Jump to content

Craig Anderton

Members
  • Content Count

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Craig Anderton last won the day on October 16 2019

Craig Anderton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

715 Excellent

6 Followers

About Craig Anderton

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I recommend at seminars that no matter what Windows DAW someone uses, they really owe it to themselves to download Cakewalk. There are several unique functions that other DAWs don't have. I think many people have moved on from the "one DAW must rule them all" mindset, and use more than one DAW. It's easy enough export/import tracks, or even drag and drop, to use multiple programs for what they do best. There's no reason why you can't track or edit in one program, and mix in another. It would be one thing for me to recommend Cakewalk if I expected people to shell out another $300 - $500 in addition to whatever other program they're using, but jeez, it's free. The guitarist/engineer for 60s folk-rock icon Melanie used to live in the neighborhood, and he used Sonar Platinum for all her projects. He was one of those people who was leery of Windows 10 and switching from Sonar to BandLab, but I talked him into it Turned out he wished he had done it sooner.
  2. When I worked with Gibson, I had access to MI Sales Trak, which showed what software was selling at retail. It didn't give total/cumulative numbers, but monthly sales figures. It would have been a major faux pas to reveal any of that data, but suffice it to say there was a period of time where Cakewalk was doing quite well. These days, the data is not as relevant since so much software is sold online. As to Sound on Sound, they stopped running my column because they had done a reader survey, which showed Cakewalk users were a small percentage of their readership. Magazine space is a finite resource, so Cakewalk was dropped. Another magazine said they were interested in my doing Cakewalk-related articles, and I proposed doing either text, videos, or some combination thereof - whatever worked for them. They said in early March they'd get back to me ASAP, but I never heard back. I also checked whether BandLab would be interested in selling my over 400-page eBook of Cakewalk tips, but there wasn't any interest there, either. So I've given up on trying to spread the word through other outlets. When I have something Cakewalk-related that's worth posting, I put it on craiganderton.org. There are currently four Cakewalk-specific articles, but also, several more general articles based on Cakewalk (e.g., about ripple editing, loops, etc.). Unfortunately, the Cakewalk-specific articles are close to the bottom of the most-read list, which doesn't give me a lot of incentive to write more, especially because I can't monetize the time put into them (the site is free). The irony, of course, is that Cakewalk is better than it's ever been. If it ever deserved attention, it would be now.
  3. Unless I misunderstand what you want, you can just jump to a marker that designates the point you want, and hit stop.
  4. I use the IK CSR Hall, which has more parameters than the Breverb. So, you can't really do a 1:1 parameter match. To create the preset, I started with the same reverb time as my desired Breverb setting. Editing the usual suspects - crossover, damping, low frequency multiplier, etc. - got it super-close. Then I did a few more tweaks for diffusion etc. There are some elements that really don't correlate, like it seemed like a needed 35 ms Pre Delay on the IK to get the same kind of early reflections as 10 ms for the Breverb. But after a bit of tweaking, the differences were so minor I saved the IK preset as "Breverb Hall Emulation."
  5. That's what I've experienced. However, I could always re-install it with the original code that was given. I "cloned" my favorite Breverb settings in IK's Classic reverb plug-ins in case I couldn't use Breverb any more, but that hasn't happened yet. I was just going to bite the bullet and buy Breverb (hey, it's a great product!). But then I figured out how to make my own impulse responses for convolution reverbs, and that's become my new go-to.
  6. Sorry, I missed seeing the link for the image. Too many windows open at once... Do you think simply doing an uninstall via the control panel's Apps & Features might be enough? Then the VST folder thig wouldn't be an issue.
  7. Hit the down arrow next to the update button, choose Install Add-Ons, then check Melodyne. That should do it.
  8. I know a lot of people who signed up for the free updates felt burned when Gibson closed Cakewalk's doors. However, I think the fact that so many people were willing to pay for, and support, Sonar may have been one reasons why BandLab saw something that deserved to continue. And we're getting free updates anyway
  9. I remember during the Gibson days when many people complained about the monthly updates, because they felt there wasn't enough time to learn new stuff before there was more new stuff.
  10. My understanding (Noel would know more) is that metering is fairly CPU-intensive. So that may be the source of your issues.
  11. Try mid/side processing, see my post in your question about 90 degrees out of phase.
  12. Well, I'm a guy on a forum AND a professional mixer, as well a mastering engineer who's mastered hundreds of tracks, one of which won an award, and one of which was nominated for the Hollywood Music in Media awards. So I've around the block a few times I've done a lot of research on stereo placement. My favorite tool for doing so is using an M/S encoder, putting the sides in mono in one track, the center in mono in one track, and comparing with exclusive solo. This makes it easy to tell who's doing LCR panning (which has more than one meaning , it also relates to live sound). Doing this also reveals two major philosophical differences in mixing. For example in Madonna's "Ray of Light," the main guitar and synth are panned hard left and right. The sound seems like it explodes out of the speakers, and leaves lots of room for the center voice/kick. It sounds nothing like a live performance (of course, not that there's anything wrong with that). LCR is also good for giving a "vintage" vibe because with limited tracks and ancient mixing consoles, your only choices were left, right, and center. Another advantage of LCR is it translates well over different systems, because you're not dependent on nuanced stereo. When you listen to someone like Peter Gabriel, the sides are used more as a frame around the center to provide ambience. This sounds more live, and flatters the voice because it's the center of attention - it's not competing with the sides. If you hear the way Gabriel and Madonna handle the voice, there's no doubt who wants to put the center of attention on the vocal more than the production. I feel both artists made the correct artistic decisions. Or at least, that's the way I would have mixed them. My personal reference for mixing is live music, for two reasons. First, when someone listens to my music, I want them to feel they're watching a performance. Although I'll place sounds toward the left or toward the right (sometimes quite a bit toward the extremes), I never pan hard left and right because that's not the way live music sounds. Second, if I ever play the music live, I want to be able to reproduce it so it sounds at least somewhat like the album. As to stereo wideners, I totally disagree it's a band-aid if it's based on mid/side processing, not phase differences, which seems to be what the guy in the video is referring to. No one considers mid/side miking (which uses the same principle as quality wideners) a band-aid or amateur technique, in fact, it's considered rather advanced because of the options it gives on mixdown. Of course, you don't want to "widen" things to 200% of the width, but just a little bit can open up some space in the center that would be difficult to do otherwise. However, I prefer a more DIY approach, where I encode the signal into mids and sides, process those components separately, then decode them. For example, I just re-mastered an album by Martha Davis for vinyl. By separating it into mid and side components, I could make sure the bass was 100% centered, as well as keep extraneous bass out of the sides. By increasing the highs a bit on the sides, because highs are more directional, the apparent stereo width was greater. When done this way, it also collapses perfectly into mono, which I also consider important. I could go on but that's enough for now. Feel free to check out my latest album project (link below), which is selective in the approach to panning, and combines the two techniques. Some parts within a song are more centered; in some songs various instruments are panned much more to the sides. I feel the variety makes the album more enjoyable than if everything was panned hard left/right, or treated strictly as framing for the center. In other words, pan, don't pan, widen, narrow, whatever will best serve the song - which will tell you what it wants if you listen hard enough. And whatever the song tells you will be more appropriate than anything you read on a forum, or hear from a guy who knows how to post a video. Good luck with your projects!! https://youtu.be/ONQkKQcuego
  13. Sort of, but then you need to create an FX Chain, and involves a couple extra steps for editing, because you need to open up effects from within the chain instead of just clicking on the effect in the rack. I was thinking of something that literally just sent PC audio directly to the effects rack input, then brought audio from the effects rack output back into the PC.
  14. I think a cool addition would be a PC module that simply sent to, and received from, the effects bin, so you could place the effects bin anywhere you wanted in the PC chain...sort of like the external effect plug-in, but within Cakewalk. Here's why. I've often been asked when you "should" use one or the other. My answer has always been that the PC is conceptually equivalent to being part of a mixer, in that the visuals are consolidated in one place. The effects bin is equivalent to outboard gear, where interface windows open up individually. Generally I think the concept works well, but it breaks down with things like Tape Emulators, which you likely want to have at the end of a chain, so that implies putting the PC after the effects bin - but you may not want dynamics and EQ there. If an "effects bin insert" existed, I'm sure there would be plenty of times I'd put it somewhere in the middle of the PC.
×
×
  • Create New...