SONAR 4 Surround....

[whyterabbyt]

kuniklo quoth

Erm. I *do* know Sonar well and still don't like it. What's your point again?

Gee, I didnt think it would be that hard to understand.

You made a comment about 'Sonar fanboys' coming 'out of the woodwork' in response to criticism, remember?

Good.

So I pointed out that most of that time its actually 'fanboys' of other hosts who start slagging off Sonar, without having any real experience of it. I don't seem to see people who use Sonar jumping in to slag off other hosts that much, funnily enough.

So I told you that, hinting strongly that what you're calling 'fanboys' are quite often actually the people who are refuting the bullshit and nonsense promulgated by more ardent 'fanboys' who seem to roll out to slag off everything but they're favourite toy at the slightest provocation, whether or not they're qualified to comment on it in any way, shape or form.

Whether or not you actually like Sonar yourself is completely f**king irrelevant to that. You asked a question, you got an answer. Is that alright with your world perspective now?

Oh goodie.

[willum]

I dispise the overused term "workflow"

Me too, if it's too much work it isn't fun any more. Maybe we should call it "jamflow" or "rokflow". How about "dopabeatflow". Or maybe just "flow". That's kind of Zen, I like that.

I'll add my $0.02 about Sonar4 now. At first I was like "another upgrade, noooooo!!!" But the features are quite strong. CW has been listening to their customers. When I saw track freeze, track folder groups, navigator view and the metronome I decided it was worth it. Not to mention the "improved performance" which remains to be seen. Anything to improve performance and help me squeeze more life out of my aging P4 2.4. You young whippersnappers and your AMD 64's!!!

[kuniklo]

kuniklo quoth

Erm. I *do* know Sonar well and still don't like it. What's your point again?

Gee, I didnt think it would be that hard to understand.

You made a comment about 'Sonar fanboys' coming 'out of the woodwork' in response to criticism, remember?

Good.

So I pointed out that most of that time its actually 'fanboys' of other hosts who start slagging off Sonar, without having any real experience of it. I don't seem to see people who use Sonar jumping in to slag off other hosts that much, funnily enough.

So I told you that, hinting strongly that what you're calling 'fanboys' are quite often actually the people who are refuting the bullshit and nonsense promulgated by more ardent 'fanboys' who seem to roll out to slag off everything but they're favourite toy at the slightest provocation, whether or not they're qualified to comment on it in any way, shape or form.

The sweet irony here of course is that these same Sonar "fans" have learned to behave in exactly the same manner they so solemnly condemn. Any honest criticism of Sonar, like pointing out its lack of fundamental features like freeze or track folders, is instantly met with accusations of trolling. I rather innocently remarked several pages back that I'm too addicted to Live-style clip envelopes to do without them and several pages later I'm once again being accused of attacking a host I don't understand just for the perverse pleasure of it.

f**k that. Sonar is a good host in many ways. It does some things better than any other host I've tried. Sonar 3 also lacks a lot of key features other hosts have had for a while, and, in my opinion, falls short in a few other areas like automation. S4 sounds like it will rectify a lot of these shortcomings. I've made very specific and rather mild criticisms of certain Sonar features, based on extensive direct experience. If you can't tell the difference between a troll and an honest criticism and comparison of hosts then perhaps you shouldn't post to these threads.

[whyterabbyt]

kuniklo

The sweet irony here of course is that these same Sonar "fans" have learned to behave in exactly the same manner they so solemnly condemn.

Would that be 7XL's little attempt at humour your talking about? I think 'sweetly ironic' is a bit innacurate there, since it was actually you misunderstanding him entirely.

Otherwise, you might want to refer to specific posts in this thread, made by Sonar users that explicitly make statements about how crap other hosts are.

So I dont really see much 'sweet irony', just someone who seems determined to make spurious negative commentary on any grounds possible.

Any honest criticism of Sonar, like pointing out its lack of fundamental features like freeze or track folders, is instantly met with accusations of trolling.

Well, since bounce-to-disk is exactly the same as almost every existing implementations of Freeze, I think criticising Sonar for merely not having named as such is a big difference from not having a 'fundamental feature'.

As for track folders, I dont consider them 'fundamental' at all. Neither have many of the other host developers until fairly recently, it would appear.

I rather innocently remarked several pages back that I'm too addicted to Live-style clip envelopes to do without them and several pages later I'm once again being accused of attacking a host I don't understand just for the perverse pleasure of it.

You actually said Sonar had no clip automation. Which is wrong. It may not cover as much as Live does, but you were still wrong.

Now where exactly were these 'accusations' you talk about?

f**k that. Sonar is a good host in many ways. It does some things better than any other host I've tried.

All hosts do some things better than others. Your mileage will always vary

Sonar 3 also lacks a lot of key features other hosts have had for a while

All hosts do some things worse than others. Your mileage will always vary.

The definition of 'key features' certainly will.

However someone, say, telling people that their hosts is 'useless' is a different matter from saying that it does not meet their set of required 'key features'. Which happens.

It seems just a bit like you're all het up because someone had the temerity to respond to you as not being more illuminated than everyone else about Sonar. Poor diddums, you're just going to have to learn and grow over that one...

and, in my opinion, falls short in a few other areas like automation.

Your main comments here seems not to have been about automation, but about the display of automation data. Once again, that seems a somewhat skewed presentation of the facts.

S4 sounds like it will rectify a lot of these shortcomings. I've made very specific and rather mild criticisms of certain Sonar features, based on extensive direct experience.

You say 'mild criticisms', I say 'descriptions of things which are not completely correct, and which are inherently biased as a result'.

If you can't tell the difference between a troll and an honest criticism and comparison of hosts then perhaps you shouldn't post to these threads.

Did I call you a troll? Please provide proof, or retract that insinuation, thank you.

Meanwhile, you asked a question, and you got an answer. For some reason you seem to be having major difficulty accepting that situation, and still seem to be implying that people are refuting your statements because of reasons other than the fact that they were factually incorrect, or pointing out that they are matters merely of personal preference. If that's the case, I suggest you desists from reading threads like this.

And I'll continue to post responses to people who make prejudiced, biased, ill-informed, or stupid comments whenever I feel like it, so I think I'll reject your suggestion. Particularly since, given the empirical evidence, I kind of doubt the 'honesty' of your criticism and comparison.

[Wopelka]

...

[willum]

So, um, anyone going to upgrade to S4? Any converts from other hosts? Go ahead and disparage Sonar as much as you want, but that's what will be on my computer for the foreseeable future. Therefore it is impossible for me to be insulted by prejudiced, ill-mannered comments about one of my favorite toys. Big whoop. I use it, I like it. You don't. That's cool. Let's get on with our lives.

Now we can continue speculating about an as-yet unreleased software product. Personally I'm going to reserve judgement for the day I install S4 and use it for myself. Actually I'm going to wait a week or two and browse the Cakewalk support forum. Now that should be instructive.

[willum]

I just wanted to add that I DO find it insulting when an inordinate amount of space is wasted on useless debates and personal attacks, or anything that strays too far from the original subject of any thread on any forum or newsgroup. Leave that crap for usenet, on KVR we're all trying to do the same thing: make music and spend money on music making equipment, and talk about music and techniques and stuff. Why waste time quarreling?

[Rabid]

I don’t care if Sonar 4 is still missing some features of Live 4, Reason, Project 5, FL or any other “supplementary” program. Those are not true audio + MIDI DAW’s. If Sonar, Cubase, Logic or any other DAW tried to implement every feature of every supplementary program then we would end up with bloat ware worse than Microsoft Office.

Robert

[kuniklo]

The sweet irony here of course is that these same Sonar "fans" have learned to behave in exactly the same manner they so solemnly condemn.[/i]

Would that be 7XL's little attempt at humour your talking about? I think 'sweetly ironic' is a bit innacurate there, since it was actually you misunderstanding him entirely.

Otherwise, you might want to refer to specific posts in this thread, made by Sonar users that explicitly make statements about how crap other hosts are.

We're talking about attacking without thinking or really considering the merits or arguments of the other side. Read this or any of another dozen threads on kvr for ample evidence of what I'm talking about.

So I dont really see much 'sweet irony', just someone who seems determined to make spurious negative commentary on any grounds possible.

Any honest criticism of Sonar, like pointing out its lack of fundamental features like freeze or track folders, is instantly met with accusations of trolling.

Well, since bounce-to-disk is exactly the same as almost every existing implementations of Freeze, I think criticising Sonar for merely not having named as such is a big difference from not having a 'fundamental feature'.

Bounce-to-disk isn't in any sense the same as a freeze feature. It's a reasonable substitute, but that's all. I love how eager Sonar fans, who've never had a freeze feature, are to tell me how unnecessary it is. I await with pleasure all the revelatory praises of the new Sonar 4 freeze feature.

As for track folders, I dont consider them 'fundamental' at all. Neither have many of the other host developers until fairly recently, it would appear.

You could say the same thing about dozens of other features common to current hosts. Until you've actually *used* a host with them your opinion holds little water.

I rather innocently remarked several pages back that I'm too addicted to Live-style clip envelopes to do without them and several pages later I'm once again being accused of attacking a host I don't understand just for the perverse pleasure of it.

You actually said Sonar had no clip automation. Which is wrong. It may not cover as much as Live does, but you were still wrong.

It covers exactly *one* paramter: velocity. Probably the single parameter least usefully manipulated with an envelope instead of discrete values. I accepted the clarification. Again, if you haven't used a host that supports rich per-clip automation envelopes your judgements of their
worth aren't very interesting.

Now where exactly were these 'accusations' you talk about?

The general tone of most of the responses to my posts has been that I just don't know what I'm talking about and it all works fine.

However someone, say, telling people that their hosts is 'useless' is a different matter from saying that it does not meet their set of required 'key features'. Which happens.

When did I say Sonar was useless?

It seems just a bit like you're all het up because someone had the temerity to respond to you as not being more illuminated than everyone else about Sonar. Poor diddums, you're just going to have to learn and grow over that one...

I'd instead conclude that you can't tolerate someone with and informed and partially negative opionion of your favorite little pony. It's much more difficult to flame someone that's right.

and, in my opinion, falls short in a few other areas like automation.

Your main comments here seems not to have been about automation, but about the display of automation data. Once again, that seems a somewhat skewed presentation of the facts.

The slickest under-the-hood implementation of automation isn't much good if the interface is lacking. A bizarre logic.

You say 'mild criticisms', I say 'descriptions of things which are not completely correct, and which are inherently biased as a result'.

What have I said that's incorrect? We clarified a misunderstanding of what I meant by Sonar's lack of per-clip automation and my comment essentially still stands. Sonar doesn't allow per-clip automation of almost any of the interesting things to automate per-clip.

Why would I be biased against a host I spend quite a bit of money and time trying to like before finally grudgingly abandoned it?

If you can't tell the difference between a troll and an honest criticism and comparison of hosts then perhaps you shouldn't post to these threads.

Did I call you a troll? Please provide proof, or retract that insinuation, thank you.

How about this:

So I told you that, hinting strongly that what you're calling 'fanboys' are quite often actually the people who are refuting the bullshit and nonsense promulgated by more ardent 'fanboys' who seem to roll out to slag off everything but they're favourite toy at the slightest provocation, whether or not they're qualified to comment on it in any way, shape or form.

So you're saying you in no way implying that I fall in that category? Despite your comments about the "lack of accuracy" and bias in my previous posts? Please.

Meanwhile, you asked a question, and you got an answer. For some reason you seem to be having major difficulty accepting that situation, and still seem to be implying that people are refuting your statements because of reasons other than the fact that they were factually incorrect, or pointing out that they are matters merely of personal preference. If that's the case, I suggest you desists from reading threads like this.

What "question" did I ask? I pointed out that it looks like S4 is still missing a feature I consider essential for my work and I received the typical response that I didn't know what I'm talking about.

And I'll continue to post responses to people who make prejudiced, biased, ill-informed, or stupid comments whenever I feel like it, so I think I'll reject your suggestion. Particularly since, given the empirical
evidence, I kind of doubt the 'honesty' of your criticism and comparison.

If you can find any evidence of any of the bias or misinformation you accuse me of then point it out. Otherwise I'd suggest you find yourself a new crusade. You haven't torn into AAS for a bit. Why not have another go at them?

[LoRez]

kuniklo quoth

Erm. I *do* know Sonar well and still don't like it. What's your point again?

Gee, I didnt think it would be that hard to understand.

You made a comment about 'Sonar fanboys' coming 'out of the woodwork' in response to criticism, remember?

Good.

So I pointed out that most of that time its actually 'fanboys' of other hosts who start slagging off Sonar, without having any real experience of it. I don't seem to see people who use Sonar jumping in to slag off other hosts that much, funnily enough.

So I told you that, hinting strongly that what you're calling 'fanboys' are quite often actually the people who are refuting the bullshit and nonsense promulgated by more ardent 'fanboys' who seem to roll out to slag off everything but they're favourite toy at the slightest provocation, whether or not they're qualified to comment on it in any way, shape or form.

Whether or not you actually like Sonar yourself is completely f**king irrelevant to that. You asked a question, you got an answer. Is that alright with your world perspective now?

Oh goodie.

Well said Rabbit. This is a phenomena I have noticed for a long time and it does appear to be a one way street. I don't go looking for Logic posts so that I can chime in on what I hate about it (not that I HATE anything about it other than it runs on a MAC, but....) And it's always something like "Yeah I tried Sonar...and I just didn't like it." What version? When? Ever call tech support with any of your problems? The response is always something like "well, I seem to remember blah blah blah". And actually if you look at my recent posts on this thread, I concur with the complaintant here and there where it is warranted...anyone can just read back and see that. So this is not blind defensiveness..,

Whatever...

[whyterabbyt]

kuniklo quoth

We're talking about attacking without thinking or really considering the merits or arguments of the other side. Read this or any of another dozen threads on kvr for ample evidence of what I'm talking about.

So nothing specific from the Sonar users here then. Just your unsubstantiated claims.

Bounce-to-disk isn't in any sense the same as a freeze feature.

And exactly how does it substantially and unequivocally differ from 'a freeze feature' then? Not a given host's freeze, by the way, but that which is generic to all those hosts currently implementing some sort of freeze facility.

It's a reasonable substitute, but that's all. I love how eager Sonar fans, who've never had a freeze feature, are to tell me how unnecessary it is.

Ah, of course. No-one who ever used Sonar has ever tried out any other host to evaluate the hip new features. Right.

I await with pleasure all the revelatory praises of the new Sonar 4 freeze feature.

Indeed. Possibly, since it sounds like it has a far more extensive implementation than any other host.

However if it is indeed such a 'fundamental feature' then how the hell did anyone ever use a DAW effectively until Traktion first implemented it and Logic made it a buzzword.

Oh yeah. Its not fundamental.

You could say the same thing about dozens of other features common to current hosts. Until you've actually *used* a host with them your opinion holds little water.

And exactly what short-sightedness makes you presume I've never used a host that does have them?

But since I can manage prefectly well in a host that doesnt have track folders, then I think my opinion is prefectly legitimate when I say 'no they're not fundamental'. Perhaps you dont actually understand the word 'fundamental'.

So while we're talking of opinions not holding water, I think you're the one with damp feet. And your assertion that someone has to have used a feature to know whether or not they can manage without it, when they already manage without it, is about as fallacious an argument as you'll see around here.

Again, if you haven't used a host that supports rich per-clip automation envelopes your judgements of their worth aren't very interesting.

Again, you're making very dumb assumptions left right and centre here. But since I dont really give a damn whether they are 'interesting' opiniojns, just whether or not they are valid, then its somewhat a moot point. Oh yeah, and another fallacious argument on your part.


The general tone of most of the responses to my posts has been that I just don't know what I'm talking about and it all works fine.

It does all 'work fine', and thousands of people use it on a daily basis. Some elements dont suit you but thats a completely separate issue. But that isnt 'accusation' thats 'refutation'.


When did I say Sonar was useless?

I have no idea. When did I say you did?

I'd instead conclude that you can't tolerate someone with and informed and partially negative opionion of your favorite little pony.

Oh you're so right, Im just so inflamed by you and you're clever and damning condemnation of the centre of my universe that I cant control myself.

Oh no, wait. It actually started when you asked a question, and I explained it to you, and you took exception to that. And Im still explaining things to you, most of which appear to be caused by your fervent belief that your personal preferences should be universally-accepted facts. They're not.

It's much more difficult to flame someone that's right.

And very easy to correct someone who's confusing their opinion with cold hard facts. That's not 'right' thats 'blindly dogmatic'.

The slickest under-the-hood implementation of automation isn't much good if the interface is lacking. A bizarre logic.

I'm afraid its not actually 'bizarre logic' if the interface isnt lacking, but just doesnt suit your preference. Which is the case.

What have I said that's incorrect?

<cough> Does the phrase 'fundamental feature' ring any bells?

Or we could maybe add your repeated assertion that only someone who has used a feature is qualified to judge whether or not one can manage without it, when everyone else is managing without it.

Or that one where you assume nobody ahs ever tried and used a different host, and therefore isnt fit to contradict you?

Why would I be biased against a host I spend quite a bit of money and time trying to like before finally grudgingly abandoned it?

Because people do that sort of thing?

How about this:

How about it? Where does it call you a troll. Where does it even comment on you at all.

So you're saying you in no way implying that I fall in that category?

First you tell me I called you a troll, now you're asking me if I called you a troll?

Despite your comments about the "lack of accuracy" and bias in my previous posts? Please.

And now you're begging me to call you a troll. Sheesh.

I guess that confirms that I actually didnt, huh?

For your information, saying someone is innacurate and/or biased is not calling them a troll.

What "question" did I ask?

Ive already said twice. Think back. The clue's are the words 'fanboy' and 'woodwork'.

I pointed out that it looks like S4 is still missing a feature I consider essential for my work and I received the typical response that I didn't know what I'm talking about.

Well you say now that you consider it 'essential for your work'. Have you ever considered that phrasing it as though that was a fact might have been what got you that kind of response?

Or perhaps, given your insistence that I was insinuating you were trolling, maybe you just dont take too well to people disagreeng with you, and start believing that you're being cruelly maligned.

If you can find any evidence of any of the bias or misinformation you accuse me of then point it out.

In a DAW, being able to control the volume of a track would be considered a fundamental feature.

Per-track equalisation, if the host supported plugins, wouldnt necessarily be considered fundamnetal, though some people would disagree.

Track folders are almost certainly not likely to be considered a 'fundamental feature', and the lack of them in all the major hosts for the first few years of their lifespan kind of validates that fact.

Therefore, you claiming that they are a 'fundamental feature' is misinformation or bias.

Insinuating that anyone who contradicts you is merely a 'fanboy' who has never used any other host, and is therefor not worthy of passing commentary on your assertions is blatantly biased.

Otherwise I'd suggest you find yourself a new crusade.

Oh, there you go again. You can't quite manage it can you; every single time someone contradicts you you have to get as many little ad hominems in as possible. Compensating for the fact that this was your little crusade and you're not getting it all your own way perhaps?

Its dead simple. You were either factually innacurate, or passing your opinions off as facts. And when you called called up on it, even humorously, you started sulking and started behaving as though you were being victimised by people too blinded by their own preferences to see the 'reason' you knew to be true. And you've continued to make spurious and unsubstantiated claims about how terribly they've acted towards since then.

That wasn'tthe case, and the one displaying the intolerance, and making the back-handed insults and insinuations is you. Whilst still insisting your opinions are facts and that no-one is fit to comment on them.

Y'know, on reflection, you actually seem determined to act as much as possible like a troll. Do you win some sort of perverse prize or something if someone calls you one? Would it make you feel justified and superior or something?

Whatever. You seriously do have a problem with perspective; no it doesnt revolve around you.

You haven't torn into AAS for a bit. Why not have another go at them?

Because I dont have any ulterior motive. What was yours for bringing it up? Oh yeah, your propensity for trying to cast aspersions on anyone who doesnt bow down before your wisdom.

[ATS]

Glad I don't own it, they want almost $200 dollars for the upgrade. Retail price is now about $1000 dollars I don't use this or Cubase but right now you can buy Cubase SX 2 for $400 and upgrade to SX 3 for $50.

[tetraplan]

I dispise the overused term "workflow"

Me too, if it's too much work it isn't fun any more. Maybe we should call it "jamflow" or "rokflow". How about "dopabeatflow". Or maybe just "flow". That's kind of Zen, I like that.

Or just Wuwei.
Or maybe Feng Shui. "I don't like the Feng Shui of your host". Host warS wouldn't be the same.

Groet, Erik

[mojkarma]

As a user of Sonar3PE and Cubase SL2 I can say how funny it is, when Sonar users sometimes defend missing features and tools.

Just one example: somebody asks for freeze. You promptly get 30 replies that you don't need freeze because in Sonar you can bounce to disk.

Thats true: but, if you freeze 14 tracks in the "old" sonar way you get 14 additional tracks in the track view and very easely you get a mess. To make your workspace clear you have to hide the old tracks and to archive them. Unfreeze in the old way is: to delete the new created tracks and to unarchive the old tracks.
Nobody can tell me that the freeze function is not a significant improvement because you don't create additional tracks and you can quickly reverse the process.

For the missing audio metronome everybody said: just create a audio beat or a midi beat with a virtual synth and save it as a template. Great! I guess everybody in the world makes music on a 4/4 beat. I will not even mention other rhythmical styles (3/4, 12/8, 7/8, etc.)

My conclusion would be: if you are happy with Sonar, you like it and you like the new features, do the upgrade. But, allmost everything on the new feature list of Sonar4 is already implemented in sequencers like Cubase or Logic.

[kuniklo]

So while we're talking of opinions not holding water, I think you're the one with damp feet. And your assertion that someone has to have used a feature to know whether or not they can manage without it, when they already manage without it, is about as fallacious an argument as you'll see around here.

Since I suspect we all agree that interesting music has been made with tools far, far cruder than any of the current high-end sequencers I'd say it's safe to assume none of the features we're talking about are *essential*.

As for the rest, whatever. I intend to give S4 a full test drive. If it works better for me than Live 4 or SX3, I'll switch. If not, I'll at least happily give credit to Cakewalk for making huge strides in the last two versions of Sonar and for continuing to provide much better support than Steinberg or Emagic. An unbiased read of any of my other host-releated posts will make it abundantly clear that I don't bash any of them and that I'm promiscuous to a fault with all of them. It's a shame that any breach of faith in Sonar gets your panties in such a twist. I can't promise never to have one again, unfortunately.