Sonar 5 has arrived...

[kp]

Er, you have straight access to the soft-synth's audio channels too. Plus, you can rearrange them so that the MIDI is (say) in one folder and the audio in another (well, makes more sense than having tracks ordered differently in different views :-)).

And it makes swapping parts between soft-synths (or, although less relevant nowadays, between soft- and hard-synths) because there is no tight correlation between the two tracks.

That said, since SONAR 4 (if not earlier), muting a soft-synth's MIDI track mutes the audio tracks (as does soloing etc).

I'd go crazy if there wasn't the distinction between MIDI and audio tracks - they need different controls on the track strips for a start unless I want an uber-strip to cope with all eventualities. Now who's saying cluttered?

[Sascha Franck]

I'd go crazy if there wasn't the distinction between MIDI and audio tracks - they need different controls on the track strips for a start unless I want an uber-strip to cope with all eventualities. Now who's saying cluttered?

Steinberg says so... *sigh*.
Seriously, this SX approach of dealing with channels, especially when it comes to VSTis (and hell, they even f**king invented them!) is making me go havoc.

What you described for Sonar is at least sounding more reasonable.

[GypsyJazz]

Does this mean you can copy/cut/paste the folder tracks, and basically do everything you can with a normal track (per clip fx anyone? ) ??? Thsi would be killer to me

Not in the current version. (S4.0.3) you can cut and paste Track Folder segments to and from different times in the same track folder, but if you paste to a new track it will paste all the tracks from within the original track folder segment onto new "normal" tracks.
Dunno about S5.

And about the loop construction thing, how is this suposed to be integrated in the app? Is it a plugin that loads files? Is it a feature for any audio clip in the arrangement view? The latter would be way more useful (e.g. instant remix for your bounced tracks...)

Not a plugin but a view (separate window).
Double click any audio clip and the loop construction view opens.
If that clip is a "Groove Clip" (Acidised) You can see and adjust all the slices.... very cool feature;.....

[headquest]

I take the point that the look of any GUI is largely a matter of personal taste (and thank goodness for variety ).

Also I realise that in the Sonar 5 screenshots (as with the cluttered Sonar 4 ones last year) the marketing aim is to highlight as many of the new features as possible. Yes, I'm sure you can customise the look - and colours - any way you wish.

However, surely there is no excuse for Cyclone? It really looks like a student's rushed homework assignement

Cakewalk proved that they can design a superb GUI with version 2 of Project 5 earlier this year

(although the colours in the MIDI editor made me go even more dizzy than I usually am! )

[DeBro]

Now do remember that any screenshot is inevitably going to try to show all the new features off in one place - the reality of it is that you're not going to have it configured like that. For instance, you've always been able to re-order the track fields and widgets to the order you like them in and by selecting the width of the left-hand pane appropriately, you only see the important ones (for you) 90%+ of the time, which makes a huge difference to usability and comfort.

If that's the default colour scheme, it looks very much like what I'd picked for SONAR 4, so I think they have good taste

Totally agree. This view of bloatware and clutter is a boat load of crap. The GUI is highly configurable to one's tastes. There are options to hide things if you so desire without loosing functionality. Here's a shot of my default work space in the recently released SHS4. Key bindings and keyboard shortcuts have replaced buttons. The right mouse button is also very useful. If you don't want the midi inline view, you can close it. The colour scheme has changed dramatically and a lot of things have been removed from the initial launch view.

[lanfear]

I take the point that the look of any GUI is largely a matter of personal taste (and thank goodness for variety ).

A refreshing point of view, goodie!

However, surely there is no excuse for Cyclone? It really looks like a student's rushed homework assignement

Agreed 100%! That's what I've always thought...

[oddbods finger]

I remember that when i tried S4PE, what bugged me the most was the cryptic midi editing, it seemed so hard to do such basic stuff as quantizing, enetering notes, editiong velocities, resizing, changing pitch etc. It seemed like i needed to pick a different tool for each of these ! ...

+1 with that....

They really need to address midi editing...in fact the whole Midi Piano Roll View GUI before I'd be tempted to upgrade.
..and it doesn't look like they've done it with Sonar 5.

[munchkin]

In response to the Paul White leader - I agree that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water and get rid of a hosts complexity. But I also believe that, just as a chair can be designed ergonomically to seat us more comfortably, the same principles can be applied to software. In Sonar's case I don't think this has happened.

Paul White claims that little has changed since the hardware studio's of the 80's. In my opinion this is not the case. The use of audio/midi loops has changed the way music is made. I think the makers of the hosts that served us through the 90's such as Cakewalk, Steinberg etc. haven't fully grasped how differently the creation of music has evolved.

I think this is why people have turned towards Live and (less so now) ACID. I know that Cakewalk have Project 5 but they still can't let go of that track based concept of creating music.

I hope that in the future Cakewalk will grasp the modular, loop based concept of music fully and offer this in their flagship software.

Another issue I'd like to comment on about Paul White's leader is the use of synths. There is no doubt in my mind that it's important to understand the basic principles of editing a synth but times have moved on. If anything, contemporary music requires much more complex synth editing than that of 25 years ago. Even the most basic dance music demands liberal use of filtering, tempo synced oscilators, tempo tapped delays, EQ shaping and sundry other bells and whistles to make it fit into a composition and stand out at the same time.

To do all this editing should be made easier and more elegant as technology advances. For example, I don't have to understand or use DOS to get my computer to work because technology has advanced and provided simpler and more elegant methods to help me.

Sonar is probably capable of everything and anything as a musical tool but this doesn't mean that it couldn't be designed in a more intuative and elegant manner. I think that sometimes when a particular group of people have been developing something for a long time they find it difficult to see beyond the core design. Even after injecting new blood the old values still predominate.

Wouldn't it be interesting if hosts could be re-mixed by other developers like music is remixed. The closest I've seen that is with Max/MSP (& Reaktor) but they are modular. I'm sure we would see new kinds of Sonar that would suit the needs of every musician then.

[headquest]

Excellent post, munchkin

[whyterabbyt]

I think this is why people have turned towards Live and (less so now) ACID. I know that Cakewalk have Project 5 but they still can't let go of that track based concept of creating music.

I hope that in the future Cakewalk will grasp the modular, loop based concept of music fully and offer this in their flagship software.

Just out of interest, what do you think Sonar, and more specifically P5v2, lack in the way of that 'loop-based concept'?

[munchkin]

Now do remember that any screenshot is inevitably going to try to show all the new features off in one place - the reality of it is that you're not going to have it configured like that. For instance, you've always been able to re-order the track fields and widgets to the order you like them in and by selecting the width of the left-hand pane appropriately, you only see the important ones (for you) 90%+ of the time, which makes a huge difference to usability and comfort.

If that's the default colour scheme, it looks very much like what I'd picked for SONAR 4, so I think they have good taste

Totally agree. This view of bloatware and clutter is a boat load of crap. The GUI is highly configurable to one's tastes. There are options to hide things if you so desire without loosing functionality. Here's a shot of my default work space in the recently released SHS4. Key bindings and keyboard shortcuts have replaced buttons. The right mouse button is also very useful. If you don't want the midi inline view, you can close it. The colour scheme has changed dramatically and a lot of things have been removed from the initial launch view.

I think you're over egging the pudding here. Yes, Sonar is configurable but it is not 'highly configurable'. Judging by your screen shot it looks like you haven't got rid of all that clutter to the left of each track.

It's one thing hiding stuff but try calling it up again. Some of the basic controls like tempo adjustment and midi editing require a number of clicks to open different windows. The new update will rectify some of this but I think the core design will remain unchanged.

I know many musicians are satisfied with the core design and that's cool. But some of us have been requesting design changes from Cakewalk since Sonar 1. I had hoped that, since the arrival of Live and Tracktion, Cakewalk would've made more progress in this department. Not every musician creates music in a mainly linear fashion anymore. We just want equal recognition as you linear musicians in our favoured host. If Sonar was as 'highly configurable' as you claim it is then this wouldn't be an issue.

[munchkin]

I think this is why people have turned towards Live and (less so now) ACID. I know that Cakewalk have Project 5 but they still can't let go of that track based concept of creating music.

I hope that in the future Cakewalk will grasp the modular, loop based concept of music fully and offer this in their flagship software.

Just out of interest, what do you think Sonar, and more specifically P5v2, lack in the way of that 'loop-based concept'?

I would like to see many of the functions that Live offers such as warping. A beatmapping and chopping feature designed in a similar way to ACID would be nice. I would like to be able to access all of this in the main window - not by opening other windows.

The other big advantage to Live and ACID is that softsynths have one track instead of two and audio effects (and midi effects in Live) can be automated in just one track all in the main window.

Sonar 5 will at last impliment in-place midi editing so it has evolved towards the direction of Live and ACID. I think my main issue is with how a host is designed.

Many of Sonars features would be great in Live and ACID so I don't think any host is perfect and I do make suggestions for improvements in their respective forums. Often comparing the benefits of Sonar to their hosts. I think host development is like a two way street.

[chagzuki]

The big company hosts seem to have responded to the challenges posed by Tracktion and Podium. eXT still seems to sit just outside of that arena, though certainly won't for long. Must be tough to be a small developer and see your innovations swallowed up by companies with financial clout. But then the small companies steal the fundamental concepts put in place by the long-standing companies.

I think that most of the available sequencers are really maturing into great products.

[lanfear]

Judging by your screen shot it looks like you haven't got rid of all that clutter to the left of each track.

You can pick what clutter to show to the left of each track with the tabs along the bottom. The screenshot has the advanced tab enabled, which shows everything.

lf

[Jaeson Merrill]

Am I the only one who is annoyed that they keep referring to Pentagon I as a "vintage analog synthesizer"?

Still, native VST support!

where does it say NATIVE VST support?

I dont see it, and that would be an important feature for me.