VOTE for a Sonar facelift!!!!!

I'm happy with the current interface. If any dramatic changes are made, please allow some way for us philestines to go back to the current interface.

The boring Windows-look is stable, customizable, easy to work with and you can configure things so take up less space than they seem to in Cubase.

ORIGINAL: Tog

I'm happy with the current interface. If any dramatic changes are made, please allow some way for us philestines to go back to the current interface.

Not looking for dramatic changes!! I love the layout the way it is!! Keep the existing layout exactly as it is just make it more rich, graphically!

ORIGINAL: kstevege

most of us do not like how Sonar 5 uses the "Microsoft Windows" look. A lot of us look forward to a softer insterface with more 3D-type buttons and dials.

Sorry, dude. I must be in the minority then. I like an interface that's functional and gives me all the detail that I need in a glance, without being so drab that it's fatiguing to the eyes (PT).

The interfaces in Sonar 3-5 work just fine for me.

For example, most of us do not like how Sonar 5 uses the "Microsoft Windows" look. A lot of us look forward to a softer insterface with more 3D-type buttons and dials.

I'm not in that group... leave the hardware simulation look to ...well, hardware!

-nor should it affect performance in anyway

-before anyone gripes and claims that improving the looks of Sonar 5's interface will negatively affect performance I advise looking at Window XP tweaks and turning off unnecessary background services

What are you talking about here?

ORIGINAL: kstevege

Before anyone replies, this not about being too picky nor is this relevant to Sonar5's sound engine and applicability which is absolutely outstanding. This is just about making the Sonar 5 interface look more...rich and classy. For example, most of us do not like how Sonar 5 uses the "Microsoft Windows" look. A lot of us look forward to a softer insterface with more 3D-type buttons and dials.

This shouldn't be too difficult for the cakewalk engineers to incorporate nor should it affect performance in anyway. In fact it could probably be accomplished with a patch.

Now, before anyone gripes and claims that improving the looks of Sonar 5's interface will negatively affect performance I advise looking at Window XP tweaks and turning off unnecessary background services first and make your OS more conducive to audio recording.

So anyone who is on board with a Sonar 5 facelift, let your voice be heard!!

Nope not me. I love the Windows look. That is the main reason why I choose Sonar over the Mac/Atari looking stuff. I even had to set the colors to Sonar 2.2 to get some contrast back. Every time they try to "improve" the user interface it makes it harder on me. If they want to do "skins" like an mp3 player then fine as long as "Windows look" is one of them.

ORIGINAL: kstevege
So anyone who is on board with a Sonar 5 facelift, let your voice be heard!!

I don't want a Sonar facelift. I'd much prefer the programming effort go into other features like more keyboard shortcut options, better transport functionality, clip locking, track folder cloning and other improvements, and on and on... (and I shouldn't leave out bug fixes!)

Skins are the answer, that way nobody gets hurt. Choice is good.

I have said before that the wider opinion of Sonar, from those who use the competitors software on either Mac or PC is that the GUI is not up to the competition, and that its all that really lets it down.

Although its a great program I am inclined to agree.

I'm a new user so I really haven't gotten used to anything. I would like it to be more "impressive " looking, more like a piece of hardware. I can totally see your point. The more impressive it looks, the more people will want to use it. While this seems like a stupid reality, it is, in fact a reality. A great, total babe singer sounds a lot better than a great, ugly singer. That's a harsh reality but a reality nonetheless. Just watch American Idol for Christ's sake.

That being said, the other reality is that there are limited resources to direct towards patches and upgrades. I think that stability, archival and glitch-free operation should take top priority. Given the fact that there are numerous posts daily that ask for better stability, archival and glitch-free operation, I would much rather see those issues addressed before a GUI upgrade. When the application has all of those issues licked, then by all means, improve the interface.

I'm open to any suggestions on how workflow could be improved by changes to the UI, but I haven't heard any that I'm in favor of yet.

Well since you asked. Some of the things that I don't like about the Sonar GUI is the way it is not customizeable enough. Ok, track view headers, the ability to turn ON/OFF the channel inspector view (although not easy to locate), adjusting each tracks height.....these things are wonderful in Sonar. Now, I come from the background of using Sony's Vegas Sound Forge and Acid, and I have to say I feel really limited when I use the Sonar user interface in how much I can customize it.

For example, the mixer view....I like the ability to Dock the mixer view. If I'm working with Sonar on a single screen monitor, I will Dock the mixer view on the bottom of the screen and then resize or minimize/maximize to get it out of the way of my track view. Now if I'm working with Sonar on a dual monitor setup, then undocking the mixer view and moving it to the second monitor makes total sense. Same thing with the "Loop Explorer" Window. It's a floating mess window that can't be docked. I use it, I click outside of it into my track view....poof it disappears behind my track view. Go back to View menu item to bring it back to the front. Opening up FX insert Windows. Again, non dockable and no way to arrange them in an organized fashion when you have multiple plugin windows open. Open up about 4 plugin Windows and place them on a single monitor screen infront of the track view. It looks like a deck of scattered playing cards, where you have to keep shuffling the cards around to get to the plugin you wish to adjust. Sony apps have a dockable/undockable and tabable plugin view. So you have customizeable options here. In contrast to the "Loop Explorer" Sony has an "Explorer Window". Does mostly the same thing Sonar's "Loop Explorer" Window does, except it can again be docked at the bottom of my screen and arranged in a Tabbed view fashion IF I choose it to be tabbed. I can also have it so the it's a split dockable view, where on 1/2 of the screen on the docked bottom windows it shows the explorer window, and on the other it shows the mixer Window. Another? Ok, how about customizeable Toolbars? In Sony Vegas I can create my own Tool bars. I can arrange the Icons in any order I choose....further I can take that Tool bar and Dock it or allow it to float. In the Sony apps, this is something they really having going for them and that's the customizeable user interface and it's what has kept me with their programs. Everytime I try anything outside of that, I become very frustrated in that I can't customize the layout of the program as much as I would like to, so that it fits with the my current workflow.

In my Opinion coming from the outside world use of other apps, Sonar does not allow alot of customization with it's user interface comparitively speaking. It's pretty good, but there's room for much improvement.

Rednroll, I'm not stalking you, I swear! I just responded to your SSL plug post.

I agree with you here as well.

In addition, I would really like a "Comments" field a la ProTools, selectable show or hide, for signal path stuff.

I'd pay for an upgrade for that feature alone.

ORIGINAL: kstevege
For example, most of us do not like how Sonar 5 uses the "Microsoft Windows" look.

Eh ? I love Fisher-Price gear !

As a feature request GUI organization thing, I would love to be able to have multiple consolve views, with the ability to assign faders to each one, ala Logic Audio. Cubase doesn't let you change the mixer in this way either, but I loved that I could get one mixer view for the masters/bus faders, one for the audio tracks, one for the midi tracks, one for the virtual instruments, input bus groups, effects groups... you get the picture. However, that's not really a facelift kind of thing... it's a feature.

EXACTLY!!! I would love to see that type of thing too. It's actually one of the things that I suggested to the guy doing the Reaper development. I tried to setup Cubase like that with it's 3 mixer views, but it just didn't quite work out for me.

http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php

I would like to JUST SAY NO ! to a facelift.
Please NO FLUFF !

Color choice and skins are both good ideas, and MAYBE being able to
arrange the main windows to taste. like the instances of the synth rack.

No, No, 1000 times NO

ORIGINAL: darc

Strongly disagree. A Windows app should look and feel like a Windows app. The alternative is guaranteed confusion. I am always aggravated by apps that maintain leftover Apple (or just plain random) design elements such as buttons that look static, dropdowns that don't look even remotely like they might dropdown, etc. Everything is a mystery except by rote memorization. The Windows standards are boring, I'll admit, but they serve a purpose. (In fact, in most of my VSTs, the only time I'm ever confused is when the UI fails to adhere to these standards.)

Use Sonar to do WORK, then if you need some eye-candy, play a video game or watch a good Science Fiction movie afterwards.

It doesnt have to NOT look like a Windows Application.. It just has to have a more succint readable GUI. With less unneeded colour variation.

If you take a look at the leading visual DAW apps, they use 3D instead of colour variation. A small emboss or drop shadow is far more visually pleasing and less confusing than a colour variation. If you look at Nuendo and Logic specifically, you find a far far far far far less fatiqueing and more succint visual interface. Less colour and more depth.
Further more, this is not just me, this an opinion based upon professional multi platform use and hearing the opinions of so many other professionals who use Macs and PC's for music. The bottom line is that, like it or no, Like Steinberg have a rep for ****ty customer relations, Cakewalk have one for poor GUIs. They need to think more 3D and less colour.