Cakewalk Sonar X3

[winds350]

So that's half my point. The other is just the sheer complexity of the number of permutations you have to QA given all the third party code that DAWs might encounter at runtime. The QA testset becomes (N-Supported OS versions) X (N-Plugins) X (N-Softsynths) X (N-Video Cards) X (N-Audio Cards).... well hopefully you see where I'm going. Anyone that has developed commercial software will tell you that it is a fairly unique case. You simply can't possibly test all the combinations you will encounter. And for that matter even if you did it is a moving target as next week there will be new vst's/vsti's/drivers/etc.

Again, I'm not apologizing for CW, maybe other DAW companies do do a better job QA'ing their stuff (which I think might be your point). While I don't know if that's true or not, I would say that if you don't recognize the above then you are missing a big part of the picture regardless of what DAW you used during the last 10 years or so....

The thing is, Cakewalk is only supporting Windows, so their QA matrix is a fair bit less than a lot of the major DAW's.

[Jace-BeOS]

Well I think you're kind of missing my point. When you throttle a machines CPU,

What? Throttle it? Why would i do that?

max it's I/O bandwidth, don't service your video card's GPU,

Service my video card's GPU? What??

exhaust it's memory, etc, etc.... software in general will start to misbehave.

And i said, what we've been complaining about has nothing to do with performance. It has to do with bugs and design stupidity. Why is this point not coming through? i know the difference between a system's performance getting shoddy due to a CPU being out of clock cycles, or because of paging to disk from lack of free RAM, and buggy behavior. Also, running out of memory or CPU cycles shouldn't cause anything to crash outright. If it does, then the testing procedures they use are not checking for robust behavior with the most common system issues. A test suite should provide such scenario parameters. And we're not talking about that. When i complain about junky scrolling of views in Sonar, it's not the scenario of a maxed-out CPU or insufficient RAM. Since they don't use the GPU, that doesn't matter either (though, we see that it DOES matter when they DO use the GPU, if your system is sharing an IRQ between GPU and audio, which explains a lot of problems with GPU-accellerated OS decor and audio playback glitching, which then becomes a toss-up between your audio driver and your GPU driver and you'll never get one or the other company to admit they're at fault... and i've no idea why i don't experience crap like this on either of my Macbooks but almost always on Windows with a much more powerful GPU and CPU).

Up until about 5 years ago it was really really easy to do any of these things with most DAWs. You can't tell me that running 60 audio tracks with 15 instances of Amplitube, and ten softsynths, and 70 effects plugs ran smoothly on Cubase running on a single core Pentium w/ 512Mb RAM in 2008.

Once again, that isn't the point being discussed here! And why would someone have a single core Pentium with 512MB RAM in 2008?? My worst machine in 2008 was single core, but 2.4(?) GHz with 3GB RAM, and it was retired about three years ago. And it was only a file server and occasional audio test machine (for all those backward compatibility needs of abandoned Sonar plugins). i didn't expect ANYTHING of it.

So that's half my point.

But it's the wrong point for this thread. That's MY point.

The other is just the sheer complexity of the number of permutations you have to QA given all the third party code that DAWs might encounter at runtime. The QA testset becomes (N-Supported OS versions) X (N-Plugins) X (N-Softsynths) X (N-Video Cards) X (N-Audio Cards).... well hopefully you see where I'm going. Anyone that has developed commercial software will tell you that it is a fairly unique case. You simply can't possibly test all the combinations you will encounter. And for that matter even if you did it is a moving target as next week there will be new vst's/vsti's/drivers/etc.

Yeah, no argument. That's why i've abandoned Windows and Windows PCs. i can't stand the state of the technology. It's just not logical to expect reliability (not that anyone seems to expect it, because everyone thinks it's justifiable to excuse the technology's inherent architectural flaws).

Again, I'm not apologizing for CW, maybe other DAW companies do do a better job QA'ing their stuff (which I think might be your point).

YES. That IS our point. And also our point that Cakewalk will talk here about listening to customers and wanting to work out the problems, and then "forget" the bugs we've reported to them over the years, and choose to NOT fix them. (or to tell us, "Buy the new version and that's fixed", which is just damned unacceptable)

While I don't know if that's true or not, I would say that if you don't recognize the above then you are missing a big part of the picture regardless of what DAW you used during the last 10 years or so....

i'm not missing a thing. Except for all this glorious new stuff they've done to Sonar, conveniently in the time since i stopped being willing to buy upgrades. i don't see any Cakewalk people saying "you know what, you sound like you've had a rough time with Sonar all these years, and we accept that a lot of what has caused you problems with it were our own design choices. Since you've been paying for it repeatedly and still hurting, and since we've corrected a lot of those bad choices very recently, here's a license to our most current edition to get you back to work with Sonar."

That might be nice, but i haven't asked for this. Partially because they don't seem to want to acknowledge anything but me being out of date. i mean, really... aren't the complaints a perfect explanation for WHY one has NOT upgraded?? It would be IDIOTIC to keep throwing money at a product that, 7 or 8 versions later, was still just as frustrating and busted. Yet, let's call me out on all my complaints being out of date. That's convenient. If i spent another $150 (which is a deep expense for me right now) and upgraded to X3, only to find that my complaints are not actually addressed, do they give me my money back? What about all the NEW problems they've introduced? (i've certainly heard about them here on the forum). i'm not going back to that perpetual upgrade cycle.

More importantly, i have abandoned Windows anyway. i'm fed up with the whole platform. That i still rely on it for games and legacy projects is frustration enough. And... surely i'd have some conservative libertarian or republican capitalist call me a greedy selfish whining libtard a-hole that expects his "entitlement" to be "pampered" -when i just really expect the product i paid for to do what it's supposed to do, damnit.

A company actually offered this to me once (DAZ, with regards to Carrara being a bug ridden pile of uselessness that always had some major show-stopping bug in every version, and i bought many many MANY versions, which all kept me from finishing a single project, ever). i have to admit that, while i was SUPER appreciative (i even came into the forums to complement them in a non-specific way, only to be assaulted by a moderator for some reason and have my post deleted, WTF). Sadly, and as expected, the new version had all the same flaws as all the previous (and having been involved in the official NDA beta program originally, i know what was officially on their lists), so i just plain gave up. But 3D software packages SUCK UNIVERSALLY. They're about 200 times worse than audio tools because they're that much less accessible to users. Your specialized knowledge requirements are way higher than for making music. Sonar has actually allowed me to complete a few small personal projects. i just got fed up struggling with it after so long (and so much money).

Actually, TWO companies made that offer (e-on Software, for the impossible Vue XStream... yes, another 3D product!!)

[chrisby]

So that's half my point. The other is just the sheer complexity of the number of permutations you have to QA given all the third party code that DAWs might encounter at runtime. The QA testset becomes (N-Supported OS versions) X (N-Plugins) X (N-Softsynths) X (N-Video Cards) X (N-Audio Cards).... well hopefully you see where I'm going. Anyone that has developed commercial software will tell you that it is a fairly unique case. You simply can't possibly test all the combinations you will encounter. And for that matter even if you did it is a moving target as next week there will be new vst's/vsti's/drivers/etc.

Again, I'm not apologizing for CW, maybe other DAW companies do do a better job QA'ing their stuff (which I think might be your point). While I don't know if that's true or not, I would say that if you don't recognize the above then you are missing a big part of the picture regardless of what DAW you used during the last 10 years or so....

The thing is, Cakewalk is only supporting Windows, so their QA matrix is a fair bit less than a lot of the major DAW's.

Well I guess you're saying they don't support Apple... so yeah, that's one less permutation but they generally will support multiple windows platforms plus now 64 and 32 bit versions.

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses for CW... just saying that if you want to hold their past sins against them then keep some perspective of what was going on in those days. From a developers standpoint I can guarantee you that their task was not an easy one (that would go for all DAW companies of that era). And as I mentioned previously I saw their financials from years ago (in a kvr thread possibly) and it appears that nobody was in it for the money 'cause there wasn't that much to go around.

[chrisby]

[
...

Okay, you seem to be addressing people who have smaller bugs that are annoying and persistent across releases. I'm more addressing people that were upset because of glitches, freezes, crashes from 5+ years ago. I think it's safe to assume there are both types in this thread. Me I'm generally more concerned with the latter... but to each their own.

[AROSSA [Cakewalk]]

Cheers. Any idea about R-mix?

Upgraded from X2 Producer to X3 Producer.
Roland R-mix is there and works.

Cheers!

Notice Arossa's answer however - he seems to imply that Studio won't do it.

Can you verify Andrew so there's no misunderstanding?

R-MIX SONAR will only work in SONAR X3 Producer if you previously had it in SONAR X2 Producer. If you upgraded to SONAR X3 Studio, R-MIX SONAR would not work.

Sorry, but that's kind of dumb.

R-MIX SONAR was an exclusive in SONAR X2 Producer. It got removed from SONAR X3 Producer but for customers who had purchased it in SONAR X2 Producer, we kept compatibility. Sorry you think that is dumb.

[aMUSEd]

Yeah it's been on my wishlist for Sonar since I first got it several versions ago.

Not implying you don't need it, but I'm a bit curious because I've never even thought of using that functionality. What in the way you prefer to work makes it necessary or beneficial to record the plugin audio real time?

Come to think of it the "workaround" I probably have used the most I didn't even mention. I normally just freeze the track and copy the wave to a new audio track.
Actually I think all the workarounds except loopback are faster than the feature, but I get that's not the point.

Because most of my music is made using instruments that introduce some form of aleatory or randomised sound production into the process of composition, with me adjusting to that in realtime as In play. So bouncing or freezing after the event doesn't work, neither does automation, I need to record myself live.

[beltrom]

Yeah it's been on my wishlist for Sonar since I first got it several versions ago.

Not implying you don't need it, but I'm a bit curious because I've never even thought of using that functionality. What in the way you prefer to work makes it necessary or beneficial to record the plugin audio real time?

Come to think of it the "workaround" I probably have used the most I didn't even mention. I normally just freeze the track and copy the wave to a new audio track.
Actually I think all the workarounds except loopback are faster than the feature, but I get that's not the point.

Because most of my music is made using instruments that introduce some form of aleatory or randomised sound production into the process of composition, with me adjusting to that in realtime as In play. So bouncing or freezing after the event doesn't work, neither does automation, I need to record myself live.

So what you're saying is for you it's kind of (and I'm using kind of very loosely here as you're into chance/random) like if a guitarist would only be allowed to play the melody and bass in two runs while improvising. Not producing the complete work?

[Daan22]

Because most of my music is made using instruments that introduce some form of aleatory or randomised sound production into the process of composition, with me adjusting to that in realtime as In play. So bouncing or freezing after the event doesn't work, neither does automation, I need to record myself live.

There's a freeware plugin that can do this, I'm using it in Sonar X2:

http://www.silverspike.com/?Products:TapeIt

There's also a commercial version.

It's a bit more inconvenient than implementation in the DAW because you have to import the audio after recording, but it works.

[aMUSEd]

Yeah it's been on my wishlist for Sonar since I first got it several versions ago.

Not implying you don't need it, but I'm a bit curious because I've never even thought of using that functionality. What in the way you prefer to work makes it necessary or beneficial to record the plugin audio real time?

Come to think of it the "workaround" I probably have used the most I didn't even mention. I normally just freeze the track and copy the wave to a new audio track.
Actually I think all the workarounds except loopback are faster than the feature, but I get that's not the point.

Because most of my music is made using instruments that introduce some form of aleatory or randomised sound production into the process of composition, with me adjusting to that in realtime as In play. So bouncing or freezing after the event doesn't work, neither does automation, I need to record myself live.

So what you're saying is for you it's kind of (and I'm using kind of very loosely here as you're into chance/random) like if a guitarist would only be allowed to play the melody and bass in two runs while improvising. Not producing the complete work?

Yeah, it will never sound the same twice, even using automation, so I need to record as I play.

[sebaden]

1+ for TapeIt2! (it support Drag&Drop of bounced Files) so workflow is way better.

[aMUSEd]

Yeah I am aware of the workarounds - it's just inexplicable that there is a leading DAW that still can't record the audio output of plugins.

[beltrom]

Yeah, it will never sound the same twice, even using automation, so I need to record as I play.

Ok, I don't think I would ever use the functionality, but it wouldn't be disturbing if it was there. Not knowing Cakewalk's code and internal architecture it's hard to say how much work it would be to implement. It does look rather simple on the outside and as I said, almost as if they had closed it on purpose so it's mostly a question of removing that lock. It's probably (a lot) harder than that though.

[gnu23]

Sooooo....

What is the best alternative to Sonar?

I've been using Cakewalk stuff for a long time - from all the way back to it's DOS days. I began to get flummoxed in the latter ProAudio releases, and the Sonar just killed it for me. So much so that what creativity I had retreated to a corner and refused to leave it. I haven't touched Sonar in two years.

Like aMUSEd, I tend to work best "live" and paraphrasing his comments, Sonar loses those in-the-moment bits of magic.

Is the answer Ableton or ProTools or ???

[Jace-BeOS]

Upgraded from X2 Producer to X3 Producer.
Roland R-mix is there and works.

Cheers!

Notice Arossa's answer however - he seems to imply that Studio won't do it.

Can you verify Andrew so there's no misunderstanding?

R-MIX SONAR will only work in SONAR X3 Producer if you previously had it in SONAR X2 Producer. If you upgraded to SONAR X3 Studio, R-MIX SONAR would not work.

Sorry, but that's kind of dumb.

R-MIX SONAR was an exclusive in SONAR X2 Producer. It got removed from SONAR X3 Producer but for customers who had purchased it in SONAR X2 Producer, we kept compatibility. Sorry you think that is dumb.

1. You introduced it in X2.
2. You removed it in the very next version!??!
3. A user of X2 Producer cannot use it in X3 Studio, if they feel like upgrading to a less expensive package because they want the core product and not all the bundled nonsense.

What is wrong with the picture here? Why do you NOT see how Cakewalk looks from the outside?

[pwal]

well he's hardly going to do a ratner is he?