SONAR X2 first look

[hibidy]

edit

[grymmjack]

I agree. Ableton was a nice tool...........version 5! Once I went to 6, I had issues and sold it.

Hosts.........a frustrating mess. Reaper even has gone into the poop stage currently.

However, to stress a point.....If I was able to use sonar, the way Brandon and Seth did in the viddy, I'd probably be a pretty happy guy. I already know that my computer handles CPU well (contrary to some people) and I pretty much know my way around it.

But I'm skeptical, we'll see.......I'm not in any hurry at 119 bucks (I couldn't care less about the string thing)

Do you have producer upgrade as an option? I don't I went basic (or whatever the basic version was without all the stuff as I have assloads of plugins on my own without any DAW ones needed). After seeing the console emulation in the video, I'm kind of bummed I went basic because I think it means I'm going to get nailed for the full upgrade price from 2 versions ago? Not sure how that works.

The console emulation is an interesting thing to me because I find non-linearity very appealing and I've been struggling trying to get certain sounds to warm up even with tons of different approaches. I'll get lucky once in a while but it's usually the exception and not the rule you know?

Does the console emulation make a big difference and what I'd be interested in? I know there are VST plugins (slate, satson, and I have satson cm from issue 183 of CM but haven't tried yet) but I'm a little novice in this area of summing and console emulation. I've found a sweet trick to give things depth and character though; in NI Guitar Rig 5 using the control room device and setting up a DI and disabling everything except AIR knob, it can really give things a lot of depth and space without any tail. Not sure what kind of black magic is going on there if it's an IR or what? but if the console emulations can do things like this, I'm definitely interested.

I'm guessing that console emulation is something only in producer version of X2 though?

[Gonga]

Sometimes I think it's just the midi spec that's to blame for automation not living up to its claims. When you have a dedicated controller, it works great. My Spark controller for example, feels just like hardware, only your computer follows everything you do - very cool stuff. But ACT doesn't work like that even with my A-300Pro. Maybe it works OK with SONAR stuff if you can set it up right (the manual won't help and the tutorials are quick and dirty) but it sure doesn't work with other plugs for me, and it's bad enough that I've never found it useful.

I think you've made a case that Cake haven't been as innovative in the past as others, but I also think they've done a good job of trying to provide what people want by following what works in the market, resulting in a superior (or at least very competitive) product overall. This is largely how Microsoft Windows came to world domination.

[hibidy]

edit

[trimph1]

Welcome to the world of ho-dom!!!!

[pwal]

blimey

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

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

Authorization is the same (serial number + activation code, no challenge/ response or dongle required).

SP

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

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.

A huge part of Skylight is window management. I'm comparing Skylight to Cubase/ Ableton etc. window management because you said it was a copy of it in the above quote.

We actually had docking and undocking windows in Project 5 which came out way back in '02/ '03. We had a docked browser, complete with drag and drop, docked Inspector, docked PRV, etc, way before Skylight.

We've even had tabbed views in SONAR since version 3 (IIRC), in which you could tab the PRV and other edit windows, and the synth rack, in the bus pane of the track view.

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.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I've never used FL's patcher or Tracktion (any part of it), but I'm talking about being able to control multiple parameters across multiple plugins with a single knob or button with our FX Chains Mod Matrix (nothing to do with signal flow routing). I know Reapers FX Chains can't do that. Not sure about FL or Tracktion, now that you bring that up.

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?

The ProChannel and Inspector are two completely different things. The Inspector shows the channel strip and downstream bus of a selected track in the track view. I'm pretty sure it works this way in Cubase, Logic, and other hosts who have an Inspector.

The ProChannel is a channel strip built-in to every track and bus. It comes pre-loaded with several modules and can also host plugins via FX Chains. It can be accessed in the Inspector, which makes for incredibly ergonomic workflow when mixing in the track view (click on an track to show its ProChannel), but it can also be accessed in the Console View.

AFAIK, no other DAW has anything like it.

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.

They're common now, but when we put them in SONAR back in 2005 nobody else had these features, which is what makes us innovators by implementing and supporting them first.

Oh, I should also mention Bit-bridge. We were the first to invent and deploy x64 wrapping of x86 plugins.

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.

If you're one who's not into new plugins and synths but instead wants core DAW improvements then you might actually like X2 (Smart Grid, enhanced PRV editing, automation lanes, take lanes, overhauled MIDI engine, etc.).

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.

That's a big section to quote and respond to, lol. I will say that X1 and Skylight was in response to years and years of customers complaining about SONAR's interface, GUI, and workflow. We continue to refine all that with X2 and future versions moving forward. Your thoughts and opinions are certainly valuable and we appreciate the feedback.

SP

[whyterabbyt]

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.

in a market where Reaper exists, the notion of any other DAW being singled out on the basis that "quite a lot of the stuff is copied or borrowed or inspired from the innovators" is entirely amusing. If it werent for "copying or borrowing features from the innovators, Reaper wouldnt exist. Its probably why their development cycle has slowed down so much in he oast few years; they've run out of stuff to copy or borrow.

[deastman]

That's a big section to quote and respond to, lol. I will say that X1 and Skylight was in response to years and years of customers complaining about SONAR's interface, GUI, and workflow. We continue to refine all that with X2 and future versions moving forward. Your thoughts and opinions are certainly valuable and we appreciate the feedback.

SP

I for one am very happy with the Skylight interface. My only complaint is that it doesn't go far enough. Adobe is an example of dockable interfaces done right- anything can be docked anywhere, in a myriad of different ways. Sonar X1 was a step in that direction, but nowhere near the level of flexibility found in Adobe products.

[Trancit]

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I've never used FL's patcher or Tracktion (any part of it), but I'm talking about being able to control multiple parameters across multiple plugins with a single knob or button with our FX Chains Mod Matrix (nothing to do with signal flow routing). I know Reapers FX Chains can't do that. Not sure about FL or Tracktion, now that you bring that up.

Patcher does this in a "nearly modular enviroment even with X/Y controller and combined with the formular controller with a complete user defineable math...

Simply drag n drop a cable from a knob or XY controller onto as many plugins as you like within patcher, choose the parameters and/or insert formula controllers to change and/or modulate the parameter range you are done... complete saveable as a chained patch...

Released 29th of march 2011... don't know since when Sonar released their version, but for sure the FL Studio one is afaik far more powerfull...

[Seth [Cakewalk]]

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing? I've never used FL's patcher or Tracktion (any part of it), but I'm talking about being able to control multiple parameters across multiple plugins with a single knob or button with our FX Chains Mod Matrix (nothing to do with signal flow routing). I know Reapers FX Chains can't do that. Not sure about FL or Tracktion, now that you bring that up.

Patcher does this in a "nearly modular enviroment even with X/Y controller and combined with the formular controller with a complete user defineable math...

Simply drag n drop a cable from a knob or XY controller onto as many plugins as you like within patcher, choose the parameters and/or insert formula controllers to change and/or modulate the parameter range you are done... complete saveable as a chained patch...

Released 29th of march 2011... don't know since when Sonar released their version, but for sure the FL Studio one is afaik far more powerfull...

Can these be saved as a preset like an FX Chain? If so, then I tip my hat to FL.

SP

[TabSel]

Yes.

And you even can host FLStudio via VST in Sonar and put patcher in a sonar fx chain

I bought X1 due to skylight (never wanted to bother with the icon clusterfuck pre-X1)

[IncarnateX]

If you have struggled all through the 80s and 90s with making music on either 4 track tape recorders or workstations with ridiculously small displays and tons of sub menus, there is only ONE TRUTH to be told and that is:

ALL DAWS ARE AMAZING!

Deny that and you are nothing but a spoiled child in my eyes. Sonar is indeed no exception. The bang for the bucks are stunning. I used it from version 5 to 8,5 and the only reason I left was simply that it is overkill to me. In the end I just wanted a fast pattern based DAW with some basic stuff and in this respect Orion took the price. Now I am using Reason because I am a whore for modular synths/environments with stunning graphics. However, I would recommend Sonar as one of the most self-contained DAWs I can think of if anyone asked.

Only one drawback to me has been pinpointed by hibidy: The License transfer policy. At the time when I thought I would be using it for life, it was no problem but now I surely would love to hand Sonar over to someone who actually would use it. Cakewalk could even make money on the upgrade fee.

[grymmjack]

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.

in a market where Reaper exists, the notion of any other DAW being singled out on the basis that "quite a lot of the stuff is copied or borrowed or inspired from the innovators" is entirely amusing. If it werent for "copying or borrowing features from the innovators, Reaper wouldnt exist. Its probably why their development cycle has slowed down so much in he oast few years; they've run out of stuff to copy or borrow.

Rabbyt; This is true, and I'm grateful for it. REAPER, in it's beginning looked very similar to Sony's ACID. Everything has to have some influence somewhere, and I'm not a fool thinking that influences CW has are unique to CW, all DAW mfg's are influenced. Boiling down the meat of the "me-too" statement is, as Seth points out about the chronological events of how I product got to be where it is today (specifically X2).

This has been an educating thread and I've learned a lot in the process of watching the videos and speaking with KVRians and CW reps.

@Seth: PRV is a first isn't it, or was that in ProTools before? I don't use ProTools (and never have except for old LE version that came with an ex employers Echo Gina card in the pentium area), so I'm ignorant about that. I think ACT was first in terms of automation even before AutoMap came out. I remember specifically struggling with FLS to map a control globally and then they added the Omni mapping toggle but I don't remember the chain of events. Also CW is the first to allow awesome extensive plugin management with custom groups, etc. Another innovation was visual plugin automation that came in Sonar (I'm pretty sure ACID had a similar-ish function but nothing as great as Sonar and I remember drooling at the potential of the future when I saw that back then). CubaseVST/32 v5 had R/W automation for effects, but it was clunky to work with and sonar with it's lane based approach made it so much better and immediate. I think CW was one of the only DAWs to embrase KS/WDM drivers before it had native ASIO support. If we really want to dig deep I think CW/FX1 was one of the first amp and tape emulations in software (albeit not as extensive as say amplitube or guitar rig but being first is the argument here, not best). I think there was a big battle to get 5.1 mixing implementation too, but I think CW lost that race to nuendo? I do recall FX/2 (I believe this is the right number) which added stage/positioning support for the environment. Also, CW was the first DAW to have changeable waveforms for the audio metronome (I think!), but before it did I used a plugin Ping DXi to achieve that feature.

In all, CW is innovative, but not so much lately. After reading your comments about ProChannel I'm going to keep an open mind about it and defer to your extensive knowledge of it since you guys built it and I only have the basic version of X1 (that lacked this feature), so I don't know anything except what I've read/seen. That is a cool feature and let me just say one last thing about this stuff:

CW has always been a "for the user" company. That's one thing I loved about them since the beginning. They always seem to have the best intentions for us. Even if the pricing structure gets a little wonky when comparing, they have always been for us and fair (aside from the NFR policy but that is a really touchy subject in this forum and we don't want to open that can of worms to derail this thread any more than it already has been.)

My do not mean CW any harm, I'm a fan of CW I just have an emotional scar from a very long love affair that's mostly dysfunctional with a few endearing and sentimental highlights.

I look forward to trying the X2 demo. There will be a demo right? (there was no demo for X1 immediately at launch if memory serves and I bought based on trust; but wound up not using X1 after a month due to issues).

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions on KVR. I know that KVR is a scary proposition but you guys are doing a good job.