Sonar 5 has arrived...

[advaya]

However, this problem could've been solved like this:
each time an FX is inserted onto a clip, Sonar measures the CPU usage of that plug-in in that clip( somehow, I'm not a programmer...but it should be possible ?) This happens in a micro second, so no time is wasted waiting for this. Then I can look at the estimated CPU usege in an additional (new) CPU meter which deals with estimating CPU for plug-ins inserted on clips.

Hell, why stop there??? Why not have Sonar open a window after it calculates the 'estimated CPU usage' and provide you with a bit of feedback on which plug-ins you could safely use to keep the meters in the green?

Kinda like this:

Dear User,

The sonitus compressor would keep the estimated headroom at around 25% throughout the duration of that clip. That is what I would choose... Provided that you don't decide to add any effects to the clip in the next track down, which does have about 7 seconds of overlap with the current clip in question.


Sounds like a grand idea!

[Forever Sun]

Advaya, I did say it was a fanciful idea...

[bmanic]

So 3-D shadeing in the GUI make better songs, interesting.

Yeah, this was the crux of why I initially posted. It was turning into a "it doesn't look cool enough" situation, at least thats what everyones arguments are as best I can tell.

I agree, Sonar's interface is the most drab of them all, probably because its focused on allowing the user to actually see whats going on and to simplify the process of actually making music

But its clear from some of these posts, thats not a priority for all

It's nice to see some totally brainless answers on KvR again..

Insipration and intuitive interface go hand in hand. Usability goes a long way to improve productivity.

.. heck why am I even bothering to answer these two??

- bManic

[advaya]

Advaya, I did say it was a fanciful idea...

Appreciated... I just wanted to turn it from a 'fanciful' idea into a 'grand' idea!

[Forever Sun]

Advaya, I did say it was a fanciful idea...

Appreciated... I just wanted to turn it from a 'fanciful' idea into a 'grand' idea!

A kind of 'Grand idea' with no basis in reality ? I know. I know. I'm working hard to open meself to ridicule.

[kp]

Has Word's interface ever stopped anyone from writing a best-seller? Hell, has a pen and paper ever stopped anyone, and that's a sreally sucky interface?!

[cptgone]

'FX per Clip' should really be active when the clip plays only!

Indeed. I'll have to stick with Cubase SX then.

So does Cubase work like Samplitude, Traction then,?
It appears that IT IS a standard then ? Three major PC apps have it. Sonar chose to ignore it. Hmmm.

No no no, Cubase doesn't do this yet, not at all.

It's just that this feature got me interested in switching to Sonar, untill I heard about the FX using CPU while idle, that is.
I agree with whyterabbyt that it still is a nice feature, but it's better implemented in other hosts AFAIK.

[Brandon Ryan]

Clip based effects are in no way rendered "useless" because they use "some" CPU. It's not designed to be a CPU saving feature to begin with...that's what the flexible freeze is for. Silence must be passed to all plugins not currently processing audio in order to keep SONAR's full PDC in order. I don't think people sometime take the time to think through the ramifications of things (truly no offense intended). Anyhow, the feature is designed to offer ease in arranging and added mixing flexibility regarding effects processing and effect envelopes. Personally I hadn't even thought of this features as a CPU saving feature...I was just happy I could add an effect to a clip on a multi-lane track without having to move that clip to a different track to achieve this. Effects in SONAR (on clips, tracks, etc)already use reduced CPU when no audio is being passed through them. If CPU resources are an issue, just freeze the track. And personally I'd like to have some idea what my CPU is going to do, rather than suddenly spiking to 100% because suddenly the application has reached a spot in the composition where it encounters a dozen clip based FX (imagine the havok this could cause with hardware DSP based effects such as UAD1 and Powercore plugs).

[headquest]

Has Word's interface ever stopped anyone from writing a best-seller? Hell, has a pen and paper ever stopped anyone, and that's a sreally sucky interface?!

1) No, of course not... but...

2) Most writers would choose to use (hence, buy) the best writing tools available at the time. By doing so they will enjoy their job more, and get less frustrated/bogged down with the tools they are using

[whyterabbyt]

Silence must be passed to all plugins not currently processing audio in order to keep SONAR's full PDC in order.

Actually thats a good point. How is a host supposed to know when the audio is finished being processed? How does (say) Samplitude cope with a short clip with a really long reverb tail on it. Does it truncate the tail? How does it know when to? Seems like its almost certainly going to cut stuff off when you dont want it to.

For me that would suck way more than some CPU usage I could freeze away anyways.

[kp]

Has Word's interface ever stopped anyone from writing a best-seller? Hell, has a pen and paper ever stopped anyone, and that's a sreally sucky interface?!

1) No, of course not... but...

2) Most writers would choose to use (hence, buy) the best writing tools available at the time. By doing so they will enjoy their job more, and get less frustrated/bogged down with the tools they are using :wink:

Well...a couple of (high-profile) authors I know (no name-dropping, but we're talking books in top 10 lists) choose to use biro and paper rather than a word processor or type-writer even. Strangely, they seem to be the ones who can spell better than the ones who use Word :-)

[kp]

Presumably like the way SONAR's freeze currently works where you can set thresholds etc. But, I agree, it's not ideal and I'd rather have to freeze/bounce than potentially lose sound!

[Jaeson Merrill]

I think a lot of DXi implementations sucked. That doesnt mean DXi itself did. A lot of VST implementations sucked when Sonar actually came out. And meanwhile Steinberg's VSTs continued to rely on subtle changes to Cubase and the supposed 'standard' for years.

And my experience is that at least 50 percent of the time, plugs from even 3 years ago, when there was a DX nd VST version, the DX is the one that had problems or decreased functionality.

[headquest]

Well...a couple of (high-profile) authors I know (no name-dropping, but we're talking books in top 10 lists) choose to use biro and paper rather than a word processor or type-writer even. Strangely, they seem to be the ones who can spell better than the ones who use Word

Well that doesn't surprise me at all

I main point is, then, that different tools suit different people. Bringing it back to music production, Mike Oldfield (hardly a lightweight) says he loves Fruityloops. SO it doesn't have all the bells and whistles that Sonar has (or Cubase, Logic, etc). But it suits Mike.

Good music ultimately boils down to creativity, playing skill, musicality, ability to communicate with the audience, etc. Not your choice of software

[bmanic]

Silence must be passed to all plugins not currently processing audio in order to keep SONAR's full PDC in order.

Actually thats a good point. How is a host supposed to know when the audio is finished being processed? How does (say) Samplitude cope with a short clip with a really long reverb tail on it. Does it truncate the tail? How does it know when to? Seems like its almost certainly going to cut stuff off when you dont want it to.

For me that would suck way more than some CPU usage I could freeze away anyways.

Yes, that's how samplitude does it, it cuts off the tail. It only processes the FX as long as the clip is which is why you need to add silence to the end of the clip if you want the delay/reverb to last longer. However, in samplitude individual objects/clips can send to an AUX also which goes around this problem.

- bManic