Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

185 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I had another thought about your issue. You might get that behavior if your sustain pedal has an incorrect polarity for your keyboard. That would be expected to produce a consistent error, rather than the intermittent problem you describe, but it might be worth checking to see if there is a polarity switch on your pedal that is in the wrong position or is loose.
  2. I think you are saying you get "stuck notes" i. e. a note stays on after the key is released. Typically that occurs because the DAW is not receiving a note-off MIDI message. Usually this is a keyboard or MIDI interface issue, but you also threw in the sustain pedal and from your phrasing it would seem that the issue only happens if the sustain pedal is operated. Additionally I am reading that your issue happens with either keyboard regardless of which keyboard is attached to the sustain pedal. That would tend to indicate the sustain pedal may be failing to trigger a note-off when released. If that is the issue, then more likely than not the pedal has a physical issue i.e. is broken. You can check to see that it is not some software issue with Cakewalk or the synths you are using by downloading MidiOx (free), to see what messages are being sent to the computer. You can also check the event list view to confirm what Cakewalk is seeing.
  3. There is no way you are going to get lossless compression that will rival an MP3 in size, for the very good reason that an MP3 throws away a lot of data. It is like the difference between packing a dozen pillows into a suitcase and packing three pillows instead. An alternative is to compromise on the largely inaudible differences between 24/48 and 16/44.1. One second of audio at 24/48k requires 1,152,000 bits compared to 705,600 bits at 16/44.1k a size reduction of about 40% for the CD quality file. That compares roughly to FLAC average size reduction. Further compression of the 16/44.1k file using FLAC would bring the size down again, but nowhere near the size reduction of 11:1 ratio that is available in the 128kb/s MP3 bitrate commonly used in streaming. As noted Ogg Vorbis is a lossy compression, but the comparison with MP3 for the same bit rate is a matter of opinion. In any event if you are choosing a lossy compression scheme you have made the choice to have something that sounds OK rather than something that is accurate in reproducing the original. If you are trying to provide live streaming of your data, then obviously lower quality for higher speed of transmission is the tradeoff. If you are trying to store your data online for later access, then there is no reason except time and convenience to compress at all, and you have a stronger argument for using a lossless compression.
  4. Excellent advice, John. Of course if you are going to try to open and work on old projects that used 32 bit plugs, it might not be the last word.
  5. I am not very well informed about British copyright law, but to the extent it is similar to the US: This is an interesting problem that is not always due to a false claim. When a work is in the public domain because the author died centuries ago, it does not preclude a contemporary composer from creating and copyrighting a new work based on the original. What he must show, in order to claim his own copyright for the derivative work, is that what he has created based on the historic version is sufficiently original that it qualifies. The bar for that originality is not particularly high. An exact copy or performance of an ancient text would almost certainly not meet the test, or the mere transposition to another key. The creation of a new arrangement or orchestration would give the arranger a copyright on the arrangement, but not on the original song. Most commonly this becomes an issue when a contemporary "folk singer" records an old song. Rarely do such performances exactly follow some easily identifiable composition from an old text. There may be additional verses, melodic changes, updating of the language etc. That potentially creates a new copyright for the altered version. Covers of the new version thus may require a performance license, and changes that incorporate significant aspects of the new version may need a license to create derivative works of that new version. Publishers of the new version are likely to want to be paid if a subsequent version is substantially similar to what they have copyrighted. So unless you found your copy of the original song with a publication date old enough to put it in the public domain, and your rendition does not take any new material from a more recent version, you may find your work accused of infringement. An interesting conundrum, to which I have not found a convincing answer, is what happens when a collector just records someone else performing a folk song, and publishes a transcription of the performance. The phonorecord is clearly copyrighted since it is a contemporary work, although the ownership of those rights would depend on the agreement with the performer. Usually the transcriber is at pains to say that he is NOT the author or the work. After all it is being presented as a folk song. By a similar argument, the performer typically claims not to have written the old song , but to have heard it from another performer in the past--making him a collector in his own right. The publisher or author of a book of such transcriptions will often as not claim copyright to the songs therein, although it looks like his only contribution is to the arrangement and production of the various works--the book but not the songs it includes. It is hard for me to see how anyone in this scenario is an author who has a legitimate right to claim infringement of the composition. Of course it costs very little for a copyright troll to send a cease and desist letter or demand payment, and most people doing folk music are in a poor position to defend an expensive infringement lawsuit.
  6. How do you know that the pictures are public domain? In the US any picture of a living person (technically any picture made by the photographer for his lifetime plus 70 years) should be assumed to be under copyright. For works for hire owned by a non-human legal entity like a corporation, created after 1978 the copyright lasts 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. It is actually very difficult for the author to put anything into the public domain per se. Copyright automatically attaches as soon as a work is created in tangible form, with a few exceptions like certain works made by or for the federal government. That copyright survives the author, and can be licensed, sold, inherited or seized as part of a legal action--so even if the author wants to give it away, he may not have that right. That implies that the author may not even be able to immunize you from a infringement action if someone else has assumed control of the copyright. Unless you have a license from the copyright holder, or the work has some kind of universal license like the Creative Commons licenses, it is likely infringement to use it. Performance/recording of a copyrighted work requires a license from the owners of the composition (word and lyrics) rights which can be obtained without specific consent of the copyright holder under the compulsory licensing provisions for sound recordings, but setting the music to a video requires a specific synchronization rights license. YouTube has a system for dealing with infringing music that involves deals with the various copyright holders, that they will not insist on the removal of the video from YouTube in exchange for a portion of revenue from advertising associated with the video by YouTube. If the copyright owner is not participating in that deal, then YouTube can get a takedown notice and be required to remove it. The person who posts the infringing video is liable to infringement action by the copyright owner in that case as well. YouTube has robot song identification that will pick up musical infringement, but I doubt they have the same for images that you use, and I am not aware of any deal they have with the owners of pirated pictures or video. When you are dealing with the likeness of a person, especially one who is famous, you open a whole new can of worms. The use of the picture of a person, and even in some cases attributes that are easily recognized as being associated with that person you may be violating the person's exploitable right to his identity. That is not a copyright issue but a whole separate area of law that is defined differently in different states. If the subject of a photograph has limited the use of the photo in the photographic release, he may have an action against someone using the photograph outside the bounds of that release. So if the band member agreed to sit for the photograph for the sole specific purpose of it being used on an album cover, for example, he may have a case against someone using that photo on a box of cereal or in a YouTube video.
  7. I wonder if developers have decided (erroneously) that people who use a free DAW will not pay gigantic prices for their plugins.
  8. My SL88 Grand sends note messages from each active split region which by default includes the entire keyboard. Disabling all the active splits except one fixes it. The most accurate way to check on a keyboard issue is to download MIDIOx and see what is being sent when only the keyboard is the MIDI input.
  9. This is a bit confusing. Are you using the keyboard to send messages to your plugins (softsynths) about control parameters or are you just using the keys to send MIDI note messages so that the synth will play that note? If the latter, then you need to set up the MIDI tracks to receive on different MIDI channels if you do not want them all to receive the sent notes. Note that none/omni as a choice on your channel input will receive messages from all channels. But that just pushes your problem along to the keyboard, which likely can be set to broadcast on a single channel or on several different channels with a keyboard split. Depending on how difficult it is to change your keyboard out channels, muting the unwanted channel(s) or easier still soloing the channel you want to hear in Cakewalk may be simpler.
  10. It sounds like you are using the internal sound chipset of your computer. Usually that means RealTek high definition audio in one of its many iterations. To the best of my knowledge, RealTek has never released an ASIO driver for their chips. There are newer Windows standard driver models that work on some of their chips. If you can find the option to use one of the standard windows drivers WDM or better yet WASAPI you will get better latency. If your system is an older installation you might try automatically updating the drivers for your audio or download new ones from RealTek. I
  11. THE SMALL PRINT Terms and Conditions This is a 1-computer lifetime license, for commercial or noncommercial use No free updates; if you update the program, it may become unregistered No free tech support You must get your license key before the offer has ended May not be resold Technical Details Developed by Ashampoo Version is v2021 Download size is 80+ MB Supports Windows 7, 8/8.1, and 10 (32-bit and 64-bit)
  12. If you are the sole author of multiple songs, you will likely want to take advantage of the relatively new option of "Group Applications for Unpublished Works" (GRUW). That will allow you to copyright up to 10 individual songs for a single filing fee. To use that option you must use the online (eCO) registration, and upload each song as a separate digital file. You can apply for both the composition (music and lyrics) and the recording rights at the same time, but be careful to be sure that you are doing so when you file. Most song writers are primarily interested in registering the composition, and the quality of the performance and recording is not an issue, they just want the convenience of not having to transcribe the music into standard notation. The advantage of the GRUW, aside from the cost, is that each song gets its own individual copyright, which makes it somewhat cleaner to license individual songs. If you want to copyright the actual recording of a group of songs that you have organized into an album, then you need to register as a collected work uploaded as a single file, and the assumption is that it will be released in that form.
  13. I expect the difference between what YouTube takes down and what they ignore is that the owners of the stuff that gets taken down have not bought into the deal with YouTube to claim and monetize the infringements. Many of the bigger publishers, who typically own the rights to the most popular songs are on board. They gave up trying to police their copyrights against a flood of infringement and have enough revenue from other sources so that they can pass on harassing YouTube posters. Making a small fraction of what they would make on legitimate licensing is OK with them, since the cost to make the income from YouTube is basically free. Your cover of one of their songs is not likely to result in listeners stopping listening to the original recordings. And if they have enough in their shared catalog, they can make a substantial amount of money and share very little with the composers who effectively use them to collect their royalties. On the other hand, an independent composer, or small label, would probably not make anything to speak of to offset what they see themselves as losing by performances of their work streamed without their permission. Assuming that the takedowns are not initiated by copyright trolls attempting to extort money from performers they find infringing on YouTube, there are a variety of reasons someone might manually flag an incident. Maybe they just want to control how their work is presented, or hope that someone will pay them a significant amount for a highly successful viral video. And there are for-profit services that run YouTube and other websites through their own song identification robots paid by their client copyright owners to do this kind of policing. I am sure most people who post covers do not do anything to secure the rights to the song or visuals. YouTube would simply not work if that was required. Most people who have looked at the issue advise to do exactly what you are suggesting--post what you want and let YouTube and those who own the copyrights catch and sometimes stop them. Unfortunately, the fact that is is unclear to the poster whether a particular work is covered by the agreement between YouTube and the publishers for any particular song makes getting too many strikes a real possibility.
  14. A synchronization license is required whenever you are creating a video that uses someone else's musical composition. So if you make your own video or license someone else's video, and yourself perform someone else's song composition to act as part of the sound track, you need the original composer to provide you with a synchronization license to use the music composition. Otherwise you are infringing the composition (music and/or lyrics) rights of the composer of the music that you are recording. I you are the author of the song you are performing, then you, as the author, have rights to synchronize it, perform it, record it, rearrange it or create a derivative work (change music or lyrics) as part of your author's copyright. So, yes, everything posted to YouTube needs synchronization rights. If you use any part of someone else's video you need a license from the creator of the video to use his video, both as the video itself and as a derivative work because you have altered it by adding your audio, but that is not a synchronization right. If you use a recording of someone else's performance of a song that you authored, then you do not have to license the composition rights as a sync license, but you need a license to use the actual audio data of that recording, the master recording rights. So if you film your own video and use a few seconds of a pop record as background you do not need a license to publish the video but you do need a license from the authors of the words and music (synchronization rights) and another license to use the actual audio recording/phonorecord (master recording rights). Who owns the master rights depends on how the contract was set up prior to making the audio recording, but typically ends up in the hands of the recording company that released the song. It frequently happens that a performer does not own master rights to their own recording of their own composition and so cannot use or fully benefit from their own originally recorded voice performing their own composition without getting a license from the owner. Taylor Swift is notoriously facing this issue. To get to the farther end of reasons that music videos are copyright hell, consider that even if you film the video yourself, you may still have obstacles clearing the images in your video. The creator of a work of art has the sole right to create derivative works of that creation. When you photograph a piece of art (whether a single original or one of a licensed million copies) that photograph may be considered a derivative work of the original. So a picture of a smurf doll in your video might require permission from the owner of the smurf design copyright. Such issues rarely matter in cheap to free videos, but when big money is at stake it may. A potter friend of mine made a ceramic spoon rest that appeared just incidentally sitting on a stove in a scene in a major movie, and the producers contacted her for permission to use it in this way. https://www.easysonglicensing.com/pages/help/articles/music-licensing/what-is-a-synchronization-license.aspx
  • Create New...