Sonar 6 is here, almost!

  • Thread starter Thread starter therage!
  • Start date Start date
I'd give cakewalk some more money if they hadn't wiped there website clean of any indication of the glitches in PA9 in the FAQ section before I paid $500.00 for it. Far as I'm concerned they need to give me some money back.
To sell a product with a glich that has been around for 5 versions or so and not be honest enough to leave it in the FAQ section (where I always look before buying any software) is BS.

Sorry to rant but it's a sore spot for me.

F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
I'd give cakewalk some more money if they hadn't wiped there website clean of any indication of the glitches in PA9 in the FAQ section before I paid $500.00 for it. Far as I'm concerned they need to give me some money back.
To sell a product with a glich that has been around for 5 versions or so and not be honest enough to leave it in the FAQ section (where I always look before buying any software) is BS.

Sorry to rant but it's a sore spot for me.

F.S.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused. When did you buy PA9? Cakewalk hasn't sold this in years. If you bought it second hand, I'm not sure you can blame Cakewalk for not having current information for a product they no longer sell. :confused: :confused:

BTW, what is the glitch?
 
dachay2tnr said:
I'm a bit confused. When did you buy PA9? Cakewalk hasn't sold this in years. If you bought it second hand, I'm not sure you can blame Cakewalk for not having current information for a product they no longer sell. :confused: :confused:

BTW, what is the glitch?
Click to expand...
Oh I bought it brand new right after it came out. The glitch was that when you mixed in the console view with plenty of tracks (automation off) you could get it just right and you would go back to the begining of the song and half the time it would take away any adjustments you made.

It was quite the topic on the board for a while and had been an issue for several versions prior. It was very frustrating to be bumping the faders till you thought you had it just right and then have it all be erased. They had a cumbersom work around but what most people ended up doing was using volume and pan envelopes and not using the console anymore than needed.

The problems have pretty much gone away for me (knock on wood), but it left a sour taste in my mouth that the obviously were hiding the fact there was an issue. How else could you explain Reading the FAQ and support section of their web site and there being no mention of a problem that had been going on for years. Yet everone here knew about it and when you called cakewalk they had the cumbersome work around on the tip of their tounge.

Wish I'd had known about this site before I purchased. I would have gone a different way.


F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
what most people ended up doing was using volume and pan envelopes and not using the console anymore than needed.
Click to expand...
That's the way to go with a DAW anyway, IMHO.

Console View never really served any useful purpose to me, except to make those transitioning from an analog environment a little more comfortable. I've never found much, if anything, that could be done in Console View that couldn't be done as easy or easier in Track View.

One man's opinion. Moskus will disagree, but he doesn't know much anyway. :D
 
Well I should have knocked on wood harder, after almost a year It's f'ing up on me. Loaded up a set of files from a studio. Pulled doen everything but the drums to work on them and get a sound, went back to the begining of the song and everything plays even though 3/4 of the faders are down. What BS I've got 11 tracks up and no effects. Not exactly overloading it.

That's what I get for bringing it up.

Ya envelopes are cool but you can't just pull all your envelopes down and throw up a mix. I like them for transitions, but lets say I want to move the volume of the whole track up and I have several transitions. Can't be done without the fader in console view. I would have to go along the track and move each section up.

Anyway, to each his own. If sonar works great for you that's fantastic.
Me I vote with my wallet. And after CW told me to kiss off, to hell with them. Next time..??? cubase more than likely.


F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
I like them for transitions, but lets say I want to move the volume of the whole track up and I have several transitions. Can't be done without the fader in console view. I would have to go along the track and move each section up.
Click to expand...
You need Universal Bus Routing...

introduced in Sonar 3.0 I think. ;)
 
Freudian Slip said:
Now what for would this bus take??? A fader?
Click to expand...
Well, there is a fader for each Bus, if you insist on using console view.

But bottom line, Universal Bus Routing allows you to route any track to any Bus, and any Bus to any other Bus.

So for example, let say you have a drum kit with each item on the kit on its own track (snare, Kick, hi hat, toms, etc.). And let's say you have envelopes on each track. You can route the entire kit to a Bus called "drums." Now if you need to raise or lower the entire kit, you simply lower the fader on the "drums" Bus, and everything gets lower, without affecting any of the envelopes on the tracks, or the ratio of any item to any other item.

So you can have Sub Busses for drums, another for vocals, and so on. Each of these can then be routed to another Sub Bus, or to the Master Bus.

It's the main reason I upgraded to Sonar 3. Since then, I'm still waiting for a reason to upgrade to any later version.
 
dachay2tnr said:
Well, there is a fader for each Bus, if you insist on using console view.

But bottom line, Universal Bus Routing allows you to route any track to any Bus, and any Bus to any other Bus.

So for example, let say you have a drum kit with each item on the kit on its own track (snare, Kick, hi hat, toms, etc.). And let's say you have envelopes on each track. You can route the entire kit to a Bus called "drums." Now if you need to raise or lower the entire kit, you simply lower the fader on the "drums" Bus, and everything gets lower, without affecting any of the envelopes on the tracks, or the ratio of any item to any other item.

So you can have Sub Busses for drums, another for vocals, and so on. Each of these can then be routed to another Sub Bus, or to the Master Bus.

It's the main reason I upgraded to Sonar 3. Since then, I'm still waiting for a reason to upgrade to any later version.
Click to expand...

The whole "if you insist" thing got me lmao!


Tell me this if you know. Does sonar have a mute clip function like cubase? You know so I could record three tracks and buss them together. Cutting the tracks into peices and muting the peices not the whole track?

F.S.
 
Freudian Slip said:
The whole "if you insist" thing got me lmao!
Click to expand...
Somewhat of an inside joke here... although I really do think the Console View is unnecessary. However, not everyone agrees with me. :)


Tell me this if you know. Does sonar have a mute clip function like cubase? You know so I could record three tracks and buss them together. Cutting the tracks into peices and muting the peices not the whole track?
Click to expand...
Not in the version I am using (3.0). I would probably use slip editing if I needed to accomplish this - although I suspect it's more tedious that way than a mute function.

However, I think the newer versions do have this feature. Maybe someone using 4.0 or 5.0 can answer for sure.
 
Freudian Slip said:
Tell me this if you know. Does sonar have a mute clip function like cubase? You know so I could record three tracks and buss them together. Cutting the tracks into peices and muting the peices not the whole track?

F.S.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
dachay2tnr,

This is regarding your thoughts that the Console view is not very useful.

First a question, are you using a single or dual video monitors?

I use a dual monitor setup and find the Console view to be almost as useful in my workflow as the Track view. Having said this, if I was running only one monitor, I would definitely be in Track view the majority of the time. And this has nothing to do with me weaning off an analog setup.

The Console view is important in my workflow because once I get over 7-8 tracks, I can still have complete access to all the parameters of each track. Inputs, outputs, meters, per track EQ etc. at a glance. I know you can have a single instance of this type of view to the left of the tracks in Track view, but for me, that just eats up more real estate where it's at a premium already.

As track numbers increase, the tracks get narrower in Track view. Not so in Console.

If you're running a single monitor, I can understand your lack of need for the Console view. But if not...
 
pdlstl said:
dachay2tnr,

This is regarding your thoughts that the Console view is not very useful.

First a question, are you using a single or dual video monitors?

I use a dual monitor setup and find the Console view to be almost as useful in my workflow as the Track view. Having said this, if I was running only one monitor, I would definitely be in Track view the majority of the time. And this has nothing to do with me weaning off an analog setup.

The Console view is important in my workflow because once I get over 7-8 tracks, I can still have complete access to all the parameters of each track. Inputs, outputs, meters, per track EQ etc. at a glance. I know you can have a single instance of this type of view to the left of the tracks in Track view, but for me, that just eats up more real estate where it's at a premium already.

As track numbers increase, the tracks get narrower in Track view. Not so in Console.

If you're running a single monitor, I can understand your lack of need for the Console view. But if not...
Click to expand...
Actually I am running dual monitors. I typically keep the track view split over the two monitors - with the track controls section on the left monitor, and the tracks (waveforms) on the right. Keeping the track control section that wide, gives you access to everything - input, output, FX, meters, etc. Although I tend not to use the meters much anyway. I'm usually most interested in where the track peaks, and I use the digital read for that.

Not sure I understand why you feel console view gives you more real estate. To me it's simply a question of whether you scroll up and down, rather than left and right. Although I realize with a dual monitor setup you have more width than height. However, I find in Track View, the ability to show/hide the Busses with a single click helps. In Console View it's a bit cumbersome to get rid of the busses, which if you use a lot of them, eats up real estate as well.

Also I don't find that the tracks get smaller as you add more tracks. I guess they would if you try to keep them all on the screen at the same time, but I keep them at normal size, and scroll when need. I also tend to use a lot of envelopes, so I want easy access to the waveform view, which as I noted, I keep on the right monitor at all times.

As I said earlier, YMMV, so whatever gets you through the night.
 
Ah, now I understand how you've got yours set up.

Yes, I like to keep as many tracks as possible on the screen in track view while tracking. Once I begin edit/mix I will pull up only the tracks needed (in Track View) at any given time in the process.

Like you said, it's really just a matter of scrolling L/R or U/D. I prefer L/R because with narrow (versus wide) tracks in Console, I can see complete track info on more tracks than Track view, without scrolling. Obviously, as track count climbs there is a point where I must start L/R scrolling.

I don't think I would like my track view split across both monitors. I figure I must be a little OCD. :D

Bottom line, that's what makes SONAR such a great product. Its flexibilty makes it a one-size-fits-all!

BTW, my SONAR 6 is on the way. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top