All Activity

hi I'm writing to report a bug (which I assume is only graphical) in the new version of LP EQ. When I switch to mid/side, select an edit point, and change it, when I close and reopen the plugin window, it no longer shows mid or side but left/right. I've attached a video of the problem. Thank you very much.

But what Im saying is that in the case of both the examples above, there would be no difference if the instrument track was a split or a simple? Both can receive midi data from any midi track. They can also receive data from the output of another instrument if it is set to output midi data. Say you woke up one day and the latest update simply removed the option for the split instrument. All existing split instruments would open now as simple instrument tracks and because the icon is the same you would not even notice any difference. ?? Yes?

I do have them...but it seems I can get the same result by two approaches.

I can't explain why without "going there" but I do believe there is a process in the works to, uh, undo the halt that was previously implemented. It wasn't an overnight process to rebuild our buffer so to speak, but it has started. And by the time it gets fixed, a different idiot will move in and undo it again. I've lost faith in all of them to be honest. I no longer support one or the other. I just want to be left alone to live out my few remaining years in peace 'cause there ain't a darn thing I can do about any of it. I'm really sick to my stomach over this memory thing. It literally happened overnight while I was busy working and didn't have time to watch. But it wouldn't have mattered anyway. It literally happened overnight, not gradually. At least from what I've read. I have a spreadsheet I created months ago when I finally decided which parts I was going to go with. $1305 for the fastest pc you can build. I don't know if Amazon screwed up, but I got a steal on the cpu and I've never seen it that low again. I should have bought 10 and resold them on ebay. Because of the memory, my great deal DIY build went up to almost $2300. I didn't listen back in June when everyone said there is something coming and ram prices would skyrocket and nothing would be available. Yeah, I could have built a less powerful pc, but at the time the deal was so unbelievable on the cpu, I built the system around that never dreaming this would happen. Anyway, it's all been purchased. All I'm waiting for is the RAM and case, which I got screwed on too. It says in the specs that the case supports a 360mm top mount aio and bays for 5.25 drives which I have to have, but what it didn't say was they both couldn't be installed at the same time. The only case that allows both at the same time that I could find, and I had to use AI to help, is $450. I'll leave the freaking sata wires and power supply wires hanging out the side with the drive dangling there before they suck another penny out of me for this garbage. Lol. Btw, that price does not include a video card. I'll be using my old 3060 which everyone tells me will bottleneck on my cpu and run worse than it does in my current system. I'm going to have to wait until the vram price hike hits before I can even think about a new gpu.

I use both depending on context: - If it's an, ahem, simple part, I'll use a Simple Instrument Track just to save screen space, as it's unlikely I need quick access to all MIDI parameters - If it's an instrument with multiple outputs, I'll probably use split tracks for consistency across the (audio) tracks - If it's a drum synth (likely with multiple audio outs anyway), I'll probably use one track per kit piece (or pieces like all Toms); before anyone says "Drum Maps", I know about them, but I may want to apply a different MIDI FX to the different kit pieces (laziness for randomisation purposes, for example) - One particular example was where I wanted to use the built-in arpeggiator but change patterns (or, I think, not have the notes arpeggiated for part of the project, and I was seeing unexpected behaviour with the enable/disable switch) so I put each different arpeggiator on a different MIDI track, both pointing to the same synth (everything audio needed to be the same for both parts).

Uninstalled latest version of Sonar. (Would not shut down and was crashing). Now, when I pull up the Product Center to reinstall, it says 'Installer requires Cakewalk Sonar version 2025.09' I cannot find this file? Help? Ideas? Thank you.

I think the key element you are overlooking is that the drum channels in Superior Drummer 3 have to be assigned to different output channels if you want to use them on separate tracks in Sonar, or any other DAW. I can't find anything Superior Drummer 3 that is Sonar specific on YouTube but here is a related video on setting up Superior Drummer 3 output channels in a different DAW. I have it set so the video starts where he's assigning the drum channels to different OUTPUT channels, and that is the most important thing to understand before you can go any further. https://youtu.be/Yv7J6o4fY_w?si=-DMjJb20g1NV7EA4&t=412

I found it now! It wasn't "Insert Superior Drummer, stereo outputs, multiouts", BUT you need to create a drum bus first, then add multiple tracks, e.g. 6 with the target "drum bus"...this will automatically create the tracks AND look exactly like in my screenshot above. Or is the result the same, but looks different?

I, too am a "splitter," despite having begun using the program when CbB came out. One thing that I do regularly that I'd find more difficult to do with a Simple Instrument track is drive multiple synths with a single MIDI track. Although, frustratingly, Sonar has no native way of doing this, it can be done with the help of certain MIDI plug-ins that themselves include MIDI out. Part of my song creation process is to experiment on the fly with different sounds, especially drum sounds. Having the MIDI data separate from the drum machine allows me to quickly switch back and forth between two different drum machines. When I was first learning CbB, separate MIDI/Synth tracks just seemed more versatile, so I got used to using them. I agree that part of the Sonar culture still seems to involve hanging on to old workflows so as not to disturb the set in their ways grumpy old man contingent. I've learned to emphasize the word "option" whenever I make a FR like this one, because there will inevitably be someone totally opposed to whatever change and don't want to be forced to adopt it.

Next thing I would try is, with Sonar closed, rename your AUD.INI file. It will be rebuilt next time you start Sonar. This file is in the following folder: (Make sure you configure Windows to show file extensions) %AppData%\Cakewalk\sonar\

Thanks. I got the first one which was ho hum, so I decided to wait to see what others thought of the subsequent days. Glad I didn't miss much.

That small number on the top left of a clip means that the clip is part of a Clip Selection Group. See: (Or Search "Clip Selection Group" in Sonar’s Help( http://legacy.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=CakewalkSonar&language=3&help=Arranging.34.html

Thanks! Yes, but it doesn't work for me. It worked some months ago when following a YouTube tutorial. Unfortunately, I did not save the link to the video. Now following the official Toontrack tutorial does not work...it looks different as shown in the screenshot of my previous post "working template" vs. "new attempt".

Pretty sure I've never seen this before. Some of the clips in my project have a number, while most don't. It's not part of the clip name. What does this indicate?

it was a connection issue. I consider myself an expert by now dealing with NI's failures.

Apparently you can ask BOS for it directly here: https://discord.com/channels/943190629826068500/1251269239768219649/1447233893320097822 But so far, you're not really missing anything special.

The annoying thing is if you miss any day, you cannot go back and get it.

Thanks. I understand Your idea. So I deleted all ASIO registry entries with Yamaha/Steinberg, reboot. I also deleted any Steinberg driver. Then all other Asio-entries, except the RME ones. Reboot. Quick re-insallation of Cakewalk Sonar and RME driver. But this didn´t solve the problem. :o(

Sorry, MusicMan - I had this all wrong. Thanks for spelling this out. All that GAS has blurred my judgement. I didn't realize you add the completely unknown thing to the cart! Who knew mysterybloat could be so fun!

Then I would check to see what specific differences there are between the settings in each of those vs Sonar, regarding Audio and MIDI. Make a "chart" that lists all of the settings in each one relevant to those, anything that is in the "panel" or "tab" for those in each program, and then compare them to see what's different in the ones that work vs the one(s) that don't.

A user over at midi.org (and here as well I believe) created a CAL script for me several years ago to fade out the end of a midi file. It works by inserting "dummy" controllers (#12) and then combines them with any existing expression controllers (#11) to fade the file out. Up to now this has worked very well. However, with the current soundtrack I am working on, every channel MIDI 1-8 plays every instrument, alternating one note at a time. Similarly, every channel 9-16 plays percussion, again alternating every percussion one note at a time. There are 8 individual tracks for each instrument. I believe the issue I am having is that the inserted controllers are affecting the channels when they are not currently on the "active" track for that channel. I can't really wrap my head around half of what the script is doing internally. I can program in C languages just fine, but CAL script just look like gobbledygook to me. 😅 The midi.org forums have been essentially dead since the forum was changed over to new software last(?) year, so hoping to get a quicker response here. *** Essentially, what I would like to have the script modified to ONLY keep the expression controllers where they originally exist, but have them at the newly set level. *** As the script works right now, all of the new controllers remain and continue fading from the last level they encountered. This means if there were none to begin with, you would see a straight line in an expression viewer all the way from 127 down to 0. If there were already expression values, you would see the line go down but where any values already existed, it jumps to that percentage of the modified value, meaning it might go down and then up again. Here are a series of captures from the expression view in Sekaiju to show what I mean. Each of the first 3 images are different percussion instruments and their resulting final expression values after running the script. The fourth image is the combined overlay of how they appear when the file is played. You can see the individually, the expression would work well as a fade out, but when combined they are "destroyed" by the track that had no expression to begin with, and therefore has the full 127 to 0 fadeout. _expression-fadeout.cal

I spent 30 years designing user interfaces for complex systems. Of particular interest to me was sitting down with a new user and observing which parts they figured out right away versus which parts required explanation. My goal was to always to give them a clean layout that made sense from the get-go, one that they could quickly learn to navigate without instruction. I wanted the most-used features up front and obvious, while providing a logical way to drill down into the more advanced features. What came as a huge surprise (and disappointment) to me was that users generally did not give a damn about easy-to-use UIs. Even if they needed help initially to perform certain tasks, once they learned how to do it they whisked through the procedures like they were born into it. To my surprise, users cared about one thing only: does the software do what they want it to do? Knowing what it was capable of, they had no problem figuring out how to get there. The first really big project I worked on was a Windows/SQL Server-based replacement for an aging Burroughs mini and text-based dumb terminal user interfaces. Yes, I was unashamedly cashing in on the Y2K mass psychosis. But I saw an opportunity to be a hero by making the system more user-friendly. Dropdown menus instead of memorizing obscure codes, the ability to display multiple accounts at once, better data validation, helpful popup hints. They're gonna love this, I thought. They were unimpressed. I found myself creating "shortcuts" for them such as just typing in a classification code rather than selecting it from a menu, because it was faster. As a consumer of virtual audio devices, I find that I am applying the same skepticism toward fancy UIs, favoring the straightforward designs of Valhalla, Meldaproduction and Voxengo products over pretty shaded knobs. Even Kontakt, with arguably the worst UI in the business, eventually proved to be no problem. Ditto for U-He's obtuse UI for Zebra and Spectrasonics' disjointed windows in Omnisphere. The point being that the UI is overrated as a selling point. As long as I can figure it out, and it does what I want, then I'm happy. I love Fabfilter's UIs, none of which resemble the hardware they emulate, but are quick and easy to navigate. At the same time, I am not offended by D16 Group's photorealistic portrayals and mystery knobs because their effects work so well.

While researching about GM midi I found that the track name box can hold 128 characters. This is saved in the midi data.

Thank You so much! I didn't realise Cakewalk Next was able to do automation! I'm new but this was very helpful Christopher.

@Starship Krupa I’m not debating anything. I realize that there is 2 choices and possibly a 50/50 split between how everyone will choose. Im just curious about a use case that if they did remove the split instrument option as to what would happen to those who work that way? Example you could still have the simple instrument track as well as a midi track or tracks that go there. In other words you don’t have to place the midi data on the instrument track. This is what Im curious about. The only difference I can think of is that you can’t put midi data on a split instrument track. But?