have to stand up and pay attention.

If you think about it, from their perspective maybe only 5% of the users are asking for these improvements...how much of your precious and expensive development resources are you going to dedicate to placating them? Answer...none.

It's even possible that they have made a conscious decision to please the lowest common denominator (which equals the greatest sales potential) and that they have actually written off the sem-pro and pro markets (much tinier segment)and are prepared to let those people leave for the products that are truly professional (and expensive).

Of course no one from cakewalk can comment on things like this in a public forum, so all we have is speculation here. I'm just throwing out ideas to see if anything sticks. I don't have a clue how decisions are made reagarding the allocation of programming resources at CW or anywhere else. I'm just saying what my thought process might be if it was me making the financial decisions in the same market circumstances.

I think what a lot of us want is what I keep referring to as "Sonar Pro". Drop all the add-on stuff, (we have our own plugs) and give me rock solid Audio and MIDI performance with an intutive GUI, reliable automation, and fast, reliable editing tools. I'd happily pay a yearly subscription fee if it would mean that someone could simply acknowledge my issues and get right onto producing incremental updates to fix those issues.


Anyway, great post Eratu.

Very well done Eratu!  I think that you pointed out,  in a  very rational  way, some things that would assist not only those  working on large projects, but everyone who uses Sonar.   It is so refreshing to see it expressed without the typical ranting and raving that so often accompanies the "DEMANDS for a change or else"  approach.  This approach is what I think will get listened to and acted on.

Maybe someone could from Cakewalk could just pipe up with a "We hear you" comment  before this thread gets hijacked by the screamers.

L.

Rothchild:

I hope I said more than a mere practical suggestion of automation lanes, but I do agree those would go a long way to help all of us -- and I agree that I totally win the award for overly-verbose post of the day. :)

I do agree that I am implying "'How can we find out what Cakewalk are prioritising in terms of development?' and 'Is there some sort of way that the user community can engage in some sort of democratic / systematic process through which they can influence those development priorities?'" I don't have answer of course, but that was a great way to pose some of the things I'm trying to say.

I totally agree that everyone has different "workflow" needs and it can get nebulous. Fortunately, Cakewalk doesn't have to go very far to find ideas to improve the workflow, particularly when it comes to automation and the track view, or even simple clip management/editing, etc. You and I can probably come up with two dozen without thinking about it. The forum has many threads about it, with a lot of overlap... and Cakewalk has copies of Cubase, Nuendo, ProTools, Reaper, Digital Performer, Logic, Samplitude, etc., and can clearly see some of the common things that seem to work well for a lot of people, right? Let's hope they are paying attention.

nprime:

I will send a printed version to Cakewalk. Thanks for the idea! I appreciate all your comments... and agree... so how do we raise the profile in a rational, serious, thoughtful way? If what you say is true about how Cakewalk is governed strongly by marketing -- which certainly has to be true to some degree simply because business is business -- then maybe we can help them figure out how to make workflow and automation "sexy" and marketable... :)

How 'bout it, folks?

How do we make workflow and automation seem sexy? I get turned on just thinking about it... uh oh, I sense the early demise of this thread if I keep that up....

Jose:

Totally with you, my friend... I agree it's not exclusive to projects less than 8 minutes in length (an arbitrary length I came up with meaning to imply "shorter" projects). I just said it didn't "bother" me and that I can live with it... but you're right (as usual) that it still would make a big difference if we had even minor improvements like you mentioned... also your automation thread is one that I was implying in my first post... people like you have been asking for these types of changes for a long time...

Great question about how we can get our message across to Cakewalk... I wish I knew the best way. I think nprime hit on something in that I think we'll be more effective if we can somehow package it so that it's attractive from a marketing point of view.... i.e.: How are these things not just relevant to us, the "choir," but also very sexy and enticing to future buyers and borderline potential upgraders?

lorneyb2:

Thanks, sir! I sure hope the screamers don't jump in here... we need some rational thought and need to figure out a way to get Cakewalk to take this issue more seriously. :)

Yah, ditto.

Thank you James (eratu) for taking the time to write this post. It sums up the main issues with Sonar. I also agree that we don't really need to mention any specific enhancement. Not only are there already many threads and requests for workflow improvements that go into detail but also the Cakewalk team only need to open any of the major competitors to gain  a multitude of ideas on how to improve Sonar's workflow.

I don't even bother giving workflow ideas any more because explaining some of these features with words really doesn't convey how quick and powerful they can be in use. As some of you have probably noticed, I just point Cakewalk to the competition. A day working on any of those DAWs with an expert in those DAWs will teach Cakewalk more than I could type in a month.

What might be more useful is to talk about results. For instance I would like to be able to take a relatively complex to very complex project and easily rearrange it. I would like to, for instance, select a portion of the timeline and do something like CTRL-C, CTRL-X and then click somewhere else on the timeline and do CTRL-V. This should remove the section from where it was everything included and paste it at the new location everything included.

By everything included I mean all the visible clips and automation in the arrange view but also anything that might be hidden or on a bus. I need to explain this a little bit: By hidden I also mean any audio or automation that has been frozen! Why? Because if I want to unfreeze something after rearranging, I want to be able to continue working as though the track had never been frozen. Or at least this should be an option. Maybe an "arrange mode".

At the moment the above is not possible. Not even by a humongous stretch of the imagination. I know from experience that other DAWs have no issue with these kind of project rearranging. To me this is just basic functionality. Basic functionality that Sonar lacks.

To continue in the results vein, I want to be able to edit on a track or clip level without ever thinking of the automation unless I want to. I should be able to copy and paste or drag clips and sections to my hearts content and they should sound exactly the same after the edit as they did before. I should never be afraid that the automation isn't copied or gets mixed up with other automation etc.

I would also like the opposite. I would like to be able to easily edit and manipulate automation independently of clips. Just select, possibly with a modifier but with automation lanes that wouldn't be necessary, and easily copy paste to another track/clip/bus.

For all these arrangement enhancements to make sense I would like to be able to easily navigate a 200 track project. There are two ways to aid that. One is nested folders, the other is the ability to make tracks smaller in height. Cubase has had this for... five years now? Yet Cakewalk think it makes more sense to add something like that Matrix View instead of improving basic functionality. I don't get it.

On another note, I don't believe that the real issue is about appealing to power users or amateurs. I believe these kind of improvements would benefit every single Sonar user. I think the issue is a lack of vision at Cakewalk by whomever decides what gets worked on and what doesn't. It is about long term versus short term planning. The problem with marketing research (and nearly all similar type research) is that it is not very good at looking at the long term.

A marketing person can look at last years sales and see how many new features were added, see how many new users purchased the product and how many upgraded, correct for inflation, the market and what not but it is very hard to look at a period of let's say 10 years and conclude that lack of attention to power features and enhancement of existing features has resulted in 30% less sales than we potentially could have had.

There is no formula for this. No one can calculate this. That is one of those things that the people that are good feel instinctively (the brain is very good at processing large amounts of complex data and delivering an answer. It is much less good at explaining how it worked out the answer), the ones that are not so good at it go bankrupt...

Lets not forget that this is Cakewalk's flagship product. There is plenty of room in Cakewalk's portfolio for the simplified bling bling product but unfortunately,  at this point in time, Cakewalk do not have a professional DAW on the market. It has a prosumer DAW with aspirations to be a professional DAW. That is all.

I wish Cakewalk would develop Sonar into a cutting edge high-end professional DAW. It doesn't need to cover every every market. For instance at the moment it has no chance to compete in the post world. That is OK. That is OK as long as it performs well as an all-round music DAW specialised on MIDI and Audio. It is great that it has a few video features included but it shouldn't be Cakewalk's priority right now. I believe that if Cakewalk address the workflow or what I often call the GUI issues (and I mean the same thing by this. I am not talking about looks), the rest will follow easily.

Cakewalk, can you deliver a best of breed DAW? Can you beat everyone else in one market segment?

Thanks for reading,

UnderTow

nprime


Maybe if more people filed feature requests instead of just complaining about issues here on the forum we could make it clear to marketing that we do care about work flow.

If Cakewalk's Marketing doesn't routinely LOOK FOR AND READ posts called
Workflow, Workflow, Workflow! Aspirations for Sonar Moving Forward in My Studio then there is something wrong with Cakewalk's Marketing. Alas, that has become increasingly obvious, as has the marketing-driven development of Sonar. It becomes harder to avoid certain conclusions. (Maybe the single most powerful "marketing" tool that a company has is its user forum. The recent forum "update" makes those conclusions even harder to avoid.)

I'm increasingly convinced that at some level, Cakewalk is being managed for either a drastic repositioning in the marketplace (eg, no longer primarily a standalone sw developer), or for intentional failure. The alternative to those would (I believe) have to be the release of a modern, post-Sonar production platform. It's hard to see how the issues that James/Eratu (and others) mentioned can be addressed in typical "next version" (or even a version-after-next) scenario, given how deep those issues run, and how long they've been outstanding. 

The most significant word in the original post: nowadays

Workflow:   quite the mantra:  And yet the most basic of tasks are still a pain.


On mine brain everyday. Why can't I do this  ?????
 
I NEVER use SAVE. And I think anyone who does is asking for trouble. ALL files can become corrupted. So I ALWAYS use SAVE-AS. This is a KNOWN recommended behavior: save-as to a new name each time the project is saved: great_song_111609a.cwp. I learned this 20 years ago while programming spreadsheets.
 (I have replaced all save button with save-as in any application that "allows" it.)


And I learned to reboot the computer regularly. This helps tremendously with hidden corruption. I have clients call about the word file they worked on all day yesterday, saving regularly, and now it will not open. Very annoying. Lots of messages here about such an experience.
 
So take a break, save-as everything, and reboot the puter. This will mean you will learn of any problem sooner.
 
 
Biggest peave:::  Sonar managers have not provided a way to place ANY command on a button bar, including a Save-As button.
 
Took years to get them to provide some configuration of menus and toolbars. And 5 versions before a TRACK VIEW button. (Stubborn at best.)
 
I still want a way to minimize ALL windows and dialogs to show only the trackview. A SHOW-DESKtop button. Almost there.
 
(Mostly Using 7, testing 8 demo.)
 
And:::  The Clever Stupidity of NOT showing the currently selected output in the list.???
"Make me have to think about, OK.  I need the extra brain stretch right now."
 
This is an area of inconsistency: the input list is clear: list all possibilities and show the one selected with a check mark. WHY has the output selection been treated differently??????
 
AAAAAAANNNNNNNND::
                            Why can I not CLONE BUSSES??? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What a huge waste of time doing this manually. (Changed in 8.5???)
 
And why does the currently selected bus not change to a different color?
 
AND::::
    How about a quick way (cntl-shft- left mouse click?) to set the Now-Time WITHOUT UNselecting selected clips?  Right-click sets now time???? Get real. I do not want the context dialog showing always, and accidental movement of now time.
 
AND:  option to show bigger node spots and lines for envelopes, with transparency setting. Way too many false grabs.
 
And:::  Track Spacers that show in any view. A track spacer with a title and a notepad, and unique color.   (Track folders can not provide this function)
 
And::   a timer: record/play for X minutes and stop. Is that so wrong?  (I do a lot of cassette, reel dubbing, for self and clients.)
 
And:   A Microscope tool for audio: sorta like a slide rule, about 2 inches wide, full vertical, works only when stopped, magnification adjustable, movable horizontally,...  Zooming the full screen is annoying, and disorienting
 
AND: on the top of the list: Import/export tracks and projects with DATA.
I have tracks that I want in other projects. Track templates already work fine for 4 versions. WHY NOT include the data? Select tracks == export with all settings and routings AND data. A big time saver.
 
I understand to accomplish this is more complicated than a Save_as button. But... all the basic functionality is already built: procedure: create an export project, delete all the non-selected stuff, save the rest. Simple, not easy. The import process is no doubt a bit more messy. But doable.
 
 
I have suggested most of the above to CW from CW9. And I have told them I will gladly pay more money to have these items (and many others) fixed.
 
How about a Sonar Ultimate version?   More Sonar programming and NO plug-in / add-ons.
 
Or, maybe it is time for a new product akin to Nuendo so CW can get away from the current Sonar price-point dilemma. (Current strategy: Buy Dimension, Zeta, Sonitus plugs,... for $179,   and get Sonar for free.)
 
Dimension is great, but I can find substitutes. I NEED a SAVE-AS button.
 
Most of the above may not seem to be as important as Eratu's described needs. But, nothing on my list requires tons of programming. Most of the above can be done in less than a day. And everyone will benefit.
J

=============
Windows 7 Pro, Using S7, testing 8 demo.

==========
Big wheel keeps a turning, Proud Mary keeps on Roland,  Roland, Roland, Roland down a river.
 

UnderTow

What might be more useful is to talk about results. For instance I would like to be able to take a relatively complex to very complex project and easily rearrange it. I would like to, for instance, select a portion of the timeline and do something like CTRL-C, CTRL-X and then click somewhere else on the timeline and do CTRL-V. This should remove the section from where it was everything included and paste it at the new location everything included.

By everything included I mean all the visible clips and automation in the arrange view but also anything that might be hidden or on a bus. I need to explain this a little bit: By hidden I also mean any audio or automation that has been frozen! Why? Because if I want to unfreeze something after rearranging, I want to be able to continue working as though the track had never been frozen. Or at least this should be an option. Maybe an "arrange mode".

At the moment the above is not possible. Not even by a humongous stretch of the imagination. I know from experience that other DAWs have no issue with these kind of project rearranging. To me this is just basic functionality. Basic functionality that Sonar lacks.

To continue in the results vein, I want to be able to edit on a track or clip level without ever thinking of the automation unless I want to. I should be able to copy and paste or drag clips and sections to my hearts content and they should sound exactly the same after the edit as they did before. I should never be afraid that the automation isn't copied or gets mixed up with other automation etc.

I would also like the opposite. I would like to be able to easily edit and manipulate automation independently of clips. Just select, possibly with a modifier but with automation lanes that wouldn't be necessary, and easily copy paste to another track/clip/bus.

For all these arrangement enhancements to make sense I would like to be able to easily navigate a 200 track project. There are two ways to aid that. One is nested folders, the other is the ability to make tracks smaller in height. Cubase has had this for... five years now? Yet Cakewalk think it makes more sense to add something like that Matrix View instead of improving basic functionality. I don't get it.

+1

jb

Of course all the clamoring for varispeed, that utterly essential feature that even its most die hard proponents will only use occasionally and the rest of not at all....

Just as an aside. Digital "varispeed" is a very different animal than its analog predecessor. In fact, while the term "varispeed" is convenient, it doesn't really describe the functionality involved.

There is a complete separation of pitch and speed, which means you can, e.g., independently a play project x-percent slower and y-semitones/cents higher, at the same time, in realtime.

When this is implemented as part of DAW-wide pitch and playrate functionality, it becomes even more powerful. For example, being able to apply to realtime independent pitch and playrate settings on a per-clip basis.

I haven't really through this through, but off-hand I might say well-implemented digital "varispeed" like I've described here just might be, in its own way, as revloutionary as Celemony's DNA technology in the way it gives you independent control over basic sound components that have previously been locked together. Neither technology has to be used simply to correct errors, or aid the less-talented, or as a gimmick.

FWIW.

I'm really loving the responses on this thread -- great ideas and comments. And Wiz, um, thanks, man! I did say I win the award for overly verbose post of the day, right? ;)

As for how to proceed I just hope Cakewalk is reading this and other similar threads. They're clearly very bright guys and respond well to intelligent discussion. :)

I agree with UnderTow's specific statement: "...explaining some of these features with words really doesn't convey how quick and powerful they can be in use." -- in fact, sometimes even watching someone use one of these workflow features in another DAW app doesn't convey the wow factor unless it can be related on a personal level. A level where someone can have an "aha!" moment and see exactly how it could benefit them in a project.

Ripple editing (a pet workflow feature I want very badly in Sonar) is one of those things that you have to experience an "aha!" moment to fully appreciate... then you can't imagine doing it any other way.

Sometimes we get so stuck in a pattern of doing something one way, it takes great effort to break out of that myopic view and approach it from a fresh perspective. That's hard to ask anyone to do... especially when it seems we always want more, more more! And then, certainly, some of the programmers at Cakewalk have to do an assessment of how much time and money it will cost to develop a certain feature, and someone in the chain of command has to see if it will "make sense" on a business level.

So for issues like this I wonder how we can get through to the guy that makes the business decision and has to add up how much money Cakewalk has to spend to implement something... how do we convince that guy (is Greg still calling all the shots? Someone else? A mysterious lead project manager?) that the investment in these ideas is worth it in the short- and (more importantly) long-term?

BTW, Marah, I don't believe "Cakewalk is being managed for either a drastic repositioning in the marketplace (eg, no longer primarily a standalone sw developer), or for intentional failure." -- I do think they are really trying to push Sonar to the technological edge and I think their pattern of investment in the engine itself and things like BitBridge 2.0 is a very good sign. I think a lot of work has been invested under the hood, which is not necessarily a "sexy" marketable feature... but I now hope they can turn that energy to the workflow issues and taking this app to the next level. I hope they don't take the "easy way out" and spend time on the glossy stuff to make up for the time spent on the engine and BitBridge.

Any further add-ons and plugins are essentially useless to me right now, and I know many people in the forum would concur on that note. Problem is, how do you make that a compelling marketing point and revenue-generator so they invest into it? I can see their dilemma: Most people don't scratch the surface of what their DAW can actually do so it seems "easier" and perhaps more cost-effective to throw on layers of gloss that can add more marketing bullets, but not much by way of what we're asking for. The types of things we're talking about -- some of them -- are not trivial to develop. It could take years to refine and improve. I just hope they get going soon. :)

Eratu,

I think there's no easy way of making core workflow improvements sound "sexy" to the newcomers without it being short of revolutionary.  It has to be revolutionary though, or else people will complain that they wasted their money on something that should've worked in the first place.  We don't even have to go far considering that similar comments were made in this very forum when Sonar 8.5 was released.  But to me, Sonar 8 and 8.5 have been the best Sonar yet, because they involved A LOT of work to the core audio engine, handling of multi-threaded tasks, the ASIO driver model, latency compensation, just to name a few.  Not only that, but they also worked hard on Bitbridge and 3rd party plugin compatibility for those of us who like working in a 64 bit environment.  So I think they have made some really good choices in the past few versions that show that they do really care. 

However, there were features that could've been implemented better, and I believe a lot of people would've appreciate it as much as I would, such as the Matrix View.  Not adding a way to easily re-arrange a multi-track project made this one a miss, for me personally.  Don't get me wrong, I actually like it, and it is fun to play with.  But I consider it a toy and not a tool that's gonna help me create better music.  I hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this outloud, but perhaps it's due to the way I work and I'm somehow missing the big picture.  The other one was Audio Snap 2.0, which everyone knows about so I'm not gonna go there.  I'm sure they'll improve these in the next update.  But this is were I agree with UnderTow (though I agree with him in just about everything :-P) that time needs to be spent making the feature mature and not just adding it half-baked in order to make another bullet point in the feature list.

They are trying to please us all, and that is a big feat.  But I think Cakewalk should do more of what they did in these last few versions, except now with a focus on work-flow as the main theme for Sonar 9.  Maybe that won't get them as many new customers as the flashy new features do.  But at the very least, it should appeal to the current user base as well as others who may not be happy with their current DAW, yet haven't cross-grade to Sonar because of the missing work-flow enhancements.  Work-flow enhancements in the whole sense of the word (be it with Audio editing, Scoring, Automation, Notation, etc), is the big gap right now.  We already have the doo dahs (I love that word), now it's time you give us the little stuff Cakewalk.  The stuff that, at the end of the day, really matters.