What I dislike about Sonar (any workarounds ?)

[EdHart]

Isn't the "tape mode" monitoring a hold-over from days when you didn't have unlimited tracks, slip-editing and couldn't move date around from track to track easily?

Yes you are right. That's why I was so happy with the "tape style monitoring" in Logic.

And with a multiple out soundcard, you'd monitor over one output (to headphones) and send your main mix out another, so the idea of hearing the vocal in the control room all the time seems unlikely.

No, that's not the way I work. I use all 24 outputs from PC to my 32 tr. Yamaha O2R, mix them with outboard equipment. The headphone monitor mix comes from the O2R channels.

Of course I will try Sonar again, but with paying clients it's always hard to run into difficulties. So then I'm into Logic again.

The "tape style monitoring" works very well in Samplitude, but the midi is not as good (yet?) as in Sonar/Logic.

Thanks for your replies.

[fgimian]

After going through this, it feels as though Cakewalk spend more time on bells and whistles than the core of the program. For instance, why are sends starting at 0 db ? Why is everything wrapped as a DX plugin ? Why is there no audio editor / pool ?

In order...

Why not? Honestly, this is the first time in maybe 10 years of reading Cakewalk/SONAR newsgroups and forums that anyone has mentioned it - it's a totally arbitrary value and 0dB is as valid a choice as -INF or +6dB or -3.141592...dB. It's presumably for similar reasons that so many plug-ins/soft synths of all flavours default to a 0dB when you double click on their volume knobs to reset it - I suppose you'd expect them to be -INF too?

CW was always DX based (as the native Windows plug-in format). Fine, it didn't take off as well as VST, but it's as "good" a plug-in format. That plug-ins are wrapped as DirectX effects is a non-issue: sure, there can be specific VST plug-ins that have problems in SONAR, but are you saying that no other host ever has problems with a particular plug-in (without knocking Tracktion, remember that huge thread on the RMS forum here listing incompatible plug-ins?)?

Audio pool: because - try this - you don't need it. It's a clunky system that should never have been implemented anywhere. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist. I shouldn't have to micromanage my data ever (rename an audio file? why for god's sake?) when the computer has plenty of power to do that forme transparently (and if you really feel the urge to look at audio files outside SONAR, you've got lists available within SONAR, per-project audio folders keeps the data in one place and you can export/import to an editor while SONAR is running, or export audio for whatever reason you may want to).

I'm sorry if I've offended you, it seems as though you are annoyed at me. But for the sake of argument, I'll attempt to justify what I've said.

In regards to send levels, not a single other piece of audio software implements this to start at 0db that I have seen. The reason is because sending the entire signal to a send effect is in most cases not logical, one usually sends no signal to the effect and works their way up. This is also true in hardware configurations where all aux knobs are set to silence (- inifinity) before beginning a mix.

DX plugin wrapping works, but I simply find it cumbersome. So, guess this can be put down to personal taste.

The audio pool is something that can assist one in finding files that were recorded but were removed from the arrangement. Suppose we record 3 takes of a vocal, and only keep take 3 in the arrangement because it's overall the best take. Later on the singer comes back and says that she doesn't like the way a particular word was sung in the 3rd take (this has happened to me so many times) ... I just open my audio pool, easily find the other 2 takes, and drag and drop back into the arrangement. Renaming files I find useful when working on a huge arrangement where you need copies of audio in many different places / tracks, it's a lot easier to find whay you're looking for. The audio pool is among the best features I've seen in Cubase, I felt very lost without it when trying Sonar.

There's no denying that Sonar has some huge features which Cubase lacks (reordable inserts, proper group tracks, per click audio effects .etc). It's an awesome sequencer, I'm just questioning some things that I feel are better implemented in Cubase. If Sonar works for you, then I'm indeed jealous, I wish I could switch, but I just can't get over some of these things.

Anyways, please carry on with useful discussion on this topic. My questions have been answered, so I'll let others ask what they need.

Cheers
Fots

[torhan]

DX plugin wrapping works, but I simply find it cumbersome. So, guess this can be put down to personal taste.

Fots

I believe one of the reasons Sonar uses a wrapper for VSTs is that if there is a change in the VST spec, it can easily be fixed w/o waiting for an update to the complete Sonar package.

[headquest]

I believe one of the reasons Sonar uses a wrapper for VSTs is that if there is a change in the VST spec, it can easily be fixed w/o waiting for an update to the complete Sonar package.

Isn't it true that while Sonar 5.2 already includes an updated wrapper that implements the new Steinberg VST 2.4 specification, Steinberg themselves haven't yet provided their own Cubase customers with the same update?

Is that just a silly joke (sounds like one) or is it true, and if so... WHY?

[fgimian]

Ye, this is also what I like about this approach. It means that you can have many different interpreters for VST plugins and use the one you like best. Maybe if the management utility was easier to use (i.e. could create folders and drag & drop effects into them .etc), it would be a lot more convenient.

And yep, It's crazy that Steinberg have released a spec that they haven't supported yet.

Cheers
Fots

[puffer]

Having converted from Tracktion to Sonar last autumn, there is loads that I could say in praise of SONAR - it's a fantastic powerful piece of software that for the most part works brilliantly.

I'm responding to your post because... well, I've been thinking a lot about my Sonar workflow and how I would like to see it improved for v6, and your post sort of struck me as kindred. Your approach to thinking about S5 seems similar to mine, or you just expressed it a tone that I identified with. I by and large stay out of these types of threads, mostly because I'm so not a platform/sequencer zealot (whatever it takes for you to get the job done, hey, there you go); likewise, I stay out of the "Features I'd like" threads on the CW forums. I am very satisfied with my early investment in the Sonar package; I'm always delighted and surprised with Cakewalk's upgrades (having spent so much time with it over the past 5 years, I know how wrong is the haters claim that "they only concentrate on the bells and whistles").

However, there are some niggles:

Indeed there are.

• MIDI Hardware Control of VST parameters for recording in automation - I just don't get how to do this. It was so easy in Tracktion, and for that matter in Ableton Live. And the ReMote in Reason is fantastic. I can easily use my MIDI controller for SONAR's mixer console, but can't work out (even after reading both the manual and the SONAR Power book) how to get this working for (e.g. a filter sweep) VST automation.

I don't know about other applications (well P5.2...), but there is a problem with the implementation of VST effects. There are workarounds but they aren't necessarily, uh, intuative. I've spent the last few nights wrapping my head around getting the 914FFF, CamelSpace and the Ohm Effects to respond to my TriggerFinger MIDI messages. I'm a big proponent of the current SynthRack version of handling softsynths, with the seperate tracks for control and output (I love routing my MIDI tracks through different instruments/drums without having to insert new tracks for each of them). But, yes, to control effects does require a rather ungainly workaround. There needs to be a way to make audio tracks open directly to MIDI input. If they can implement this without chucking the current workflow I will be thrilled.

The workaround?: First "Rescan your existing plugins." When you get to the configuration screen, scroll to the desired VST effect, and bring up its property box, check "configure as a synth" (or whatever that says). When you open projects that already contain, say, CamelSpace it will still show up as a VST effect. But if you delete and re-add it from the VST from the Soft Synths menu then you can use MIDI. Create a control track, and route that to the CamelSpace and Bob's your uncle.

(This is where track templates come in very handy; I recommend a well organized Track Templates folder.)

My question is what do you have as a MIDI controller? It's gonna be a matter of figuring out how to make that work with Sonar.

• The need for both a MIDI out and an Audio return track for VST/DX instruments. I can see there may be advantages in terms of flexibility, but "instrument Tracks" as in ProTools, Tracktion, Ableton are surely more straightforward…

I have to admit that I'm not sure what you're after here.

• Unnecessarily Complex learning curve - at times I have been left scratching my head when doing simple things because a hidden setting somewhere was out of place…

Since it's the only learning curve I have this is simply not my experience. Well, I did come over from ACID3 so wrapping my head around groove clips and audio routing was a breeze. I'm still learning all these cool MIDI hacks and tricks. I did install some early version of Cubasis before taking the Sonar plunge, but, yikes, that baffled me. Could not get my head around that; but that, obviously, is just me.

• Colour Schemes. I'll be blunt - most of them suck. What were they thinking? For example - it is indeed hard to make out some automation curves, mostly because the pastel colours don't show up well against the waveform.

Yeah, most of the colour schemes are way too over the top. In my opinion the best factory scheme was S3, and if I need high, dark contrast this is what I'll load. But for me, I am building a variation of the "PT" (get it?) setting. But, the problem, is that building a color scheme is a PITA at best. Multiple schemes? Eh, I'd rather be making music. How about a WYSIWYG editor? In the meantime, every time I encounter a color mixture that doesn't work I go in and root it out with the current editor then re-save the scheme.

• ReWire - inability to sum two mono audio returns from Reason as a stereo pair.

No argument here.

• CD ripping - isn't there which is strange

Eh. This I couldn't really care about - there are so many other solutions to this it doesn't impact me in the slightest. But, hey, if it works for someone else then bring it on.

• Most of the bundled synths. The only one that I really like is Pentagon I. I guess that GrooveStation and TTS-1 are decent enough if you want GM sounds. But Cyclone is butt-ugly and fiddly to use, Dreamstation is terribly dated now, SFZ causes CPU spikes, RXP is nowhere near as good as DrRex, and as for PSYN II - can anyone here get this thing to sound any good at all? I really hate the sound it makes!

About PSYN II, there's a guy over at the P5 forum who would strongly disagree with you. If you want to learn about how to really use this synth head on over and do a search for "b rock" and PSYN II. He's done some great posting about this. Keep in mind that PSYN II was coded by René who is almost without peer when it comes to designing synths (I know, them may be fighting words, but it's true for me), and, as with Pentagon, it's a surprisingly powerful virtual analog.

As for the other synths, I have so many others I've amassed I only pay marginal attention to those that come with Sonar. I like the idea of Cyclone, and I've managed to use it on a few songs with interesting results, but it's a little long in the tooth. How about letting René have a go at it, allow it to play REX files, allow configurable loop slicing? And - why not? - give the GUI an update (though, to be honest, I don't hate the current one).

Having said all that, I still think that SONAR is a fantastic piece of recording software, with great mixing and editing tools and very nice audio effects.

The only thing I will add to your list, and very high on what I'd like to see on the S6 feature list, is improved Video tools. I'm trying to do some music for a friend's film and I'm having a b*tch of a time getting it all to work. Right now I have so many video conversion apps, rippers, codecs kicking around I wonder what exactly the solution is.

Granted, this is not entirely the problem of Cakewalk; with the current goldrush for the dominant video paradigm, and the complete nightmare of DRM it must be like shooting a moving target. But I'm not looking for a full-on video editor, which is the reason I'm not inclined to buy Premier or Vegas (also, frankly, I don't have the resources). But some way to better manage video content, use multiple clips, or even rip from DVD would be just excellent.

Actually, there other areas I will be looking to for improvement:

* colour choice for project markers; I need multiple colors to easily identify them.
* MIDI FX - we've got MIDI out from softsynths now, so the field for this is wide open. Grab some of the best ideas from Project5 and give us a really boss arp/sequencer/harmonizer/chord generator. Come on, you know you can do it.
* Better audio editing/dedicated editor - okay, I'll pile on this bandwagon: the sooner I can ditch SoundForge the happier I'll be. Spectrum analysis? Sample level copy/delete/paste? Yes please.
* Some of these configuration dialog schemes need to be re-skinned or at least re-sizable. I'm looking at you key-bindings and colour scheme.

Speaking of key-bindings. If I you haven't already begun to do so, I strongly urge you to begin building a collection of these. Every time I go to perform a menu function I remind myself to assign it to a keyboard shortcut (well, most of the time... er, some of the time?). Fortunately, Sonar exposes its keyboard shortcuts to the menus, so if you've already assigned it you are reminded what that assignment is. I find myself assigning keyboard shortcuts for surprising tasks: audio settings, MIDI processing tasks, et cetera. And once you get the hang of Layouts and put your layouts on a various easy-to-remember shortcuts life in Sonar becomes much, much quicker. That said, there are still some menu commands that aren't exposed to the keyboard shortcuts (that I can find anyway), and sorting through the list is a head-cradling endeavor at times.

And finally, by the way, I have found the SONAR forum generally helpful, and Dave Rich is one of the good guys there

Dave Rich is a gentleman and a scholar to be sure. b rock is great resource for your MIDI troubles (though I'm not entire sure if he uses Sonar or just Project5 exclusively). There's a lot of great people using and excited about Sonar; there are a lot of, uh, douchbags as well. But you know, this is KVR and it's not like douchbags are a rare and exotic creature around here.

[puffer]

Ye, this is also what I like about this approach. It means that you can have many different interpreters for VST plugins and use the one you like best. Maybe if the management utility was easier to use (i.e. could create folders and drag & drop effects into them .etc), it would be a lot more convenient.

Oh yeah. About the VST adapter thing. This whole argument that Sonar needs "native" VST support is such a logical fallacy (my new favorite pseudo-meaningful phrase to throw around in forum postings). As the Cake bakers are able to point out, there is, for all intents and purposes, no difference in how Sonar treats its plugins compared to, say, ACID or Tracktion. (Well, other than the VST effect kludge I mentioned earlier, but this is a problem in Sonar not with the VST adapter.) As I've said for a long time, keeping it as a separate app allows code updates to be much more quick on there feet, allows me to use my VSTs with Project5 without another configuration, and lets me configure my plugins when I want not when the application thinks I should. And Sonar has made great progress in integrating the plugin tools into the application. Nevertheless, there is some way to go. Renaming and organizing plugins? Oy! I've given up and have resigned myself to scrolling through my absurdly long list of VST/VSTi plugins. Track templates go a some of way to alleviating some the headache involved in this, but it falls short as a complete solution.

Which brings to mind this: Bus/send templates. It's so obvious I'm surprised it's not in the current version (though, admittedly I know nothing about coding something as complex as Sonar). But since I'm all but forced to scroll through the aforementioned absurdly long plugin list just to get to my Voxengo plugs, having to do this every time I create a new bus or send is annoying.

[headquest]

Wow puffer - that's an epic post. And full of useful tips for me to follow through - thanks for taking the time to provide such a lot of useful information

I know how wrong is the haters claim that "they only concentrate on the bells and whistles").

Yes, quite. Even as a newcomer I can see that. Well, I ran the S3 and S4 demos, and it was the improvements in S5 that swung my decision, so that speaks for itself.

I don't know about other applications (well P5.2...), but there is a problem with the implementation of VST effects. There are workarounds but they aren't necessarily, uh, intuative. I've spent the last few nights wrapping my head around getting the 914FFF, CamelSpace and the Ohm Effects to respond to my TriggerFinger MIDI messages. I'm a big proponent of the current SynthRack version of handling softsynths, with the seperate tracks for control and output (I love routing my MIDI tracks through different instruments/drums without having to insert new tracks for each of them). But, yes, to control effects does require a rather ungainly workaround. There needs to be a way to make audio tracks open directly to MIDI input. If they can implement this without chucking the current workflow I will be thrilled.

The workaround?: First "Rescan your existing plugins." When you get to the configuration screen, scroll to the desired VST effect, and bring up its property box, check "configure as a synth" (or whatever that says). When you open projects that already contain, say, CamelSpace it will still show up as a VST effect. But if you delete and re-add it from the VST from the Soft Synths menu then you can use MIDI. Create a control track, and route that to the CamelSpace and Bob's your uncle.

Okay, I'll spend some time getting my head around that one! Sounds complicated, but if it does the trick then it's time well spent of course .

I read in an article Craig Anderton recommended inserting synths into the Audio channel's effects bin instead of onto the MIDI track. He gave the impression that in the past this was the basic way that Sonar worked. It's different to what I would have expected, but again I'll give it a try.

All I basically want to be able to do though is play software synths using the knobs and faders on my controller (e.g. for filter sweeps) as well as the actual keys. It's easy enough to do in most of the software I've tried - basically it tends to be done the same way as mapping faders on the console (i.e. right click and select controller mappings from the menu). If there is really no way to do this easily in Sonar then it goes to the top of my wish list for S6.

My question is what do you have as a MIDI controller? It's gonna be a matter of figuring out how to make that work with Sonar.

I use the M-Audio Ozonic. It's a three octave keyboard with several rotaries, sliders, pitch/mod wheels, joystick, and a firewire audio interface built in. A useful bit of kit, and nice A/D converters...
http://www.maudio.co.uk/products/en_gb/Ozonic-main.html

• The need for both a MIDI out and an Audio return track for VST/DX instruments. I can see there may be advantages in terms of flexibility, but "instrument Tracks" as in ProTools, Tracktion, Ableton are surely more straightforward…

I have to admit that I'm not sure what you're after here.

Basically in Ableton or Tracktion, and now in PT7 as well, if you use software instruments you get a single MIDI/Audio hybrid track lane/mixer channel rather than seperate audio and MIDI track lanes. In some ways this might potentially be less flexible, of course. But it does cut down on the number of mixer channels and track lanes, so it's a tidy approach on screen. There's a logic to it. And I think it is probably quite likely that Sonar will do this in version 6.

Since it's the only learning curve I have this is simply not my experience. Well, I did come over from ACID3 so wrapping my head around groove clips and audio routing was a breeze. I'm still learning all these cool MIDI hacks and tricks. I did install some early version of Cubasis before taking the Sonar plunge, but, yikes, that baffled me. Could not get my head around that; but that, obviously, is just me.

No - me too ! Sonar certainly fits the way my brain works more than Cubase does. And I know what you mean about Acid - similar to Sonar in many ways.

Yeah, most of the colour schemes are way too over the top. In my opinion the best factory scheme was S3, and if I need high, dark contrast this is what I'll load. But for me, I am building a variation of the "PT" (get it?) setting. But, the problem, is that building a color scheme is a PITA at best. Multiple schemes? Eh, I'd rather be making music. How about a WYSIWYG editor? In the meantime, every time I encounter a color mixture that doesn't work I go in and root it out with the current editor then re-save the scheme.

I'll try the S3 one. The PT one is among the few I do like, although it's a bit bright if I've been drinking.

About PSYN II, there's a guy over at the P5 forum who would strongly disagree with you. If you want to learn about how to really use this synth head on over and do a search for "b rock" and PSYN II. He's done some great posting about this. Keep in mind that PSYN II was coded by René who is almost without peer when it comes to designing synths (I know, them may be fighting words, but it's true for me), and, as with Pentagon, it's a surprisingly powerful virtual analog.

I'll definitely head over to the P5 forum for some advice on that then, and seek out "b rock"s tips. Perhaps the presets just don't show it off very well. Knowing that Rene coded it I have been quite suprised by how little use I have so far found for it (basically just the occasional pad sound). Pentagon I is a fabulous synth, and I have/love z3ta+ as well. Perhaps I shoulod give PSYN II another chance!

The only thing I will add to your list, and very high on what I'd like to see on the S6 feature list, is improved Video tools. {/quote]

Some interesting points, but I've not yet attempted anything with video.

Speaking of key-bindings. If I you haven't already begun to do so, I strongly urge you to begin building a collection of these. Every time I go to perform a menu function I remind myself to assign it to a keyboard shortcut (well, most of the time... er, some of the time?). Fortunately, Sonar exposes its keyboard shortcuts to the menus, so if you've already assigned it you are reminded what that assignment is. I find myself assigning keyboard shortcuts for surprising tasks: audio settings, MIDI processing tasks, et cetera. And once you get the hang of Layouts and put your layouts on a various easy-to-remember shortcuts life in Sonar becomes much, much quicker. That said, there are still some menu commands that aren't exposed to the keyboard shortcuts (that I can find anyway), and sorting through the list is a head-cradling endeavor at times.

I've not set up any key-bindings at all yet (although setting up a decent basic template has massively helped me get into Sonar). I will start doing this right away - Thanks for the tip!

Cheers again for all the help. I'm glad you took the time to respond!

[puffer]

Wow puffer - that's an epic post. And full of useful tips for me to follow through - thanks for taking the time to provide such a lot of useful information

Dude, I know what a slog sifting through the Cake forum can be when trying to solve a specific problem, so I'm glad I was helpful. Honestly, I was just using you as a sounding board for thinking out loud. But this way everyone's a winner.

Okay, I'll spend some time getting my head around that one! Sounds complicated, but if it does the trick then it's time well spent of course .

I read in an article Craig Anderton recommended inserting synths into the Audio channel's effects bin instead of onto the MIDI track. He gave the impression that in the past this was the basic way that Sonar worked. It's different to what I would have expected, but again I'll give it a try.

All I basically want to be able to do though is play software synths using the knobs and faders on my controller (e.g. for filter sweeps) as well as the actual keys. It's easy enough to do in most of the software I've tried - basically it tends to be done the same way as mapping faders on the console (i.e. right click and select controller mappings from the menu). If there is really no way to do this easily in Sonar then it goes to the top of my wish list for S6.

Craig is obviously a man to listen to. Indeed, before the SynthRack, one had to create a MIDI track & an Audio track, and drop the softsynth in the audio effect bin, then route the MIDI track to the synth. This still works, though you lose control of the synth in the synth rack (which may or may not be a problem). If you configure your VST effects as synths you can control them thusly.

As for synths, I thought I may have just been remembering wrong. But I just checked it with Albino and my TriggerFinger and it worked fine through the SynthRack. What VST instruments are you specifically trying to control? Maybe I have it and can give it a look-see. But as near as I can tell, you shouldn't need to use a work-around to use the Ozone to control your softsynths.

Something to keep in mind while working with MIDI tracks is the MIDI input echo button. If it's dark you need to have that track selected to pass MIDI through, including controller information. If you set it to "on" (neon green) and have the MIDI input configured to your controller than it doesn't matter what track you have highlighted.

Basically in Ableton or Tracktion, and now in PT7 as well, if you use software instruments you get a single MIDI/Audio hybrid track lane/mixer channel rather than seperate audio and MIDI track lanes. In some ways this might potentially be less flexible, of course. But it does cut down on the number of mixer channels and track lanes, so it's a tidy approach on screen. There's a logic to it. And I think it is probably quite likely that Sonar will do this in version 6.

I see now; I suspected this is what you were getting at. This is more or less how Project5 handles softsynths, and I see the advantage of this method. Like I said, personally I like the flexibility of the current routing possibilities. And I run a pretty tight ship when it comes to displaying/organizing my track lanes (Oh yeah, let me add nested track folders to my wish list!). So, if Cake doesn't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'll be happy if they figure out how to do this. And, yes, there needs to be a way to get MIDI directly to an audio track, if only to control VST effects. (While looking into this for you, I see that I still can't get my VST effects to show up as softsynths, and therefore still have no MIDI control over... grrrr!)

But one possible advantage of the current implementation is this: say you record your MIDI parts, say, a pumping bassline, your happy with your performance. But as you're working on your tune, you decide you need that ever essential filter sweep. You can go back to your MIDI track and record and edit simply the filter sweep controls over the current MIDI track, and edit them in the PRV. If there is simultaneously audio pumping through this same track, how do you see the MIDI in the track lane? Imagine effect/track automation curves drawn, would these need to be displayed and turned on/off on these tracks as well? There's possibly a better way, but I don't think Sonar is far off from it at present.

I'll try the S3 one. The PT one is among the few I do like, although it's a bit bright if I've been drinking.

Very true.

In my PuffTools setting (really, that's what I call it) I've toned down some of the pastel and bumped up the contrast on certain things. It's not perfect but by the time S6 arrives maybe it will be.

I'll definitely head over to the P5 forum for some advice on that then, and seek out "b rock"s tips. Perhaps the presets just don't show it off very well. Knowing that Rene coded it I have been quite suprised by how little use I have so far found for it (basically just the occasional pad sound). Pentagon I is a fabulous synth, and I have/love z3ta+ as well. Perhaps I shoulod give PSYN II another chance!

Don't get me wrong, I don't really use PSYN II all that much myself (okay, almost never). I just trust b rock and he has really figured out how to get the most out of this synth.

I've not set up any key-bindings at all yet (although setting up a decent basic template has massively helped me get into Sonar). I will start doing this right away - Thanks for the tip!

For a while it may be helpful to keep a text file open that lists the keybindings you create, and to this list as well you can add the Sonar default bindings that you haven't modified. Print it out, keep it tacked to the wall beside you. Unless your memory isn't as crippled as mine.

Cheers again for all the help. I'm glad you took the time to respond!

No problem, friend. It was useful for me to write this.

[xylyx]

I'll definitely head over to the P5 forum for some advice on that then, and seek out "b rock"s tips. Perhaps the presets just don't show it off very well. Knowing that Rene coded it I have been quite suprised by how little use I have so far found for it (basically just the occasional pad sound). Pentagon I is a fabulous synth, and I have/love z3ta+ as well. Perhaps I shoulod give PSYN II another chance!

Don't forget that if you right click on the volume control (at least, I think it's the volume control...been a while since I did this!) then there is an option to set PSYN to HQ mode...won't make a massive amount of difference, but any improvement is welcome...

[puffer]

But one possible advantage of the current implementation is this: say you record your MIDI parts, say, a pumping bassline, your happy with your performance. But as you're working on your tune, you decide you need that ever essential filter sweep. You can go back to your MIDI track and record and edit simply the filter sweep controls over the current MIDI track, and edit them in the PRV. If there is simultaneously audio pumping through this same track, how do you see the MIDI in the track lane? Imagine effect/track automation curves drawn, would these need to be displayed and turned on/off on these tracks as well? There's possibly a better way, but I don't think Sonar is far off from it at present.

Actually, now that I've had a chance to play with this, let me clarify what I was meaning to say. While the single track could be effective and tidy, you would have to impliment it in such a way as to not to have everything pile onto one track... perhaps with track layers... Anyway, here's what I was meaning to say:

Yadda, yadda... record a bassline, record a MIDI controlled filter sweep (say cc23). So, if you record each of those parts as a seperate pass you will now have a clip with the notes and a clip with the control data. Drag the control data into a new MIDI track, and send that to your softsynth as well (I was using Albino again). Great, now I've just cluttered up my project with another MIDI track - how is that helpful? Well, after you render Albino, route that controller data to another soft synth. Clone the notes and send them to seperate sampler channels, while the you drive a wah with the controller data...

Okay, not the most useful example, but imagine what you can do with "string" and "horn" parts. I will go out on a limb and say there is no need to ever limit MIDI data to it original, intended purpose. But that may just be me.

So, if there is way to utilize track layers to get to allow for this sort of functionality, and still be backwards compatible with my old projects, yep, I'm aboard. But with the implementation of in-line MIDI editing and wave preview this becomes a little more tricky.

[Hunter]

I hope the Cakewalk guys read this, there is some good feedback which they could take a lot from. Sonar is by and large pretty damn good but there are lots of ways it could be improved, as has been shown by this thread. I just wish they'd stop the striving to acheive version updates so quickly and just fix/improve things between major version updates, but I suppose they're more concerned with profits etc, as most companies are.

If you posted this kind of thing on the Sonar forum you'd get shouted at by the regulars, its nice to see some constructive criticism being aired without being shot down/flamed straight away.

[RTaylor]

Ye, this is also what I like about this approach. It means that you can have many different interpreters for VST plugins and use the one you like best. Maybe if the management utility was easier to use (i.e. could create folders and drag & drop effects into them .etc), it would be a lot more convenient.

And yep, It's crazy that Steinberg have released a spec that they haven't supported yet.

Cheers
Fots

If you simply name your plugins properly, they'll arrange themselves. The VST manager is easy to use and the plugin manager adds some nice functionality.

[superddman]

Soundpalace: seems like sonar is just not for you. I feel you since I also could never get used to it.

[fgimian]

yep superddman, it seems that Sonar just doesn't agree with some people (myself and you included). I guess once you get used to a way of doing things, it's very hard to change.

However, it could also possibly be that the issues users of other sequencers raise about Sonar's workflow are real and legitimate. I have seen many people who have converted from Sonar to Cubase who realise how much easier Cubase is to operate.

For example: http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=50258

Cheers
Fots