Craig Anderton

And for anyone else who runs into issues with a version that does support ReWire...make sure you have the current Rewire library .dll installed.

It could be a number of things, maybe it's a sample rate mismatch, or if YouTube wants to use Windows native drivers and Cakewalk wants to use ASIO, they're arguing. Does it work if you choose native Windows drivers for Cakewalk instead of ASIO?

Are you sure that's the case? I just loaded a bunch of CPU-intensive effects and watched the Performance CPU meter. If I turned off the effects with the bypass button, the CPU consumption went to almost nothing. It seems you could load up a track will the effects you wanted to use, and turn off effects as needed when you wanted to save CPU power. You couldn't save individual presets of effects that are on or off, but it sounds like this is something you wouldn't have to change often, just when going from (for example) tracking to mixing.

Read the 7th post down for the answer to your first sentence. The solution is based on using the loop construction window. Regarding the second sentence, you can do the true varispeed time/pitch/no artifacts effect if you follow the directions that are given. You do NOT use the loop construction window to create a loop, or do stretching. Again, the 7th post down explains what you need to do. The loop construction window can do more than construct loops, this is just one example.

It's in CbB, too, in the Loop Construction window. I'll often dump a final mix in there, prior to mastering, just to do the old tape varispeed trick.

I've often thought I should update them, but unfortunately, it would take a lot of effort due to the GUI changes over the years. It would basically be like starting from scratch. So far Cakewalk isn't interested in selling any of my Cakewalk-related products, and I don't think I could sell enough videos on my reverb.com microsite to justify the time. But never say never...

scook is correct, automation does the job. When I've wanted to flange the entire mix, not just individual tracks, it can be dicey to put the flanger in the master bus, go from bypass to enabled, and get the flanging right. What works for me is to copy the portion of the mix I want flanged (including a little bit of the track before and after the section), flange it, then drop it back in place of the copied section. Having a little more than needed allows doing a crossfade for a seamless transition.

Thanks for the props! Re the $20, one of the great things about a 411-page eBook (with all those four-color pictures) is you don't have to charge the same kind of price that print requires.

There is nothing wrong with dual mono (i.e., the same material in the left and right tracks). It will actually make life easier for you with true stereo effects.

The thing that trips me up with Session Drummer 3 is where to put the content, because I have a lot of custom sounds and don't want to clutter up the system drive. mklink allows re-directing to the drive with all my samples.

I really like the custom graphics, too. But they remind me it's a shame the older paid Pro Channel modules aren't available any more. Maybe someday...

First of all, I have zero business affiliation with Cakewalk, so any answer I would give to this kind of question would be speculation, based on my overall experience industry experience. As to why BandLab keeps updating Assistant, it does more than just update Cakewalk. I assume the updates are done for the same reason any apps are updated - clean up loose ends, add new elements, etc.

My understanding is that 1909 was mostly built into 1903, and "installing" it is basically just enabling features that were already downloaded.

I got a PM asking if I could comment. Well, donut pictures are more interesting, and to give a complete answer would take forever. I have very definite thoughts about the demise of music media, why it happened, how it could have been avoided, and why the mistakes that were made are fatal. Short form: Sound on Sound and Tape Op are still around because they prioritized the readers, not the advertisers. I think Pro Sound News, Guitar Player, and Premier Guitar do as well. There was a period of time when corporate buyout people thought that magazines were successful because they had advertisers, so they catered to the advertisers. The reality is that magazines are successful if they have READERS, because then advertisers want to advertise in it. But there's so much more to it than that... The web allowed every manufacturer to become a publisher and spread their message, without needing mags. Printing, paper, and postage are huge expenses. Back when I was doing Electronic Musician, those fixed costs alone ate up about 60% of the income. It's more now, After paying people and keeping the lights on, the margins are next to nothing. Younger readers don't want to be burdened with physical objects. CDs are gone, DVDs are almost gone, IIRC Samsung is no longer going to make Blu-Ray players, etc. As I predicted in the early 90s, even before Napster, we would see the end of physical media. That's what has happened. The internet has removed all filters and editorial vetting from content. I see YouTube videos with "pro tips" about recording that are major facepalm material. It's Gresham's Law applied to internet, where bad content drives out good. Manufacturers are the new publishers of content. For example, I do a lot of writing for Waves, PreSonus, Magix, Full Compass, Sweetwater, sometimes Native Instruments, etc. etc. What's interesting is that these companies exert LESS editorial control than magazines every did! Magazines were always scared of offending advertisers, but the reality is that advertisers want customers to buy things for the right reason. They don't want to hype something and then have people post 1-star user reviews because a product didn't meet their expectations. All the companies hardly ever ask me to change anything, and the only times they have were for reasons not related to the accuracy of the article (e.g., they were relaunching a product, and would rather have an article written around that than around an older, similar product). I really don't think I'll EVER do a tech-oriented book in print again. The Huge Book of Cakewalk by BandLab Tips book, and the four books done for Studio One, are all download-only. They VASTLY exceed sales of books done in print through a major publisher. Even better, I can submit a revised manuscript for an older book at any time - no stock, no returns - and run things right down to the deadline. For example. I did an eBook on the dynamics processors in Studio One 4.0. PreSonus said version 4.5 would be out in two weeks. I got a beta, made the changes, and the book was literally up to the minute when it was released. Print is horrible for turnaround, it can take six months and for tech stuff, and with that kind of latency, you might as well just ship them to a recycling center instead of a bookstore. My last Studio One book was 289 pages, and sold for $12.99. If that had been in print, I bet it would have been around $39.99. This isn't to say some companies aren't trying. Guitar Player is building back up, Premier Guitar has always done well. But the world is changing. The companies that are in denial will fail. The ones that accept change have a chance to succeed. One last thought: the eBook medium is yet to be fully exploited. In my PDF eBooks, I can have as many graphics as I want, with as big a font size as I want, with hyperlinks to musical examples and additional material, downloadable presets, links from the contents page to topics, and of course, search. Yes, there are advantages to print; no medium nails everything. But thin k of it this way. Suppose Gutenberg had invented the eBook, and that's all we knew. And then someone says "Hey!! I've got a GREAT idea!!Let's kill a bunch of trees, process them into flat sheets using a variety of toxic chemical, have them take months if not more to put them into production, charge at least four times what current books cost, and have no search or hyperlinks!!!! " And then when someone says "That doesn't seem like that good an idea," the answer is "But you can read them while you're sitting on the toilet!"

I saw that, but the reason he gave was "I don’t see the ability to edit envelopes in the piano roll: I created the CC11 envelope in Track View, but I can’t see it in the piano roll." If his goal is to create envelopes, that's one thing but if it's to associate particular controller values with notes, it's pretty easy to do in the standard piano roll view. If you want to embellish the envelopes further, you have the option to select the clip in track view, and choose Clips > Convert MIDI Controllers to Envelopes, and edit the envelope shapes. Of course your solution works too, and with either option, the "snap to MIDI landmarks" function is very helpful. My concern was that he didn't like working in the PRV because he wasn't aware of Alt+click, and the ability to convert controllers into envelopes. So he can try both workflows, and see if one works better for him than another. I would think for single-note lines, yours would be the way to go. But if you have polyphonic lines and the start times aren't quantized, I think it's probably easier to turn off snap to MIDI landmarks, and make a value judgement of where the controller data should change in the standard PRV. But to each his own - one of CbB's attributes is that there are often multiple options to accomplish the same result, so you can choose the one that best fits your circumstances.

What wrong with just Alt+clicking in the PRV controller pane (not the inline PRV) at the beginning of a note, and clicking at the desired value? If the note has a constant controller value, you're done. If not, you can draw in a more complex envelope...which you would have to do anyway if you split the clip into notes.

That seems like a better option than what you want, because you don't have to first select the note, then add the controller. You can just Alt+click in the controller pane at the beginning of a note, and click at the desired value. If needed, you can then drag to edit the controller value.

Why do you need this? Maybe there's a workaround...to accomplish the same function in a different way.

More info is definitely required. I suspect you're talking about the Sonitus EQ? It has a convoluted, but effective, way of saving presets.

I don't think it's possible. Conceptually, the clip envelope is part of the clip, whereas an automation envelope is an overlay on the track. For example, what would CbB do if the clip you wanted to paste into was a different length? It would have to decide whether to paste so the envelope beginning, end, or center was aligned with the clip. With an automation envelope, you copy and paste into the track, the envelope is an overlay so it doesn't matter what the underlying events are. Probably the best workaround is to use a conventional envelope for the clip, which you can then copy and paste to other clips.

Ooops...scook still types faster than I do.

I was very disappointed when I found the keyboard shortcut had been removed, Auto Zoom is a great feature. But, it's easy to get it back. Go to preferences > key bindings and for Area, choose Track View. In Search, enter zoom. Go to the bottom of the list, and you'll see View | Auto Track Zoom. Assign to Shift+Z, and you're back. You can also choose via the Track View's View menu, but I prefer a keyboard shortcut.

I do not believe this is possible, sorry....

Just thought I'd follow up...I looked at the 07 Feature Overview, and frankly, it explains the new Take Management enhancements really well, especially the copy/paste and drag/drop editing improvements. Since I don't like to repeat information that's available elsewhere, I instead concentrated on applications based on Lanes and Takes that make it easy to do massed vocals, a la Queen. The column's emphasis is on a type of "faux" loop recording that allows hearing all the previous takes while you're recording, as well as an easy way to direct the post-recording takes to a bus (which is often where you want massed tracks to end up, anyway). After dealing with the recording aspect, I'll probably base the next column on editing techniques involving Takes and Lanes...unless the next update includes the anti-gravity module, in which case covering that would become the priority. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!

I don't know! I'm a great believer in parallel discovery. I'm sure there were people before me who thought "hey, I want to be able to identify song sections" and came up with this technique, as well as people after me who thought they came up with the idea :)