On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:00:46 -0500, "Paul Kottheimer"
wrote:

I agree with everything every one else has said. I'd also add that Sonar is
much more powerful than Pro Tools for midi function. I've only used PT LE
5 - 6.x, so it might be better now.

PT LE isn't ProTools. It's a toy application cashing in on the PT
name. But I agree, PT isn't focused on MIDI.

Or an REO Speedwagon fan...

Max Arwood wrote:

You can tunapiano but you can't tunafish

"PapaNate" wrote in message
...
Or an REO Speedwagon fan...

Good one mate....'er.....Nate!

:-)
LB

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:23:58 +0000, Gary R. Hook wrote:

jeff loven wrote:
are you using a pirated copy?

Where did _that_ come from?

Jeff Loven is a bozo that hangs out in the Cakewalk groups and has a
penchant for screwing up just about everything he touches.
Read up on his Event ASP8 monitor explosions for some real laughs!

Laurence Payne wrote:

"Paul Kottheimer" wrote:

I agree with everything every one else has said. I'd also add that Sonar is
much more powerful than Pro Tools for midi function. I've only used PT LE
5 - 6.x, so it might be better now.

PT LE isn't ProTools. It's a toy application cashing in on the PT
name. But I agree, PT isn't focused on MIDI.

Plenty of folks make a decent living running PT LE. Not everybody needs
everything a TDM rig offers.

--
ha

Sonar DOES work. It IS possible to figure it out. All you're telling
us about is your attitude

You have no idea how wrong you are, butthead. I've taught computer recording
at university level (UCLA) - if my so called "attitude" about learning was
any way in question I wouldn't have that credit. Digidesign left me a
$50,000 Windows ProTools HD system recently for a few months and even though
I am not a master "ProTools" user, I figured that program out in a day
(enough to work). I figured Studio Vision out in a few hours. Nuendo and
Cubase weren't hard to learn at all, I just had some issues setting up my
hardware instruments but it still didn't take very long. I learned Digital
Performer (enough to work) in a day, and was able to record and transfer all
the files for a famous performer's entire live stage show. But Sonar? Like I
said, for four months (even with the help of a Sonar beta tester) I could
not get any midi instruments to work, either virtual or hardware - and I
could not get the audio to play properly. My attitude through those four
months was excellent, or we'd be talking about 4 hours. The program is anal
in it's concept and thought process. If you have only used Cakewalk/Sonar,
then you can grasp it immediately. However, if you are like me and have used
"pro" software like Logic, ProTools, Nuendo, etc. for a long time, then
Sonar will appear as a foreign object in your mind processing. Nothing you
know about computer recording on a pro level will give you any advantages in
Sonar. THAT is my "attitude" about the program. I know a lot of people who
use it and love it, but they are ALL long time Cakewalk/Sonar users.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

During recording, we even got some nifty popups saying he needed to free up
some memory to do this or that. I *never* see
crap like that disrupting my work flow with Sonar

Because you're not using Sonar on a Mac. I'd also guess your friend is using
OS9. In today's OSX, memory is allocated automatically, the same as it is in
Windows.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:09:47 GMT, "Ted Perlman"
wrote:

Sonar DOES work. It IS possible to figure it out. All you're telling
us about is your attitude

You have no idea how wrong you are, butthead. I've taught computer recording
at university level (UCLA) - if my so called "attitude" about learning was
any way in question I wouldn't have that credit

OK. So greater (and lesser) minds than yours have succeeded with
Sonar, you failed. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Laurence Payne" wrote:

PT LE isn't ProTools. It's a toy application cashing in on the PT
name. But I agree, PT isn't focused on MIDI.



I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please
summarize the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please
summarize the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?

http://www.digidesign.com/

Kind of like asking is Corel PhotoPaint a joke in the graphics field. Just
because Photoshop is more prevelant in the market doesn't mean that Corel PP
can't do everything just a well. But "experts" may be more familiar with
another product, like Photoshop, and NOT knowledgeable about alternates.
Some will often say a competing product can't do the task, but that is
primarily because they don't know enough about using them. After investing
hundreds, if not thousands, of hours gaining proficiency using a program,
one is not very likely to want to change horses, regardless of potential
advantages. A large base of users to draw info from is another factor. A
group like this can often make a big difference.

"Joe Kesselman" wrote in message
...
Albert Petersen wrote:
Is Sonar Produecer 5 consideded a joke in the pro field?
Every studio I deal with uses Cubase/Nuendo even on PC's and they all
joke
about Sonar.
What's the skinny?

Assuming you aren't just a troll trying to start an argument...

There are pros using Sonar. There are _fewer_ pros using Sonar because
it's a relatively recent entry in the market.

If direct file exchange is your primary criterion, there are advantages to
using what othes are using. If you're just working on your own projects,
any of the several products in this market will do the job quite handily.

If folks are making fun of tools they don't have as much experience with,
that generally tells you more about them than about the tool.

LE usually designates "limited edition", meaning it has essential features
but lacks many of the tools a professional would require. Sort of like the
difference bewtween Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. User interface may
look the same, but advanced features won't be included in LE versions. Sort
of a way to introduce the product at a lower cost and requires a much
simpler learning curve. You get what you pay for.

"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message
newsfUxf.80279$AP5.79828@edtnps84...
"Laurence Payne" wrote:

PT LE isn't ProTools. It's a toy application cashing in on the PT
name. But I agree, PT isn't focused on MIDI.



I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please summarize
the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Perhaps a system or configuration problem? I mean, if you were unable to
get ANYTHING out of it, audio or midi. When you've gained proficiency
between similar products, and then another product with advanced features
that does not replicate the others generally, it can be too time-consuming
to start at sqaure one when you know, "I can ditch these efforts and go with
what I know." especially if you are in the middle of production and can't
wait on learning a new system midstream. But that only speaks to the ease
of transition, not the capability of the new prog. But in a production
environment, ease and speed are certainly elements that decide which methods
are used. In many situations, "the best available" is simply over-kill,
anyway.

"Ted Perlman" wrote in message
m...
Sonar DOES work. It IS possible to figure it out. All you're telling
us about is your attitude

You have no idea how wrong you are, butthead. I've taught computer
recording
at university level (UCLA) - if my so called "attitude" about learning was
any way in question I wouldn't have that credit. Digidesign left me a
$50,000 Windows ProTools HD system recently for a few months and even
though
I am not a master "ProTools" user, I figured that program out in a day
(enough to work). I figured Studio Vision out in a few hours. Nuendo and
Cubase weren't hard to learn at all, I just had some issues setting up my
hardware instruments but it still didn't take very long. I learned Digital
Performer (enough to work) in a day, and was able to record and transfer
all
the files for a famous performer's entire live stage show. But Sonar? Like
I
said, for four months (even with the help of a Sonar beta tester) I could
not get any midi instruments to work, either virtual or hardware - and I
could not get the audio to play properly. My attitude through those four
months was excellent, or we'd be talking about 4 hours. The program is
anal
in it's concept and thought process. If you have only used Cakewalk/Sonar,
then you can grasp it immediately. However, if you are like me and have
used
"pro" software like Logic, ProTools, Nuendo, etc. for a long time, then
Sonar will appear as a foreign object in your mind processing. Nothing you
know about computer recording on a pro level will give you any advantages
in
Sonar. THAT is my "attitude" about the program. I know a lot of people who
use it and love it, but they are ALL long time Cakewalk/Sonar users.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

Laurence Payne wrote:

I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please
summarize the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?


http://www.digidesign.com/

Well, a more helpful response.. it's a limited 32 track product with a
subset of TDM's features. Less synchronization features, native plugins
only, etc. It's actually a good product, no slouch compared to the big
brother in many ways.

"Laurence Payne" wrote:

I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please
summarize the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?

http://www.digidesign.com/


You're a riot Alice. That's supposed to be funny?

You made a statement about the relative merits of one piece of software
vs. another, so back it up. Tell me how, according to you, LE falls
short of TDM.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

" wrote:

Well, a more helpful response.. it's a limited 32 track product

Understood. I can't imagine considering 32 tracks a "limitation," but I
know that's not the point.



with a subset of TDM's features.

Yeah, everyone always says that, but no one ever seems to know off the
top of their head what LE is missing. Neither do I.



Less synchronization features

Unless you get the DV Toolkit, in which case LE gets the full SMPTE
treatment. Otherwise that's true.



native plugins only

At the risk of sounding nitpicky, I've always considered that part of
the difference in *hardware* between TDM and LE, rather than a
difference in software capability. It's the onboard DSP that allows TDM
rigs to take processing off the CPU. It doesn't really make any
difference from the operator's perspective until/if the LE host computer
runs outta steam.



etc.

So what are the "etc.s?"

Don't take that the wrong way... I know what you're saying. I'm just
making a point. There seems to be a commonly held opinion that the TDM
version of the *software* offers some significant capability that the LE
version lacks. I haven't found those differences yet myself, so I'm
asking those who say they exist to tell me what they are.

Here's what I can identify:

- track count
- dedicated dsp takes load off CPU
- throughput delay not affected by host computer
- flexible I/O options

Three of those four are differences in hardware. I'd like to know if
anyone can think of anything I've missed at all, and specifically, if
there are functions available in the TDM version of the software that
are missing in the LE version.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"zuuum" wrote:

LE usually designates "limited edition", meaning it has essential
features but lacks many of the tools a professional would require.

That's not what I asked.

I asked *what* differences exist between Pro Tools LE and TDM versions
of the software.

So, I'll ask again: what features does Pro Tools TDM offer that LE
lacks?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:



So? All that tells us is that you're familiar with Cakewalk and you
didn't feel like learning another interface.

That's that way it is with most people. We don't always have the
patience to learn a new app. People usually stick with what's familiar.

mindseye wrote:



Sonar 1 was a dog and completely screwed with my PA9 files.
But S2.2 was great with my PA9 files and by opening old files,
I found my way around Sonar quite quickly. It did take a
little getting used to, but the power difference between PA9
and S2.2 was amazing. I've yet to upgrade from S2.2 so I can't
comment on the newer versions.


Sonar 2 is still very good. They stayed with that version before they
went to annual upgrades.

"zuuum" wrote:

Kind of like asking is Corel PhotoPaint a joke in the graphics
field. Just because Photoshop is more prevelant in the market
doesn't mean that Corel PP can't do everything just a well.


EXCELLENT example.

I used to use Corel myself, for years and years. Did many a layout with
Corel tools. Then one day I got Illustrator and Photoshop.

The difference was not in features -- there was nothing Photoshop would
do that CorelPaint wouldn't -- the difference was in the *results*.

I agree with your statement up to where you said "just as well." The
results I got with the Adobe product were MUCH better. In some cases
more precise, in others there were fewer objectionable artifacts, and in
others it was just more aesthetically pleasing.

You're right that this relates directly to the DAW discussion. Many
systems may offer the same feature, but the end result of the processing
may vary dramatically from one to the next.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Ethan Winer wrote:
Jeff,


are you using a pirated copy?


ROF,L. No, and it wasn't complimentary either. I paid for every version from
1.0 through 5.0. I was going to skip the 5.0 upgrade because 4.0 does more
than I'll ever need. Heck, 1.0 was plenty good enough. But everyone told me
5.0 was a very worthwhile upgrade so I bought that too.

Copy protection is a big problem, and I refuse to buy anything protected
with more than a serial number. Too many companies go out of business - even
big companies - and I'm not willing to see my investment (money AND time)
go down the toilet the next time I buy a new computer. I have been tricked a
few times though, like my recent purchase of Vegas 6 - DVD Architect won't
work until it's registered with a challenge response. Here's more on copy
protection:

www.ethanwiner.com/copyprot.html

--Ethan



Great article. Some guy that use to hang out here named Dennis had a
response to this as well.

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote:

PT LE isn't ProTools. It's a toy application cashing in on the PT
name. But I agree, PT isn't focused on MIDI.




I'd be grateful if you would elaborate on that. Can you please
summarize the differences between Pro Tools TDM and Pro Tools LE?


TDM=Too damn much
LE=Less expensive

Lorin David Schultz wrote:


Three of those four are differences in hardware. I'd like to know if
anyone can think of anything I've missed at all, and specifically, if
there are functions available in the TDM version of the software that
are missing in the LE version.


Part of the problem is I'm still running PT5/os9 on my mix rig at work
and 001/PT6/osx on my native rig at home (though I recently took that
down because I upgraded to a dual G5, where the 001 card won't fit). So
I don't really remember, and like you I seldom noticed.

The 32 track limitation was a real limitation to me, though, at times.

I think there's also a limitation in busses... plus support for higher
sampling rates above 96k is only in mix iirc (not like I care). How
about automatic plugin delay compensation, isn't that reserved for mix
systems and above?

From my knowlege, though, you've hit the major differences that I'm
aware of. I suspect for post production, there are some major
differences, though my workflow doesn't require them at this point so I
don't know about those.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:22:51 GMT, "Ted Perlman"
wrote:


Sonar is the most user unfriendly program I have ever used. That
doesn't mean it's a bad program, I just find it impossible to figure
out.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist


Now don't be silly! One of your credits is "producer". That's a
problem-solving gig. Solve the Sonar problem.

Sonar DOES work. It IS possible to figure it out. All you're telling
us about is your attitude.

I've played with lots of audio (and a few studio) apps, and Cakewalk's Sonar
and even their most recent HomeStudio are just fine for their respective
markets. No, they aren't "friendly" for every user, but neither is anything
else.

Want "high end" DAW capability? Explore the gamut, buy and use what suits
you best, learn its every nuance, and if it *still* doesn't work as you'd
like, explore furthter and/or join a beta-test team.

In article 1zXxf.79557$OU5.5186@clgrps13,
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote:



Don't take that the wrong way... I know what you're saying. I'm just
making a point. There seems to be a commonly held opinion that the TDM
version of the *software* offers some significant capability that the LE
version lacks. I haven't found those differences yet myself, so I'm
asking those who say they exist to tell me what they are.

Here's what I can identify:

- track count
- dedicated dsp takes load off CPU
- throughput delay not affected by host computer
- flexible I/O options

Three of those four are differences in hardware. I'd like to know if
anyone can think of anything I've missed at all, and specifically, if
there are functions available in the TDM version of the software that
are missing in the LE version.

All the ones that I can dredge up from memory, and a quick perusal of
the manual. The following are unavailable in the LE version:

Auto crossfade of regions
Beat Detective
Replace audio region
Repeat paste to fill selection
Compress/expand edit to play (I don't even know what the hell this does,
and it's too late to try and decypher the manual entry)
Trackpunch
Command focus (pre 6.1)
Universe window

I leave it to you to determine if these missing features constitute a
"crippled" version of the software!

JCh

--
Anti-Spam email address in effect.
My real email should be pretty obvious to an actual human being.

Ted,

I had Sonar for 4 months and could never get any sounds from it, either
midi or audio.

Do you remember which version of Sonar that was? They've made a lot of
improvements over the past few years. I too remember having to fiddle with a
bunch of tweaky stuff to get soft-synths to play in Sonar 1 and maybe even
Sonar 2. But by the time Sonar 4 came out, it was a very mature and stable
program. A lot of the "gotchas" that would cause no sound were fixed, like
the audio engine turning off if you looked at it sideways. The UI has also
been improved quite a lot. If you haven't seen Sonar since the first
versions you should have another look. If not to consider using it, at least
to have a more knowledgeable opinion.

--Ethan

Oh Yea, been a long time. I guess I should have said. Only a piano tuner
would remember something like this g
Max Arwood

"PapaNate" wrote in message
...
Or an REO Speedwagon fan...

Max Arwood wrote:

You can tunapiano but you can't tunafish

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:50 GMT, Glennbo
wrote:

Very awkward, but stylish looking.

That's a fair definition of (some) Macs :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Glennbo wrote:



No, in fact there are no buttons at all on his mouse. The whole body of
the mouse presses down for a big click. Very awkward, but stylish
looking.


Yes, it makes you feel uncoordinated using a Mac.

" wrote:

I think there's also a limitation in busses...

Internal busses doubled in LE version 7. What I don't know is if TDM
doubled as well, or if they're now the same. Either way, the old max of
16 was more than I ever needed.


plus support for higher sampling rates above 96k is only in mix iirc
(not like I care).

Oh yeah, I missed that one. I don't care either, though if I ever find
myself trying to record things I can't hear or stuff no typical system
can play back, I'll make sure to use a TDM rig! g



How about automatic plugin delay compensation, isn't that reserved
for mix systems and above?

I think that's handled by buffers in LE. Different approach, but same
net result.



I suspect for post production, there are some major differences,
though my workflow doesn't require them at this point so I don't
know about those.

That's the primary way I use it, and I haven't discovered them. That's
why I'm asking.

Like you, we've got an old G4/001 rig at the station that I'm trying to
get updated. Between Engineering, Accounting and Operations we've
managed to reach a point where nothing can happen. Some people insist
we really need a TDM rig. Since Accounting can't justify that kind of
cost, they've decided to do nothing.

I need to decide whether to jump on the TDM bandwagon and keep pressing
until we get it (which might mean another year or even two of using the
outdated 001 system we have now), or present an LE alternative that
Accounting might actually pay for. If LE really is inadequate, the
choice is clear. So far, I'm not convinced it is. I've posted many
spots and corporates on my lowly laptop with LE, so I'm left
wondering...

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

mindseye wrote:

That would be quite off putting. I hate apps that don't use
all the mouse buttons.

We've used Kensington trackballs since our first Mac in '94, and we have
buttons aplenty. I'll leave it to you to find how one does "right click"
on a Mac using the Apple-provided mouse. It ain't too difficult.

I wonder why folks want to diss that of which the obviously have little
knowledge? Use what you want to.

--
ha

"Ethan Winer" wrote:

Ted,

I had Sonar for 4 months and could never get any sounds from it, either
midi or audio.

Do you remember which version of Sonar that was? They've made a lot of
improvements over the past few years. I too remember having to fiddle with a
bunch of tweaky stuff to get soft-synths to play in Sonar 1 and maybe even
Sonar 2. But by the time Sonar 4 came out, it was a very mature and stable
program. A lot of the "gotchas" that would cause no sound were fixed, like
the audio engine turning off if you looked at it sideways. The UI has also
been improved quite a lot. If you haven't seen Sonar since the first
versions you should have another look. If not to consider using it, at least
to have a more knowledgeable opinion.

Ethan,

Thank you for this post. Here we have a response from someone who both
knows what might be the level of Ted's DAW chops, and also what the deal
with older versions of Sonar might be that would lead Ted to make his
statements. Seems to me that of all the Sonar users posting to this
thread, you might be the only one who really knows about the app and its
history.

--
ha

"Jeff Chestek" wrote:

All the ones that I can dredge up from memory, and a quick perusal of
the manual. The following are unavailable in the LE version:

Auto crossfade of regions
Beat Detective
Replace audio region
Repeat paste to fill selection
Compress/expand edit to play (I don't even know what the hell this
does, and it's too late to try and decypher the manual entry)
Trackpunch
Command focus (pre 6.1)
Universe window

At least the first two are now available in LE (Beat Detective being a
significant and recent add... the auto-crossfade has been around for a
while).

I *think* the rest are also available in LE (at least as of version 7),
but they're either things I've never bothered to use or things I can't
positively identify based on the terminology so I can't say for sure.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Jeff! I appreciate
it.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

PapaNate wrote:

Or an REO Speedwagon fan...

Max Arwood wrote:

You can tunapiano but you can't tunafish

I think Groucho said that first.

Antony Gelberg wrote:

mindseye wrote:

That would be quite off putting. I hate apps that don't use
all the mouse buttons.

Do your Windows apps only use two mouse buttons? Real computers and
apps use all three.

REAL computers, apps, & programmers use the KEYBOARD.

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Thank you for this post. Here we have a response from someone who both
knows what might be the level of Ted's DAW chops, and also what the deal
with older versions of Sonar might be that would lead Ted to make his
statements. Seems to me that of all the Sonar users posting to this
thread, you might be the only one who really knows about the app and its
history.

I get the impression you aren't familiar with many of the people in this
group. Many (most?) are long-time SONAR users, and, often, Cakewalk Pro
Audio users before that, sometimes even back to the earlier -- pre-audio
stuff. (I myself started with CWPA 9, and have been through every version
of SONAR from 1.0 to 5.0.1.) Most of us are also pretty familiar with Ted's
level of achievement in the industry, and have been exposed to his postings
on this newsgroup and the earlier Cakewalk-hosted newsgroups (replaced a few
years back by web-based forums -- many of the people here gravitaged here
after that change because we don't care much for the web forum format and
strongly prefer newsgroups) for a number of years.

I have to disagree with Ethan's assessment of older versions of SONAR,
though. While there were a few lemon versions early on, specifically any
version of SONAR 1.x prior to 1.3, even SONAR 2.0 was pretty solid out of
the gate. (For anyone who's interested in a trip down memory lane, or to
see how far we've come since SONAR 2.0, my review of SONAR 2 XL for
CakewalkNet is still on-line at
http://www.cakewalknet.com/index.php...87bc0877e0ccb5.)
While the audio engine could "fall over" -- I assume he means "drop out" --
a lot easier in the past than it can now, and was likely to glitch when
doing things like inserting an audio plug-in while playback was going (now a
thing of the past as of at least SONAR 4.0.3), that isn't the same thing as
not being able to get sound out of it at all, especially if you add in Ted's
assertion that he also couldn't get sound out of hardware MIDI modules
driven by SONAR, which wouldn't be flowing through SONAR's audio engine.
Also, if the audio engine was just dropping out (e.g. due to performance
issues), you'd see a red dropout light which would make it painfully obvious
what was happening.

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, Ted's issues with SONAR were not with
the very early versions, but with either SONAR 3 or 4 (perhaps I'm not
remembering correctly on that point, though). In any case, the tough thing
with something like this is that, without being in Ted's studio ourselves,
and inspecting what is going on with his system to troubleshoot the issues,
it is very difficult to understand why he could not get any sound out of
SONAR at all, as that is not generally a challenging thing to do with most
audio cards. About the only thing I can think of is if Windows were already
tying up the audio card in question, and the drivers for that card would not
permit concurrent use of the card by Windows and SONAR. But, if that were
it, that would be a pretty easy thing to resolve within 5-15 minutes once it
was discovered -- just disable Windows' separate use of it (and make sure
any other applications that might be automatically starting up to use that
card were also not active when trying to use SONAR). Even in that case,
though, if the version Ted were using was version 2.2 or later, it might
have also been possible to have SONAR use ASIO while Windows used an MME or
WDM interface, though that, too, would depend on the capabilities of the
audio card driver.

Bottom line is that the impression Ted seems to be trying to give is that
SONAR is defective because he couldn't get it to make sound on his system.
There are enough people who have used SONAR, from 1.0 onwards (and even 1.0
could make sound just fine -- it just had some really horrendous UI and
performance issues if you did certain things like break things down into a
huge number of clips, for example, for comping), to make it reasonable to
say that there was not a generic SONAR problem in this area. Rather, it had
to be something specifically related to Ted's configuration, either inside
or outside of SONAR, or both (which is probably more likely). I know Ted
has also mentioned having had a SONAR beta tester involved in helping him
troubleshoot the thing, still with no luck, but, without a name to have an
idea of that individual's level of expertise, that really doesn't say a lot.
I imagine Cakewalk, like many companies, has beta testers with all kinds of
levels of expertise, to try and get a representative picture of their user
base. And even if the person was actually a total SONAR guru, that doesn't
necessarily mean he was also versed in how to detect and resolve Windows
driver conflicts. And SONAR has in the past used audio drivers differently
than ASIO-based applications like Cubase/Nuendo and also differently than
other non-ASIO-based Windows applications that were just using MME (Wave)
drivers. Nowadays (since SONAR 2.2) SONAR can also use ASIO drivers, but
you still have to tell it to do that instead of using WDM/KS drivers (the
default when SONAR is installed).

At this point I get the impression that Ted no longer cares about getting
SONAR to work on his system. However, if he should ever decide to give it
another go, I imagine there are many of us here who would be happy to try
and help him suss out any "getting sound out of it", and other, issues he
may encounter. Heck, I'm curious enough about this darn thing that I might
even volunteer to drive up to wherever he is (I do think he's somewhere in
SoCal -- I'm in south Orange County) just to try and get the thing put to
rest if e-mail and/or newsgroup discussions didn't cut it. ;-)

Rick
--
=====================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~rickpaul
MP3s: http://www.soundclick.com/rickpaul
=====================================

In many situations, "the best available" is simply over-kill

Very true. For me, the ease in which problems can be solved without having
to get outside help is a big factor in determining what software and
hardware to use. It's one of the reasons I have stayed with PC's instead of
going to a Mac, and one of the reasons why I enjoy working with Nuendo so
much. And one of the reasons why I am no longer using that piece of crap
Ass-**** machine, and have gone back to my reliable an powerful P4/3.4.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

No, in fact there are no buttons at all on his mouse

You can use a multi button mouse with Macs. They just do not come as
standard equipment.



--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

Do you remember which version of Sonar that was

Sonar 4.

I took it off my machine when it caused everything else to stop working. I
have never seen a software that installed itself so system-invasively that a
problem inherent only to that software could cause a system-wide
malfunction, especially with Windows XP.


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com

Bottom line is that the impression Ted seems to be trying to give is that
SONAR is defective because he couldn't get it to make sound on his system

No, Sonar just doesn't work for ME. I'm sure you Sonar users are more than
happy using the software. It's not defective, I just happen to think that
it's design is anal compared to other Windows pro recording apps.

I kept with it for 4 months. That's longer than I world keep a woman if I
couldn't figure out how to get any sounds out of her (a great straight line
if there ever was one :-)


--
Regards,

Ted Perlman
Producer-Arranger-Composer-Guitarist

www.tedperlman.com