Cakewalk Sonar Platinum is now free!

[papatomany]

Well, I've read through the majority of this (which was about what I expected to see... "I hate SONAR"... "I love SONAR"...), but still didn't learn what I wanted to learn, which was: I'm using Sonar Artist version 23.8.0... is this an upgrade from there?

You could have saved some time by downloading the product and simply compare it. Or check online SONAR Platinum feature list and compare it.

Anyway, since it is the high-end version, it's pretty obvious.

I DO appreciate the responses, (even if it is the usual KVR superiority complex) but, no, downloading and comparing doesn't save time. Don't have time to mess with it at the moment, and didn't wan't to miss the window. My music PC is actually sitting like an old Chevy on blocks right now, and I won't have it running for a week or two. Wasn't asking about features of Platinum compared to Artist; I was asking if it was an upgrade from 23.8.0, i.e. does it include fixes beyond 23.8.0. Generally, any glitches existing in Artist will exist in Platinum as well. Thanks, though.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Installed.
Couldn't add a midi clip with a double-click.
Uninstalled.

What do you mean by "midi clip" ?

Adding notes in a step sequencer ?

I never use a midi sequencer as I play in all my notes live with a guitar or keyboard. But,hey, even though I have only been using this daw for a week it took me all of 3 seconds to figure out how to open the step sequencer and double click to add notes and drag to stretch them to the note value I needed.

Is that what you meant ?

Not really. I mean adding a midi container to the main window. Just like in S3 or Bitwig.

You don't need to add a "midi container" in Cakewalk. You just input your notes in the Piano Roll, or click them in the Step Sequencer, or just record them with a midi controller, and a clip will appear in your track. That is one of my pet peeves with other apps. Why the hell do I need to create a "container" first?

Going from Sonar (my first real DAW) to Reaper, Studio One, and Cubase the whole idea of "MIDI Containers" is something I still just don't get. Creating a container clip always feels like an unnecessary extra step and I've yet to see where it adds value. The Cakewalk approach of "draw MIDI and your clip will be sized appropriately just like recorded audio" makes much more sense IMO. It's much more efficient anyway.

If someone could tell me the benefit of creating the container first, I'd be all ears as my primary DAW now is Studio One and Cubase gets more and more use and I still don't get it.

[LawrenceF]

In Studio One, yes, you do need to have a midi clip to draw notes into, but it gets created automatically when you record.

Not sure how Sonar works as relates to that but I do regularly find many users in Studio One working way too hard in just about every way imaginable, including some who make tutorial videos for it. Maybe just make a macro to both create a midi event and open it so that you can start drawing in notes right away if it's annoying to just double click twice to do the same thing.

[DeBro]

Hey jinotsuh, you are always jumping in every thread about Cakewalk with your negativity. I and lots of other people are quite content with Cakewalk and are creating good music. LONG LIVE CAKEWALK.

I don't think it's negativity, more of providing a realistic and cautionary perspective that others may not be aware of or willing to invest their time in because they value their time. It's fanboyism which is able to misplace another's perspective which creates an illusionary view that isn't really true of reality.

Cakewalk isn't perfect, and there is worse software out there, but I can mirror his sentiments, even in the short time I have used it.

Referring to the software as Crapwalk isn't negativity? I'm not saying that Cakewalk is 100% perfect. I've read threads on this forum of people complaining about other DAWs of not doing this or that well enough. Personally, I like to create music in Cakewalk. When Gibson ended support for it, I didn't even bother to download a demo of any other DAW because I had faith that someone is going to come along and revive it. Cakewalk is the only DAW that resides on my computer.
Since you use the term fanboyism, this fanboy of Cakewalk is going to provide two examples of what this DAW is capable of to counter your assertion of creating an illusionary view.
Both songs were recently recorded, mixed, and mastered in a bedroom.

1. A cover version of Cymande's THE MESSAGE, blending the elements of Reggae, Funk, and the Blues:
https://app.box.com/s/v8cly7vfwy4geacp7q7rk3r0b9b6c96e

2. Featuring my acoustic guitar lead playing - SHEPHERD'S THEME:
https://app.box.com/s/y5sgxkdjkj083lfw9fozvfg8ya5z740f

[THE INTRANCER]

Hey jinotsuh, you are always jumping in every thread about Cakewalk with your negativity. I and lots of other people are quite content with Cakewalk and are creating good music. LONG LIVE CAKEWALK.

I don't think it's negativity, more of providing a realistic and cautionary perspective that others may not be aware of or willing to invest their time in because they value their time. It's fanboyism which is able to misplace another's perspective which creates an illusionary view that isn't really true of reality.

Cakewalk isn't perfect, and there is worse software out there, but I can mirror his sentiments, even in the short time I have used it.

Referring to the software as Crapwalk isn't negativity? I'm not saying that Cakewalk is 100% perfect. I've read threads on this forum of people complaining about other DAWs of not doing this or that well enough. Personally, I like to create music in Cakewalk. When Gibson ended support for it, I didn't even bother to download a demo of any other DAW because I had faith that someone is going to come along and revive it. Cakewalk is the only DAW that resides on my computer.
Since you use the term fanboyism, this fanboy of Cakewalk is going to provide two examples of what this DAW is capable of to counter your assertion of creating an illusionary view.
Both songs were recently recorded, mixed, and mastered in a bedroom.

1. A cover version of Cymande's THE MESSAGE, blending the elements of Reggae, Funk, and the Blues:
https://app.box.com/s/v8cly7vfwy4geacp7q7rk3r0b9b6c96e

2. Featuring my acoustic guitar lead playing - SHEPHERD'S THEME:
https://app.box.com/s/y5sgxkdjkj083lfw9fozvfg8ya5z740f

I'm not doubting, the ability of the daw to allow users to produce music in it. It wouldn't have survived for as long as it has if it wasn't able to, but that goes to the way side as I've already highlighted through this thread. Having never used the daw before, I approached this with an open mind wanting to embrace what it was able to provide as a real alternative daw to use other than my current daw Studio One 3.5, which for the time I've used it has been pretty much solid and reliable without huge graphical glitches.

On a practical level, I was intrigued with just how well it would cope with my normal track count of 150 to 200 tracks per song should I have ever composed music in it... how well would the interface hold up, how well would the CPU hold up and whether it was even practical to have and manage that many tracks...but with big graphical bugs in the way, plugin corruption, ID corruption leading to uninstallation / reinstallation issues... more accidental corruption vie poor Assistant app, lack of an offline installer... forced path installation download from the outset and a bonanza of files thrown out vie a terrible installer, and an even worse uninstaller... and with a company that might just leave it in the dustbin rotting a year from now...to be sold off...it doesn't fill me with great confidence... So that was my week covered in a nutshell.

Seeing as you shared your tracks...which were nice enough.. here's just one example piece of my own... to highlight what I'd demand from Cakewalk... production size wise, should I have ever taken it on for scoring purposes...

https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... _o_p_h_i_a

[dellboy]

On a practical level, I was intrigued with just how well it would cope with my normal track count of 150 to 200 tracks per song should I have ever composed music in it... how well would the interface hold up, how well would the CPU hold up and whether it was even practical to have and manage that many tracks...but with big graphical bugs in the way, plugin corruption, ID corruption leading to uninstallation / reinstallation issues... more accidental corruption vie poor Assistant app, lack of an offline installer... forced path installation download from the outset and a bonanza of files thrown out vie a terrible installer, and an even worse uninstaller... and with a company that might just leave it in the dustbin rotting a year from now...to be sold off...it doesn't fill me with great confidence... So that was my week covered in a nutshell.

Bandlab only bought the company in February, and I doubt they had a chance to look at the codebase until well into March. So to judge them at this early stage is premature.

As for the assistant issues, they obviously exist, but personally I had no troubles. I downloaded the assistant and waited for it to install automatically. I initially found the whole interface cluttered, but I have now pared it back to the bone and can do all sorts of things using just the pc keyboard.

To compare it to Studio One, is also not fair. Presonus code is still quite new.

Cakewalk, like Microsoft, has a long history, and consequently has a historic codebase. They also have employees that go way back,who, understandably, are probable reluctant to want to unpick a lot of old redundant code. Whether the new young kids on the block will sort through it and make things better or worse is yet future.

[JoseC.]

Hey jinotsuh, you are always jumping in every thread about Cakewalk with your negativity. I and lots of other people are quite content with Cakewalk and are creating good music. LONG LIVE CAKEWALK.

I don't think it's negativity, more of providing a realistic and cautionary perspective that others may not be aware of or willing to invest their time in because they value their time. It's fanboyism which is able to misplace another's perspective which creates an illusionary view that isn't really true of reality.

Cakewalk isn't perfect, and there is worse software out there, but I can mirror his sentiments, even in the short time I have used it.

Referring to the software as Crapwalk isn't negativity? I'm not saying that Cakewalk is 100% perfect. I've read threads on this forum of people complaining about other DAWs of not doing this or that well enough. Personally, I like to create music in Cakewalk. When Gibson ended support for it, I didn't even bother to download a demo of any other DAW because I had faith that someone is going to come along and revive it. Cakewalk is the only DAW that resides on my computer.
Since you use the term fanboyism, this fanboy of Cakewalk is going to provide two examples of what this DAW is capable of to counter your assertion of creating an illusionary view.
Both songs were recently recorded, mixed, and mastered in a bedroom.

1. A cover version of Cymande's THE MESSAGE, blending the elements of Reggae, Funk, and the Blues:
https://app.box.com/s/v8cly7vfwy4geacp7q7rk3r0b9b6c96e

2. Featuring my acoustic guitar lead playing - SHEPHERD'S THEME:
https://app.box.com/s/y5sgxkdjkj083lfw9fozvfg8ya5z740f

I'm not doubting, the ability of the daw to allow users to produce music in it. It wouldn't have survived for as long as it has if it wasn't able to, but that goes to the way side as I've already highlighted through this thread. Having never used the daw before, I approached this with an open mind wanting to embrace what it was able to provide as a real alternative daw to use other than my current daw Studio One 3.5, which for the time I've used it has been pretty much solid and reliable without huge graphical glitches.

On a practical level, I was intrigued with just how well it would cope with my normal track count of 150 to 200 tracks per song should I have ever composed music in it... how well would the interface hold up, how well would the CPU hold up and whether it was even practical to have and manage that many tracks...but with big graphical bugs in the way, plugin corruption, ID corruption leading to uninstallation / reinstallation issues... more accidental corruption vie poor Assistant app, lack of an offline installer... forced path installation download from the outset and a bonanza of files thrown out vie a terrible installer, and an even worse uninstaller... and with a company that might just leave it in the dustbin rotting a year from now...to be sold off...it doesn't fill me with great confidence... So that was my week covered in a nutshell.

Seeing as you shared your tracks...which were nice enough.. here's just one example piece of my own... to highlight what I'd demand from Cakewalk... production size wise, should I have ever taken it on for scoring purposes...

https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... _o_p_h_i_a

Without any intentions of getting into an argument on personal experiences, I'll say that if I understood well from your posts around here, it seems to me that you made a mistake trying to manually force the way Cakewalks installs. It creates several directories in several places, and tinkering with that structure does not seem like a good idea. I am not a big fan of that, but it is just my own sense of tidyness and OCD tendencies regarding hard drives. IMHO it is best to let installers do their job and accepting that maybe there is a reason for the way they do it.

[dellboy]

Without any intentions of getting into an argument on personal experiences, I'll say that if I understood well from your posts around here, it seems to me that you made a mistake trying to manually force the way Cakewalks installs. It creates several directories in several places, and tinkering with that structure does not seem like a good idea. I am not a big fan of that, but it is just my own sense of tidyness and OCD tendencies regarding hard drives. IMHO it is best to let installers do their job and accepting that maybe there is a reason for the way they do it.

As well as what you have said, the other problem is vst folders with sometimes thousands, yes, thousands ! (a guy on the cakewalk forum had five thousand vst's !) which would cause even Reaper to hiccup.

Why not just pare down a vst folder to the handful that are used regularly, and have the rest in another folder, to add as, and if, they are ever actually really missed.

[JoseC.]

Without any intentions of getting into an argument on personal experiences, I'll say that if I understood well from your posts around here, it seems to me that you made a mistake trying to manually force the way Cakewalks installs. It creates several directories in several places, and tinkering with that structure does not seem like a good idea. I am not a big fan of that, but it is just my own sense of tidyness and OCD tendencies regarding hard drives. IMHO it is best to let installers do their job and accepting that maybe there is a reason for the way they do it.

As well as what you have said, the other problem is vst folders with sometimes thousands, yes, thousands ! (a guy on the cakewalk forum had five thousand vst's !) which would cause even Reaper to hiccup.

Why not just pare down a vst folder to the handful that are used regularly, and have the rest in another folder, to add as, and if, they are ever actually really missed.

Well, I like to have fun jamming with hardware sequencers and arpeggiators, and I have made Reaper to roll over and die throwing live midi to it where Sonar did not even sweat. Reaper has its strengths, but live midi recording is not one of them, and that is why it is not the paradigm of stability in my book. Anyway, our perception about the software we use comes from the way we want to use it, and sometimes we find its weak spots where most other users never go. I also see that many users, and I have fallen into that trap sometimes, insist in having an opinion on how things should be done, instead of trying to learn and accept how the tool at hand works, even if it does things differently than others. It is a bit silly for me using several tools and expecting all of them to have a single workflow.

[zzz00m]

In Studio One, yes, you do need to have a midi clip to draw notes into, but it gets created automatically when you record.

I'm using S1 Pro v3.5.6 and I can start painting notes into a new track without adding a clip first. A clip gets created automatically, in much the same way as when you record.

[zzz00m]

I also see that many users, and I have fallen into that trap sometimes, insist in having an opinion on how things should be done, instead of trying to learn and accept how the tool at hand works, even if it does things differently than others. It is a bit silly for me using several tools and expecting all of them to have a single workflow.

+1

Learn the differences, and use what works for you!

[zzz00m]

I'm not doubting, the ability of the daw to allow users to produce music in it. It wouldn't have survived for as long as it has if it wasn't able to, but that goes to the way side as I've already highlighted through this thread. Having never used the daw before, I approached this with an open mind wanting to embrace what it was able to provide as a real alternative daw to use other than my current daw Studio One 3.5, which for the time I've used it has been pretty much solid and reliable without huge graphical glitches.

Having used Cakewalk for 20 years, and with only just recently taking advantage of a discounted crossgrade deal to Studio One Pro, I have to say I do not understand why anybody would want to go the other way. Studio One is an excellent DAW, and many Sonar users have crossed over in the past few years.

That being said, Sonar (Cakewalk by BandLab), will be a hell of a deal for anybody just starting out.

Nice track, BTW!

[dellboy]

Well, I like to have fun jamming with hardware sequencers and arpeggiators, and I have made Reaper to roll over and die throwing live midi to it where Sonar did not even sweat. Reaper has its strengths, but live midi recording is not one of them, and that is why it is not the paradigm of stability in my book.

Cakewalk was originally designed for external midi,because as I am sure you already know, that was all we had back then.

Reaper on the other hand was designed by Justin for audio jamming and recording and midi was added quite a lot later if I recall correctly. Personally, I have rarely induced Reaper to crash but I only use vsts these days.

But in Cakewalk Bandlabs favour I have yet had it crash on me once, which is more than can be said for Ableton Live on my machine.

[zzz00m]

Well, I've read through the majority of this (which was about what I expected to see... "I hate SONAR"... "I love SONAR"...), but still didn't learn what I wanted to learn, which was: I'm using Sonar Artist version 23.8.0... is this an upgrade from there?

You could have saved some time by downloading the product and simply compare it. Or check online SONAR Platinum feature list and compare it.

Anyway, since it is the high-end version, it's pretty obvious.

I DO appreciate the responses, (even if it is the usual KVR superiority complex) but, no, downloading and comparing doesn't save time. Don't have time to mess with it at the moment, and didn't wan't to miss the window. My music PC is actually sitting like an old Chevy on blocks right now, and I won't have it running for a week or two. Wasn't asking about features of Platinum compared to Artist; I was asking if it was an upgrade from 23.8.0, i.e. does it include fixes beyond 23.8.0. Generally, any glitches existing in Artist will exist in Platinum as well. Thanks, though.

The last released version of Sonar Platinum was 23.10.0. So yes the new Cakewalk would be based on that. So in my opinion that would be an upgrade.

The 'Duplicate track button' was added in 23.9.0. Various fixes and enhancements were added to both versions 23.9.0 and 23.10.0.

You can access the changelog here for what was added between 23.8.0 and 23.10.0:
https://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/Whats-New#start

[zzz00m]

You don't need to add a "midi container" in Cakewalk. You just input your notes in the Piano Roll, or click them in the Step Sequencer, or just record them with a midi controller, and a clip will appear in your track. That is one of my pet peeves with other apps. Why the hell do I need to create a "container" first?

I get that. I also use Tracktion Waveform, where a track is a track. In that you add specific container clips to the track which become containers for either MIDI, audio, or step sequences. Reaper is similar. Routing can be more flexible (and sometimes more confusing) with this universal track approach.

So there are pros and cons with both approaches. Cakewalk has always had strictly defined track types, audio or MIDI, and they cannot mix content. The Cakewalk instrument track is really one of each type combined, where the MIDI track controls the MIDI input and routing, and the audio track controls the output from the synth.

I have run across issues in Cakewalk where you cannot input an audio port to an instrument plugin such as a sampler to do live sampling directly. This is simple to do in Reaper, because of the routing flexibility.

I am not really speaking about having different track types, but about the idea of having the extra step of creating a container first. It should happen automatically as soon as I place any midi in a track. I quit trying to use Reaper for midi some time ago due to the way it handles midi sync, but I seem to remember that in the past you also needed to expand the midi item to make room for extra notes as you added them in the piano roll. And though Live uses midi tracks, you need to create a clip first, too.

I like the Cakewalk way of doing things because it is more flexible if you are using both software and hardware synths. As you said, the instrument track is just the midi input and the audio output tracks combined, but the soft synth itself is in the synth rack, not in the track. This way, if you want to change the output to a hardware instrument you just need to split the track and change the output of the midi track to an external port, and the soft synth stays in the synth rack in case that you want to use it again later.

I see what you mean with doing live sampling in Cakewalk, but I am not that sure that you cannot do that. There are not many software samplers that actually sample, right now I just can think of one by TAL, but I used to sample with Geist in Sonar without problems using its capture plugin even before it was possible to route an audio track to another and record its output live. I don't see why it should be difficult to do it now, but I haven't tried.

The "container" approach is a result of the particular method of object oriented programming used by the DAW developers. Some, like Cakewalk, obviously have the track object itself act as a default "container" for the data type defined by the track type.

If the DAW developers decided not to type a track object until it contained a clip, then that is just how it will work. Neither is good or bad, just different. One is less work up front in certain situations, the other may offer more routing flexibility. This is strictly a matter of personal choice. Use what works for you.

The specific sampler I was referring to was TX16Wx by CWITEC. A plug-in modeled after hardware samplers.
https://www.tx16wx.com/

Sonar refused to route audio to this plug-in when inserted as an instrument. In Sonar, instruments have no audio input routing. Only audio FX plug-ins allow for audio input. Sonar would not recognize the plug-in as an FX.

On the other hand, Reaper had no issues routing audio to this instrument. The workaround with Sonar was to first record an audio clip into an audio track, then drag it into the sampler.