SONAR X2 first look

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

ACID is a Sony innovation. CW added support for a non original format.

I said we were the first DAW to support loops and soft synths. I never said we invented loops or the ACID format, or soft synths for that matter. We did invent the DXi format, though.And by your logic, no DAW would be original since none of the DAW manufacturers invented MIDI or audio.

Delay compensation wasn't present on the aux busses if I recall.

It sure was, IIRC. You're thinking of Logic, and other DAWs (Pro Tools LE) that didn't have it up until a year or two ago.

Skylight is copy of one-window management and grafted pieces from cubase, ableton, and studio one. CW screen sets were a copy of cubase feature. Sonar was very similar to Sony ACID as well. Granted skylight is great it is still very much inspired and borrows from other DAWs.

Cubase's window management is nothing like Skylight. Its a bunch of floating windows where in Skylight everything is docked. Ableton and Studio One do not have the ability to dock windows in any place they want. Their browsers, Inspectors, etc. are locked in position, IIRC. In Skylight said windows can be docked on any side of the screen, top, bottom, etc., and can be floated as well.

Reaper has had fx chains first avtually, long before X1, even Sony ACID had them before reaper and FL channel state filesand Ableton racks can do the mapping/macros.

I never said we were the first to have FX Chains. I said we were the first to have FX Chains with a mod matrix. From what I've seen you can't map controls from plugins in Reaper's or FL's FX Chains.

ProChannel is just a docked minimal window. Cool, but not unlike cubase had for years with its inspectors.

You're conflating the ProChannel and the Inspector, two completely different features. We have an Inspector, too, and have had it since way back in SONAR 3. The ProChannel is a built-in channel strip that can host custom modules as well as third-party plugins. Cubase offers nothing like this. They have their built-in EQ and dynamics module, but it is a floating pop-up window and you cannot intermingle third-party FX within the signal chain.

Aside from 64 bit and multicore, again 2 things that were not original innovations but implemented support, and I guess AVX could be considered in a similar light, and clip view and track visibility at same time, not too much forward thinking.

Well, if being the first to support these technologies makes us unoriginal, then everyone is unoriginal.

Buying developers like Rene and all his work and repackaging it and bundling it, as well as Roland's own stuff like v-vocal
and r-mix and kjaerhaus and now softube is not innovating either. It makes me happy to have those developers efforts in CW products but they are still not original CW offerings.

What's your point? Should we not look to experts in certain fields to work with? Should we only include tools with SONAR that we develop 100% in house? Should we not try to stay competitive in the marketplace and offer our users more features?

Even z3ta2 while very nice is still piggybacking on Rene's original success. Where is the originality to any of this? Where is the innovation from CW? Seems to me that CW is really a collection of things, and sadly up until X was a bloated grab bag of things duct taped and jury rigged together masquerading as a DAW. CW even knew it, hence X.

So features, plugins, and synths are bloat? If you honestly feel that way, then you should use SONAR X2 Studio.

SP

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

I'm so confused by this thread now.......I don't even know what to think anymore.

Anyways, cheers for the viddy, cheers for the 49ers shirt.

So, are the only things "missing" with x2 producer the concrete limiter, the LA2A, and the full version of TH2?

Optional add-ons that we make that are not included in SONAR X2 Producer are ...

PC2A Leveler
Concrete Limiter
PC4K Expander/ Gate
PC4K Channel Compressor
Z3ta+ 2
Various expansion packs for Rapture, Dimension Pro, and Z3ta+ 2.

Full TH2 and Breverb also don't come with X2 Producer, but those were made by Overloud. Upgrades to the full versions for X2 users can be purchased through our online store, though.

SP

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

didn't sonar make some kinda synth rack improvement with "expanded" or maybe it was one of the updates?

The Synth Rack moved into the Browser in X1, but the functionality has been the same since SONAR 6 (that's when we added assignable controls to it, made it dockable, and updated the GUI, along with a few other things).

SP

[hibidy]

thanks for your help Seth.

[satYatunes]

thanks for your help Seth.

+100
Very helpful.

[hibidy]

dumb question, has the auth changed at all? I mean, it's not a big but just wondering.

[grymmjack]

ACID is a Sony innovation. CW added support for a non original format.

I said we were the first DAW to support loops and soft synths. I never said we invented loops or the ACID format, or soft synths for that matter. We did invent the DXi format, though.And by your logic, no DAW would be original since none of the DAW manufacturers invented MIDI or audio.

MIDI and Audio are just formats that DAWs use universally and have always done so. My logic is pretty simple; the first one to innovate gets the credit for innovation.

DXi was built on/into existing technology, MS DirectX, as a base. CW DXi was definitely innovative though, as DXi synths came slightly before VSTi as VSTi wasn't around at the time from what I recall, only VST. So CW definitely gets credit for innovation (even if only partial with MS help) there.

Skylight is copy of one-window management and grafted pieces from cubase, ableton, and studio one. CW screen sets were a copy of cubase feature. Sonar was very similar to Sony ACID as well. Granted skylight is great it is still very much inspired and borrows from other DAWs.

Cubase's window management is nothing like Skylight. Its a bunch of floating windows where in Skylight everything is docked. Ableton and Studio One do not have the ability to dock windows in any place they want. Their browsers, Inspectors, etc. are locked in position, IIRC. In Skylight said windows can be docked on any side of the screen, top, bottom, etc., and can be floated as well.

I'm not directly comparing Cubase window management to Skylight, and I don't know why you are either. I'm saying that Skylight borrows off of existing features found in other DAWs; including docking/undocking (ACID/REAPER/FLStudio/StudioOne), browser windows (REAPER/FLStudio/StudioOne/Ableton), etc.

Reaper has had fx chains first avtually, long before X1, even Sony ACID had them before reaper and FL channel state filesand Ableton racks can do the mapping/macros.

I never said we were the first to have FX Chains. I said we were the first to have FX Chains with a mod matrix. From what I've seen you can't map controls from plugins in Reaper's or FL's FX Chains.

Wrong. With FLStudio, patcher let's you do way more with it's modular setup. CW is not first at all. Wrong again as in fact, even before FLStudio had patcher, Mackie Tracktion had a rack window with modular routing. This was back when Sonar was around V2 or so.

ProChannel is just a docked minimal window. Cool, but not unlike cubase had for years with its inspectors.

You're conflating the ProChannel and the Inspector, two completely different features. We have an Inspector, too, and have had it since way back in SONAR 3. The ProChannel is a built-in channel strip that can host custom modules as well as third-party plugins. Cubase offers nothing like this. They have their built-in EQ and dynamics module, but it is a floating pop-up window and you cannot intermingle third-party FX within the signal chain.

The only difference between ProChannel and an inspector is swappable components? We can do this already with our regular old FX routing in every other DAW. How is this innovative aside from the presentation of the GUI as the only original thing about it, and even still, that borrows on an inspector-like layout. So by cramming little mini plugins in a docked window and giving it a fancy name how is this innovative? Maybe I am missing something?

Aside from 64 bit and multicore, again 2 things that were not original innovations but implemented support, and I guess AVX could be considered in a similar light, and clip view and track visibility at same time, not too much forward thinking.

Well, if being the first to support these technologies makes us unoriginal, then everyone is unoriginal.

No you misunderstood what I meant here, these are common computing platform evolutionary kinds of advancements that no one can take credit for. 64bit is not an innovation CW can take credit for. They can take credit for innovating using 64bit first in a DAW context though.

Buying developers like Rene and all his work and repackaging it and bundling it, as well as Roland's own stuff like v-vocal
and r-mix and kjaerhaus and now softube is not innovating either. It makes me happy to have those developers efforts in CW products but they are still not original CW offerings.

What's your point? Should we not look to experts in certain fields to work with? Should we only include tools with SONAR that we develop 100% in house? Should we not try to stay competitive in the marketplace and offer our users more features?

My point was to illustrate how CW collects bits and pieces together, bundles it, and calls it a new version without improving much on the real DAW behind and adding new plugins each new version to dupe us into thinking that it's worth the money again.

Even z3ta2 while very nice is still piggybacking on Rene's original success. Where is the originality to any of this? Where is the innovation from CW? Seems to me that CW is really a collection of things, and sadly up until X was a bloated grab bag of things duct taped and jury rigged together masquerading as a DAW. CW even knew it, hence X.

So features, plugins, and synths are bloat? If you honestly feel that way, then you should use SONAR X2 Studio.

SP

No, I'm not saying that features, plugins, synths are bloat, I'm saying that CW has a track-record of throwing the kitchen sink in, with "oh yeah, this and this." and btw "this looks nothing like that, and it's just kind of tossed in to sweeten the deal". There is nothing wrong with this, but the perception of quality is decreased by increasing bloat.

Tell me, why did you really build Sonar X? What prompted this? My assumption is that CW was losing market share to newer DAWs that were *gasp* innovating. Hence, my point about X being a response to this challenge (and a good one, don't mistake me for a non-fan, I am a fan, I have invested thousands of dollars into your company), being a me-too response.

Let me try and articulate this a little clearer. If you look at ProChannel and Softube saturator in there (which BTW is awesome and I love Softube), it's done right. It looks native, and not shimmed in and not just an after-thought and I am sure we can thank bitplant for that. Consider how Ableton partnered up with AAS though, and the fit and finish of the build was SOLID and quality through and through, natively implemented without looking like it was an after-thought. Before Sonar X, CW didn't seem to even understand what GOOD GUI design was, and the program suffered in that category. CW notoriously just threw things into the mix like VC64 from Kjaerhaus which was nothing more than a differently skinned GAC. But now they are doing the stuff the right way as it should be. Realizing that design is a competitive advantage and just as important as functionality these days. But there are STILL parts of Sonar X2 interface that are legacy from before from what I can tell, some of the icons and some of the geometry of the buss panes (even one pixel makes a difference) where it looks a little chunky. The attention to detail on the GUI of the modern competing DAWs (Ableton/FLStudio/StudioOne) is something that CW was lacking until Sonar X. The lack of attention to detail, no matter how small, underscores the "me-too" nature of the way CW must think.

So, I'm not saying anything besides that which I already did, and that is that CW is a me-too company. They aren't known for innovation like Ableton, they aren't known for value for money like REAPER, and they certainly aren't known for workflow or stability like Studio One. They aren't even known as the grandfathers like Cubase since the ST days. So what is it they are known for?

Me-too.

[hibidy]

edit

[grymmjack]

Seems to me that CW is really a collection of things, and sadly up until X was a bloated grab bag of things duct taped and jury rigged together masquerading as a DAW.

Just like Windows, and we all know how unsuccessful THAT is.

I was not arguing CW success or lack thereof.

I'm simply saying that I'm happy X2 continues where X1 left off; even the groove matrix and step sequencers are skinned properly, huge improvements on a GUI front which... guess what? Now these features seem like they are intentional and native and not just more ramshackle add-ons from the old Sonar days. These are good things and I'm really glad that CW is embracing design the way they are. But it wasn't until DAWs like Ableton, FLStudio, and StudioOne did they act this way, which to be fair is OK and I'm grateful they have chosen to invest in their products design as well as function.

[grymmjack]

I don't understand this at all.

What's innovative about ableton? Are you talking 10 years ago?? (my god, time has just passed me by!)

As someone who has had my fair share of negative things to say about sonar, I thought that there were some innovative things. I DO feel the channel strip is somewhat of an innovative thing. In it's first form, I didn't care too much for it but the webinar made it look like something I'd use.

Anyways, I don't want to sound like I'm sticking up for them or anything, but that sounds a bit strange. I'm worried that 119 bucks will go out the window (w/o a proper demo) but the thing I bitch about most with ALL hosts is that the devs don't pay attention to the little things. Maybe I'm just daft, but seems that cake listened a bit to people in this regard.

You're kidding right? Ableton invented the clip matrix, session view, recording into arrange view, gapless audio engine, and so on. Though in hindsight I'm not 100% sure which came first Project5 or Ableton for gapless audio and clip matrix. I didn't own Ableton Live until V6 and was happy with Project5 at the time. Who was first gets credit for that innovation. If it wasn't Ableton then there is one more for CW.

I'm not trying to be a total dick about CW, as I said I have invested thousands of dollars in the companies products throughout the decades, my only point was that CW is a me-too company constantly trying to compete by conforming to standards that the competing DAWs set, defensively reacting while not really innovating too much. By innovation I mean something brand new originating from within the IP of CW itself, not a partner. Anything Rene did since Rapture could be counted as CW's own innovations, same with the GUI makeover and complete rebuild of Sonar with X.

When did ACT come out? I want to give them credit for that too, but I don't remember if they were the first to have follow-in-place instant recall automation or if it was FLStudio. Anyway, I'm not trying to be a prick, just defending my statement.

Hibidy consider that they are doing this only after getting their lunches eaten by the competition (we have to guess that the entire reason for X is to re-invent their flagship DAW yes? based on market demand?). I'm not discrediting their decisions to stay competitive, only pointing out that quite a lot of the stuff is copied or borrowed or inspired from the innovators.

[hibidy]

edit

[hibidy]

Oh, and @act........please god........don't remind me

But to be fair, I've struggled with basically all hosts with connectivity in that department. Reaper is probably the least flexible, but most successful. (take that however you want )

[grymmjack]

I don't understand this at all.

What's innovative about ableton? Are you talking 10 years ago?? (my god, time has just passed me by!)

Yes I'm talking about DAW archaeology From the beginning, because to defend the me-too comment I made Seth had claimed CW innovated on several things, and he was right on a few but still wrong on others. Anyway I'm not trying to get into a battle with a CW rep. I'm not the expert on all things DAW innovation, but instead of battling me on the forum to defend the company he works for Seth would be wise to consider it an opportunity to understand why there is a stigma that follows CW products from a known long-time customer who has spent so much time and money with his companies DAW but does not use ANY of the products he has purchased from them in choosing instead the competition. Money be damned, I use what I like the most and what I feel is the best product for the job that connects with me the most. It's just sad that I've had to spend so much time and money on a losing proposition (but the hopeless fool I am still thinks it possible CW can redeem themselves).

[grymmjack]

Yeah, I know.

@ableton: I know what you mean, but as a DAW from a more linear guy like me, it hasn't done "much for me lately". I'm not trying to pan on it.

I started linear too, and there are pros and cons to the session view/clip matrix ways of working...

For example as a guitarist it's AWESOME for riffing. Lay down a rhythm locked in perfect time, throw down a lead on top of that, maybe add some drums, swap around ideas. The real benefit of session view/clip matrix to me is experimentation of the composition, trying new things that I'd never try thanks to the "excel"-like grid and in the case of Ableton, scenes, etc.

The downside of session view/clip matrix is it's so immediate and ridiculously productive of "results" it's easy to start sounding pattern-y in your arrangement. Of course you can refine what you record into the arrangement, I often am too lazy to pursue a musical idea I capture in session view to refine it and add for example; bridges, builds, breakdowns, tempo changes, etc. It's too easy. In some ways you could say that session view, for me, has resulted in less productivity in song output, but more experimentation. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the person. For me it's good because I don't have any dreams to be anything special, I just have fun with music now and then. For electronic music, session view/clip matrix is fantastic though. More traditional styles are a little like pounding a circle into the square hole perhaps.

[grymmjack]

Oh, and @act........please god........don't remind me

But to be fair, I've struggled with basically all hosts with connectivity in that department. Reaper is probably the least flexible, but most successful. (take that however you want )

I hear you man. I had a Tascam US-428 back in the ACT days of Sonar 5 I think it was? And it was awesome when it worked but a total bummer when it flaked out. I have had the best luck with hardware control in Ableton and StudioOne. But prior experience and growing up with so much reliance on mouse/kb/midi controller keys and not so much knobs (even though way back when I had a PhatBoy knobby controller) I don't often need hardware control.

I have a Novation ReMote SL61 first gen, and I don't even use automap on it.