Jump to content

Jezric

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good
  1. Nowhere in the export UI is it obvious that export selection is the default behavior. Yet, with the Export module, it is obvious. In my opinion this is not consistent UI. I personally understand the export behavior as I've been using CW for 20+ years and this has been the default behavior as far back as I can remember. Doesn't make it the best user experience though imo. I can see how new users would be confused by this and it's clear that even for us experienced users, it's still gets us more frequently than it should. Seems a simple fix for this is to just add this same option the module has.
  2. Yep, and that's the problem, misunderstanding things in the Export dialog seems to be a pretty normal thing for a lot of users. It is quite confusing (for some of us at least). Also, which aspects are stored with a task. I have tried numerous times to setup tasks exactly as you describe and it never quite works right (or as I expect it to), so every time I go back and try to figure out what I'm doing wrong, give up and just manually export everything (then realize I had some clip selected deep in my project and then have to go and deselect everything by clicking in an empty space in the timeline and then export again! ). Yes, easy to say to users, just use the export module. But that seems like an attempt to circumvent the notion that the advanced export dialog is not consistent regarding terminology and to a lot of users is just confusing. The process of exporting and all the possible options is by no means a trivial user experience to nail, that's for sure. I've worked in user experience for many years and one thing I have found to be true, if you find yourself having to repeatedly say "you're just misunderstanding it" ... then there is likely a problem with your UX. (I mean that as constructive feedback and not trying to be difficult or rude ) BTW: I had NO IDEA that there was a way to select/deselect what is going exported in the export dialog (see attached), not very discoverable. As suggested above, it would be so nice to have a checkbox in the Export dialog that just said, "ignore selection" or perhaps the same radio buttons that the export module has "(x) project ( ) selection" (this is the "inconsistent" thing I keep mentioning btw).
  3. Yeah, there seems to be a bit of controversy around this behavior. I started a thread on the CbL Facebook group and the result was very polarized. One camp seems to think this is all fine and it makes perfect sense and don't change anything (a lot of this may derive from the fact that this has been the export behavior in CW since before the new export dialog). The other side is, yeah, it's a bit confusing and/or not expected that it would default to exporting just the selection when using the export dialog. The way I see it and trying to look at it from a very logical standpoint: The quick export module in the top control bar has 2 options. Project and Selection. This behaves just like you'd expect, one is the entire project (all tracks/busses regardless of what is selected) and the other is just what is selected. The export dialog however is always in the context of what is selected and there is no option in it to override this to export the entire project regardless of the selection. There are options for Source Output (what tracks/busses/features that produce sound be exported) and then the Range, which is Entire Project or Time Selection. There is no option to have it export everything regardless of selection. I think that the way to "fix" this (by fix, I mean make it more consistent with the quick export option) would be to add an option (a radio button like quick export, or another dropdown) that specifies Project or Selection (default to Selection to make all the legacy users happy that default behavior didn't change) and have this option be saved with the export template and/or last export state (so you don't have to reselect it each time you export). I would love to hear about the backstory around when the folks at CbL developed the new export dialog. Like, what were the considerations, user feedback analysis, etc.
  4. Ok so not a bug, but intended behavior? To me at least, it is not a good user experience and there is nothing in the dialog that indicates what it's going to do based on if you have something selected or not. I understand the behavior, however I would think that if you selected Entire Mix and Entire Project in this dialog that it would actually export the entire project and not the temp project it created based on your selection (which, again, is not at all clear in this UX that that is what it's doing). I mean at least there could be a checkbox in this dialog that allows you to override this default selection based temp project behavior and always export the entire project/all tracks. This is merely feedback, and I can see how it can easily turn into a debate on personal perception and opinion, not my intention. Just pointing out the confusion with this interface. I think there is opportunity to improve. Thanks
  5. 2 ways to export, either using the quick export module in the top menu or using the Export dialog. The issue is that in the Export dialog, even when you choose "Entire Mix" for Source Category and "Entire Project" for Range, if there is anything selected in the timeline (a clip, or track), it will only export that track, not the entire mix/project. The contrast is, the quick export module, when you select the Project radio button and then choose Export to Wav (or another format), it will export the entire project/mix even if something is selected. (Which is what I would expect both of these scenarios to do). This to me seems like a bug. Anyone else?
  6. I swear I tried this with no luck, but I just tried it (again?) and it works!! thank you @scook! Do you happen to know what the difference is between MIDI CC and "Parameter Automation"? Like, what is the protocol called for automation if not MIDI Control Change/Continuous Control?
  7. If a VST added as an instrument track outputs Automation data (not MIDI CC), is there a way for Cakewalk to capture that automatically (like if it were MIDI CC data on a MIDI track), or like a control surface (Mackie Control) would do for track volume/pan/etc? The Scenario: Arturia PolyBrute Connect is a VST that accompanies the Arturia Polybrute analog synth, when added to a DAW (or run standalone), the hardware synth communicates all its parameter data directly to the VST (i.e. when you turn knobs on the synth it is displayed in the VST UI in realtime, and vice versa, when you change params in the software interface, those are also reflected on the synth hardware). When the VST is added as an instrument in Cakewalk, you can create automation lanes and set them explicitly to receive parameter data from the PolyBrute Connect VST. However, I don't see a way to have the instrument track just automatically capture any parameter (Automation) data coming from the VST. I would think that enabled Automation Write on the instrument track itself would do this, but it doesn't. Alternatively, if you use the PolyBrute synth without the accompanying software/VST, it will send MIDI CC data through its USB MIDI interface. This is disabled when running the software as the synth then send NMTP data to the PolyBrute Connect software instead. So I don't see any way to run the use the PolyBrute with the VST and capture all the knob movements into automation lanes without preemptively setting up all the lanes you think you're going to want to capture, which kind of defeats the purpose (in my opinion).
  8. No, the Maschine and VCV (to name just a couple like this) plugins are a self-contained DAW'like environments with their own internal audio/midi routing, so 2 instances wouldn't be able to route between the instances (unless you were using the virtual router like the Blue Cat Connector). Also, in the case of Maschine, it is tied to a hardware controller, not sure it can deal with multiple instances.
  9. Yeah, check out the scenarios I posted above for complete details on the problem and the ask.
  10. Woah... yes, that does work! ...and what makes an aux track so special?? I see that it is actually its own category in the bus send assignment right click menu. I've never seen this.
  11. No, you can do this now when the VST is in the FX rack. But then you can't route the audio from that audio track where it's hosted to another audio track for recording or to route the multitrack audio from the VST (like you can do when the VST is hosted as an instrument track) So, internal routing wouldn't allow for a loop. Of course, you can always create a feedback loop elsewhere, but that's just part of multitrack recording in general.
  12. Well, that's interesting... I'll have to look into that. Still, as far as I know, there is no way to record the output of the FX chain in a CbB audio track. So, in the scenario of wanting to record the audio that's occurring within a VST (VCV/Maschine/Etc.) into another audio track in CbB, there is no way to do that unless A) you're using instrument tracks or B) you're recording from a loopback (either some other virtual audio device, or outputting through your audio interface and looping back to an input). Unless you can host the BC connector (VST?) as an instrument track in CbB. I would love to make the ask to BandLab to add the ability to route audio into an Instrument track hosted VST.
  13. Back in the thread there are a couple breakdowns of the behavior in CbB. To put it simply: The VST plugin standard supports multiple channels of MIDI in and out, and it supports multiple channels of audio in and out. There is no way to setup a VST in CbB and actually do all this routing at once. The ask is to have a way to host a VST in CbB that supports the full VST capabilities. In a previous post I wrote out this scenario. This step by step shows the different ways that you can host a VST in CbB and what the outcome is regarding the routing options. None of the ways you can host a VST today in CbB allows for all of the VST capabilities at once. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Create an Audio track Add a multi-track capable VST as an FX Rack plugin Enable MIDI out for that VST instance Add a MIDI track and select the VST as the MIDI output Note: You can route any number of audio tracks to any number of the VSTs supported audio inputs, however, you cannot create another audio track and select any of the audio outputs coming from that VST as the input Select the Audio track and MIDI track, right click and select "Make instrument track" The 2 tracks become 1 instrument track Note: You can no longer route any other audio track's output to the supported inputs of that VST, however you can now create additional audio tracks and route any number of the supported audio output channels from the VST as the input sources. Select the Instrument track, right click and select "Split instrument track" Note: Even though it splits out the audio and MIDI tracks, the VST is no longer added to the FX rack, and the instrument track behavior (as previously noted) for that VST is still in effect. This can also be looked at like this: VST hosting scenarios and capabilities: Instrument Track No: Audio input to the VST Yes: Audio output from the VST (to other audio tracks, supports multichannel audio from the VST) Yes: MIDI in Yes: MIDI out FX Rack on an Audio Track Yes: Audio input to the VST No: Audio output from the VST (to other audio tracks, supports multichannel audio from the VST) Yes: MIDI in Yes: MIDI out (not enabled by default) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  14. Hmm, not sure I understand... You're hosting VCV Rack 2 Pro FX in a Cakewalk Audio track's FX rack? And then are able to get to VCV's multiple track outputs as input sources to other Cakewalk audio tracks? Maschine (like VCV), is a sort of DAW on its own. It hosts VSTs, samples, etc. and has its own Ableton Live like Parts/Sections/Tracks performance concept (and is tied to the Maschine Mk3 hardware controller in my case). It can run standalone or as a VST. In both modes, it supports multichannel audio in and out as well as multichannel MIDI in and out. I can host VCV from within Maschine, or from what I think you're suggesting, can also host Maschine inside of VCV using that module. However, I don't think that gets us to that nirvana like state of being able to truly route everything (audio and midi) inside Cakewalk. My own ideal scenario is the ability to host Maschine in CbB and use it to record patterns of MIDI from external synths and then route the audio from those external synths through CbB to record the audio back into the Maschine instance to record it as a sample/loop. Then doing all of the arrangement inside of Maschine, then come time to mix and add other acoustic instruments/acoustic drums, etc., have Cakewalk's multitrack audio capabilities to record audio tracks alongside. I can do pretty all of this with CbB as is (woot!), but not being able to output individual channels of audio back to CbB is limiting. Also, another benefit of being able to do this routing is being able to record the multitrack output of Maschine while doing live performances on Maschine (as it has a whole performance aspect with its controllers, etc.). The same could be said about being able to record the Audio output of a VCV performance into multiple tracks, while also routing audio (and MIDI) from CbB into VCV. The only way to do this right now is if you're hosting Maschine/VCV in an Instrument track, but then, no audio input... So, so close! I just loaded up Ableton live to see how it handles all this and it is more capable with multitrack in and out support, but alas, it has a pretty major limitation. All the MIDI coming from a plugin/VST is summed into a single channel. So, there is no way to have Maschine (or VCV) outputting multiple channels of MIDI and then routing that MIDI in Live to hardware synths or other Live hosted plugins. I will likely be testing out Reaper and Cubase myself just to see if any of these actually do what I want. But like I said before, I love CbB, and really would love to just stay put as it is SO superior is many ways to just about every other DAW.
  15. Thanks for the confirmation. So, the ask here is to support that. I believe Reaper does support this (from what I gather, I haven't tried it myself). I don't want to move to Reaper, I have used and evolved with Cakewalk for 20+ years, and love just about everything about it, except this... I'm not in their code (so this is an ignorant statement), but I would imagine that it would not be a huge amount of work to just support audio input to VST hosted outside the context of the FX rack. Any devs on here care to comment?
×
×
  • Create New...