kc23

No assumptions. The facts shown by your operation and your answers lead to this inevitable conclusion. Ideas, suggestions and creativity require to know the correct operation of whatever tool one wants to wield. Again, the facts shown by your operation expecting the desired result, and furthermore your answers to the questions asked and suggestions given, show you don´t know the way the tool works, or the reasoning behind it. This answer further proves the point. Haven´t insulted anyone. In any of my posts, in any of the threads I have posted. I have addressed you directly in one other thread. If you are tired, get a rest. However, you do have insulted at least a couple of posters in other threads just this week, not counting your insult to me just now. You just don´t like being called on it, and then take it personal. Nothing to give up here. My pair are well grown in to maturity, something your answers say otherwise about your own. Again, just because you don´t like an answer given to you, does not mean it is an insult. I would think in order to "belong here", one would have to know what they are talking about, or at least be willing to learn about it, none of which seem to apply to you at the moment. No more left to say on my part.

These answers suggest you don´t have a good grasp on how signal flow and/or the routing in CbB work. The question and later suggestion are showing the error in your assumption. And the solution to the desired routing. Which will end up in a mono sounding track on the bus configured as Master, most likely raised in level by 3db. Hence, it is not a bug.

My suggestion would be to try to ignore the ones with this attitude. I´ve seen them not only here but on some other pages, they tend to answer fasy and take it personally. I´ve had a couple of interactions when I think they go over the line... but try for the most part to not pay attention. And, I like to think they are not the norm, usually most other folks with a more down to earth demeanor come and pitch in, in a reasonable and helpful manner (as you may see has already happened in this thread). I fail to see what are you referring to with cakewalk´s "clip automation" vs protools "clip gain". Cakewalk´s clip gain editing IS clip gain, with the feature that is automatable. In my experience they work almost exactly the same, both present themselves as an envelope you drag to meet the desired level. The one thing I think is different is in ptools you also have the "little fader" on the edge of the clip, which sets the level for the whole clip by changing the envelope level. If working with deessing, I would think for that workflow to be more cumbersome for one clip at a time, as you would have to first split at the beginning and then at the end of the "ess" clip, and then grab the little fader to adjust. In cakewalk, you change to clip gain editing once, and then within the clip, select (highlight) the "ess" portion, drag from the top to adjust, move to the next. This works across multiple tracks. To leave clip gain editing just shift-click anywhere in the clip, and to get back you shift-click on the envelope again. Maybe for multiple clips there would have to be a few more clicks but not so many... first make your splits, change to clip gain editing, press F7 (to change to the move tool), cntrl-click to select all your "ess" clips´ envelopes (that is, cntrl-click on the envelopes themselves), and drag on one of them to adjust all. This works across multiple tracks also. I think it may be just one or two clicks more than ptools...? Perhaps you could be more explicit as to what workflow you want to achieve as it seems it´s not clear enough to know if maybe its already there... or indeed it´s not?

I would say the OP was referring to a problem you seem to have. No need to be on the defense, or to attack him as you just did, or to assume everything is about what only you need. It´s not like he is posting requests every other day about whatever he just thinks he and only he wants... Most of the requests he has made seem to be thought out and with an explanation, at least for his workflow. He took the time to think of them, group them, and make a post about them. Even more, he just came out with a solution to one of them, and more so he has shared it with everyone, in the hopes that it will improve the workflow of whoever needs it. So, if you don´t need his solution, then do not use it, leave it at that, and do not take it personal, just because you don´t seem to find a need for it or understand what he is after. Otherwise, indeed it seems as you are the one with the "can´t read, can´t understand, why is it not for me" problem.

Hi I just run across this video showing the StudioOne´s implementation for Pipeline, their version of the External Plugin. It is a really nice implementation, with the ability to introduce notes and pictures for easy hardware recall. Although this video is showing a stereo use of the feature, at time 10:15 you will see, on the plugin menu on the right, there is a Mono version of Pipeline. And, even being a really nice implementation with lots of bells and whistles, I think we Cakewalk hybrid mixers would be more than happy even with just a mono version of the existing External plugin (of course, if it can be improved, please by all means!). For the pictures and notes there´s already other solutions, like the Snapshot plugin (for which I´ll leave a link). But the mono capability is what is hindering the full use of CbB as a real hybrid mixing tool. Also, note this video is from a couple of months ago, if anybody is still wondering on the relevance of a hybrid setup. Still hoping for this on the next update... or at least some comment from the developers even on just a timeline. Bye. Snapshot: https://non-lethal-applications.com/products/snapshot Pipeline:

this operation takes three clicks... what more of a shortcut could you be looking for? -swipe to select tracks (1st click)-cntrl -click on output for quick grouping (2nd click) -select "new stereo bus" (3rd click) I think any other option for this operation would result in more clicks or "movements"...

It is indeed annoying. Sadly, so far there´s not any info if this will be addressed. As another poster said, in the past it has been said it would be, but years have gone by and it hasn´t. To the developers...: Is it possible to know if these feature is in the works? maybe a timeline? Or even if it won´t be addressed at all? Thanks.

Select he tracks you want. Cntrl-click on the output of any of those tracks. Select "New stereo bus". A new bus will be created and all tracks selected will be routed to it.

All tracks have an "effect rack", which is the fx´s bin. To do parallel processing, make a send (pre or post facer) to an aux track or to a bus. Or use plugins with wet/dry control.

Pro Channel has a light indicating clipping. Every processor has a level indicator as well. Do your due diligence and keep your levels in check. Better yet, use appropriate gain staging, and never worry about clipping.

Screensaver is not a Cakewalk feature. Disable it in Windows.

I referenced this post about the external insert in the update thread, and it also got acknowledged there by Noel, although with the same answer about it being in the "to do list". Also, I see a lot of other issues and requests get almost immediate response from the developers. But, after two months, 25 replies and 510 views, not this one. Not even a comment about the request, or maybe a timeline as to when we could expect this fix... or if they can offer at least a temporal alternative... or even if they would be able to fix it. To be honest, that´s a little disappointing, to say the least. I´m one of the many people that bought in to the gibson lifetime offer, and one of the reasons I did it was the hope that by supporting the company, this issue would get a solution. Glad to see there are lots of other users wanting and hoping for a solution too. But so far, it would seem we will have to keep waiting... or start (or keep) shopping around for another daw that has a better developed feature for this. Love Cakewalk, but can´t keep an empty hope and so far, it seems it is exactly what this is. Nevertheless will try to keep a bit of faith on that "to do list" for a little while more.

No one is forcing you to do anything. The software owner has established certain conditions for you to use their software (free by the way). So, if you don´t like the conditions, then don´t use it. That is not "honesty". You are just making a tantrum because you don´t like and don´t want the conditions in which this free software is being offered to you, and want to impose your own. So again: owners and developers have established their conditions on how to use their software. They don´t owe you any explanation about it. If you want to use it, you abide by said conditions. If you don´t like them, you can´t use it. Couldn´t be easier to understand.

I didn´t say "frustrated", so don´t go misquoting what I said, that´s not only disrespectful (again) but also false, as in a lie. And then you spread this notion about "covert software deployment", questioning the company owner of the software, but without any proof or fact... just your paranoid ideas. Without proof, that statement is again false. You are just spreading misinformation. If you are so concerned about what you install, then it seems common sense to google what it is you are installing before installing it. Other people do, that´s why you can find the answers given to them if you would take the time to do the leg work. The fact that you don´t should matter to you and you only.

As far as I know, swipe is part of the multitouch implementation, which predates StudioOne by a long time. I´ve been using it for several years now. Right click whatever mixer view or track view knob or fader, and on the context menu you´ll have a "revert to"-the previous value that control had. Is a just one-level "undo", but it is there. Having said that, I also wish knob and fader moves were part of the "real" undo command.

Then google this stuff and read. Newsflash: you are not unique in this world, others have had the same questions, although have expressed them in a polite and respectful manner... and they have been answered. So, go do your homework, instead of coming here complaining about and demanding stuff you ignore because you just don´t want to take the time to research about it. Want some help? start by helping yourself. Don´t like what´s being offered? then don´t install, nobody is forcing you.

This observation was already made, so I posted about both issues on the feedback forum. Thanks for that link, I actually looked around and didn´t find it. Got a couple of other request, so will put it to good use. Great! Actually I thought it was related to my system, so I endured it till it was time for my usual system restart. I just did it, and also just got the chance to confirm it on another system. Any way, thanks for the attention and quick addressing of the issue. Will try and be more careful about keeping things on topic.

Hi On this option, documentation says: "Single Bounce Per Track Check this if you want to create a single clip for all the bounced audio. If you don’t check this, each separate clip on a track creates a separate clip when you freeze the track." However, when unchecking "Single bounce per track" option in the Freeze Options dialog box, freeze function will only bounce first clip and make disappear remaining clips in the track. It has been like this for several past versions of CW, including present 2020.07 Early Access version. Already tried this in two different computers with same behavior on both. To verify: -Open a track with several audio clips in it. -Right click on freeze button to open options dialog box. (Fig 1) -Uncheck "Single bounce per track" option. Hit "Ok". (Fig 2) -Click Freeze button. CW Freezes only the first clips, and remaining clips disappear. (fig 3) -Dotted line indicating presence of clips remains, but they are not visualized and can´t be played. (fig 4) -Press Control-Z to undo, CW unfreezes only first clip, remaining clips still can´t be visualized, even though dotted lines indicate their presence. (Fig 5) -Upon opening take lanes, disappeared clips can be visualized only in main track lane but not on take lane (Fig 6), but still can not be played. (Fig 7) As stated, have tried this in two different computers with exactly the same behavior, even after complete system reformatting/restart. and clean install. It doesn´t matter what audio clips are present. It happens with and without plugins instantiated in the fx box. This has been happening since at least the last three CW updates, including present 2020.07 EA version. Please fix this evident bug, as it has been always working and has ceased to function, and is clearly not intended behavior. Thanks. P.S.: Also, please fix the External Insert plugin, for it to have true mono routing, as requested in this thread: Thanks.

Hi Noel Thanks for answering. Regarding the freeze bug, it is present on the actual official release, and on the Early Access release, so I think it is relevant to this thread. Regarding the External Insert fix request, I have posted about it in the Feedback forum more than twenty days ago (July 11), and it has not been addressed by any staff member yet. Since this is also present in the Early Access release, it may also be relevant to this thread. Abiding by your answer, I will also post this report to the Feedback forum. Hope both issues can be addressed and fixed. Again, thanks.

Bug Report: Uncheck "Single bounce per track" freeze option is broken Hi On this option, documentation says: "Single Bounce Per Track Check this if you want to create a single clip for all the bounced audio. If you don’t check this, each separate clip on a track creates a separate clip when you freeze the track." However, when unchecking "Single bounce per track" option in the Freeze Options dialog box, freeze function will only bounce first clip and make disappear remaining clips in the track. It has been like this for several past versions of CW, including present 2020.07 Early Access version. Already tried this in two different computers with same behavior on both. To verify: -Open a track with several audio clips in it. -Right click on freeze button to open options dialog box. (Fig 1) -Uncheck "Single bounce per track" option. Hit "Ok". (Fig 2) -Click Freeze button. CW Freezes only the first clips, and remaining clips disappear. (fig 3) -Dotted line indicating presence of clips remains, but they are not visualized and can´t be played. (fig 4) -Press Control-Z to undo, CW unfreezes only first clip, remaining clips still can´t be visualized, even though dotted lines indicate their presence. (Fig 5) -Upon opening take lanes, disappeared clips can be visualized only in main track lane but not on take lane (Fig 6), but still can not be played. (Fig 7) As stated, have tried this in two different computers with exactly the same behavior, even after complete system reformatting/restart. and clean install. It doesn´t matter what audio clips are present. It happens with and without plugins instantiated in the fx box. This has been happening since at least the last three CW updates, including present 2020.07 EA version. Please fix this evident bug, as it has been always working and has ceased to function, and is clearly not intended behavior. Thanks. P.S.: Also, please fix the External Insert plugin, for it to have true mono routing. Thanks.

It would seem this issue does not merit the developers engaging on the subject, even after so many years of it being mentioned and without a solution. With the latest updates (a few of the last ones at least) being directed more towards composing and production features (as well as bug fixes) which are always welcomed, I hope the next ones tend some more to mixing and audio features and fixes, like the one being requested in this thread. Cakewalk being such a powerful daw, it should not be left behind in this area. If the bakers think that hybrid mixing is not as relevant in this day and age, therefore not implementing features for it but also not even fixing what is already in the software, I´ll leave a couple of resources about this topic, bearing in mind that these are from the last year. I hope this will shed light on how relevant and contemporary is the use of audio hardware not only as a front end, but during the mixing and post-production process in today´s professional environment. Again, to the bakers, please address this issue and fix the External Plugin so it can work with true mono inputs and outputs. Thanks. VintageKing article: https://vintageking.com/blog/2020/07/the-state-of-hybrid-mixing-in-2020/ MixbusTV video:

Hi You asked me about this in the other thread... actually my I/O is named a bit different although similar, but I get the point of what you are requesting. In the meanwhile, I found this thread from the old forum which mentions the names being in the aud.ini file... maybe renaming them there would help you? I haven´t tried myself, as I´m already used to this quirk... Anyway, hope your request is taken in to account! http://forum.cakewalk.com/Where-Can-I-Rename-My-Device-InsOuts-m1449022.aspx

A while ago I had a Scarlet and it always had latency... never tried to route hardware through the mix control though, didn´t have the highest opinion of focusrite drivers... is your computer really powerful that it "compensates" enough for roundtrip latency? at the very least the buffers should introduce some, and even 5 to 10 ms is something that would make parallel processing feel phasey... But yeah, that´s another advantage of hybrid... no cpu consumption on external hardware...! Man... that´s a shame, with sooo many channels... Not only that, but since the external plugin defaults to stereo, any plugins used after it (or in your case, the Antelope ones) are using double the cpu processing... so the problem is not only the half I/O capabilities, but also the double cpu taxing... C´mon BandLab... score us some points!

Well, "proper implementation" would be the one not with, in your own words, "a plug-in that assumes I want to eat up a stereo pair." I posted a couple of videos of the way StudioOne is doing it, one is of the first iteration, and the next one of the update done sometime later to it. I haven´t tried StudioOne, but just checking those videos out and thinking that they did well and then felt the need to update it, makes me salivate. Reaper I have tried and still use, and is as simple as it could be. You instantiate a plugin, route it to mono or stereo, patch, ping, and go. Mono is mono and stereo is stereo. ProTools takes a bit of setup, but once it´s done, again, mono is mono and stereo is stereo. And yes, I agree that Cakewalk´s routing is indeed powerful... so it´s even more baffling that this feature´s state is as it is. I so want to keep mixing in CW, but it takes the fun out of using my Distressors and DBXes and WA76es... and it IS fun using them! Just had a look at the Firepod, and it should be able to do this, even more so with two of them. You have eight line outs and line ins in each one, although six of the ins are on combo jacks on the front, but with the aid of a patchbay you should be totally able. A couple of friends that were fed up with Avid and Macs (actually one of them used Logic a lot too), decided it was time to look for alternatives, and I recommended CW. As i said, I´ve been using it for quite some time... done records, pot production for video, mastering, mixing, original music... never found a thing ProTools did that CW couldn´t. But... one of the first things they tried was how to incorporate their high end hardware and multi I/O with it... and once they found out they would be forced to use half the pieces they were used to use, it was a no go. They both ended up in Reaper, as it seems to be the most popular destiny for the Avid exodus. Hehe, I thought it was only my agenda, but thanks for chiming and collaborating in the thickening of the plot!

I think doing it this way is even more troublesome, as you don´t have latency compensation. I see how in mastering it would work, as you just have to go out on a stereo pair to your chain and then return for printing. But in mixing, there would be no way of correctly auditioning your hardware adjustments in real time with all the other itb tracks, or do parallel processing, and will end up having to print and nudge the printed track every time an adjustment is made. In mastering I would think it being useful, maybe for some custom M-S patching of plugins in between hardware, as an example. Also, I think many users with hardware don´t use the external plugin anymore because of this problem, and most likely are using another daw with a better implementation. I know people who have just passed up on Sonar because of this, however liking it in many other regards. So, it´s not that it´s not used because it isn´t needed, I think it´s not used because it´s implementation is archaic and not up to par, therefore making CbB obsolete in this regard. Which, again, is a shame, as Cakewalk has always been ahead of so many "industry standards" regarding implementation of new tech. So please BandLab, hope you guys update and fix this feature.