New Sonar Platinum Update

[whyterabbyt]

Sonar will be adding Workspaces by years end.
https://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR ... ates#start
which I assume is similar to Multi-instruments in S1.

Im not sure what Multi-instruments are, but to me Workspaces looks to be a customisable UI layout thing;Im not quite sure how it differs from Screensets, though, which ostensibly already does that.

[excessional]

For me this update completely negates any reason to continue to subscribe to the upgrade
plan for the professional version. Somehow they've managed to cripple performance where the
load-balancing is disabled vs what it was before. I had to roll back, and immediately canceled my sub.

$300 bucks for the platinum version is just ridiculous for someone like me who has zero interest
in any of the 3rd party content. They want me to pay $300 for the fly-out analyzer, theme authoring,
a couple of exclusive pro-channel modules, and now cpu efficiency.

What a joke...

bye bye cakewalk...

-Cheers

Yes - I moved up all the way from Music Creator 6 - X3 Studio - X3 Professional - Sonar Plat.
And it is annoying that they cripple features in the lower versions - for example the lower verisons didn't have fly-out EQ - they still had the Quadcurve EQ but in a tiny box you couldn't see so it wasn't really usable.
If there is a core engine improvement that should clearly go right across the range.

On the other hand - as I waited for upgrade offers - I have paid peanuts (total about £170 and that included full licences for Z3ta+2, Rapture and Dim Pro) for what is a very powerful and (nowadays) stable DAW with a lot of decent added content - the AAS Strum, AD2 with 3 Add Packs, Quadcurve Fly-Out EQ and Melodyne Essential are all top notch. And it's hard not to appreciate its best in class comping if you actually ever record anything.

DAWs are DAWs - they are just tools - like word processors are to books. Does anyone care what word processor a book is written on?

You just find one that is stable and that has a workflow you like. Most are massive overkill for what a hobby musician needs.

And Sonar is certainly good value for money so I see no reason to move away from it.

[jsp1979]

I suspect that the engine improvements will make their way to the other editions soon (although I have no inside knowledge of this).

[planetearth]

I love the new update
Even my Roland vst's are cpu friendly now with load balancing enabled.
Happy that i stayed with Sonar and bought the lifetime upgrade

I'm very happy with it, too. Frankly, I wish the customizable "themes" had been done in CSS, but that's not a big deal.

Which Roland VSTs are you using?

Steve

[Kalamata Kid]

Sonar will be adding Workspaces by years end.
https://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR ... ates#start
which I assume is similar to Multi-instruments in S1.

Im not sure what Multi-instruments are, but to me Workspaces looks to be a customisable UI layout thing;Im not quite sure how it differs from Screensets, though, which ostensibly already does that.

Hmmmm. So I may be wrong about Workspaces. Too bad as I really like the idea of a modular environment integrated into the DAW as multi-instruments is in Studio One. Yes I can use Bidule or the like http://www.plogue.com/products/bidule/ . I even contemplated using FLS (for the Patcher) https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... atcher.htm as a VSTi in Sonar and in Studio One for that matter.

[D-Fusion]

I love the new update
Even my Roland vst's are cpu friendly now with load balancing enabled.
Happy that i stayed with Sonar and bought the lifetime upgrade

I'm very happy with it, too. Frankly, I wish the customizable "themes" had been done in CSS, but that's not a big deal.

Which Roland VSTs are you using?

Steve

Roland System 1,SH-101 and SH2
Before the update i could barely use 8 instances of System 1 vst but now it use half of my computing power playing 8 instances with Load balancing enabled so i still got much power left for other vst's.

Before the load balancing was introduced the System 1 used almost half of one core for each instance.

[planetearth]

I love the new update
Even my Roland vst's are cpu friendly now with load balancing enabled.
Happy that i stayed with Sonar and bought the lifetime upgrade

I'm very happy with it, too. Frankly, I wish the customizable "themes" had been done in CSS, but that's not a big deal.

Which Roland VSTs are you using?

Steve

Roland System 1,SH-101 and SH2
Before the update i could barely use 8 instances of System 1 vst but now it use half of my computing power playing 8 instances with Load balancing enabled so i still got much power left for other vst's.

Before the load balancing was introduced the System 1 used almost half of one core for each instance.

Ah, I thought you might have been referring to those, yes. Still, I held out hope that you had some older, long-forgotten Roland VSTs for the D-50 or something!

Glad load-balancing is working well for you. I haven't really pushed it yet, but I'll be doing that soon enough.

Steve

[koolkeys]

I don't think I've ever considered a DAW as being 'inspiring'. Rather I've always felt its use was to be as transparent in flow and not create obstacles to what and where the inspiration came and how it is being expressed. That is, for me, it should capture the inspiration more than be it.

Upgraded both systems now, and so far, it has been a very pleasant experience.
Seriously considering letting go of Cubase completely now.

Well, when I say I don't feel inspired by Sonar, it isn't that I want to look at the program and get loads of ideas. I just, as you say, don't want it to get in the way. But in addition, the tools available in the program can be built to harbor creativity. And Sonar DOES have some of those things. I'm just not 'feeling it'. I feel like Sonar is trying to block me from working as fast as I would like to. But again, it could just be my own host A.D.D. and not Sonar itself. I love Sonar and have used it for a very long time.

My other worry that I had mentioned just has to do with vision. Cohesion. What is the overall goal. When I look at Studio One, I see every feature implemented in a way that works with the rest of the program. Everything is unified and not disjointed. That's also what I feel like when I have been trying newer versions of Cubase (which isn't as unified as Studio One, who I believe is up there with Live as the most unified DAWs out there). What I'm experiencing right now with Sonar is the same that I see with Reaper, though not as extreme as Reaper (which IMO is just a mess of ideas implemented without thought of unification). A lot of features placed throughout the program, but never quite polished or finished. The new interface does help, but it is just lipstick on the pig of old workflows. And it seems they are too worried about new presets and ProChannel modules to go back and finish/improve other areas, many of which have been requested by users for YEARS.

So I just struggle with it because I do know and acknowledge that Sonar has come a long ways. I have loads of projects created in it so I won't likely stop using it completely. I think I just need a fresh take on things and come back to it later. Which is why I might get the lifetime upgrade regardless.

My intention isn't really to trash Sonar as it is to voice my frustrations. Sonar is by FAR not the worst at this (I would use Sonar any day over Samplitude or Reaper, both of which I feel have become a complete mess in this area). So we'll see.

Not to take away from the topic of the thread though, which is the new update and load balancing. I think it is a great thing to take care of. But I do think it is a little bit of a stupid move to make that kind of thing Platinum only. I mean, if you want people to upgrade, you want them to LIKE their experience in the lower products. Cripple your lower versions in other areas like content, plugins, track counts, whatever. Those are "tangible" limitations that are less likely to give a negative impression of the overall product line. Crippling the engine itself will only frustrate people, IMO.

Brent

[planetearth]

I don't think I've ever considered a DAW as being 'inspiring'. Rather I've always felt its use was to be as transparent in flow and not create obstacles to what and where the inspiration came and how it is being expressed. That is, for me, it should capture the inspiration more than be it.

Upgraded both systems now, and so far, it has been a very pleasant experience.
Seriously considering letting go of Cubase completely now.

Well, when I say I don't feel inspired by Sonar, it isn't that I want to look at the program and get loads of ideas. I just, as you say, don't want it to get in the way. But in addition, the tools available in the program can be built to harbor creativity. And Sonar DOES have some of those things. I'm just not 'feeling it'. I feel like Sonar is trying to block me from working as fast as I would like to. But again, it could just be my own host A.D.D. and not Sonar itself. I love Sonar and have used it for a very long time.

My other worry that I had mentioned just has to do with vision. Cohesion. What is the overall goal. When I look at Studio One, I see every feature implemented in a way that works with the rest of the program. Everything is unified and not disjointed. That's also what I feel like when I have been trying newer versions of Cubase (which isn't as unified as Studio One, who I believe is up there with Live as the most unified DAWs out there). What I'm experiencing right now with Sonar is the same that I see with Reaper, though not as extreme as Reaper (which IMO is just a mess of ideas implemented without thought of unification). A lot of features placed throughout the program, but never quite polished or finished. The new interface does help, but it is just lipstick on the pig of old workflows. And it seems they are too worried about new presets and ProChannel modules to go back and finish/improve other areas, many of which have been requested by users for YEARS.

So I just struggle with it because I do know and acknowledge that Sonar has come a long ways. I have loads of projects created in it so I won't likely stop using it completely. I think I just need a fresh take on things and come back to it later. Which is why I might get the lifetime upgrade regardless.

My intention isn't really to trash Sonar as it is to voice my frustrations. Sonar is by FAR not the worst at this (I would use Sonar any day over Samplitude or Reaper, both of which I feel have become a complete mess in this area). So we'll see.

Not to take away from the topic of the thread though, which is the new update and load balancing. I think it is a great thing to take care of. But I do think it is a little bit of a stupid move to make that kind of thing Platinum only. I mean, if you want people to upgrade, you want them to LIKE their experience in the lower products. Cripple your lower versions in other areas like content, plugins, track counts, whatever. Those are "tangible" limitations that are less likely to give a negative impression of the overall product line. Crippling the engine itself will only frustrate people, IMO.

Brent

I feel that's a fair assessment. But what would you say isn't "polished or finished"?

Steve

[telecharge]

I feel that's a fair assessment. But what would you say isn't "polished or finished"?

These may be fixed now, but here are a few things that put me off.

1.) When they rolled out the updated plug-in browser, there was a problem with duplicate categories.



2.) For me, Sonar would crash if I attempted to undo a track plug-in insertion or swap/replace it. The only workaround I found was deleting the plug-in from the track, then adding the replacement.

3.) Sonar has an annoying habit of adding its own paths to my list of VST folder preferences.

[planetearth]

I feel that's a fair assessment. But what would you say isn't "polished or finished"?

These may be fixed now, but here are a few things that put me off.

1.) When they rolled out the updated plug-in browser, there was a problem with duplicate categories.



2.) For me, Sonar would crash if I attempted to undo a track plug-in insertion or swap/replace it. The only workaround I found was deleting the plug-in from the track, then adding the replacement.

3.) Sonar has an annoying habit of adding its own paths to my list of VST folder preferences.

Interesting. I've never seen where you could set categories for the plug-ins. I may look into that.

I've never had it crash on me when swapping out a plug-in. I don't do it that often (maybe once a month or so), and it's usually instruments, not effects. I don't know if that makes a difference but still, I haven't seen that happen (thankfully).

And SONAR does add some paths, but I think those are set by Steingberg as part of the VST installation path defaults. I've seen some plug-ins look to the Registry to see where I've put my VSTs, and some just go with the old Windows paths that Steinberg set up years ago. I think that's why SONAR points to them, just in case things get installed there.

Steve

[koolkeys]

I feel that's a fair assessment. But what would you say isn't "polished or finished"?

Steve

Well, there are a number of areas that got kind of left behind. I feel like Audiosnap, Matrix view and other areas were improved in big chunks, but then kind of left, despite having loads more potential. They gave us a bunch of things to help spark creative juices, but then just stopped. It was all about plugins, then reskinning plugins, etc.

There are also the various editors, including the "loop" editor, the score editor (which has essentially been abandoned, despite loads of user requests to make it better), and even the PRV itself (though the PRV has seen improvements, it still doesn't feel as smooth as the interface makes it seem).

The options menu even still shows signs of "old" Sonar. Why have the color editing option panel when 90% of the colors there aren't even used? There is a new interface editor, and that options panel hasn't been useful since they put out X1.

They came up with the whole Skylight interface, which I am personally a fan of. It is modern, for sure. But one of the problems with older versions of Sonar was how busy the interface was. That is still a problem. There is some limited customization you can do, but it could use some more work in that area.

Now, you might ask why I didn't notice those things before. I actually did. I thought the whole interface needed major updates when I used Sonar 6-8-5. It had become a complete mess. So when I saw the X1 interface, I was excited. It was too large and needed work, but it was an improvement in general aesthetics. I was optimistic about where they were going. And they DO continue to still work on it. But it feels like they are focused on colors and style more than cleaning it up. Why can't the mixer be resized? So many dialogs still use the default Windows XP/98 skins, lol. Some areas of the interface have great visual feedback and others you aren't given any idea of what will happen.

It isn't terrible. And PLEASE keep in mind these are only my personal opinions, and they are not to say that Sonar sucks or anything. It isn't that I can't make a track in Sonar, or even that the things above are all in the way. They are just things I would love to see improved further. As a web designer, I put a lot of focus on being pixel perfect and giving the best experience possible. I feel like Sonar is very rough around the edges and lacks the "glue" that I see in some other programs. And for whatever reason (I really can't give specifics), I just feel clunky working in it as of late. This is PROBABLY a problem on my end, not Sonar's.

Regardless, it gives me pause about what to do going forward. I love performance improvements. I do believe they want to improve it. But I feel they are trying too hard to add VALUE to Sonar without improving workflow. It is already a tremendous value when you consider pure features. Not the most featured host out there, but certainly in the conversation. But they need to start worrying about workflow, bugs, refinement, etc. ALL IMHO. And of course, I understand others don't see these things as issues. Completely fair!

Brent

[koolkeys]

I've never had it crash on me when swapping out a plug-in. I don't do it that often (maybe once a month or so), and it's usually instruments, not effects. I don't know if that makes a difference but still, I haven't seen that happen (thankfully).

Steve

FWIW, one of the few areas I have personally had stability issues with is when replacing instruments. I've had it crash a few times doing that.

Brent

[planetearth]

I feel that's a fair assessment. But what would you say isn't "polished or finished"?

Steve

Well, there are a number of areas that got kind of left behind. I feel like Audiosnap, Matrix view and other areas were improved in big chunks, but then kind of left, despite having loads more potential. They gave us a bunch of things to help spark creative juices, but then just stopped. It was all about plugins, then reskinning plugins, etc.

There are also the various editors, including the "loop" editor, the score editor (which has essentially been abandoned, despite loads of user requests to make it better), and even the PRV itself (though the PRV has seen improvements, it still doesn't feel as smooth as the interface makes it seem).

The options menu even still shows signs of "old" Sonar. Why have the color editing option panel when 90% of the colors there aren't even used? There is a new interface editor, and that options panel hasn't been useful since they put out X1.

They came up with the whole Skylight interface, which I am personally a fan of. It is modern, for sure. But one of the problems with older versions of Sonar was how busy the interface was. That is still a problem. There is some limited customization you can do, but it could use some more work in that area.

Now, you might ask why I didn't notice those things before. I actually did. I thought the whole interface needed major updates when I used Sonar 6-8-5. It had become a complete mess. So when I saw the X1 interface, I was excited. It was too large and needed work, but it was an improvement in general aesthetics. I was optimistic about where they were going. And they DO continue to still work on it. But it feels like they are focused on colors and style more than cleaning it up. Why can't the mixer be resized? So many dialogs still use the default Windows XP/98 skins, lol. Some areas of the interface have great visual feedback and others you aren't given any idea of what will happen.

It isn't terrible. And PLEASE keep in mind these are only my personal opinions, and they are not to say that Sonar sucks or anything. It isn't that I can't make a track in Sonar, or even that the things above are all in the way. They are just things I would love to see improved further. As a web designer, I put a lot of focus on being pixel perfect and giving the best experience possible. I feel like Sonar is very rough around the edges and lacks the "glue" that I see in some other programs. And for whatever reason (I really can't give specifics), I just feel clunky working in it as of late. This is PROBABLY a problem on my end, not Sonar's.

Regardless, it gives me pause about what to do going forward. I love performance improvements. I do believe they want to improve it. But I feel they are trying too hard to add VALUE to Sonar without improving workflow. It is already a tremendous value when you consider pure features. Not the most featured host out there, but certainly in the conversation. But they need to start worrying about workflow, bugs, refinement, etc. ALL IMHO. And of course, I understand others don't see these things as issues. Completely fair!

Brent

Nope, those are good points. I may not agree with them 100%, but I do agree with you at least in part on most of them. Then again, there are obviously going to be other people who want even more on the screen, where you and I might already thing it's "cluttered" as it is.

Honestly, I just work within it. I don't think too much about how it works, though maybe I should. In general, I just do what I need to, but today I'll make an effort to think about whether or not SONAR is actually getting in my way with some of the restrictions/features/whatever.

Steve

[koolkeys]

Nope, those are good points. I may not agree with them 100%, but I do agree with you at least in part on most of them. Then again, there are obviously going to be other people who want even more on the screen, where you and I might already thing it's "cluttered" as it is.

Honestly, I just work within it. I don't think too much about how it works, though maybe I should. In general, I just do what I need to, but today I'll make an effort to think about whether or not SONAR is actually getting in my way with some of the restrictions/features/whatever.

Steve

Well, Sonar has always lacked a few things that I really want, and I've frequently held onto other programs to make up for those. I've worked within it as well, despite those downfalls. Sonar has never been the most "inspiring" DAW for me, but it was always the best mix of power and inspiration (except Cubase, which for whatever reason, I've always loved but got super annoyed by issues that have recently been addressed, hence my pending return to it).

I will keep Sonar around and continue to update. I may do the lifetime upgrade as mentioned before because I would hate to just let it go. It's WORTH spending the money on. I just gotta figure out why I've felt less productive in it lately, despite knowing it better than other hosts.

Brent