Since Roland owns Cakewalk why don't we have a Cakewalk folder? I have been off the internet for a year and just got back on it because I bought Sonar 8.5. One could easily weed through certain folders for Cakewalk specific conversations but it would be nice if it was easier to find.
And I did miss you guys. Really.
Cakewalk by Roland?
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
There are as many Logic and Cubase users here I think, as well as ProTools users. So if we were to treat everyone equally, we'd need to open a whole DAW section here with separate forums for each of these.
I am not a particular fan of Sonar though - I find it's interface unnecessarily complex if not even awkward and poorly-designed in many areas... so I am not kind of feeling very inspired to open a forum for Sonar at the moment
I am not a particular fan of Sonar though - I find it's interface unnecessarily complex if not even awkward and poorly-designed in many areas... so I am not kind of feeling very inspired to open a forum for Sonar at the moment
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
The cakewalk forums are pretty active.
Really, DAW questions seem to be the exception here. Certainly they come up, drivers and general wonkiness, but not nearly as often as hardware.
Of course you don't like Sonar Artemiy. It's requires something other than ___.
Really, DAW questions seem to be the exception here. Certainly they come up, drivers and general wonkiness, but not nearly as often as hardware.
Of course you don't like Sonar Artemiy. It's requires something other than ___.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Uhm... what could that be?...
Seriously, I am talking about this particular piece of software - I am sure there is a lot of good stuff inside in terms of technology, but it does look very, very cluttered and not user-friendly to me. I am indeed spoiled by a better experience.
Seriously, I am talking about this particular piece of software - I am sure there is a lot of good stuff inside in terms of technology, but it does look very, very cluttered and not user-friendly to me. I am indeed spoiled by a better experience.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
LOL is another three letters!
I've heard people say that about Sonar before, but I don't believe it. Personally, I think Cubase is an ugly, clumsy interface that I need to use more and be a cool kid. Fruity Loops is well, as the name implies, Fruity Loops. I haven't tried Logic, but it doesn't look that much different from what I've seen over people's shoulders. Garageband works, but I wasn't all that impressed.
As for cluttered, you haven't seen my desktop!
I've heard people say that about Sonar before, but I don't believe it. Personally, I think Cubase is an ugly, clumsy interface that I need to use more and be a cool kid. Fruity Loops is well, as the name implies, Fruity Loops. I haven't tried Logic, but it doesn't look that much different from what I've seen over people's shoulders. Garageband works, but I wasn't all that impressed.
As for cluttered, you haven't seen my desktop!
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Well, my desktop could be the opposite
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Well, yeah, I can see the point about users of other DAWs wanting equal treatment. Cakewalk is a Roland product, though. So I stand by my comment.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
i think there's no need for a specific Sonar folder in this forum... there is a folder Computers and Software and since Sonar is not the only DAW and there are many others it's fine to post everything related with software in this folder.... by the way i, personally use Sonar LE for midi sequencing and find it pretty useful and straightforward...
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Yes, Sonar is not the only DAW, but to the best of my knowledge, it is the only DAW owned by ROLAND, and this being the ROLAND clan, I merely felt it might not be a bad idea to have a folder for DAW software that is owned and sold by ROLAND. I'm sorry that there are people who don't like Sonar, but frankly, I don't like the JUNO and wouldn't use it as a doorstop, but the JUNO is owned by ROLAND so I certainly won't object to anyone wanting to discuss it here. If there was a folder here at the ROLAND clan specifically devoted to this very nice DAW software that is owned by ROLAND, I think it would get a bit of traffic from PEOPLE WHO OWN IT AND USE IT despite the opinions of PEOPLE WHO DON"T OWN IT AND DON"T USE IT.
And have a nice day!
And have a nice day!
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Patrick, I know I may have sounded a bit harsh, but what I mean is this forum is not about opening sections for anything that Roland may release under their brands - that would be an overload. I do follow the needs of the community but carefully.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Roland's Cakewalk has industry-leading products for music creation and recording. I switched from Cubase to Sonar and I'm more than satisfied. Sonar has everything I need and I can count on their excellent and fast support anytime.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
hmm... I saw Sonar when t was 1.0.
Did they finaly make Sonar see VST?
Or is still emulated?
This was the first and final reason of NOT using Sonar.
I work in Cubase from 98 but I was open to other stuff (like Reason and Logic).
The Reason is not part of Cubase (rewire) in my works, but, the rest... no VST, no Choice for Me.
Not interested on AU or DX.
And by the way, my opinion is that a Professional Software has PC/Mac on the case
if the software doesn't have both platform... it's not pro :p
Did they finaly make Sonar see VST?
Or is still emulated?
This was the first and final reason of NOT using Sonar.
I work in Cubase from 98 but I was open to other stuff (like Reason and Logic).
The Reason is not part of Cubase (rewire) in my works, but, the rest... no VST, no Choice for Me.
Not interested on AU or DX.
And by the way, my opinion is that a Professional Software has PC/Mac on the case
if the software doesn't have both platform... it's not pro :p
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
Absolutely disagree with you, cminor. The software is usually better if the team concentrates on one platform - less time porting and solving issues, more time advancing the features.
And the whole definition of "professional" is so blurred actually, what does it mean? What in the world can not be used professionally? If you have a talent and skills, you can use anything professionally. If you don't, you will try to buy tools labelled as "professional" to compensate for the lack of them.
And the whole definition of "professional" is so blurred actually, what does it mean? What in the world can not be used professionally? If you have a talent and skills, you can use anything professionally. If you don't, you will try to buy tools labelled as "professional" to compensate for the lack of them.
Re: Cakewalk by Roland?
I was not talking about how professional is the "work" that can be done with the software/
I was talikng about the fact, that if a company have resources to make PC and Mac version, then the team of the PC side with team Mac , together, they find more ideas, and more bug to repair then one team, and the product itself will be much better when 2 teams are working at it..
Second.
The Mac versions are some times proof of stability.
More and more, PC Software is crashing and your work is "not posibil to recover".
So I was't talking about the knoledge of the user, as the knoledge of the software/hardware team.
Because today, is more about integration of hardware controll, and colaborate with other software/pluggins.
Yes.
I do have an issue with "professional software" label too.
I have to use Protools at work, only because it was requested by the client.
We have to gave him projects with fullmix in Protools and separated, the fullmix as AC3 with TC.
Even if we work here in Vegas, the client want to have a Protools Project, with the fullmx exported from Vegas....
Why?
This is a "comercial" strategy of force integration of the Protools in Video "Professional" Studios.
Crap...
As a "user", I only need to say that:
the best software is the one who can do what you want, and the one you know how to use.
If you know 200% of the "mushu-mushu", and "mushu-mushu" can provide the needs requested by you, then the "mushu-mushu" is the best software for you.
All the crap of the Professional does nothing for you if you have to relearn "how can I import X and Y" or you need to see 40 DVD's of "how to rewrite in your brain other shortcuts of other software".
Because at the end, you will see, that, almost all programs do the same thing:
- what you know to do with them.
It doesn't do anything by themselfs.
YOU are the one in control.
The thing is that, you must know what and how to do things inside the software.
Or hardware
I was talikng about the fact, that if a company have resources to make PC and Mac version, then the team of the PC side with team Mac , together, they find more ideas, and more bug to repair then one team, and the product itself will be much better when 2 teams are working at it..
Second.
The Mac versions are some times proof of stability.
More and more, PC Software is crashing and your work is "not posibil to recover".
So I was't talking about the knoledge of the user, as the knoledge of the software/hardware team.
Because today, is more about integration of hardware controll, and colaborate with other software/pluggins.
Yes.
I do have an issue with "professional software" label too.
I have to use Protools at work, only because it was requested by the client.
We have to gave him projects with fullmix in Protools and separated, the fullmix as AC3 with TC.
Even if we work here in Vegas, the client want to have a Protools Project, with the fullmx exported from Vegas....
Why?
This is a "comercial" strategy of force integration of the Protools in Video "Professional" Studios.
Crap...
As a "user", I only need to say that:
the best software is the one who can do what you want, and the one you know how to use.
If you know 200% of the "mushu-mushu", and "mushu-mushu" can provide the needs requested by you, then the "mushu-mushu" is the best software for you.
All the crap of the Professional does nothing for you if you have to relearn "how can I import X and Y" or you need to see 40 DVD's of "how to rewrite in your brain other shortcuts of other software".
Because at the end, you will see, that, almost all programs do the same thing:
- what you know to do with them.
It doesn't do anything by themselfs.
YOU are the one in control.
The thing is that, you must know what and how to do things inside the software.
Or hardware