I get angry and depressed by Sound On Sound...

[SOS Hugh]

We feel that jumping on a Reaper bandwagon at the expense of DP deserves criticism - which your publication clearly doesn't like.

No one 'likes' criticism, GuitarGaz, but we do appreciate all feedback we receive -- good and bad -- and it does help to shape our future publishing decisions. And we allow both positive and negative comments to appear on our website, as you well know.

As for the 'Repear bandwagon,' while we respect your perspective (and that of some of your colleagues here) we don't agree with you. We see our role as being fundamentally to satisfy the interests of as many of our readers as we possibly can. It appears to us that a large number are interested in using Reaper and we are addressing that need in the most pragmatic way available to us.

The retail cost of Reaper is irrelevant to that decision, as is the claim that some users choose to continue to use free trial versions beyond the intended period.

It is not our role to police any aspect of the industry, its manufacturers or its users, although we do take a positive stand against piracy and illegal use of software.

Moving forward, you and your colleagues have voiced your concerns and criticisms. We have listened and offered you our explanations for the rational and considered decisions we have made.

We respect your views and understand your disappointment, but this is where we are. It would be helpful if you and your colleagues could respect our decisions and at least try to understand our reasoning for the reduction of the frequency of DP Notes. That way we can all move forward. Things may change in the future, who knows? But I have to say that this continuing whinging and griping isn't winning any friends.

Regarding the SOS forum posts you say are missing all I can say, once again, is that there is no log of anything posted and removed, and none of the moderators has logged the removal of any of your posts. We have very strict procedures in place about maintaining audit trails on the few occasions when posts are removed. Given the evidence at hand, all I can assume is that the posts you say are missing were never received by the site database.

I've no idea what you said in these supposedly missing posts, but I can't see any reason from your previous posts why anyone would want to remove them either. I also note you had no problems posting two more posts on the SOS forums today.

hugh

[Guitar Gaz]

I wanted to test whether I was missing something when posting - but I did the same today as I did with at least 3 new posts in the last week or so. So all we can say is it is a mystery why at least 3 mildly critical recent posts have gone. As I said, I am not really bothered about the SOS forum and don't expect free speech anyway on forums. My gripe remains with the content of SOS and a survey which many DP users missed - but it is not worth expending more effort - and is not worth further posts on the SOS forums. But thanks for your reply.

[SOS Hugh]

I did the same today as I did with at least 3 new posts in the last week or so. So all we can say is it is a mystery why at least 3 mildly critical recent posts have gone.

It is, indeed a mystery. I was away at the AES convention for the first half of last week, and on a lecture tour for the second half, so I spent no time on the forums myself last week. I know there was a problem with the database of the MRT forum yesterday, which might have resulted in unregistered posts, but there have been no other reports of site problems.

However, in an effort to restore your faith -- and that of your colleagues here who may have a false impression of the way we operate --can I suggest that you try posting your mildly critical posts once again. If they don't turn up, email or PM the same text to me and I'll explore further... posting the content myself if I have to!

...and don't expect free speech anyway on forums.

That is probably a wise expectation, but the fact remains that we only ever remove posts that are blatently inappropriate. Fair comment and personal opinion -- even when strongly critical -- is tolerated perfectly well on the SOS forums, as a seach of both the feedback forums will quickly confirm.

My gripe remains with the content of SOS and a survey which many DP users missed - but it is not worth expending more effort - and is not worth further posts on the SOS forums. But thanks for your reply.

I can't help with the fact that some DP users missed the previous SOS survey I'm afraid. Large numbers did respond to it and we have to assume that the percentages for the various DAW platforms are realistic.

You are right in that there is little point in expending further effort on this debate though. I'm as tired of repeating myself as you and your colleagues are, no doubt, of reading it.

I appreciate your courteous reply though,

regards

Hugh

[Guitar Gaz]

You might just want to check your facts before accepting someone else's unfounded claim and then inadvertantly slandering someone or some organisation ...

"Slander?" Really? Do I need to "lawyer up" now or what? Guitar Gaz said his post or posts were removed. I am just catching up with this thread, so I'll read on to see if you're saying he's a liar or not.

Well I am not a liar and not sure what facts you could have checked - I wasn't particularly bothered about the posts that seemed to have been disappeared. Slander is a strong word and actually not even relevant or appropriate in this sort of issue. And therein lies the tale - I asked on the SOS forum for an explanation and didn't get one - only a post from some guy who slags off DP users. Hugh only posted to this forum when I raised it here on this forum - but not on the SOS forum. He has now replied on the SOS forum - but only just now. Funny way to do business - had anyone replied on the SOS forum I probably would not have mentioned it here - they didn't reply and it made me more suspicious. To call this slander is quite bizarre. Certainly he should not be having a go at you - a lecture on checking your facts? What is this - a court of law? Clearly not worth wasting more of your time with this - I promise not to mention SOS again for fear of being accused of slander and getting DP users and James into trouble.

[FMiguelez]

.

Hello, Hugh.

What I would like to know is:
Can we safely assume that if DP scored higher in your future reference polls, you would reinstate it as a monthly regular column? And if by some sort of magic, Reaper (or any other DAW) happened to score the lowest, would you actually take the same action you did with DP?

Would it be accurate to state that's SOS's policy?

Thanks for clarifying.

[SOS Hugh]

Well I am not a liar and not sure what facts you could have checked - I wasn't particularly bothered about the posts that seemed to have been disappeared.

I'm confused with all the quotes in quotes as to exactly who you're addressing. If it's me, I have never suggested you're a liar. Only that I can't find any evidence to support your claims.

Slander is a strong word and actually not even relevant or appropriate in this sort of issue.

I was offering advice to James who appeared in danger of reitierating unfounded allegations as fact. This is a dangerous pasttime for a forum moderator.

I asked on the SOS forum for an explanation and didn't get one

You did get one. You were told they hadn't gone missing. I'm surprised none of the forum moderators confirmed that fact in my absence, but the post was correct.

As I mentioned earlier, I have been away from the forum recently but as soon as I became aware of your apparent posting problems I investigated thoroughly. That took some time. On completion of my checks I was able to confirm that we don't believe any of your received posts have been removed, and posted to that effect.

Hugh only posted to this forum when I raised it here on this forum - but not on the SOS forum. He has now replied on the SOS forum - but only just now. Funny way to do business

Nothing particularly odd in this. I only have one pair of hands to type with... and as it happens, I chose to look over and respond in this forum before I addressed my normal routine work on the SOS forums. That's why I ended up posting back here first... but only by a matter of a few minutes.

To call this slander is quite bizarre.

Slander: the act or offence of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody's reputation

You, GuitaraGaz, posted to that you thought we had removed your posts. Fair enough -- it's your personal point of view. Incorrect as it happens and we've had that discussion.

James chose to further that erroneous claim unchallenged and as an implied statement of fact in two subsequent posts. Not clever. I did not suggest James has slandered anybody, but I was offering advice that he might find himself in that position inadvertantly.

I will not let unfair or unfounded allegations that are damaging to SOS in any way to go unchallenged.

Hugh

[James Steele]

Slander is a strong word and actually not even relevant or appropriate in this sort of issue.

I was offering advice to James who appeared in danger of reitierating unfounded allegations as fact. This is a dangerous pasttime for a forum moderator.

Well, here it is, eh, Hugh? So you come here now to make thinly-veiled threats? Apparently SOS has a thinner skin that I realized. Guitar Gaz posted that he made posts that ended up missing. I said "since it's that way," I might delete some posts here. I should have said "if it's that way." Given that you've just come over to this forum and made a quasi-ominous statement about my "dangerous pastime" that could be construed as a threat, you'll forgive me if I don't automatically assume SOS would be above such a thing. When the news first broke that SOS was dropping (or cutting back depending on how one interprets events) Performer Notes, we started an email campaign and made it clear to be civil. Someone from SOS came over here explain while delivering a backhand slap across the face about being deluged with abusive and vitriolic email. While you may have received SOME email that could be characterized that way, I would be willing to bet it was a minority of the email received on the subject, but it was mentioned here as a tactic to put this DP community on the defensive. This implied threat seems like more of the same to me. If you think you have a legal case for slander against me, then proceed. Otherwise, you might lay off the implied threats. Unless that's how SOS does business?

I asked on the SOS forum for an explanation and didn't get one

You did get one. You were told they hadn't gone missing. I'm surprised none of the forum moderators confirmed that fact in my absence, but the post was correct.

As I mentioned earlier, I have been away from the forum recently but as soon as I became aware of your apparent posting problems I investigated thoroughly. That took some time. On completion of my checks I was able to confirm that we don't believe any of your received posts have been removed, and posted to that effect.

James chose to further that erroneous claim unchallenged and as an implied statement of fact in two subsequent posts. Not clever. I did not suggest James has slandered anybody, but I was offering advice that he might find himself in that position inadvertantly.

I will not let unfair or unfounded allegations that are damaging to SOS in any way to go unchallenged.

Ahh, okay... not a threat... a kindly public service. I get it. I may have been wrong. His posts may somehow disappeared through some bizarre board malfunction, or it was user error. I'll take your denial on face value, Hugh. If you're truly not deleting critical posts over there, I'm certainly not going to delete posts over here. Still, I make no apologies for assuming SOS might have done what was suggested-- because to my mind it was not outside the realm of possibility.

The only sort of posts I might consider deleting are posts which could be construed to contain implied legal threats against myself and only you have done so to this point.

Other issues:

64-bit Compatibility:
I didn't see your apology, because I stopped bothering to go over to the SOS Forum. There's not a lot there that interests me and I have my hands full with this forum as it is. Besides, it's not as if there's much to discuss. SOS makes it's position clear. As a DP user, however, I appreciate the apology. What bothers me is this "oversight" seems to convey a certain bias that as a DP user I'm disappointed by. Simple as that.


REAPER:
Yes, this has been beaten to death. To distill it down, my "angst" about Cockos/Reaper is I FEEL that the increasing number of Reaper users is due in so small part to the fact that it is being dumped onto the market in a way that makes it essentially FREE to those who aren't inclined to part with $40 to ease their guilt.

THEREFORE:

• It is my OPINION that Reaper has a much larger percentage of non-paying "PIRATE" users than other DAWs.
• It is my OPINION that Cockos could easily implement a more effective anti-piracy strategy than the token effort they're making currently.
• It is my OPINION that Cockos doesn't do so because they can afford to allow piracy to help grow their customer base and popularity as evidenced by greater publicity in certain publications.
• It is my OPINION that continued improvement and refinement of Reaper coupled with aggressive undercutting and widespread "easy" piracy may end up having harmful effects by reducing the number of competitors in this space. I fear that developers with staff of greater than two individuals, will cease aggressive development or treat DAWs as loss leaders to include with their hardware.
• And lastly, it is my OPINION, that SOS cares not one whit about any of that so long as it can personally make money off of that user base.

These are all my opinions, and you have so much as said here that your job is to cater to whatever user base is larger. I recognize that SOS is a business and not a charity. I recognize that you are under no obligation to care about ANY of these issues in regard to Cockos. It's easy to sit safely on the sidelines and talk about "new trends" and "cost effective DAWs" when it's not your ox getting gored.

We will never be able to answer the question as to how the Reaper user base breaks down. For example, just a crazy example (not real numbers) it could be like this:

33% - "I bought Reaper because of its great feature set."
33% - "I bought Reaper because it was much cheaper than other DAWs.
33% - "I didn't pay for it. A friend told me I could get it free on the net."

You suggest I blame MOTU and take it up with them, but the way I see it, MOTU's hands are tied in competing for the business of 2/3 of the users. They can't give it away, and they can't sell it for $40. And they certainly can't afford to remove copy protection. I'm not sure what MOTU (or other developers) do for that matter.

Apple of course is immune to these market forces. They have iPhones, iPods, iPads, iTunes. They don't need to make a DIME on Logic. It's just a piece in their larger strategy, and they are the only ones with deep enough pockets to fight on the basis of price-cutting if they must.

The only reason Reaper pops up is that it's prime example of building market share by aggressive pricing and creating a legion of non-paying pirate users, all the while adding features and buying time toward one day, just maybe, competing on a level playing field. This strategy is "reaping" rewards, as in increased coverage in publications. I only hope some DAW developers can figure out how to compete in this climate, because losing money or defacto giving product away, isn't an option for most of them. And I wonder if SOS ever thinks about that, and if their neutrality in this issue and enthusiastic promotion of Reaper, might end up having a negative impact on consumer choice in the futre?

[James Steele]

I'll add that if the day should come Cockos adds even simple serial number protection to Reaper, I will temper my criticism, recognizing that having built a large portion of their user base by benefiting from piracy, they are no longer actively building it in this fashion. Just wonder if there will be casualties in the meantime among DAWs that can't match the cheap/free strategy? Maybe it should be Grim Reaper, until then?

[Guitar Gaz]

Hugh - my reply was to James not to you. Slander was inappropriate not just because there was no malicious intent (just a suspicion and confusion over postings I submitted which disappeared).

But also if you are going to make threats of legal action you need to get your terminology right. Slander is of course spoken, libel is written.

I did ask on the SOS forum and got no reply. I then raised the issue on this forum a few days later with a weary resignation as I had no reply and suspected there was some censorship. Forum moderators often censor or remove posts - often for legal reasons. I would not have been surprised or particularly upset if my posts had been deleted. You subsequently replied on this forum and only replied on the SOS forum a bit earlier today. You say none of my recent posts were deleted - I have to accept your statement - I did submit posts and they seem to have disappeared, and I tested it today and did the same things and they were accepted. The attitude towards DP by SOS engenders suspicion amongst some of us DP users - although one of your mates on the forum seems to think we are foaming at the mouth. Not so.

James has made no allegation as far as I can see - he is only commenting on what has been said. I don't think that could ever be construed as libel. And yet you make veiled threats couched in legal sounding language. Which of course you got wrong. Perhaps you should check your facts in future.

[BKK-OZ]

Maaaaaaayyybeeee it would be good if we dialed it down a tad, eh?

J Steele is an honourable guy, that's a fact, and the evidence for it is all over this site. Guitar Gaz has also only ever been straight up and honest (at least, AFAIK! )

I have no reason to doubt what Hugh is saying herein - I think there is either a misunderstanding or someone has got a fact or two wrong, but again, Hugh really doesn't have any interest in coming here and trying to upset anyone, so I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, different people see things differently, and that is OK, but let's not be rash and jump to conclusions.

I'm just sayin', there is so much real angst, violence, terror and other bad stuff to worry about in the world in which we all live, do we really have to get ourselves tied up in knots over a section in a magazine, is it really that important to fret over?

Now, speaking of frets, how about we talk about music, making music and all the good stuff that comes with that?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

[James Steele]

No... no... I get it. Let's join hands... Kumbaya and all that. There will always be WORSE things in the world. I'm just a little put off that a representative from SOS would come here and fill me on in the "danger" of my comments. Not really sure how to take that, but perhaps Hugh might agree he could word it in such a way that it doesn't come of as threatening.

[n2mpujack]

No... no... I get it. Let's join hands... Kumbaya and all that. There will always be WORSE things in the world. I'm just a little put off that a representative from SOS would come here and fill me on in the "danger" of my comments. Not really sure how to take that, but perhaps Hugh might agree he could word it in such a way that it doesn't come of as threatening.

Thank you James for bringing and keeping this issue into the light and not hiding it like a couple of posters here would have you do. It's your forum and you run it as you see fit.

Not having posted on the SOS forums I wonder if Gaz made his posts, they showed up on the forum immediately after they were made, got deleted by a moderator, and then put back on the forum? And the tracks that would lead to this were doctored as well? Pure speculation on this.

What is not speculation is that this whole DP issue has gotten under Mr. Robjohn's skin and he wishes it would go away. He's realizing he and the magazine made a mistake with Performer Notes and is trying to shift blame away from him and onto us DP users for using a "minority" DAW.

[Guitar Gaz]

I think SOS need to tone down a bit on the language of defence as James says - no need for this type of quasi legal language which clearly proves that they don't really know the law anyway. The original "allegation" (if that is what it was) made on the 11th November on the SOS forum said:

"I wondered why some of my posts are being deleted. They are critical but not vitriolic. Could someone please explain?

--------------------
Guitar Gaz "

It was a question really - not an allegation. And anyone who knows libel laws (which Hugh clearly doesn't) would realise that usually the publisher of an alleged libel is sued. If this question was seen as libelous, seeing as this appeared on the SOS Forum originally without response for 3 days, then SOS is the publisher. If they think that it is libel, then they should delete it from their site.

I asked a question, SOS have eventually replied to my question - I am not a liar so clearly there is a mystery on which we can draw our conclusions. Hugh has asked me to re-submit my missing posts which was good of him, but I didn't keep them and don't want to prolong this. As I said the actual posts were not that important. The main gripe remains about the attitude of SOS towards DP.

[SOS Hugh]

James,

It is clear to me that continuing this discussion further would be pointless. You appear unwilling to take on board anything I’ve said, or accept any of the explanations and points I’ve offered. I find that very sad, but I’ll not waste any more time trying to appease you.

My comment about slander wasn’t intended as a threat and I’m sorry you took it that way. I’m also indebted to GuitarGaz – he is quite right about the more appropriate term being, libel of course. Just highlights the point that it wasn’t intended as a formal legal threat, but was simply an off-the-cuff comment, genuinely meant as constructive advice.

Repeating hearsay as fact is a dodgy thing to do, even if done inadvertently – as is using copyrighted pictures and logos without permission which I know you have also been informed about elsewhere. I just sensed a degree of naivety and was trying to steer you to a safer course before things really did get out of hand. I’m sorry my efforts were misunderstood – but as we all know, that is all too easy when conversing via faceless forums and emails.

I’ll not wade through all your points in detail – I’m sure neither of us has the time or inclination to continue this, nor other forum users the will to read it. What I will do, though, is clarify the facts one final time.

1. Some of your forum members did send abusive emails, both to me and to a number of other members of SOS staff. It wasn’t a huge number, but they were very unpleasant, totally unnecessary and completely unproductive.

2. Our forum policy is not to delete complaining forum posts. We prefer to respond to them as constructively as we can. A quick search through the two feedback forums will reveal this to be the case. We do not censor or remove posts of any kind unless absolutely necessary, and even then there always remains a clear audit trail of any actions taken.

3. I can’t explain why GuitarGaz’s posts apparently disappeared. All I can say is that there is no record whatsoever of any posts being received from him between 31 Oct and 11 Nov. None arrived and none were removed. He has posted successfully since the 11th and I have invited him to repost the critical comments he claims went missing to prove that there was and will be no censorship.

4. I’m glad you have finally accepted my apology over the embarrassing omission of a reference to DP in our 64-bit article. That at least is a small and positive step forward.

5. I respect and in some ways understand your opinions regarding Reaper, but I don’t share them fully. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

6. Regarding GuitarGaz’s comments about the SOS post referring to ‘foaming at the mouth’ – clearly I’m not responsible for the opinions and impressions voiced by other forum users. But I will point out that I did admonish that particular forum user in public in another similar thread where I felt he was being inappropriately discourteous to the Motunation users.

7. I thank BKK for his wise and cooling words.

8. I’m greatly dismayed by n2mpujacks ludicrous speculations! All I can say is SOS is comfortable with the current balance of content and there is no blame to shift. We appreciate what some DP users remain disappointed with the reduction in frequency of Performer Notes, but we must move on now – and we’d like to do so as friends rather than enemies.

I’ll draw the line there as I think all has been said that needs to be said.

Regards to all

Hugh

[James Steele]

James,

It is clear to me that continuing this discussion further would be pointless. You appear unwilling to take on board anything I’ve said, or accept any of the explanations and points I’ve offered. I find that very sad, but I’ll not waste any more time trying to appease you.

We really have a failure to communicate, Hugh. I'm not asking for appeasement. I'm simply stating my position as I have all along. You disagree. Fair enough. SOS is of diminished value to Digital Performer users than it used to be and it's not very much top of mind over there. That's all I'm saying. In light of that I'm simply re-evaluating whether it's worth it to continue an SOS subscription. Period.

Repeating hearsay as fact is a dodgy thing to do, even if done inadvertently – as is using copyrighted pictures and logos without permission which I know you have also been informed about elsewhere.

Ahhh, another little *dig* couched in polite language, eh, Hugh. I could cut the condescension with a knife. As you know, it was removed. The only reason that banner was put there was to let DP users know about your awards so that we might be represented since, yes, as you pointed out, not all of us read SOS cover-to-cover. Many people can miss things like that.

I just sensed a degree of naivety and was trying to steer you to a safer course before things really did get out of hand.

Naive? Uhh... okay. Well don't worry about me, Hugh. I won't step over the bounds that brings a trans-oceanic lawsuit by Sound On Sound. And what's out of hand? Just where is MY freedom of speech? I'll say whatever I wish about Sound On Sound, and I trust I'll hear from you when when my speech becomes "actionable." Frankly, if I wanted to I could put a banner up in the left corner that says "SOUND ON SOUND MAGAZINE SUCKS" and there's not damned thing you could do about it. For starters, SOS SUCKS for coming over here when the initial controversy erupted and painting DP users with a broad brush with this smug, condescending nugget: "...as we are sure that the barrage of vitriolic and abusive emails that the SOS editorial staff have received over the last few days is in no way representative of the views of the vast majority of Digital Performer users."

You may think me naive, but I know how to both convey and perceive an insult or threat wrapped in "polite language."

1. Some of your forum members did send abusive emails, both to me and to a number of other members of SOS staff. It wasn’t a huge number, but they were very unpleasant, totally unnecessary and completely unproductive.

So, it wasn't a HUGE number then. Well, did you ever allow for the human factor, Hugh? That we're not robots and there's just a fraction of people in this world that will express themselves that way. Geez... sorry it was unpleasant. That's life. I'm not responsible despite what you might think. We asked people to be respectful when raising our concerns. If it wasn't a huge number, the only reason for mentioning it was to try to dodge the actual issue at hand and find some sort of "gotcha" to throw back in the face of your DP-using customers. There's was really no reason to bring it up at all, unless you're trying to "get one up" and attack the messenger rather than the message.

2. Our forum policy is not to delete complaining forum posts. We prefer to respond to them as constructively as we can. A quick search through the two feedback forums will reveal this to be the case. We do not censor or remove posts of any kind unless absolutely necessary, and even then there always remains a clear audit trail of any actions taken.

As you've said. It's just odd. Did I not say that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to some sort of odd malfunction. As you say, it's hard to explain.

4. I’m glad you have finally accepted my apology over the embarrassing omission of a reference to DP in our 64-bit article. That at least is a small and positive step forward.

Not "finally"-- I accepted it. As I said, I don't bother reading the SOS forum most of the time. So I didn't see it until it was posted here. Your DP user customers/subscribers are probably sensitive to things like this since I believe somewhere it was said Performer Notes would be every other month, and as of the middle of November it has appeared just THREE TIMES in 2010. Correct me if I'm wrong. I also noticed there were other DAW features in the 25th Anniversary Issue, so not sure what that has to do with it.

5. I respect and in some ways understand your opinions regarding Reaper, but I don’t share them fully. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Exactly. I don't think we will agree. On top of it, even if the surging popularity of Reaper is due in part to lack of copy-protection and easy of piracy, SOS like Cockos is benefiting from this growing base and catering to it. You couldn't fully agree with me and still be clamoring to cater to these users. I think much of this murkiness will go away should Cockos ever decide to make it less easy to steal their DAW. Right now they park their cars in bad neighborhoods with the keys in the ignition and the engine running and then get kudos for having more cars on the road than GM or Ford.

6. Regarding GuitarGaz’s comments about the SOS post referring to ‘foaming at the mouth’ – clearly I’m not responsible for the opinions and impressions voiced by other forum users. But I will point out that I did admonish that particular forum user in public in another similar thread where I felt he was being inappropriately discourteous to the Motunation users.

Right. Well, you can't be responsible for SOS forum users any more than I'm responsible for a few people who wrote "abusive" emails.

As far as opinions of other users on your forum, I posted in the topic critical of the new video section. This was your quote:

HUGH: "If we had reduced the amount of audio-related techniques and technology content in the magazine, I could understand your gripe."

I followed with this:

ME: "Oh, but you have! Performer Notes, anyone? I'm a Digital Performer user, so do you understand mine then?"

Now since we're so good at parsing words, you may say that you haven't reduced the "amount" of audio-related content... just the type. Performer Notes has been published THREE TIMES in 2010. I feel it was related.

But pack on subject, one of YOUR users then said this about my post:

MIXEDUP: "I would be grateful if you could resist trolling other threads where your views on DP are way off-topic — and I suspect I am far from alone in that."

To which YOU replied: "Quite so."

So, if your users step up and quell the discontent for you, that's okay? Because the way I see is SOS's push to get ahead of the curve on the big demand for musicians making their own indy videos, are pages unavailable for Performer Notes.

We appreciate what some DP users remain disappointed with the reduction in frequency of Performer Notes, but we must move on now – and we’d like to do so as friends rather than enemies.

Well, of course we're disappointed. I mean, I didn't vote in a poll that determined our fate and didn't know about it. Lots of readers didn't. That'll teach us! But "enemies" is a harsh characterization. SOS basically said that the DP readership isn't important to SOS anymore. Not AS important as other platforms. There's nothing angry about it. All I've said is that SOS does not represent the same value to Digital Performer using subscribers that it used to-- all this talk of us scouring the columns on other DAWs scratching for those little gems of wisdom in the dirt. When I suggested that there are gems of wisdom in Performer Notes that could be useful to other DAW users... well... somehow that's different.

There's no bitterness. I'm simply a customer who bought one product, and now it's turned into another. You've changed the content on me. Then we were told every other month, and Performer Notes has appeared three times thus far in 2010. I just can't see SOS being valuable to me, and if I *FEEL* that SOS has "tuned out" my DAW... whether intentionally or even not (aka the "embarrassing oversight") then I'm well within my rights to choose not to spend money for the subscription any more. Given that DP users are such a small contingent, this should cause no concern over there.