Sonar 5 has arrived...

[whyterabbyt]

Ok, your married to sonar and you'll stick up for them no matter what.

more power to ya

Ah, right. If you cant do anything other than raise specious arguments, then anyone who points that out must be doing so because of some bias on their part. GTFU.

[hello1234]

Well, we got to about 15 pages on this thread before things started to get personal, then the "my opinion is more important than your opinion" crap started......and continues..........

[cptgone]

Object based Fx can be both (cpu saving & control), as
Sam has had these features a long time there are
reasons.

Experiance talks in this case, using object based FX is
addictive. Soon you will have different convultion
reverbs on different phrases. Even with gigalan and a
few Fx boxes there are limits.

whyterabbyt tweak the tail? Add 10 seconds of silence
and you done. If Cakewalk got it right this 'new'
feature will not be the cpu-hog I think it will be in
the demo.

I wantsss it!

I wonder what package will be the one I'll upgrade to: SX4, Sonar #X, or Samplitude #X?

Anyway, Samplitude stylee clip FX is the feature I want to add to my DAW!

[hello1234]

Ok, your married to sonar and you'll stick up for them no matter what.

more power to ya

Ah, right. If you cant do anything other than raise specious arguments, then anyone who points that out must be doing so because of some bias on their part. GTFU.

well, good luck to ya..........

[kp]

Agreed, which is why the "the UI is crap/the worst/uninspiring" make no sense really (unless prefaced with "in my opinion" which doesn't seem to be the case given the vehemence of some of the arguments).

I think most people here know that what they/others are writing is just opinion. But people get bored of prefacing everything with "imho" - it's really "a given".

I'm not so sure - if they did think this, then I don't think there'd be so much righteous anger in some of the posts. That doesn't apply to everyone (IMHO :-)).

* clashing colours = not good for long term use (medically)
* too much detail crammed onscreen all at once = unecessary, needs to be customisable at least
* needing to search through confusing sub-menues = slows you down in the middle of a session

Aggree on first (which goes back to my original post about colour choices - I've picked a far more muted and consistent set of colours than most of the presets in SONAR (or other applications for that matter): it looks "dull", but it's not jarring, and I find a lot of users pick very high contrast colours which is icky to me) and third (although whether they're confusing or not is open to debate - personally, I'm now used to a lot of Windows conventions so an application that puts Preferences in the Edit menu like Photoshop does is just "wrong" and confusing).

The second I'm not sure I agree with as it depends how the information is presented (and the context of the application) and whether it's obvious what is what - I've never found I grab the wrong control in SONAR's track view (partly because I've chosen the order of widgets that make sense to me and colours that make sense to me), say, but I find that in general something that is presented as an icon like in a toolbar makes me have to think about things; for example, I still can't remember which standard Windows icon is Open File, which is Save and which is New File as they seem completely random images to me, so if I try to use them, I literally have to stop and think for a couple of seconds each time I go to use them. Or use Ctrl-S, Ctrl-O, Ctrl-N...

[hello1234]

If someone doesn't like the gui, they have every right to post and there should not be the "your an idiot for thinking so" remarks........it's not needed.

I think sonar has the best gui, btw.........even better than prtools...............ok.....that's not saying much I admit

Speculation is no longer a part of kvr threads, I missed that memo!

[bmanic]

yeah, you're 100% right. I don't know how I learned saxophone and flute on those "student" models I initially, it was so hard to get inspired to play, cause my instruments just looked so icky!

I actually wanted to use cubase on an atari, but the interface was so horrid, I just couldn't get inspired.

Oh oh oh, and when I was writing my compositions, I asked my teachers if I could work on the grand piano to sketch things out, cause those upright pianos in the general practice rooms.. I mean, yeah all the notes sound the same, but the look of the piano just didn't inspire me.

You are a prime example of what is wrong with a subset of music/musicians today

.. what part of my original post about the GUI did you not understand?

- bManic

[bmanic]

oh and WillieJenkins, you are a prime example of what a "fanboy" is.

Don't take critique about your favourite host so personally. I was just giving constructive critique and even gave examples of what I thought could improve Sonar. If you read my earlier posts before the GUI debate you would have noticed that I was very impressed by the newest update.

- bManic[/u]

[stag]

'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.

Old your horses, SX does that from version 1.0, with unlimited undos , meaning a processed clip done in 2001 on a old saved project can be undone today.

[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.

Old your horses, SX does that from version 1.0.

You're wrong there. There's no automatable FX per clip in Cubase. Maybe you mean processing audio with FX "destructively"?

[Trancit]

Brandon, please answer to my question:

When I`ve seen the screenshots of V5, I recognized that all shown effect GUI`s doesn`t have the "normal window" (I don`t know how to call it) anymore in which I could saved my own snapshots/presets in the middle of the upper side...

Is this correct??? Doesn`t they exist anymore in Sonar??

If so then please bring them back...they were one of the mainfeatures of sonar to have the abillity to save snapshots of plugins within the host....


Trancit

[Brandon Ryan]

Brandon, please answer to my question:

When I`ve seen the screenshots of V5, I recognized that all shown effect GUI`s doesn`t have the "normal window" (I don`t know how to call it) anymore in which I could saved my own snapshots/presets in the middle of the upper side...

Is this correct??? Doesn`t they exist anymore in Sonar??

If so then please bring them back...they were one of the mainfeatures of sonar to have the abillity to save snapshots of plugins within the host....


Trancit

Not sure of the screenshot you speak of and I hope I'm understanding your question properly.
At any rate, you can defintely still save your custom plugin presets in SONAR5 as in previous versions.

Thanks.

[whyterabbyt]

whyterabbyt tweak the tail? Add 10 seconds of silence
and you done.

Well, only if your echo/reverb/whatever tail is less than ten seconds. If not, you have to tweak it again, and maybe again until its right.

But in my tracks I'll have single events that are maybe a few seconds long that I want to reverb/echo/spectral freeze for thirty seconds, a minute, or even longer. Depending on the scaling of the editor window, and other factors, how long would it take me to actually get that silence right? Almost certainly far too long to be convenient for my method of working...

It really does suit me better CW's way. Seriously.

[flex42]

nonetheless, you can't seriously argue that switching off fx not in use wouldn't be a great feature...

[whyterabbyt]

nonetheless, you can't seriously argue that switching off fx not in use wouldn't be a great feature...

I will however seriously argue that it would be great if and only if you didn't lose audio, or have to work around losing audio, as a result.