Nice article on Cakewalk and BandLab

[Starship Krupa]

12 hours ago, Toddskins said:

I'd like to add a comment on that site, but I'm not sure if what I would write is true anymore.  Can somebody let me know on the following?

1) Was not Sonar the first DAW to be able to be used on dual monitors, i.e. free to move components to the other monitor outside the main program window?

2) Do all DAWs now have dual monitor capability?

Are you going to edit the Wikipedia page on SONAR? If so, it would be great if you could do some tidying in there as well. I don't know who thought it would be a appropriate to list every single plug-in effect, great and small, included with each revision, but they were wrong.?It's historical now, but SONAR deserves better than that mess

1. If you are not 100% sure about the dual monitor thing, write what you are sure of or cheat a bit and say that SONAR was "one of the first" or "the first commercially successful DAW" or "the first DAW to successfully" implement dual monitor functionality. That sort of thing may be frowned upon, but it's more important to give credit where it's due than it is to be 100% ironclad IMO. Besides, if someone reads the entry and suffers from knicker entwistment as a result, they are just as free to revise the entry as you are.

2. If you are not 100% sure, again, you can say "most DAW's" or "all in the top 10 list," with an external cite to Music Radar's yearly Top 10 list, which Wikipedia's reviewers love. It's hard to say "all" about things like software features, because there could be some tiny abandoned freeware program somewhere with a cult following of 25 users that never had dual monitor support.

 

[Larry Jones]

3 hours ago, John said:

Starship Krupa never said this.

Thanks for clearing this up, @John. I didn't realize what was happening there, but I see now that @SomeGuy must have edited @Starship Krupa's quoted text to mislead readers.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Larry Jones
clarity

[John]

10 minutes ago, Larry Jones said:

Thanks for clearing this up, @John. I didn't realize what was happening there, but I see now that @SomeGuy must have edited the text he quoted to mislead readers.

It may not be intended. Sometimes when quoting the quote can drop the context.  Starship was simply responding to some one else and quoted him.  As good as this forum software is its not perfect. 

[Larry Jones]

13 minutes ago, John said:

Sometimes when quoting the quote can drop the context.

Looking further, I see that must be what happened.

[Toddskins]

5 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Are you going to edit the Wikipedia page on SONAR? If so, it would be great if you could do

 

Sorry, no.  I was referring to the site with the article of the original post in this thread.

FWIW, I attempted to correct some things in Wiki a few years ago but the liberals kept changing things so I gave up.  And Wiki has changed history on some things that I know for fact are different than what is in their volumes, so I now realize that it's just another tool of the globalist propaganda network.  

[Larry Jones]

1 hour ago, Toddskins said:

...the liberals kept changing things...

The liberals! Why did it have to be LIBERALS!?

[InstrEd]

6 minutes ago, Larry Jones said:

The liberals! Why did it have to be LIBERALS!?

I so much want to touch this one but we are not suppose to go down that road?
So just have fun with this great software called Cakewalk ?

[Base 57]

2 hours ago, Toddskins said:

globalist propaganda network

Another one for the band name list. Thank You.

You guys are a never ending source of inspiration.

[Toddskins]

4 hours ago, Larry Jones said:

The liberals! Why did it have to be LIBERALS!?

Well, if I gave you the details of the cases it would become obvious from their nature.  Obviously, why bother?

[Some Guy]

On 6/9/2019 at 5:48 PM, Larry Jones said:

Thanks for clearing this up, @John. I didn't realize what was happening there, but I see now that @SomeGuy must have edited @Starship Krupa's quoted text to mislead readers.

No.  The forum did it when I quoted the post and trimmed off the extra bits...   I highlighted and pressed the "Quote selection" button.  The forum put the name in automatically.  I didn't check.  It isn't that big a deal.  You can easily reproduce this by doing it yourself (I just did).  Not sure why you think I think this topic is important enough for me to engage in that type of [blatantly transparent] deception, particularly when the text quoted is completely mundane in nature.  I didn't edit it, because I'm lazy and not really watching this topic... 

Relevant entity has responded, so that discussion is over, as far as I'm concerned...

Don't get ahead of yourself.

-----

Being able to work well on Dual (or even Triple) monitors is fairly basic for most "Pro DAWs," these days.  I wouldn't use any Audio or Video software that didn't support at least a Dual Monitor setup.  It's far too claustrophobic without it - particularly with most PC displays being Widescreen.

Edited June 11, 2019 by SomeGuy

[Larry Jones]

6 hours ago, SomeGuy said:

I didn't check.  It isn't that big a deal.  You can easily reproduce this by doing it yourself (I just did).  Not sure why you think I think this topic is important enough for me to engage in that type of [blatantly transparent] deception, particularly when the text quoted is completely mundane in nature.  I didn't edit it, because I'm lazy and not really watching this topic... 

Relevant entity has responded, so that discussion is over, as far as I'm concerned... 

Thanks for your response. As you'd know if you read farther, I tested the "quote" function myself, acknowledged my mistake and corrected it in a later post. I assumed you had done this on purpose (although I couldn't figure out why) because you've been trolling this forum for months, and that's the kind of thing trolls do. False attribution is, indeed, "that big a deal," but even if just as a matter of courtesy, you should have fixed the mistake when @Starship Krupa asked you to.

[Starship Krupa]

4 hours ago, Larry Jones said:

you should have fixed the mistake when @Starship Krupa asked you to.

Not once but twice for heaven's sake. And I wasn't being pedantic or nitpicking, it's common courtesy, and a gesture of parley when discussions like this one get heated, to show that one is not merely trolling.

But I guess there wasn't much interest in that. I think it might be time to hit ye olde philtre of kille.

[Bill Ruys]

On 6/8/2019 at 10:34 PM, SomeGuy said:

The DAW market is a lot bigger than Studio One, though, last I checked...

So yea, I'm extremely sure about that.

I don't use Studio One, as the paged workflow in software like it and DaVinci Resolve isn't really my cup of tea.  However, I may buy an AudioBox 96 interface; to use on the go with my Laptop, and test out the Artist version to give it a relatively lengthy trial, soon.

OK, so you are sure, but you haven't cited how these other DAWs have dramatically overtaken Sonar (except for maybe AAF support).  The Studio One example was one I could give, because it happens to be another DAW that I own, use, and can give a reasoned opinion of.  It is also, I believe, one of the main competitors to Sonar, as it seems to me that it was the most common DAWs selected when Gibson closed it doors and Sonar users were looking for alternatives (based on many comments on the Sonar forum at the time).  This is what led me to purchase Studio One at the time.

You've said that Sonar has stood still while others have move on.  I'm keen to know how?  Remembering of course that some DAWs have specialist areas of functionality.  For instance, Sonar is not going to challenge Abelton anytime soon for live performance.  I would also list Studio One's macros as a great workflow advantage over Sonar, but these are cases of one DAW having a specialist, unique tool or feature, rather that a case of one DAW having a much better update cycle than the other.

Just interested in learning what I don't know.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Bill Ruys
Typos

[Some Guy]

On 6/11/2019 at 12:08 PM, Larry Jones said:

I assumed you had done this on purpose (although I couldn't figure out why) because you've been trolling this forum for months, and that's the kind of thing trolls do.

There's a nice little saying on the Internet: "Calling someone a troll is trolling." 

Then again, that goes over the head of people who don't actually know what trolling is.  Citing legitimate shortcomings in a product that happens to make the fanboys defensive is not trolling...  I'd argue the opposite is what's actually happening.

Why would I troll by misattributing a quote [that is fairly meaningless] to someone I have had little to no contact with on the forum?  Are you even thinking about this?  Or are you just that trigger happy to yell troll, simply because my posts are deemed "controversial" and the old guys around here are glad to agree with you?

I've given my reasons for not changing it, and I've given the reasons for it happening.

Unfortunately, everyone - except one person, it seems - could see what clearly happened.   I don't care about the reputation of my [not so cleverly constructed] pseudonym on a random niche internet forum where you can simply create a new account for a reputational-reset in 5 minutes.  Come on...

Additionally, my post history indicates that I don't really frequent this forum much...  So the whole "trolling this forum for months" isn't really panning out...  It just so happens that I'm less prone to join the circle jerk and only feel the need to post when pointing out shortcomings, feature requests, etc.  There are enough people around here to sing the praises of Cakewalk.

If you're that exasperated with the "trolling," then stop putting up the Batman Signal by responding to posts.  Ignore/Block and move on.

Edited June 12, 2019 by SomeGuy

[Some Guy]

14 hours ago, Bill Ruys said:

OK, so you are sure, but you haven't cited how these other DAWs have dramatically overtaken Sonar (except for maybe AAF support).  The Studio One example was one I could give, because it happens to be another DAW that I own, use, and can give a reasoned opinion of.  It is also, I believe, one of the main competitors to Sonar, as it seems to me that it was the most common DAWs selected when Gibson closed it doors and Sonar users were looking for alternatives (based on many comments on the Sonar forum at the time).  This is what led me to purchase Studio One at the time.

You've said that Sonar has stood still while others have move on.  I'm keen to know how?  Remembering of course that some DAWs have specialist areas of functionality.  For instance, Sonar is not going to challenge Abelton anytime soon for live performance.  I would also list Studio One's macros as a great workflow advantage over Sonar, but these are cases of one DAW having a specialist, unique tool or feature, rather that a case of one DAW having a much better update cycle than the other.

Just interested in learning what I don't know.

Cakewalk is perfect.  Extra features will just "bloat" the DAW up anyways, so why bother listing them.

Also, the list would be so long, it would probably crash the forums.  4+ years is a lot to document in the world of Cubase/Logic Pro X/Pro Tools/Digital Performer/etc. updates and feature additions.

I noticed the less-flexible routing the minute I tried to move some Pro Tools templates over to Cakewalk, for example; and the comparatively bad Audio and MIDI editing is as clear as day if you're coming from something like Pro Tools/Samplitude or Cubase/Digital Performer.  When playing back MIDI with the Notation view open, the notes often lag behind, or run ahead of the audio.  Something I do not experience in other DAWs (using the same Hardware, Interface... and operating with the same ASIO latencies).

Studio One is a comparatively young DAW, so yes... a lot of features it is adding are "catch-up" features...  Users are willing to suffer this in the short term, because PreSonus' development momentum is so good.  Cakewalk will look more "on par" with it for that reason...  however, it looks bad as a solution "going forwards" due to the comparative lack of development momentum.  People who like it, but see it lacking in some areas will not have confidence that this will be rectified in due time, as a result.  This is the problem I was referring to earlier in the thread.

I can recommend Studio One, and feel somewhat confident that if the feature requests come in, the developers will implement that feature  -  probably in a point update that doesn't even entail upgrade fees.  I cannot do this for Cakewalk by BandLab… so it puts people in a corner when you're trying to recommend it to other professionals; coming from more full-featured DAWs.  For the beginners, this is not a problem (they will not notice it unless they are trying to translate tutorials created for another DAW to Cakewalk).

Comparatively: DaVinci Resolve is summarily blown away by Media Composer for cutting/editing...  But, users are willing to suffer this in the short term, because Blackmagic Design is very aggressively developing it... adding functionality in 0.1 updates that could legitimately stand as full version upgrades in other competing software packages.  This is why it's basically the default recommendation.  People have confidence in the product and its development team.

There really isn't a solid economic reason to pick Studio One over Digital Performer - for example - unless you're just going with what is super popular on the internet, these days. PreSonus has done amazingly well with marketing, comapred to MOTU - both are developing quite well, however.  Windows users are probably less familiar with DP due to it being macOS-only some years ago, but both now run on the same platforms; and Digital Performer is ever so slightly cheaper when you take the competitive upgrade (which is available to users who owned a paid version of SONAR [above the hobbyist SKU]).

If you're a film composer, then going Studio One basically means you have to buy the Notion add-on for $49, as its in-built notation/scoring options are awful - compared even to Cakewalk.

When Gibson shut down SONAR, most other DAW developers offered a cheap upgrade path (similar to when Apple shut down Aperture, or moved from FCP7 to X), so owning another DAW isn't surprising.  It's almost impossible for a human being to NOT be biased.  It's natural to be biased, and it's only natural that our biases  fall towards what is most familiar and comfortable to us.  Bias is normal.

Being objective has more to do with empathy than a lack of bias ?

Edited June 12, 2019 by SomeGuy