Rico Belled

It's a TERRIBLE development! Remember when you owned something after you bought it? I fully blame Apple and its iTunes nonsense that everybody fell for... R

Except of course when you realize there are non-linearities in the responses of those mics.... LOL R

OK, that's good to know! I'm not one of those paranoid old guys that don't want to hook up their DAW to the internet (have plenty of extra machines!) but I guess it's important then to make sure you let your Cakewalk machine phone home once in a while! Thank, R

Gswitz, Thanks for listening! On my record there's lots of different guys, and I have had many different musicians live too! You can find a couple of tunes on youtube like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhruFyHhuMM So blessed to have all these incredible musicians wanting to play my silly tunes! R

Doesn't it worry anyone that perhaps one day you have a paying customer, your internet is down and you can't work? R

I usually just bounce down a whole mix minus what I'm about to record and then "archive" the folders of tracks that use the most CPU. R

I have two Surface Pro 3's, the i3 and the i5 and both run Cakewalk by Bandlab beautifully! People around here are always throwing huge amounts of RAM around as necessary but the truth is I've never made a Sonar project that used more than 1.5GB of RAM, that includes HUGE ones with 100 track, Addictive Drums, Garritan Personal Orchestra, Lounge Lizard, Trilogy and endless audio tracks. My Surfaces have 4GB and are snappy; when I upgraded my main machine from 8GB to 16Gb it made zero difference. Mind you, I do know that if you're running enormous sample libraries a lot of ram CAN help, but in my opinion for 99.5% of all people even 4GB is enough. Real world comparison: my Dell XPS 13 has 8GB and the same CPU as the i5 Surface, there's zero difference in running any Cakewalk project I have tried. R

Shameless self-promotion allowed? I've mastered quite a few records now and been using Sonar for MANY years! Done many different styles, from acoustic stuff to full on electronica. Here's the first tune off my second album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHsvRHde7Ys Let me know if I can be of service! ricobelled@gmail.com www.RicoBelled.com

"Running onboard graphics chips are like recording with onboard audio chips. Which they many look and sound great enough to fool you into thinking they are powerful by watching videos, they are crippling performance for any DAW or NLE (video editing/DAW)" This is complete hogwash. Video editing can be different (although with Vegas Intel HD graphics provide a FAR bigger boost than my GTX1050ti, just saying), but for DAWs this is far OUTDATED info. As a matter of fact, on some systems latency can go LOWER with integrated graphics than with a PCIe card; this is not theory, I've experienced it. R

Here we go again. It can be argued that the math show exactly that there's nothing to be gained within the spectrum of audio that humans can actually perceive by going higher than 44.1. My buddy who is a speaker designer, worked for Gibson, JBL now Samsung and does TONS of measurements AND is a musician too agrees. Old me? I have recorded in many, many places, from Capitol Studios and Ocean Way to a closet; have used endless amounts of gear, from $5000 preamps to $2 ones. Have engineered., mixed, mastered for myself and others. Recorded a track or two for "Modern Art" for which we were nominated for a Grammy at home through a ART DPS2, a $150 preamp into my 2408 and everybody thought the sound killed. I've experimented with higher sample rates and have come to the conclusion that there is no difference, other than some synths or programs that simply behave differently when running at 96K; for the audio itself there is NO discernible difference in my opinion. R