Bill Phillips

I'm visually editing clip gain for a vocal clip and I've come across a section where the waveform appears to not be scaling as the clip gain is adjusted and I'm wondering why that is. The attached gif seems to show when clip gain is adjusted for a narrow waveform selection that the waveform is not scaled as the clip gain is changed. For a broader selection portions of the waveform are scaled but the core area that was included in the smaller selection does not appear to be scaled. I've also attached a second example where the left side of the waveform is not responding to the clip gain adjustment and the right (lower gain) side is. I'm using Version 2021.04 (Build 111, 64 bit).

Here's the clip waveform scaling documentation.

Thank you. Now I need to write this down somewhere.

Where can this be found in the documentation? It would be nice if it was in the startup section. I also think that holding CTRL key will run CbB as administrator. I can never remember these options or what they do, but the only way I can find the answers is to search the forum.

I haven't used this because, it appears to affect the track output and all sends. I usually only want to do this on one or two sends. Even the split mono tracks is a problem because I want to apply stereo FX to the stereo channel.

What I do is avoid it unless it makes a big difference. When it seems to make a significant difference, I do as you suggest.

That's what I've started doing.

I would love to be able to pan left/right track output and send levels independently as if they were dual mono channels. I have work arounds but it would be a lot easier if there were separate pan controls. I apologize if I've submitted this before. I'm constantly running into situations were I'd like to have separate pan controls.

I would like to be able to lock Track Input Gain controls so that they couldn't be adjusted again until unlocked. I use Input Gain controls for gain staging when I start a mix and don't intentionally touch them again. However, I can't avoid my cursor finding its way over them multiple times during a mix. So, I do sometimes adjust them by mistake and never remember they'd been before I bumped them. That leaves me fiddling with them for some time trying to get the track level and sound back to where it was. Input Gain affects everything downstream and changing by mistake affects any dynamic controls on the track.

Thanks.

@DeeringAmps I'm not proposing collaboration on a song project. I'm proposing collaboration on implementing a Cakewalk version of the Decerator template using a combination of standard Cakewalk and free plugins. I've just about got a rough draft of the template and pile of plugins to evaluate. I'm getting ready to load tracks and begin auditioning plugins. I was wondering if there are others doing the same thing that might want to trade notes and share ideas & findings.

Is anyone developing/using a mixing/mastering template based on Billy Decker's book? If so, I'd be interested in collaborating with you on building and using the template. I'm working my way through this short but seemingly action packed book in the hope of finally being able to finish a mix after 20 years. The book is amazingly filled with insights into the Deckerator mixing approach and precise plugin settings which I value, though I haven't tried to put them in practice yet and I expect the plugin settings will need to be validated/tweaked for each mix. However it's also amazingly sparse on other details like whether sends are pre or post fader. I'm going with prefader for now but suspect I'll end up with a mix of pre and post. My goal is to develop a template using a combo of Cakewalk included and free plugins that my daughter can use to mix her own music. At this point I don't think I have enough time left to ever complete any of the in-progress mixes of her songs that I'm working on. If you're not familiar with the book or the Deckerator mixing approach. He talked about it in detail in this interview.

Thanks. I'd never noticed that. I was trying to have all the sends for a particular bus on the same row and was inserting inserts to "none" as spacers. Not a big deal. In my case the sends are to aux tracks and sends are not ordered in aux track order. Also not a big deal. I'm fine with the existing behavior.

Not sure this is a bug but it looks like one to me. I tried to line up sends for this template using the "None" send name from the dropdown for tracks without a send to one the send effects. I only have three (Verb, Delay and Phas). So I wanted the Verb on the top row, Delay on the second row and Phas on the third row. I thought having "None" as an option would allow me to do that. But as the attached GIF shows, that doesn't work. Looks like Cakewalk has a mind of it's own on which sends can be named "None." for the track in the GIF, Cakewalk wants the top send to be the "None" send and the second one to be the "I Verb" send. Similar things happen in the other tracks. FWIW, if this isn't the place to report bugs, I searched around and couldn't find a different place. Consider adding it to one of the forum header dropdowns. I think that would help me.

Good to know.

Thanks. I do have that and had forgotten it has a vocal doubler. Haven't used it for a while. But I'm looking for a doubler with 4 tweakable voices like the Waves one. I'm guessing I'm out of luck.

Is anyone aware of a free 4-voice vocal doubling and harmonizing VST similar to the one from Waves? I have the iZotope Music Production Suite which includes Nectar which has a harmonizing plugin and I have the free iZotope Vocal Doubler. But I'm looking for something similar to the Waves plugin for a Mixing Template that I'm building using only free plugins. I've looked and haven't found anything but am often surprised by what the folks on this forum have found that that I can't. Thanks.

Found your nearly year-old post looking for a 64-bit version of Maxwell Smart. Loudmax looks like exactly what I've been looking for for 2-days. Thanks.

Yes, I understand. I was thinking that you could find a less expensive version with less I/O if you don't really need 26x26 I/O. But that's not the case, at least at Sweetwater. The only TB3 interface less expensive than the Quantum is the UA Apollo Solo with 2x4 I/O. All others are more expensive.

Why do you need 26x32 when you're working with all-VST-instruments-all-the-time? Wouldn't a smaller desktop interface would serve you better?

Yeah, I've always wanted an interface with onboard DSP but never had one. Neither my MOTU 828II or Focusrite 1st gen Scarelett 18i8 have it.

The Pesonus Quantum looks like a pretty good buy. It's about half the price of my trusty MOTU 828 mkII from close to 2 decades ago. I've never owned a Presonus interface, so I can't speak to the performance or quality.

I don't think so. The USB 3.1 interface might. I'm wondering why there aren't any PCIe x1 or x2 interfaces which I suspect could drastically reduce latency.

After partially digesting your last comment, I checked the modified dates for all the original audio clips and they were also all 3/20/2010, the day the song was recorded. So it looks like I recorded them at 32 bits using my 24 bit interface. I guess that doesn't hurt anything. Each sample just has 8 extra 0's at the top.

Thanks again.