njm255

C7#5#9

1 hour ago, John Vere said:

I have been demoing about 10 top DAW’s. Sonar blows them all away. Trust me. Each DAW might do a few things better or different but not one of those has the features Sonar has.
And don’t forget that they are not finished with building it! In 2 years I bet it will have some long awaited features added like chord track, sample player etc. 

Im most definitely purchasing it when made available. 

Not trying to argue, just curious. I see a lot of people say that "their DAW" is so much better than the others and I'm curious what features Sonar has that are not commonly available in others. I've been dabbling in Cubase and haven't found anything particularly better or worse than Sonar, just different, but everybody claims one is better than the other.

I definitely understand why so many current users are upset. For someone like me who is looking at other DAWs this is actually attractive. I don’t need constant updates so I basically can get a perpetual for half the price. I’m fine using the 3rd party plugins cause that’s what I’m used to anyway. What I really don’t like is how they linked up with Tunecore. Dumb move. 

57 minutes ago, Tim Smith said:

I am on SO version 5 still since I hardly use it. One thing about it does interest me and that's the mastering section and Tunecore. Even so, I am not seeing a huge gain uploading through the DAW software .vs uploading a finished track seperate. In fact for me I like to have the track outside the DAW to hear what it sounds like in the real world before I upload it, so this could potentially be a disadvantage for me at least. SO and others have been tapped into soundloud for awhile though I seldom use the features.

I was mainly wondering if Tunecore makes it easier than SC to sell content? SC makes you find tax forms and are very vague about how to go about it, Sure they are, works in their favor. What advantage is there to uploading to tuncore via SO compared to simply exporting the track and uploading it?

I see many software makers trying to pinch us into a subscription. It isn't only SO. They want a determined or semi determined return to report to the owners. What they fail to see is many will try it and never go back to it again. If this was the only option in daw land it would be different. It isn't.

If I had large multiple projects in SO and clients dependent on those mixes, then yeah I would be over a barrel. Probably no more than someone using PT. I'll pay something to upgrade to something I can keep. 

 

 

I wouldn't touch Tunecore, a lot of controversy around them. I don't know all the details but a quick YouTube search will show you. 

1 hour ago, Carl Ewing said:

Weird! I've never even notice this, and I've been mixing 150+ track scoring projects for 2 decades. Now that you've mentioned it, I want this feature!! Although I usually do all my track arranging in the timeline, which then auto updates ordering in the mix console...but would be very handy to be able to do this from console view.

Having said that - $600 is a steal for a software of this complexity / feature set, regardless of a few strangely missing features. 

Yeah I was able to get everything how I wanted using the zones and track view but I guess I'm spoiled having that feature in Sonar   

Please tell me they don’t charge almost $600 full price and you can’t even rearrange the tracks in the console view. 

This offer made me curious so I've downloaded the trial. So far it's good. Going to really dive into the MIDI since that's what everybody is raving about with Cubase. 

2 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Given that they withheld the information and have never been direct, why do you think it's likely that they were waiting to spring a subscription model on the userbase? Wouldn't it be just as likely that they were going the other way? By this I mean testing to see how users would react to a perpetual-only model and to cause people who prefer to buy subscriptions to jump ship early?

Why one and not the other?

I mean, subscription licensing means that you only get $8 (or whatever) a month, whereas a one-time license nets a company many times that, especially at launch time. BandLab, a company that had to buy the old company's code for cash and has been giving it away for 6 years while paying the programming and support staff with it bringing in zero income all that time might be eager to get some money back on their investment.

You say that perpetual licenses "don't provide the instant profit shareholders demand and fail to keep users tied to an ancient piece of software." So let's break that down. If we conservatively estimate that Cakewalk Sonar would have 500,000 people who would want to get licenses as soon as it comes out, and we assume that $8 gets you a monthly sub, $8 X 500,000 is only $4,000,000.00, whereas $80 for a perpetual license (another guess) X 500,000 is $40,000,000.00. I'm no accountant, nor am I a shareholder, but $40,000,000.00 looks better to me than $4,000,000.00.

As far as "keep[ing] users tied to an ancient piece of software," once people paid their $80, even if they decide they hate the new program with its fuzzy graphics, hard-to-read lettering, and lack of new features beyond the "vector-scaling" buzz term, BandLab gets to keep their entire license fee. But if they buy it on subscription, dissatisfied people will let their subscriptions lapse, which means all BandLab would ever see is their $8 (or maybe $16 if they try it for 2 months).

So isn't it just as (or even more) likely in your scenario that the perpetual  model is the one they're going to try to force on their whittled-down user base?

I would think a business calculates that more people would pay the cheaper subscription price than the higher perpetual license price. So in actuality the number of buyers would be lower than the number of subscribers. Also you'd have to take into account the length of a subscription. Will it be month to month where you can drop at any time or are you locked in for the year? Not to mention a lot of people forget they're even subscribed and will still be getting charged even if they don't use the product anymore. It's not really as simple as you say and subscriptions obviously are profitable because all these companies are moving in that direction. The corporate world won't waste time and energy on something that won't bring back a profit.

Bandlab's main goal is most likely to draw more people into the Bandlab ecosystem hence why this initial Sonar release is tied into a Bandlab subscription instead of being a separate release.  Perpetual licenses won't do that. We'll find out eventually.

It comes down to whatever Bandlab decides their customer base will/should be. Younger and newer musicians/producers will probably lean towards subscriptions more, whereas those who are more seasoned and in this for business are much more likely to want an outright purchase. Are they looking to compete with Protools/Logic/Cubase/Studio One with Sonar being claimed as a more professional DAW or just looking to draw the less "professional" artists in with this being a nice add-on to Bandlab or offered as part of some other subscription package? We really won't know until they make an official announcement. With this current release it does come across as though they're trying to feel out how open people are to a subscription package.

I'm real curious to hear what you all think of this. This looks like it could be pretty incredible.

I had wanted this one years ago when I first started switching to vst pianos, but at the time I couldn’t afford it. By the time I could I found others I liked. Had to buy it this time though, so I’ll get to try it out tonight. 

They have some great plugins. I use their tape plugin all the time. Their channelstrip plugin is nice too. One of the better companies to use.

Yes! Thank you!

Was holding on to Cakewalk but with this deal now it might be time for me to finally switch. Looking at the Studio One features it definitely has some impressive tools I would appreciate and does seem to be more advanced than Cakewalk. 

9 minutes ago, ZokZTM said:

I've tried that and it didn't work for me... but anyway can get the amek for 30 usd with new 29 usd subscription plan

I was surprised it worked for me but when it did I ran with it.

32 minutes ago, Marc Cormier said:

How'd you do that?

 

I used the 10% off code, the free bundle code and the code to get amek at $99.99. After all the discounts it came out to $27.09

Thank you! Because of this I was able to get the AMEK 9099 channel for $27

I use Skaka Shaken Percussion, El Clapo, and Native Instruments Battery 4. If you're looking for realism  definitely check out Skaka and El Clapo. If you just need a sampler to put your own sounds into then Battery 4 is an option but it's kind of old and expensive so you could probably find something better/cheaper. 

Check out acousticsamples, I use their C7 Grand on pretty much everything. Right now they have a 30% off sale. 

46 minutes ago, Sidney Earl Goodroe said:

I had to update the player before I could install Hammersmith just this morning!! The piano installed fine and I noticed in the installation instructions that they stress to install in the standalone version only. I am now wondering if they have blocked the use of the library in the vst plugin!!

No it works. I'm running the most recent Kontakt and I'm able to use it in Cakewalk as a VST. 

I got it all installed and working. This is easily the best reverb I have now, it beats my Liquidsonics Seventh Heaven. I'm already thinking about upgrading lol. Thanks for finding this!