GIM Productions Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Hi everyone, I have added other posts on the new Sonar graphics which I recently tried for the first time due to work and closing projects. I repeat again that I am not talking about the software, for me since I used Twelve Tone, Pro Audio, Sonar and CBB it is the best Pro Daw on the market, I have made more than 50 releases and my clients have always preferred the Sonar masters instead of the "Industry Standard", but when I saw the new graphics I was shocked.... even another DAW widely used by pros has the same type of graphics, but it is not so excessive, in Sonar it seems like it was made by a child... .for me compared to CBB it's a big step backwards, also noting that large companies like Harrison and UAD are taking an exactly opposite path, making almost photographic graphics... It's just my opinion 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 2 Author Share Posted June 2 It's funny that if you look at the Sonar website there are images of CBB which obviously looks better, isn't it strange? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Kelley Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) As long as I can tell what the control is I don’t care what it looks like. No doubt the new Sonar look is more industrial in my opinion. Edited June 2 by Terry Kelley 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Baay Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 We heard you the first two times, and you need to start letting it go because 'it is what it is' to a great extent. Harrison and UAD notwithstanding (and both pretty minor players in the DAW space by my reckoning), the broader industry trend is still generally toward flatter, simpler graphics. The good news is that I can assure you that you'll get over it more quickly than you think. Your screenshot clearly shows how much sharper Sonar's vector graphics are. If you try to go back to CbB after working with Sonar for a while, you'll find it looks fuzzy and feels overly 'busy' in comparison. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, and I encourage you to make specific suggestions about possible improvements to contrast, legibility, consistency, usability etc. Many such suggestion have already been implemented. Continuing to just generally bash the new graphics as "childish" is not helpful and won't change the overall direction that the UI is taking. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Stanton Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 @GIM Productions and i think someone already created as "flat" theme for CbB so you can contrast and compare 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 2 Author Share Posted June 2 1 hour ago, David Baay said: We heard you the first two times, and you need to start letting it go because 'it is what it is' to a great extent. Harrison and UAD notwithstanding (and both pretty minor players in the DAW space by my reckoning), the broader industry trend is still generally toward flatter, simpler graphics. The good news is that I can assure you that you'll get over it more quickly than you think. Your screenshot clearly shows how much sharper Sonar's vector graphics are. If you try to go back to CbB after working with Sonar for a while, you'll find it looks fuzzy and feels overly 'busy' in comparison. That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, and I encourage you to make specific suggestions about possible improvements to contrast, legibility, consistency, usability etc. Many such suggestion have already been implemented. Continuing to just generally bash the new graphics as "childish" is not helpful and won't change the overall direction that the UI is taking. Yes, I can bore you, but I'm not a Cakewalk employee and I'm criticizing some choices and I think we can still criticize in this world. Technology today offers CPUs capable of withstanding the full load of photographic graphics and hundreds of tracks and effects to manage, perhaps what you said 20 years ago might have been right but today there is no reason to adopt such simple graphics. When you say sharp it doesn't mean it's better, I use a 35 monitor with high resolution and CBB doesn't give me any problems and I repeat that the previous graphics are much more satisfying. That said, everyone makes their own decisions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noynekker Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Your screen shot says it all . . . for me sharper, less cluttered, and the ability to rescale larger is a welcome change. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 2 Author Share Posted June 2 6 minutes ago, noynekker said: Your screen shot says it all . . . for me sharper, less cluttered, and the ability to rescale larger is a welcome change. happy for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 2 Author Share Posted June 2 5 minutes ago, GIM Productions said: happy for you Sorry but I don't want to be thought of as stupid, not advertising because I repeat again that CBB is my favorite DAW, this is a nice graphic for me, a matter of taste 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Anderton Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) 9 minutes ago, GIM Productions said: a matter of taste Exactly! And also fashion. Computer graphics are a fashion industry, like how the "dark look" became big, pastels made a comeback (e.g., Ableton Live), flat vs. skeuomorphic, rounded corners (e.g., Studio One), etc. Maybe next year it will all be back to gray scale, with splashes of color. Who knows? These trends take hold in advertising, web sites, etc. Software companies that don't "get with the program" may be seen as dated and not "fresh" anymore, which affects market penetration and sales...so it matters to all users of the software. Personally, I prefer the flatter look and find it easier on the eyes. But I've seen some skeuomorphic programs that look gorgeous. Ultimately, I don't really care because usually it's just a question of getting acclimated to any changes. Edited June 2 by Craig Anderton 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 2 Author Share Posted June 2 27 minutes ago, Craig Anderton said: Exactly! And also fashion. Computer graphics are a fashion industry, like how the "dark look" became big, pastels made a comeback (e.g., Ableton Live), flat vs. skeuomorphic, rounded corners (e.g., Studio One), etc. Maybe next year it will all be back to gray scale, with splashes of color. Who knows? These trends take hold in advertising, web sites, etc. Software companies that don't "get with the program" may be seen as dated and not "fresh" anymore, which affects market penetration and sales...so it matters to all users of the software. Personally, I prefer the flatter look and find it easier on the eyes. But I've seen some skeuomorphic programs that look gorgeous. Ultimately, I don't really care because usually it's just a question of getting acclimated to any changes. Craig What a pleasure to see you again, at the time of Roland I was a beta tester and we have already discussed, I agree with you that fashions change, but when you have worked with graphics like Sonar Platinum's Tungsten you don't really like changes. ...at least to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Anderton Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 2 minutes ago, GIM Productions said: but when you have worked with graphics like Sonar Platinum's Tungsten you don't really like changes. ...at least to me. I certainly agree that any change is disruptive, and the longer you've used a program, the greater the disruption. However, I think you'll find that you can get used to a new look pretty quickly, and maybe even end up preferring it over time. What's far more disruptive is when UI elements are shuffled, like what Microsoft did with the Start menu in Windows 11. If Sonar's EQ changed to all linear sliders instead of knobs...now THAT would be really disruptive! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Kelley Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 (edited) Too early for snark. I need more coffee. Edited June 2 by Terry Kelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John T Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 I've been meaning to make a post comparing the old and new EQ modules myself, though I think I'll do it in a separate thread to make my point as clearly as possible. Short version for now though: I don't think the PC modules are typical of the new UI. I think the new UI looks great in nearly all of the main views. I do think, though, that the redesigns of the PC modules are a bit perfunctory. And most importantly, lose some clarity of function. In the images above, notice how the old version clearly connects the slope dials to then high and low pass. That's certainly not obvious to a new user in the new version. Also note how the bell / shelf switches don't even look like switches, unlike much better designed switches elsewhere in the UI. I'll go into more detail sometime when less busy, but it'd be great to see the PC modules brought up to the same level of polish. And I do mean more in terms of functional clarity more than aesthetics. Though I think functional clarity does tend to be more attractive by default. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Vere Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 This is what I think it should looks like! 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Anderton Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Time for the steam punk revival! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veetek Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 New graphics are easier to read at a glance, no need to make everything vintage and analog. Faster workflow with simpler designs and contrasting colors equals faster music production. Take your time to get use to new design and work in dark theme, there is a reason beyond improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John T Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 That picture illustrates my above point a bit I think. Don't you think the ProChannel stuff seems less finished than the rest of it? Really basic designs for EQ and Tube, no redesign at all for Console Emulation, etc. I also don't love the way the ProChannel view buttons are underlined rather than highlighted. I think overall readability of the PC is a bit lower than the rest of the UI. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnbee58 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 I think we have to be patient. The developers are probably working on improving the functionality of the DAW so they can finally set their price ranges. The look of the interface is the least important factor and can be improved over time. That being said, I do like the look of CbB better mainly because the knobs and pots look more dimensional. Someone early on compared it to the look of Ableton and I think I know where they're coming from although I don't think it's quite that crude, but I would rather see more improvement in the functionality (new features, etc) and let nature take its course with everything else (like graphics). Patience, people. 🙂 😀John B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIM Productions Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 11 hours ago, John Vere said: This is what I think it should looks like! A little bit excessive😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now