Poor layout of Sonar 2.1

B

bvd

New member
I bought Sonar because of it's new features and
'power' improvements, which I know I'll enjoy ..
eventually. But right out of the box I'm very disappointed with it's new 'LOOK'.

The best thing about Cakewalk Pro versions 5-9
for me was how logical the layout was. A simple
graph style track view with a horizontal header
containing Name, Source, Key, Vol, Vel, I/O ports, Pan, Time, Bank, Channel, Patch, Effect, Size, etc. You could easily see the entire state of your project on one screen and with a few fast clicks make changes.

In Sonar, they have removed the header and placed
all those function titles on the same track 'line'
with their settings. This means that in order to see all the info you must stretch the track view accross the entire screen which then blocks out the midi/audio clips (usually on the right) or
toggle between 4 different tabs. Smaller space, smaller font, harder to read, more time spent clicking instead of creating. And you still can't get ALL the info on one screen anyway. I've tried changing the default settings but it doesn't do much. Maybe I wouldn't be so PO'd if I didn't have over 300 songs (.wrk files
with midi/audio) to constantly work on.

Why did they do this? Justification for spending more $ on Sonar right after you bought PA9? I'm amazed that so far no one I've asked cares about it. There must be at least one other person out there who finds this annoying ... what am I missing?
How can it possibly be easier (or even AS easy) to work in the new layout vs. the old?
 
Hey Bill, you're not the only one here... there's a thread complaining about this "new look" back in about March 2002 (which was gone burried by now...). You right, they take a leap too fast. The transition is not smooth enough. I deffinitelly love the tech & ability side of this new monster, but they jump too far in several unpredictable way. Not to mention that SONAR 2 and above can't save .bun nor .wrk files to be opened in system still running CWPA. I don't have any problem opening my MsWord 2000 document written in Ms Word 97. But opening .cwb in CWPA ? not an easy chance...
Once I write TTS support service to make SONAR lets their user choose the way it look. Just like WinXP letting their user to controll their desktop view (Classic Windows view, or new Aquatic view).. but they don't seem to care...


Jaymz.
 
Aaawww, come on people! The new look is GREAT! Efficient as hell! :D


Just hit that "F" button... ;)
 
It was the new layout that made me buy Sonar!!! It is much more user friendly to work with!!! I scraped CWPA9 and earlier because of the "views".

Ed
 
The New look in sonar is great! It's different, but once you get used to it is pretty cool. I think they have grouped things fairly logically. I think you just need to give yourself a moment to get used to it...



Vice
 
...kay, Okay, so call me pathetic, but 8 months using it ain't make me forget the beauty of CWPA.

hey... waituminutz the "F" button works great...


Hey moskus... watch out, that's your 666 th post... :eek:


:D
 
Thanx all,
But I still don't get what's easier about the Sonar layout.
I take it that all you new track view fans just don't care if you can
see all the info on one screen .. is this correct?
 
I might not be understanding what "all" the information is. In the track view for each track it will give you all (at least what I consider to be all) information needed. You have Vol, Pan, Trim, Ins/Outs, track FX and Aux busses. For midi you have much of that info also the channel number, etc. To keep the track drawings so I can read them, just open the track a little more south as opposed to dragging the info part to the right of the screen. It seems to be just fine to me. What else are you looking for?


Vice
 
James Argo said:
Hey moskus... watch out, that's your 666 th post... :eek:
Click to expand...
I will no longer stay in this HELL! Ahhh... 667....
Ahh... come on, James. I know you love Sonar more than PA9... ;)
____________
]Originally posted by bvd
I take it that all you new track view fans just don't care if you can see all the info on one screen .. is this correct?
Click to expand...
I see what I need to see. Nothing less, nothing more. You know you can resize the tracks? :p
____________
Maybe I wouldn't be so PO'd if I didn't have over 300 songs (.wrk files with midi/audio) to constantly work on.
Click to expand...
WOW! That's a shitload of projects...
____________
Why did they do this?
Click to expand...
You know, most changes in Cakewalks programs is based on user preferences. I think the mayority of Sonar-users think the interface is great.

____________

And a final note: Noone is forcing you to use Sonar. But we who like it, use it. :)

I love Sonar, so I use Sonar. (My better half is jealous)... :D
 
moskus said:
I will no longer stay in this HELL! Ahhh... 667....
Click to expand...

Glad to see you outta hell alive brotha'... ;)

Ahh... come on, James. I know you love Sonar more than PA9... ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed. Of course !! We both are blessed with this recording monster... And so all those millions. That's why I concern about the way it look. ;)
 
bvd, i agree with you 100%.

cakewalk was such a clean and sensible layout with customization. sonar goes for looks over functionality. i use a 1280x1024 resolution and when i have the mix tab open, i have to slide the window over so far that i only see about 2 inches of the track view. then i have to shrink down the tabbed part of the display to get a bigger track view, and i have to do this over and over and over and over again every fucking time i want to change a setting like patch, or midi channel, or whatever.

in cakewalk one of my favorite features was typing "3" (for example) down arrow, 3, down arrow, etc thru all tracks to change from one midi synth to another. now it is supremely tedious to do such a super simple task. i've got 8 hardware synths/samplers and an audigy card and a gina and a delta, and software synths... so there's tons of choices for trying different patches but no easy way to do it.

i've resorted to editing as much of my midi as i can in cakewalk first, and then importing into sonar when i'm ready to add the audio tracks. i also discovered a huge bug in sonar: the piano roll view when editing drums has the stupid idea that the length of a note is much longer than the "dit" on the screen so if i try to insert a note that's close to another, i can't do it. i actually click on the note just to the left of it. so what i have to do to insert the note is click further over in the track and drag-n-drop the note into the proper place. what idiots. nobody saw this during QA? and since sonar doesn't write bun files, i'm screwed as far as going back to cakewalk goes unless i want to go the super hassle of exporting/importing all the individual pieces twice. this reminds me of the classic mickeysoft policy that "encouraged" users to upgrade to new software. bastards.
 
I see what I need to see. Nothing less, nothing more. You know you can resize the tracks? :p
____________

Yes, you can resize tracks but the vol, pan, trim fx, i/o boxes are
permanently set width wise, which means that most of the screen
is taken up just showing those. IMO that's just plain stupid when
you could have a top header that's adjustable like in PA9. There's no way to get the same info on one screen in Sonar that was possible in PA9.
____________
300 songs ... WOW! That's a shitload of projects...

Yeah, I know. I started using Wincake 3.0 in '94 in place of my
4 track Tascam to track cover song backgrounds for my show. It's involved a LOT of time.
____________
And a final note: Noone is forcing you to use Sonar. But we who
like it, use it. :)
____________

I realize this. But Sonar has great new features I like too, and I shouldn't have to switch back and forth with PA9 like 'Flogger' does just because Cakewalk sacrificed efficiency for a fancy new look.

Thanx everyone for answering. If anybody finds a way to make this better please let me know.
Bill
 
u prolly need to go to a higher screen rez i'm at 1280X1024 and i love it...anything less looks huge to me
 
Originally posted by bvd Yeah, I know. I started using Wincake 3.0 in '94 in place of my
4 track Tascam to track cover song backgrounds for my show. It's involved a LOT of time.
Click to expand...

Cake 3.0 ? The old Cake Pro 3 ? Glad to know I'm not the only one here. I use it til todays. It's my PRIMARY weapon to do MIDI things. So simple, complete and powerfull. Easy yet. I NEVER sequenced MIDI in Cakey 9 nor SONAR. I always made it in Cake 3!!! Nothing beats Cakey 3 in MIDI job. Then I import to SONAR to do the audio things. Simply Cakey 3 is something I won't live without.

...CAKE 3.0 RULEZ !!!
:D :D :D
 
Sorry, James....but there is something that was even cleaner and easier to use than Cake 3.0......Cakewalk 1.0 for DOS.

I STILL use it for simple MIDI tasks, and use the first version of Cakewalk LIVE! for firing up MIDI sequences in live performance with my band. No mouse necessary and VERY fast. I run it on an old 386 notebook.

But back to the original reason for the thread, Sonar just rocks. The ability to do everything from the Track view is alone worth the price of admission. I can't imagine ever going back to CPA 9. Someone on this board ( I think Dachay) once said it would be like going back to black and white TV.

:D

-BM
 
"But back to the original reason for the thread, Sonar just rocks. The ability to do everything from the Track view is alone worth the price of admission. I can't imagine ever going back to CPA 9. Someone on this board ( I think Dachay) once said it would be like going back to black and white TV."


Yes, the more I look into Sonar I'm very happy with it's new
features and power .. and I love the Idea of using just the track
view for most tasks. But removing the top header was TOTALLY
unnecessary and it forces both header info (name, source, I/O, etc.) to be squashed in with settings info, and therefor makes it
impossible to get all info on one screen without toggling tabs.
The non-adjustable Vol, Pan, and Trim boxes alone take up 5 inches accross an 800x600 display. That's a foolish waste of
precious screen area just for the sake of a new fancy look.
 
bvd said:
The non-adjustable Vol, Pan, and Trim boxes alone take up 5 inches accross an 800x600 display. That's a foolish waste of
precious screen area just for the sake of a new fancy look.
Click to expand...
I would seriously think about getting a better monitor and a better videocard. I can't use Sonar efficiently with 800x600 resolution.

I prefer 1260x1024 (1024x768 is minimum) on two monitors. It's brilliant! :)
 
moskus said:
I would seriously think about getting a better monitor and a better videocard. I can't use Sonar efficiently with 800x600 resolution.

I prefer 1260x1024 (1024x768 is minimum) on two monitors. It's brilliant! :)
Click to expand...


Yes that sounds wonderful, but considering that ALL the track info in PA9 shows up on one screen at 800x600, and that some of
us can't see higher resolution settings very well ..
maybe Cakewalk could have mentioned that I'd need to spend
another $300-600 for a new monitor just to view Sonar the same way I viewed PA9.
 
bvd said:
Yes that sounds wonderful, but considering that ALL the track info in PA9 shows up on one screen at 800x600, and that some of
us can't see higher resolution settings very well ..
maybe Cakewalk could have mentioned that I'd need to spend
another $300-600 for a new monitor just to view Sonar the same way I viewed PA9.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges here.

When PA9 was released, 800x600 was a standard resolution and most people bought 15" CRT's (maybe 17" in a similiar amount).

Nowadays, the norm is at least 1024x768, if not higher. 15" flat panels run at 1024x768 in their native resolution.The most sought after monitor size for CRT nowadays is 19" where you wouldn't run anything less than 1280x1024.

Don't blame Cakewalk for designing its UI for today's technology if you don't keep up with it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top