Jump to content

Jon White

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jon White

  1. Your integrated sound system would probably be safest to designate as unusable with a DAW. Get your Scarlett going!
  2. With the highest level of respect stated for a DAW I've used, in one form or another, since 1990, it is time for Cakewalk to get technical and deep and figure out its audio engine. We can always find the other side of these things, but it seems the fact is that we are so often problematic. Something is not right, I believe. As stated before, my Nuendo, ProTools and Sequoia have NONE of these issues -- and I mean over years and years of use for projects. Bandlab/Cake, if you can, it is time to drive a new day in software reliability and integration with Windows. We all love this framework, but it is not reliable enough to be top-shelf production programming on the average. We can site many instances of success and lack of issues, yet we must all be very honest in asking ourselves, would we have the scenario put forth, "Would I use this to make my living, or even (as I) to bring artists in and produce their work?" I'm sure we will get a chorus of "Yes!", but I, one who loves this interface for workflow, would NEVER do such, YET. Cake, get after this. Really.
  3. I use WIDI, and design my own control visuals. I carry my iPad around the studio and control Cake from it (in isolation rooms and whatnot). It truly depends on your needs.
  4. TDehan, you might want to 1) catch some videos on Cake/Sonar operation; 2) read instructions about the software.
  5. Yes, Antonio! I used Span last night! Great display! Let's try the ProChannel EQ!
  6. What's hard to deal with is that it seems Cake is much more sensitive to these things than ProTools, Cubase/Nuendo, Samplitude/Sequoia, and others.
  7. Hi Antonio! I battled with it all night last night, wanting to see what it revealed about my Allen&Heath signal path (and to see what plugins looked like under frequency analysis. I've only learned how to make it work through my mixer path. I'd love to eliminate that loop and just check plugins, but haven't figured that out yet. Anyway, just insert two audio tracks. Set the input for the first track to be the input channel of your audio interface and set the output to be the output from the DAW to the interface. This is to create a loop. Insert Q-Capture there. Insert Q-Clone in the effects section of the second track. It's going to just listen to the first audio track. Mine works this way. Not sure how track two hears the loop. Anyone? So, on my mixer, the main output of my sound device goes to a stereo channel that, like all the channels of the mixer, has sends that feed the audio interface inputs. So I engage the sends to route the sound device output (audio channel with Q-Capture feeding the main outs of the audio interface). This closes the loop, and only one thing remains to see Q-Clone and Q-Capture start to roll. Click the monitor button on the audio channel. Things should be rolling now. You don't have to listen to any sounds for it all to work. You can do the same loop with a cable, as well, if you don't have a send path setup on your monitoring device for the room speakers or headphones. I found that my mixer pathway is quite flat, and now know the channel eq characteristics of the board. Slight rolloff (-2db) at 30 Hz when set flat ... It was also neat to view the effect of varioius go-to plugins on the eq curve. Just pop any plugin you like above the Q-Capture plugin in the audio channel. Q-Clone will show the effects of it (pun intended). I love Trueverb plates for sax and guitar, and found that the plugin does nothing destructive to the frequency base. Some verb plugins showed dramatic frequency changes even when completely dry. Odd. If anyone knows how to set this up so that one just routes the Q-Capture in a loop in just the software, let me know! Although the graphic plot is very small, it still is good info for a view of what's going on with the base eq state. Jonas
  8. Bandlab staff have to engage the resources someday in the future to get this right. REAL audio engine problems.
  9. What audiio hardware and driver type (ASIO, etc.) are you using?
  10. And THAT ("Why would Cake ...") is the million dollar question, and I must sadly say it gets asked way too often about our audio engine.
  11. Who could be defensive with intelligent, considerate folks like you and the others in this thread all sharing ideas and being resilient enough to not let it go south with personal preferences dominating the discussion. Bravo to you and all here!
  12. Hi Kevin, I meant that Starship's comments taught me a bit. In terms of what I learned from the vendors: very little. Lynx turned out to even be unaware that Cake has the checkbox. I was disappointed all the way around. I now have it checked in both Cakewalk and the Lynx driver. I wish I knew the actual details. And when I put a heavy song into Cake, I really can't tell which setting makes the audio troubles better, because the results change on restart of Cakewalk. Very odd stuff.
  13. Very intelligent and emotional (human) response, Star. I learned something. Yes, I've received direct response from Cake. I think I'll leave this one alone. It's beyond just the technical. Lynx stuff is very cool. They didn't expect folks to be trying to control MMCSS.
  14. Starship, what a wonderful response from you, amidst me probably irritating so many with my thoughts (and not by intention). Yes, my particular system may be quite vulnerable to performance weaknesses, and I appreciate your interest and have a very positive faith that you would help to the end in solving particular problems that I and others may have. That is core human spirit. But I'll work with my systems, if you'll accept my praise! As you know, my point is that Sonar is a bit more vulnerable in general to many little things, in my opinion. I just left two really tough weeks in a professional recording studio (I'm a very humble bassist, and am hard on myself -- thus the "tough" part), and in the moments of control-room review of material I had some great discussions with the lead engineer (studio owner). I bragged-up Sonar for four or five reasons that he totally agreed with, and then, very peacefully, he placed it in perspective for me with the question "How stable is it?" and the position "You do a great deal of recording in your own studio, so I would ask you to consider whether you'd use Sonar for paying clients on a deadline, amidst a studio that has overhead costs (rent, loans)." I felt like he knew about Sonar. I'm pretty sure he did. He even said that he was captive to a dated ProTools workflow under the attributes of its familiarity and stabiilty. It was not more than the whisp of time between his last words and them hitting my ears that I sadly said "No, I would struggle to stay even." Now, that being said, I COULD possibly have experts come in (maybe they'd have to be Cake dev teammates) and solve my PARTICULAR idiosyncratic setup issues (like this wonderful forum does for so many), but that's not the point. Cake, a KILLER software platform for music production, has one more level to conquer. I'm an executive technical director type, by trade. If I were with Cake, I'd joyfully drive the team to match the needs of at least close-to studio reliability. Close-to. I'd proudly say that we have one of the best human/PC interfaces ever made, and spur organizational pride in getting the core tech to kick major boodie. And I'd definitely engage the bright minds at Cake/Bandlab to truly investigate why I might mistakenly belived that Sequoia has a sheen and comprehensive wholeness in its audio that other DAWs lack. Are you a musician, Star? Bless your engagement here. Jonas And let me add that Cake, being "free" of charge, is the complete Godzilla of a software DAW offering in the world. Reaper is great, but can't hold a birthday cake candle to "Sonar".
  15. Hmmm, well, not correct if you broaden what he may really mean: that adding anything complex (plugins) to an already-unstable (at times) Sonar/Cakewalk just tips the scale to overload and flaky behavior. Funny, 'cause just this afternoon I created a simple three-channel Kontakt setup and the audio started segmenting like a machine gun when I started the second instrument. I saved the file, restarted and it worked for a bit. It just adds up to frustration. I went to Nuendo and setup a 16-channel Kontakt project, loaded big pianos, orchestrals and whatnot into ten of the channels, added busses for group effects and even put Izotope 9 in the master bus and not one single glitch or hesitation, as usual. I don't like ProTools (but have to use it at times for group work), but it never fails, either, but for once every four months just closing abruptly. C'mon Bandlab, let's see why this softwawe is touchy for some. And posters, don't feel that it it logical to claim that it doesn't happen to you, because that's not the point. It has to be how Cake coordinates with ASIO drivers and hardware flow/logic. To really tickle a tough topic, I also believe that Sequoia/Samplitude SOUNDS better. I've tried to deny it, but time after time I believe I hear it, and I don't want to, believe me. I want Cake to be everything it can be, because I love the layout and workflow.
  16. That's fantastic, and exemplary of the help given here in the community. I would add one thought: can the solution be explained so that we can understand the relationship of the setting to the performance issue? That would go a long way in actually potentially arguing against my generally negative views posted here. Let's understand the issue and learn from it, versus just changing a setting.
  17. Sunset, in general, a problem that exists now didn't exist prior. Windows and Cake seem to be, in my opinion, unpredictable. The unfortunate thing about Cakewalk is that it is unpredictable in the very spine of its reality: the audio engine. It has always, to me, been slow, risky and prone to dropouts well, well beyond almost any other DAW. Sure, it may be working for some, sometimes, somewheres -- but that's not the point. The point is that you can't count on it in general, on the average. And in my experience, it is laggy as a rule compared to other DAWs. Try some others and see if you need the stability. I truly don't think you issue is hardware muscle. I think it is an innocent, but all-too-common quirk between the details in the software and the Windows OS and your audio drivers. Again, you can struggle for weeks and find the issue, but I feel that Cakewalk will always haunt the studio user with that looming possibility of various errors. "General error" on saving a file is my latest ghost. "Corrupt file, can't open (or the like" hits my most recent multi-track project IF I don't open a project before it and then close it and open that project. Who can figure. Clicks and pops, audio stoppage when Superior Drummer 3 loads, etc... None of this happens with Nuendo, Sequoia or ProTools. What is my system?! What details am I stupidly not assessing?! To the rescue, doubters! My system is the same one that ran these types files two years ago or five months ago (but probably with different errors).
  18. Yeah, I felt the same way about sticking with what I know, but it can't always work that way. I have Sequoia/Samplutude Pro X now as my backup, and just added Nuendo 10. Never, ever a glitch, although I like my familiar Cake/Sonar field of operation. If steadiness and lack of audio struggling is needed, I'd go elsewhere. I still use Cake, and am very pleased with the renewal of it with Bandlab, but it is second-rate for a producer in terms of audio engine lagging and odd behavior at times. I want to love it, but we have to be objective.
  19. My point is that Cakewalk seems rather plagued with these issues, compared to the other ones I've used routinely (and used so that I can get projects done with high surety of stabiity). That's my point. It's an objective reflection on functionality, and if we can't express these experiences, we will be in the land of illusion. Cakewalk has stability issues in my experience (I've used it since 1988 under MS-DOS), and seems to also not do audio as well (stability and glitch-wise) as many mainstream DAWs. Maybe my comment IS helpful, in that it may add to one's collection of input regarding DAW performance.
  20. Many DAWs don't have these problems.
  21. I've had very little luck with Focusrite interfaces. I actually don't use them at all now.
  22. Hopefully -- and I say this with due respect and no ill intent -- it will improve the audio engine's efficiency in working with audio drivers and processing. Although I'm a Cake/Sonar/Cake user since the late eighties, I've used many DAWs in that time and I find that we have the most audio glitches of any of them -- almost to the point of me changing at my home studio many times in favor of ones that don't blink an eye in terms of smooth playback of workfiles. We, in my opinion, need to get really serious about finding out why many of the others seem to process audio so much more error/overload free.
  • Create New...