New Cakewalk Next and Sonar

[Teksonik]

As of now there's no beta, or at least no public one (I assume Noel has a small team of trusted testers like Craig Anderton, etc. who know more, but of course we don't hear anything in regards to that).

I was a private beta tester for Cakewalk back before the buy outs started. I remember it being a bit of a frustrating endeavor as CW didn't really respond to bug reports in a consistent manner. There is still at least one bug in Z3TA+2 that was reported several times and never fixed.

So I don't envy those who are testing now either privately or when (if) the public beta is released. I may give the demo version a go when it's released depending on the price point.

[jonljacobi]

My last visit to the forums a couple years back had the devs being involved quite a bit.

[Trensharo]

I think it's safe to say though that people are curious what comes next. And, the way I saw it (judging from Cakewalk's forums), there are quite a lot of users who used CbB who would pay for Sonar, so, they're surely interested in the (paid) software.

Well, it's Windows-only so the current CbB will work almost forever unless there is some seriously breaking changes in a future Windows release... and those come once a century. I suppose them making it require authentication (which means access is always going to be based on their good will) is also a major factor.

Unless the price is extremely low, I can't see a reason for most people to pay for it... And honestly, that's the downside of going free. You do onboard a lot of users who don't want to pay, or will simply pay a lower price for something else. Most Cakewalk users aren't invested in the product that way Professionals are invested in products like Pro Tools, REAPER, Cubase, Digital Performer, Ableton Live, FL Studio, etc.

If the price is even approaching competing products with better active development, users can simply jump ship instead. That, or they will be left with a large number of people on the current CbB who refuse to upgrade, since their requirements do not overpower the capabilities of the core software package they currently have access to (making any paid upgrade a bad value proposition).

I'm no fan of REAPER, but is there really anything stopping the average hobbyist over there from simply going there instead of paying potentially more for SONAR - beyond UI preferences?

[chk071]

I think it's safe to say though that people are curious what comes next. And, the way I saw it (judging from Cakewalk's forums), there are quite a lot of users who used CbB who would pay for Sonar, so, they're surely interested in the (paid) software.

Well, it's Windows-only so the current CbB will work almost forever unless there is some seriously breaking changes in a future Windows release... and those come once a century.

Unless the price is extremely low, I can't see a reason to pay for it for most people... If the price is even approaching competing products with better active development, users can simply jump ship instead.

I'm no fan of REAPER, but is there really anything stopping the average hobbyist over there from simply going there instead of paying potentially more for SONAR - beyond UI preferences?

Dunno, and, a question which surely everyone has to answer for themselves. I get your point, but, the overall reaction on the (no) price change was positive, from what I gathered over at the Cakewalk forums, and here.

Reagrding Reaper: I don't know if I would recommend that to any hobbyist. Rather to people who know what they want, and who are not reluctant to modify the cr** out of their software. For a hobbyist, most DAWs out there make the job of getting into the software easier.

[Trensharo]

I think it's safe to say though that people are curious what comes next. And, the way I saw it (judging from Cakewalk's forums), there are quite a lot of users who used CbB who would pay for Sonar, so, they're surely interested in the (paid) software.

Well, it's Windows-only so the current CbB will work almost forever unless there is some seriously breaking changes in a future Windows release... and those come once a century.

Unless the price is extremely low, I can't see a reason to pay for it for most people... If the price is even approaching competing products with better active development, users can simply jump ship instead.

I'm no fan of REAPER, but is there really anything stopping the average hobbyist over there from simply going there instead of paying potentially more for SONAR - beyond UI preferences?

Dunno, and, a question which surely everyone has to answer for themselves. I get your point, but, the overall reaction on the (no) price change was positive, from what I gathered over at the Cakewalk forums, and here.

Reactions don't buy software, so they have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Additionally, most users likely are not on the forums - here or there - so those reactions are likely coming from a significant minority of the user base. Typically, the users on forums tend to be those most invested (monetarily or emotionally) in the software.

The other users only show up when they have a problem, and then disappear again.

So, a lot of will depend on how many of the "silent majority" they can get to buy the software when it is released.

With the first release having mostly HiDPI fixes and the return of some old plug-ins as a selling point... I'm not sure that's going to be as attractive as some over there make it out to be - given the current music production software economy (plug-in prices are basically in a race to the bottom).

Reagrding Reaper: I don't know if I would recommend that to any hobbyist. Rather to people who know what they want, and who are not reluctant to modify the cr** out of their software. For a hobbyist, most DAWs out there make the job of getting into the software easier.

While I dislike REAPER's UI and have been pretty clear about that on this forum, it takes like one afternoon for the average hobbyist to make it their own.

This is not a huge factor.

The huge factor is how much of a bother the non-themable portions of the application are to you.

Considering the types of PCs many of those users are running, REAPER is still often well-worth considering, and may indeed be the optimal choice for many of them, due to how well it runs on limited spec machines.

No one just getting into Music Production "knows what they want" out of a DAW. That's the nature of being a newbie. You gain a sense for your own personal requirements as you gain experience in the craft. Expecting them to know what they want is like expecting an infant to walk hours after it's born.

DAW developers definitely low newbies who think they know what they want, though. Those people tend to become DAW collectors as they make hard purchases that they end up regretting a few months later (because... who actually uses trial periods, anymore, right?!).

[flugel45]

...
While I dislike REAPER's UI and have been pretty clear about that on this forum, it takes like one afternoon for the average hobbyist to make it their own.

This is not a huge factor.
...

I respectfully disagree. It's a HUGE factor IMO.

Have you read posts from the average hobbyist? If they're not up and running within an hour (or less), they'll move on. There are just too many options out there to struggle with something they don't have to!

It's a stubborn (or OCD-afflicted) hobbyist indeed who would give up an entire afternoon to figure out a piece of software! Especially if they didn't pay for it!

The exception, of course, is if they don't intend to pay for it. I would venture a guess that Reaper has a ton of these users - which is why they would spend an afternoon figuring it out!

[vertibration]

So wouldnt someone spend an afternoon or more figuring out any new DAW? Someone who never used Live, or FL cant just jump right in. You have to spend a few hours and learn, or customize to your liking

[Trensharo]

So wouldnt someone spend an afternoon or more figuring out any new DAW? Someone who never used Live, or FL cant just jump right in. You have to spend a few hours and learn, or customize to your liking

Basically, it's a talking point for people who think that aspect of REAPER puts it at competitive disadvantage vs. their DAW of choice.

It's not actually reality - not for anyone serious about music production as a profession, or even a hobby.

[Trensharo]

...
While I dislike REAPER's UI and have been pretty clear about that on this forum, it takes like one afternoon for the average hobbyist to make it their own.

This is not a huge factor.
...

I respectfully disagree. It's a HUGE factor IMO.

Have you read posts from the average hobbyist?

Yes. I've put them on several different DAWs. There are literally YouTube Videos walking them through practically everything to do with these DAWs, and there are pre-assembled collections of plug-ins, etc. that get them up and running in pretty low amounts of time.

I actually dissuade newbies from theming REAPER, as it can cause the DAW to look - in some cases, drastically - different from images in support materials, etc. It can make helping them harder when elements have had their iconography or labels changed, menus have been rearranged/edited, and UI elements may have been altered in placement, etc.

Also, there is a large amount of REAPER's GUI that is not themeable, so theming it actually increases contrast between those areas and the rest of the GUI (this is also the case for Cakewalk, which suffers with the same "Windows 98 Dialog" issue as REAPER).

If they're not up and running within an hour (or less), they'll move on. There are just too many options out there to struggle with something they don't have to!

It's not hard to download some scripts and install them. Definitely can have everything set up in < an hour. For some niches, people have already done the work and prepackaged entire collections of scripts and themes, so it's actually quite easy to get up and running.

Orchestral Template for REAPER (for Composition, etc.) is a great example of that.

I still think downloading and installing 50 scripts "because you can" is an awful idea. User the base DAW and then add onto it only where necessary. Otherwise, it's bloat for bloat's sake.

It's a stubborn (or OCD-afflicted) hobbyist indeed who would give up an entire afternoon to figure out a piece of software! Especially if they didn't pay for it!

Regardless of what DAW one chooses, the end user will have to spend an entire afternoon - more, even - to "figure out the software."

It's actually worse when they DO pay for it, since people tend to higher demands for instant gratification when financial investment is a factor.

Most DAWs have at least a 30-day Trial, so there is almost never a need to invest financially in a DAW simply to "figure it out" ... Free or otherwise.

The exception, of course, is if they don't intend to pay for it. I would venture a guess that Reaper has a ton of these users - which is why they would spend an afternoon figuring it out!

Lol. I hope you can see how ironic this snippet is, given the context of this discussion.

[flugel45]

While I appreciate your dissertation, I still respectfully disagree.

[jens]

Yeah, same here - biggest pile of nonsense I have read in a while - typical Reaper-fanboy self-assertive hogwash...

[jonljacobi]

The Reaper interface is obviously an issue for some, otherwise, it wouldn't be discussed so much. The program has fantastic capabilities and features, but one afternoon customizing? It took me that long just to do just a couple of the menus, and I was still stuck with the Windows XP dialogs and a toolbar I didn't want.

It's a great DAW, fast and stable, and if it suits you, fine. But don't pooh-pooh the idea that the UE doesn't initially confound and drive away some folk because I know of several people who've told me that it did.

[Spin Boyz]

An afternoon? It took me about a year and a half to get reaper like I wanted it. Most of that was spent finding a theme…. The reaper coders do not have an eye for GUI design lol

[Benedict]

Reaper is very powerful and capable: after you have been using, tweaking, and swearing at it for a few decades (give or take). For most, Reaper is like Meccano designed by IKEA in Swahili and translated to Chinese via Martian by Goober Translathe. An afternoon is not going to deliver most users more than a desire for self-immolation - no matter the potential for routing the Track Icon to the 47th Jesusonic Tucan plugin slot.

The user base that Bandslab is aimed at is often struggling with their namesake app, let alone Cakebalk or Reaper which are both messy in the extreme when hoping for a smooth experience. One really has to wonder how they ever expect Cakear to compete with Reason, Bitwig, Studio One, Live, CubeAss etc which are more elegant to some degree or another.

I do think that Cakebalk has plenty of positives but it needs an overhaul to make it flow far easier and less like the 20-year-old problem-child it is. The mixing in particular is pretty good and the Pro Channel stuff could be very appealing against Luna or the "analog with the sound of digital" Mixburp. But again ONLY if they make the program smooth to use seeing Luna is now free (if you have a boat anchor) and Reason can be had at $20 p.m. complete with a great suite of instruments and effects (or whatever - assuming such a deal is even a wise way to invest).

[jonljacobi]

They surely take their time...

Yup, it kinda defeats the goodwill they have accomplished during the free years.

How so?

I gave my opinion. If you disagree it's fine with me. I feel no need to discuss my opinion.
Maybe if it was very controversial, which it isn't.

I'll take that as you don't actually know.