Sonar 6 information is available now.

[Beardedone]

Beardedone wrote:
Damn I just got Sonar 5 a few months ago. Seems I have only got used to S5 last week. Man I am getting old. This world is wy too fast.


How long ago?

If you upgraded in July for 5, Sonar 6 upgrade is only 50.00.

Even if it's before July, give support a call and you might be able to talk them into it.

I am not sure I will give them a buzz. Could be it was not too long bofore July. [/code]

[kp]

No, the *marketing* guys at Cakewalk thought it was a new feature because they realise that (in general) users don't understand the technical details. Big difference.

[headquest]

whyterabbit, perhaps YOU can explain why The devs at cakewalk found it nessecary to include this *new* feature if it was already good enough? The definition of *native* is irrelevant, as we know that perhaps only a few hosts REALLY have *native* vst....

Not wishing to steal whyterabbyte's thunder here, but I suspect they want to please the reviewers who seize on "lack of native VST support" as a "Con" when filling out their little check boxes. It's one way they justify only giving Sonar 9/10 every year instead of the 10/10 that Tracktion 2 was absurdly given, and that REAPER will undoubtedly get next

[ATS]

Native VST support, color schemes, customizable menus and interface, etc. Sounds like a good update to me. I mention these features because many people complain about them. Having to use a wrapper(even though transparent), button bar too cluttered, etc. I think there is a lack of big, flashy features being added, but that's alright. There's still a few there.

Brent

that wrapper causes many many problems, I guess it depends what you mean by transparent.

[Jason Brian Merrill]

whyterabbit, perhaps YOU can explain why The devs at cakewalk found it nessecary to include this *new* feature if it was already good enough? The definition of *native* is irrelevant, as we know that perhaps only a few hosts REALLY have *native* vst....

Not wishing to steal whyterabbyte's thunder here, but I suspect they want to please the reviewers who seize on "lack of native VST support" as a "Con" when filling out their little check boxes. It's one way they justify only giving Sonar 9/10 every year instead of the 10/10 that Tracktion 2 was absurdly given, and that REAPER will undoubtedly get next

Im not concerned about numbers, i just know the way Sonar 5 and before handled vst was annoying. Hopefully now it will be proper

[Jason Brian Merrill]

No, the *marketing* guys at Cakewalk thought it was a new feature because they realise that (in general) users don't understand the technical details. Big difference.

quite the opposite, likely.

[headquest]

Im not concerned about numbers, i just know the way Sonar 5 and before handled vst was annoying. Hopefully now it will be proper

In my experience Sonar 5 handles VSTs just fine. THe only gripe I have is that they can't be organised into decent folders, and clearly that has been addressed in Sonar 6.

[Jason Brian Merrill]

Im not concerned about numbers, i just know the way Sonar 5 and before handled vst was annoying. Hopefully now it will be proper

In my experience Sonar 5 handles VSTs just fine. THe only gripe I have is that they can't be organised into decent folders, and clearly that has been addressed in Sonar 6.

perhaps there are annoyances that do not affect you then, thats cool. I think sonar is an awesome host, dont get me wrong, but honestly, the vst support was irritating.

Funny how people get jumped on for stating an opinion like that.

[headquest]

Funny how people get jumped on for stating an opinion like that.

I'm not jumping on you for stating an opinion like that Jason

Most hosts are pretty awesome I reckon. Incredible stuff! But they all have their little quirks, and Sonar has its fair share.

[Jason Brian Merrill]

Funny how people get jumped on for stating an opinion like that.

I'm not jumping on you for stating an opinion like that Jason

Most hosts are pretty awesome I reckon. Incredible stuff! But they all have their little quirks, and Sonar has its fair share.

I wasnt speaking of you!!!!!
but umm, if you WANT to jump on me

[headquest]

[Jason Brian Merrill]

[kmonkey]

Hey...some of that features looks pretty impressive. Can Sonar manage external instruments and effects like Cubase can? Is support for hardware any good?

[Hybernation]

I HOPE like heck they have a pure VST implementation

No such thing. VST has to be wrapped in any host in Windows, period. Either you have accsess to the wrapper or not, and they all scan initially, and with a new plug. Subdirectory listing are just a function of a particular wrapper. There is no such thing as NATIVE VST on Windows period, because VST itself isn't native to Windows. But I see the Myth keeps getting perpetuated. I suppose you could always put a blindfold on everytime you install a new plugin.

I never said "native", you did. I said "pure" as in "honor my directory structure". My only real gripe with the wrapper has always been the lack of ability to organize.

It's also pretty unimportant, as long as it works. My pet peeve about Sonar's VST-support is that it makes a lousy job of organizing the plug-ins. It should at least obey the directory structure.

exactly.

Bottom line is "we'll see"...later this month!

[Bill OC]

Jason's view of it matches mine. Last time they internalized the wrapper as a dll, and at first called it "native"--which they quickly retracted in their advertising and reverted to "integrated" (as it says in the Sonar 5 manual).

I still had problems with several plugs in Sonar 5, and had to use DirectXer.

I am not going to argue the finer points of VST/VSTi implementation in Windows, as I am not a software engineer.

They can wrap the darn things up for for Christmas for all I care, as long as they work.

*It wasn't quite right last time (v5)*. They are still using the word "integrated" for Sonar 6. That's all I know.

Regards,

Bill OC