pwal³

https://www.musicradar.com/news/hundreds-of-fake-shure-sennheiser-yamaha-and-harman-products-seized-in-factory-raid

i'm too cheap  to own any of those brands 😀

susan and karen i remember, what about vlad (was it?)

weren't there only 2 women on the old forum anyway? statistically they're unlikely to be here

yeah makes you wonder why they bothered, eh?

after-sales service is the thing that highlights a good company to deal with

what bios would allow 9G??

you can disable "fast startup" (owtfic) in settings (https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-windows-10-fast-startup

but if you leave fast startup enabled, "restart" from the start/power menu is a genuine "off and on again"

thanks for responding noel - and sure it's an old thread, but i chose it from all the google results because you'd commented in that thread... it's been a regularly reported issue since then (x1) at least - if you really need a recipe from a user before considering investigation, not via your internal q.a. team, i guess we're looking to @AxlBrutality for the steps to repro then

20 hours ago, scook said:

You are welcome. This question comes up at least once a year.

FAQ?

19 hours ago, Noel Borthwick said:

Its not solved because most likely nobody submitted a bug report with a recipe.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/Sidechaining-in-X1-m2242847-p3.aspx

more likely not given dev/fix priority (and google is your friend if you want to see how many users have had this issue )

is that faster from a genuine "off"? because win0 is using hibernation, as well as updating the ui as a priority (before the actual rest of it is loaded), to fool us all into thinking boot is faster.. here's a decent article explaining it all https://www.windowscentral.com/how-disable-windows-10-fast-startup

i think this thread answered its own question

google thinks middle c is
 

Quote

 

middle c =

261.625565 hertz

 

thanks, i'm surprised it needs a human to do it

how do i un-register and delete all my stuff from bandlab?

"feedback loop" implies a two-way street

is users suggest stuff shouldn't there be some response? (even if just to say "no"?)

so 3 users think this might be good idea, but no bandlab or forum mods have input? 🙄

kinda disappointing guys

use the local group policy editor if you're not happy tweaking the registry

19 hours ago, Kurre said:

To connect a win10 to internet could mean hours of troubleshooting because it forces your pc to update and it probably would do so before you're able to connect to Bandlab. With usb method you avoid that.

you can disable the auto-updating, give it a google

rip jim

18 minutes ago, abacab said:

Sadly, the Linux desktop still has a long way to go to reach broad commercial acceptance. What's really crazy is that it could be done. Look at what Apple did when it redesigned Mac OSX based on Unix/FreeBSD. So Mac is really a desktop environment for a Unix OS (I realize that oversimplifies things a bit, but just for the sake of discussion and to save space ).

budget budget budget... oh how i laughed when macs switched to intel porcessros, and then to some hack-of-linux as an os...

dunno flatpak but the distro/desktop thing makes sense, although it does imply that using windows avoids that issue! (win version, ,net version, etc etc etc)

10 minutes ago, synkrotron said:

Hi again @Chuck E Baby 

I had a look at this. It wasn't enable for some reason. Not sure if it made a big difference.

On the help page it shows this image:-

Not sure what this means to be honest. Taking the image at face value it seems to suggest that if you have an FX bin with 8 effects, as show, they are distributed across the CPU cores, as show.

But what if each of your FX bins only has 1, 2 or 3 effects in them. Does that mean that they are only distributed across cores 1, 2, 3?

Or does it distribute effects across all the FX bins to each of the core. For example, say track 1 has 3 effects in the FX bin, track 2 has 3 effects in the track bin, will those effects be distributed across cores 1 to 6 in turn? Not sure if I put that across correctly.

I wonder if this is something that @Noel Borthwick could shed some light on, assuming no one else can?

 

cheers

andy

iirc before the load balancing feature, a single audio track would be processed on a single core, so all plugs on that track would also be processed on that core... the lb allows better distribution (in the diagram) but there are a couple of exceptions, like the master bus, and the gui...

you need to change the file association in chrome, lots of how-tos out there, e.g., https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=F91aXLecL8z5wALe-bDoAQ&q=chrome+application+to+use+for+opening+files&oq=chrome+application+to+use+for+opening+files&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.1724.11767..12231...0.0..1.139.3276.39j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i67j0j0i10j0i22i30j33i21j33i160j33i10.4ajvpdTpDRY

4 minutes ago, abacab said:

Regarding commercial (i.e. not free) software for Linux, I wonder if this is more likely due to lack of users, or lack of commercial developers? Chicken or egg thing?

could also be an open source culture thing