Is sonar 8 really necessary?

[audioicon]

I'm disappointment with the new version of Sonar.

Sonar reminds me of windows Vista - Bloated - un-simplistic and driving away from the very "CORE" that makes it popular.

 

This is why music just keeps going downhill, nobody wants to work at a "PERFORMANCE." It's like people are looking for a software that will "crawl in their throats, take their voice and make music. Or a program that goes into their brain and turn their musical imagination into finished mixes.

 

I would think Cakewalk will work for - simplicity and rock solid performance!

Sonar just keep getting bloated - bloated and bloated.

It appears the fight to stay afloat the industry is just driving these companies to come out with "massive difficult to manage products."

 

Lets make a software, give it "Fancy features/names and it will stay afloat.

 

Does anyone really use all the features in Sonar? How is stability less important then features?

 

I'm not impress.

 

Sonar gets more bloated and with many features that don't "innovate" but rather just suck up the ability to "drive performance."

 

Please except my apologies if I have committed a federal offense.

 

I'm very happy with the version of Sonar I have and it get the job done.

 

AI

[FireWithin]

I'm using sonar 7 studio and am/have been happy with it. I see no reason to upgrade as I have only used perhaps 30-40% of the program.

[doug osborne]

SONAR 8 is the version upgrade where they actually made major improvements to performance and stability first, and foremost.

 

Projects that were running at 30-40% CPU on S7 are running at half that on S8 running on WXP, and even less under Vista 64 (I installed in on two partitions). I'm running some projects at 64 samples - infinitesimally low latency - that I had to run at 2-4 times that under S7.

 

You can arm tracks for recording in play, moving around the timeline is snappier...

 

Some new features and gimmes are great, and possibly worth the upgrade.

 

You seem angry.

[audioicon]

 

SONAR 8 is the version upgrade where they actually made major improvements to performance and stability first, and foremost. Projects that were running at 30-40% CPU on S7 are running at half that on S8 running on WXP, and even less under Vista 64 (I installed in on two partitions). I'm running some projects at 64 samples - infinitesimally low latency - that I had to run at 2-4 times that under S7. You can arm tracks for recording in play, moving around the timeline is snappier... Some new features and gimmes are great, and possibly worth the upgrade. You seem angry.

 

 

All that could have been done with a patch or "system pack."

Yeah, next year they'll add different color to the GUI and call it Sonar 9.

 

I'm not angry just very straight foward.

 

AI

[Will Chen]

I just upgraded to 7 and think I'll probably wait until version 9. Though the quoted performance benefits are very tempting.

 

I don't understand your rant regarding "bloat". If you don't like all the "bloat" of the Producer Edition, why not just get the Studio Edition? I think the SONAR interface is fairly intuitive and not difficult to use at all. If anything, the SONAR 7 interface provides some great workflow improvments for organizing plugs and hiding features you're not using.

 

SONAR, or any DAW, is simply a tool for capturing/creating music. In the days of tape, engineers used razor blades and tape speed to due what our generation does with a mouse. There has always been the desire to make recordings sound larger than life..

 

EDIT-Forgot to answer the original question! No, it isn't necessary and should have been offered as a free patch to version 7 rather than new version.

[doug osborne]

 

All that could have been done with a patch or "system pack." Yeah, next year they'll add different color to the GUI and call it Sonar 9. I'm not angry just very straight foward. AI

 

 

According to the bakers at Cakewalk, the performance upgrades were alone worthy of a full, paid version upgrade. The feature upgrades, especially included plugins like Guitar Rig 3 and the full Dimension Pro, were the marketing icing.

 

A patch wouldn't have been enough, it was significant work on the core code made possible by a new internal upgrade discipline they adopted.

[Phait]

Seems like most of what I see about Sonar lately are complaints. I'm looking at getting a ~$200 DAW and feel like Cubase Essential 4 is the way to go. But then I read SX was better and that's not sold anymore is it?

[Jeff da Weasel]

To answer the title of your thread, new software versions are only "necessary" when the older ones don't meet your needs, or have become incompatible via other OS and/or hardware upgrades. Those things are up to you to define.

[ggm1960]

To answer the title of your thread, new software versions are only "necessary" when the older ones don't meet your needs, or have become incompatible via other OS and/or hardware upgrades. Those things are up to you to define.

 

+1000, one just needs to turn off the upgrade demon that constantly appears on the right shoulder.

[audioicon]

I have never used another software, Cakewalk Sonar only!

 

I used Sonar 4 for years befor upgrading.

 

Just dont know why it couldn't be a patch.

 

Guess it's marketting.

 

Part of the "Roland Touch."

 

AI

[Guitzilla]

 

I have never used another software, Cakewalk Sonar only! I used Sonar 4 for years befor upgrading. Just dont know why it couldn't be a patch. Guess it's marketting. Part of the "Roland Touch." AI

 

 

Sonar has had a yearly update for as long as I can remember. Some better than others for me. I usually skip every other version. It has worked well for me, and I've always felt I've gotten my value. I might upgrade to Sonar 8 as I'm going to upgrade to a new computer anyway.

[slight-return]

hmm, depends

 

If there is a lot of changes to core code or a major change in architecture, deploying a patch becomes problematic (esp if you are trying to patch across multiple vers, if there are dynamic components that can be installed, if the install environment has flexible configuration options, etc)

 

There is an economic side too in terms of ver maintenance -- if the work was an architectural overhaul to improve performance, add features, etc as opposed to more minor code maintenance (specific bug fixes and such), well that can be new product work and may require a new ver number (as it can start bearing little resemblance to the previous ver...internally if not externally) -- which can be a support line of demarcation -- trying to constantly update an old version can drill a dev house into the ground financially

 

Now, some small houses like High Criteria actaully use a "lifetime license" - buy in and you get the new versions, but they still aren't patching for technical reasons

[blue2blue]

SONAR 8 is the version upgrade where they actually made major improvements to performance and stability first, and foremost. Projects that were running at 30-40% CPU on S7 are running at half that on S8 running on WXP, and even less under Vista 64 (I installed in on two partitions). I'm running some projects at 64 samples - infinitesimally low latency - that I had to run at 2-4 times that under S7. You can arm tracks for recording in play, moving around the timeline is snappier... Some new features and gimmes are great, and possibly worth the upgrade. You seem angry.

 

This was my understanding, as well. I skipped 7 but what I'd read about 8 was making me wonder if maybe I ought to save my pennies and make the jump on this one. (But, hey, if I just wait 'til next July or so, I should be able to pick it up for a few bucks off. )

[Anderton]

My experience is that the performance is way better. From what I understand they basically rebuilt the audio engine from the ground up, and that took the better part of a year. The irony is that Cakewalk finally did what people had been asking for - less bells and whistles, more fundamentals - and now people don't think that's enough.

 

As to new features I like the most are the new loop explorer that lets you audition MIDI files with soft synths, Beatscape (like Cyclone, but far more flexible), the Transient Shaper (very cool with synth bass), the ability to change engine settings without having to restart, and most importantly, the integration with the V-700 control surface.

[Rabid]

 

... Part of the "Roland Touch." AI

 

 

Nothing to do with Roland. They have been doing this through 18 versions of Cakewalk and Sonar. I usually upgrade every other time. This round I may jump in early this time for the performance upgrade. I wish more companies focused more on making their code more efficient like Cakewalk did this time. Some argue that this is not something that we should have to pay for, but coding is coding and I would rather pay for this than for more included instruments and effects.

[Jon Gnash]

I'm disappointment with the new version of Sonar. Sonar reminds me of windows Vista - Bloated - un-simplistic and driving away from the very "CORE" that makes it popular. This is why music just keeps going downhill, nobody wants to work at a "PERFORMANCE." It's like people are looking for a software that will "crawl in their throats, take their voice and make music. Or a program that goes into their brain and turn their musical imagination into finished mixes. I would think Cakewalk will work for - simplicity and rock solid performance! Sonar just keep getting bloated - bloated and bloated. It appears the fight to stay afloat the industry is just driving these companies to come out with "massive difficult to manage products." Lets make a software, give it "Fancy features/names and it will stay afloat. Does anyone really use all the features in Sonar? How is stability less important then features? I'm not impress. Sonar gets more bloated and with many features that don't "innovate" but rather just suck up the ability to "drive performance." Please except my apologies if I have committed a federal offense. I'm very happy with the version of Sonar I have and it get the job done. AI

What are manufacturers supposed to do? They can

[Beck]

I'm using Cool Edit Pro 1.2 with an Echo Layla and it rocks!

 

Later Syntrillium and Adobe versions are resource hogs and too bloated with crap I don't need.

[Lee Flier]

I'm still very happy with Reaper - it's dirt cheap, there are new updates all the time that don't step all over the previous version, and it's not bloated at all.

[Anderton]

I forgot to mention clip grouping...very helpful.

 

Reaper looks cool but it lacks some features I really need, particularly deep MIDI editing and processing. And it doesn't have a video window, right?

[Lee Flier]

 

Reaper looks cool but it lacks some features I really need, particularly deep MIDI editing and processing. And it doesn't have a video window, right?

 

 

No, it doesn't do video. I don't think its MIDI capabilities are up to Sonar's YET, but as I mentioned, development is pretty rapid and it's improving constantly. Of course, I don't need either video or MIDI, so it's all moot for me, but since it's free to download, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it one of these times (e.g. what you think of the MIDI editor). Plus, the developers are very responsive to user requests - I'm sure they would listen to anything you had to say.

 

You can also integrate Reaper with other programs in a way I haven't seen in any other software. Its routing capabilities are pretty out there.

[Phait]

Bueller?

 

Seems like most of what I see about Sonar lately are complaints. I'm looking at getting a ~$200 DAW and feel like Cubase Essential 4 is the way to go. But then I read SX was better and that's not sold anymore is it?

[halljams]

 

I forgot to mention clip grouping...very helpful.

 

 

OH MY GOD! Finally!

[GuitarPlayerFL]

I'm using SONAR LE 6.2 that came with my AT microphone package.

 

I've downloaded their full blown Producer demo to try it out. A lot of icing,but nothing necessary to create great music.

 

That comes from inside.

 

I have a TEAC 4 track reel to reel with Simul-Sync I used to use in the early 80s. (I still have it). SONAR LE is FAR more powerful than my TEAC ever was.

 

I have no desire to use anything else more than what I have. If guys like Lindsey Buckingham can use a 4 track in the mid 70s to write songs that ended up on the Rumours album, what I have is more than enough. It makes me concentrate on the music rather than gimmicks and plug-in hell. If the song is weak, no plug-in is going to help.

 

My .02

[GuitarPlayerFL]

I'm using Cool Edit Pro 1.2 with an Echo Layla and it rocks! Later Syntrillium and Adobe versions are resource hogs and too bloated with crap I don't need.

 

+1

 

Cool Edit is awesome.

 

+100,000 about the resource hog and bloated crap that Adobe did to it.

[Anderton]

 

I've downloaded their full blown Producer demo to try it out. A lot of icing,but nothing necessary to create great music. That comes from inside.

 

 

Which is why it's really important to me to use software that lets me get music from inside to a finished piece as fast as possible. Good DAW software is a musical instrument - you have to learn it and become proficient to take full advantage of it. Now, I certainly push the heck out of software - I don't just write tunes, but create sample libraries, soundtracks, etc. - so with a full-featured DAW, odds are I actualy USE most of those features.

 

Those who like really lean, mean software should check out Ableton Live if you can get into the paradigm. But as to Sonar, each version really does increase my productivity, so at least for me it's worth spending some time dealing with the learning curve of something new. Others who use DAWs in more straightforward manners probably don't need most of what today's DAWs have to offer.