slartabartfast

Might help if you can explain what model amp you are using and exactly what routing takes the signal from the amp into Cakewalk. As scook said there is no way to control the input level of the digital signal into Cakewalk in Cakewalk itself. You do not mention any audio interface, but typically signal amplification or attenuation will occur prior to digitization in your interface. Apparently you need to connect the direct out from the Quilter to a microphone input on your audio interface. The gain knob on the interface is what you should use to control the signal strength of the signal before it is digitized. Once the digital signal is laid down in a Cakewalk track, the "loudness" of playback and the signal strength from the recorded track to the mix can be controlled by CW, but if it is clipped on the original A/D conversion at your audio interface nothing can be done. If you are using an on-board audio interface (plugged into the microphone plug on the computer) the gain control is under Windows settings\sound\input\device properties.

The ghost is typically that some other program that uses your audio interface re-sets its sampling rate.

If the kill process trick does not work for some reason try logging out of your account then logging in again. Often that will work as well and take a good deal less time than a reboot.

The mathematical maximum is 131,072 (2 to the 17tth power), but theologians have speculated that before you get to half that number God will strike you down and Satan will punish you by forcing you to audition each of them on an infinite number of tracks.

The latency issue is not an application problem, it is inherent in the internet itself, and to a lesser degree in telephony repeaters. If you need to hear the other players in order to adjust the groove/timing of your play, more that about 20 milliseconds delay will likely cause confusion and errors. In any event no one will actually be able to hear the other players in real time over current commercial internet connections. https://www.howtogeek.com/138771/htg-explains-how-latency-can-make-even-fast-internet-connections-feel-slow/

What does choked off mean here? Do you mean some notes do not sound, they do not sound but show up in the events list/notation view, they do not get recorded, they sound but are cut off early (duration shortened) or what? I am sure you know exactly what you mean, and that "choked off" means exactly that to you, but spend a few minutes and a few descriptive words that explain exactly what you are doing, what you expect, and what is happening to help the rest of us.

I have recently changed my artist name to Taylor Swift, and find it has had a very positive effect on my career.

So if you have recorded the performance to a Cakewalk project file, you should be able to open that project in Cakewalk on another computer and just edit the tracks directly. A best practice, especially while you are learning, is to make changes to a copy of the original project. Before you start it is also probably wise to take the time to understand the limits of Cakewalk's undo, and work out a process of saving various versions of your edited project. "Takes" are not a necessary part of the process, but are more useful when recording multiple versions of the same performance so that individual versions can be easily compared. As to how you do the edits, that is the purpose of the manual, and because Cakewalk has so much flexibility it is not something that can be explained in a few sentences.

I did misunderstand your point to the extent that you want to live play multiple VST's, each serving as a layer in your output simultaneously and find the usual routing in Cakewalk frustrating. I still do not agree that putting all of the layers on a single track is a best practice, although I can see how it would make the mechanics of routing that single track simpler albeit at a sacrifice of some flexibility. The logical solution to your most significant problem would be for Cakewalk to allow a one to many MIDI to instrument track simple routing, or a MIDI send from a single MIDI track. In the SONAR days people were solving this issue with a virtual MIDI cable or virtual MIDI patch bay application that would intercept the keyboard input and distribute it to the different MIDI tracks simultaneously. That may still be the simplest method. http://forum.cakewalk.com/MIDI-to-Multiple-Tracks-One-Working-Solution-m1573767.aspx Lets agree that we probably both know what "layering" means.

And I would like the documentation to be as clear about this issue as your explanation. The None/Omni conflation in the manual has been a constant source of confusion for years.

OK. so how does "layering" require that you put all the sounds on the same track in the first instance. In effect Cakewalk can be used as a highly configurable additive synthesizer with almost unlimited voices playing identical MIDI input to control different synths or samples by setting up separate tracks that all sound simultaneously. There is nothing magical about having all of the sound components recorded to a single track. Even in the case where a given synth is producing an uncontrolled/randomized output, that synth can be reproducibly captured in a parallel track. In fact a multi-track configuration will give you more options to select the takes that you prefer. At any point you can merge the data from multiple tracks if you need to, or just wait until the final mix to combine them.

You should probably ask yourself what is to be gained by this action, which sort of defeats the progress made over the last sixty years in multi-track recording. Recording everything to the same track was more or less the only way to record when wax cylinders or disks were the medium, and was rapidly abandoned when the limited multi-track tape came on the scene. Keeping everything on a separate track lets you easily adjust each instrument in the mix, edit the performances individually, and even delete or replace one instrument with another seamlessly. You can always mix the individual tracks at a later stage, including intermediate stages before the final mix.

I am not sure what point you are going for here. Stalin's statement is fitting for someone who was in a position to create such statistics for his people, but hopefully most of us are interested in avoiding multiple tragedies. I think the analogy of the snakebites is that you are suggesting an alternative to the general social distancing recommendations, which inconvenience everyone but benefit just a few. Rather than have everyone avoid activities that risk spread, why not just have the old and feeble hide themselves away from the young and healthy, who can then spread it among themselves without adverse consequences. In fact special recommendations for those at known high risk of serious disease are being made at every level in the public health community, and it is certainly advantageous to avoid infection if it is likely to kill you, even though such a regimen would have little effect on limiting the spread of the virus among the un-worried population. So that extra level of precaution speaks more to the motivation of the participant than to the overall effect on the pandemic. You may be underestimating the number of those at increased risk, however. Over 100 million US adults would be in the groups known to have higher fatality. https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/how-many-adults-are-at-risk-of-serious-illness-if-infected-with-coronavirus/ As for your often repeated contention that this pandemic is not an existential threat to the human species, I completely concur. We are not all going to die, nor are the number of deaths we can reasonably expect going to reduce our world population so much that modern technology cannot be sustained. So what? Are we not better off doing what we can to avoid infecting the vulnerable--even those of us who think ourselves invincible? The argument that one death or one million does not destroy civilization or humanity can hardly be used to justify not doing what we can to avoid preventable deaths. Nor does the argument that there are, or have in the past, been other causes of tragedy excuse us from an obligation to mitigate this cause. The implication that we do not know "how many would have died from other reasons within a few months" is that we should welcome or support the culling of our sick and elderly. That is an argument that we could have expected from Stalin. It misses the point that many of the deaths will shorten lives by years. Even if you believe setting the old and sick folks adrift on an ice flow is preferable to changing your own behavior, the same argument would be applicable in the event you or someone you care about arrives in an overcrowded emergency room following a trauma or suicide attempt to find that all the ventilators are in use by patients who have a better chance of successful treatment.

Maybe more, depending on your situation. One of the absurd aspects of the quarantined cruise ships was the idea that they could release everyone after a two week quarantine--the assumption being that infected people would be showing symptoms/testing positive by that time. In fact new infections were occurring daily throughout the quarantine as the virus spread between passengers. Assuming that newly infected passengers would not show up for two weeks would imply that every day, when a new case was found the quarantine for the entire ship would need to be reset and run for another two weeks, until everyone who was susceptible had been exposed. If you are just hiding out for two weeks, or if your employer is just trying to keep his workers from infecting each other and their customers, then it is likely that new cases will be occurring daily throughout that period, and the exposures that the plan was trying to avoid will just start again when everyone goes back to work. In most areas of this country we can expect far more active cases will be circulating (prevalence) in the next month than in the next week, and the prevalence may well be more in six months than it is now. If you are self-quarantined due to a known exposure to an infected person, then that should be sufficient to determine if you will develop symptoms, but you could still be an asymptomatic carrier--the jury is out as to how common this is. If symptoms develop then you will not know if you have a Covid-19 infection or any of the many viruses that have similar symptoms. This is why easily accessible targeted testing is important. If you have mild disease or even if you are in respiratory distress from a viral or secondary bacterial pneumonia, it makes no difference in the medical interventions that will be needed to treat you. It makes a great deal of difference in terms of what the hospital needs to do to protect personnel and other patients from catching Covid-19 at their facility. I recently heard that a hospital had sent twenty one nurses home for a two week quarantine because they had been exposed to a Covid-19 patient. If that happens a surprisingly few times at a given hospital it will be impossible to find enough nurses to treat the patients, as they will all be home waiting for symptoms. If personal protective equipment is available and a system that will make it highly unlikely that those working with infected patients will become infected themselves, then such quarantine could be avoided. If testing were widely available, then personnel who test negative after a much shorter quarantine period would suffice. This presupposes that such symptoms and tests can be confidently relied upon. It would be useful from an epidemiological standpoint to do experimentally random testing of the population to learn where and how fast the disease is spreading and to calculate the true case fatality rate, but it will probably be some time before testing the worried well on demand can be justified as a rational use of limited testing capacity. In the meantime we will be quarantining many with no benefit and failing to quarantine many who should be. At this point, we have no reasonable expectation that the measures available will stop an epidemic in its tracks, although it may result in a lower infection rate at the end, but rather that we will reduce the daily case load at treatment centers so that patients will be able to receive lifesaving treatment--thus a lower death rate even if not a lower total of infections. The unfortunate consequence of this lifesaving strategy is that new infections will be occurring for a longer period of time as people who were shielded from early infection pick up the disease at a later stage in the epidemic.

So 100,000 beta testers at $1 is better than 10,000 beta testers at $10?

It does not currently run except as a 32-bit plug in 64 bit DAW's that have native bridging, so Cakewalk might work. The plan is to graft on a BitBridge version rather than compile for 64. Anyone actually install and use this on CW? Still at this price it might be worth the bandwidth and storage, but more likely not the learning investment. I am at least a year behind on mastering the synths I have bought as no-brainers over the years. What I need is an inexpensive brain. Never Mind:

Wow, CraigB, I did not expect this level of sophistry from someone as sophisticated as you. The numerator you are using is actually only applicable to those who are already dead at the time of your calculation. That number changes hourly and we can safely assume that not all fatal cases are being diagnosed correctly. So your chances of having died, assuming all deaths from Covid-19 are correctly identified, given that you were a US resident may have been as low as you imply. That says nothing about your risk of dying over any fixed period in the future. You correctly note that situation, but then use that rather meaningless figure to put the future risk "in perspective." Quite unlike a black swan event (a single lightning strike on a boat full of girl scouts could double the "risk" of dying from a lightning strike in a year) there is every reason to believe that the current scattered outbreaks will spawn a significant epidemic. In that event the uncorrected risk of death might be one in several hundred or more. For those infected, the risk stratification can be much more sophisticated, and the lethality in those at high risk is likely significantly (an order of magnitude?) greater than typical influenza seasons. The point of being alarmist, rather than fatuously reassuring, at this early stage is not to say that the world should grind to a halt because a relatively few people have died, but that it should change in a major way to mitigate the rate of future illness. We may be lucky and avoid a situation where millions die, and we could be very lucky and have that happen even without major cultural and economic displacement, but it is highly likely that some alteration in the progress of the epidemic can be had by accepting (or perhaps pretending to accept in some cases) that we are at significant risk of infection and altering our behavior appropriately. The public health community, when they are being honest, are not promising that the spread of this disease can be stopped by informal quarantine, social distancing or hand washing. In a population with no immunity from previous infections or vaccination, the best we can probably hope for is that we can spread the same ultimate number of infections over months rather than a few weeks and thus avoid a tragic overloading of the health care system. There are roughly 75000 general ICU beds and perhaps 100,000 ventilators available in the US, and if every infected health care worker is out of action for a couple of weeks, there is no way to replace their skills with currently trained but unemployed workers. In Wuhan patients requiring ventilators for two or more weeks sometimes made a full recovery, although they would have died without that intervention. Deciding who should get lifesaving treatment when all the resources are in use is not a decision I would like to make. In a medical resource shortage, not only the Covid-19 patients, but anyone who requires their bed or ventilator for a completely unrelated reason may die. In the usual course of events an epidemic will peak rapidly then gradually die out as susceptible hosts have all become infected or until herd immunity becomes significant as infected (now immune) survivors provide firebreaks to the chain of infection. Avoiding the early peak is the strategy at present. I recently heard Mayor de Blasio wonder aloud if we should be closing schools, since the young seem to suffer very low mortality from the infection. That shows an appalling lack of understanding about the issue. Thousands of infected students may very well suffer nothing more than a cold, but they are going home from what is essentially a landlocked cruise ship to close contact with sick or elderly relatives. This is really a situation where those at low risk need to pay the limited cost of containment in order to spare those who may succumb. Unlike China, we probably cannot expect mobs of your neighbors to nail your door shut if they think you are infected, but I think we should expect our fellow citizens to exercise precautions even if they do not expect to suffer death themselves. An epidemic does not care about ideology, ignorance, or bravado.

Makes you wonder where the world of DAW is heading. Sort of reminds me of the days when web browsers were jostling each other as freebies to counter the lock Microsoft was trying to put on web access with their included browser. No doubt the free version will come set up to work with Behringer equipment as plug and play so they can make money on a freebie by selling the hardware. Coming up with the definitive perfect DAW for everyone in the now crowded field is just plain not going to happen with this effort, and driving the competition out with a zero price point seems unlikely. To the extent that plan succeeds we should start a pool guessing which current offerings will disappear first. I am betting not ProTools--any more than one would expect cubic zirconia to replace diamonds in the engagement ring market. This market is to a large extent controlled by a wannabe mindset that needs the most expensive thing that all the famous producers use.

So it sounds like you are not tied to the dock per se, but rather to the audio interface that you are not able to travel with. Otherwise the obvious solution is to install the Focusrite ASIO drivers to the laptop and use the audio interface connected to the laptop directly. The issue is complicated by your apparent need to use Airpods instead of wired headphones, and the necessity of using the onboard audio chipset because you have no other interface attached to your laptop. Unless you are using your laptop while riding a bicycle, you might be better off trying to re-think a way to get your audio interface and headphones connected.

So the best case interpretation for someone charged with infringement is that the claim that all melodies (permutations of notes) already existed prior to their first rendering to physical media, and therefore no melody copyright can be enforced. A similar proof could be applied for any conceivable arrangement, pattern of rhythm, chord progression etc. The permutations increase enormously if note duration or simultaneously sounding notes are included, but the principle is the same. It follows that "music" cannot be protected from copying, and that a requirement to pay any royalty for any song would also be unenforceable. Note that this argument vitiates any existing copyrights prior to the exercise discussed in the video and makes all the spaces green. From the point of view of the author of a "new" melody, he will need to depend on copyrights that cover his lyrics (if the song is not an instrumental) or the actual phonorecord that he makes of his own performance of the song. Anyone who hears or is otherwise able to access his musical "creation" will be free to do with it as he likes without restriction or payment unless he enters into a contract to pay for something he can get for free. So a superstar can copy a nobody's music (in fact he can copy everybody's music) and profit from it without regard to where he obtained it. That leaves little incentive for composers who are not primarily performers or poets. Of course if all possible music is already a "fact" that is inherent in the mathematical reduction of notes, putting the so far undiscovered melodies into the public domain has no effect, since the argument is that music is not subject to copyright at all--just as you cannot copyright the numbers that you put in a table of logarithms. Another issue raised by the computer generated result is whether the operation of an obvious algorithm to generate the so far undiscovered melodies meets the requirement for originality needed to obtain copyright for each of the generated results. Will the law recognize the distinction between a human created melody and an identical melody generated by an algorithm? If so, then presumably the red spaces represent infringement of copyrighted material by the presenter, and the green spaces do not protect anything when they are put in the public domain, since the "author"/computer has no copyright to transfer or license to the world. at large. It is pretty clear that the presentation is not meant to be anything except a reductio ad absurdum for a real problem in copyright practice that results in the opposite result from that intended by the law. Instead of encouraging production of new music by securing to the author a limited monopoly on the rewards from exploitation of his work, it is inhibiting the creation of new songs by anyone else. Moving the testing of facts, (is the song original, was it a copy of something the new author had access to, is the claimed infringement of a valid copyright) to an initial evidentiary hearing, could significantly reduce the legal fees for both parties in a dispute, as the presenter suggests, but is that really so beneficial in solving the problem? Would it not encourage more lawsuits, since the plaintiff would also have less to lose by initiating litigation against the alleged infringer. In practice, for all but the wealthiest of songwriters, the damage is already done at the cease and desist letter. In fact it is done at the point of even imagining that you might receive one, a lesson that this Ted Talk clearly teaches. Would you be willing and financially able to face Taylor Swift's lawyers in court, even if you knew you would be liable for only tens of thousands of dollars instead of hundreds of thousands just in legal costs? It would make more sense to limit the payout to the plaintiff by requiring that he prove the amount he actually lost in income from his original work from the infringement, rather than assessing a statutory award, or supporting claims of lost income from a license that was not paid for. How many fewer records did the Chiffons sell because John Lennon "unconsciously" infringed their work? Instead the law asks how much more could they have made in licensing fees if John had paid them for it. Of course that would encourage piracy by largely immunizing the infringer from paying at all in many cases, but is that such a different outcome from the argument that no license need ever be obtained because there is nothing original anyway.

What is the result when using Kontakt and Addictive Keys in standalone mode? What is the result when using either as the only instrument on a single track in a new from scratch (not from a template) project without any effects? Is the "distortion" that you hear when using Cakewalk present on an exported wave file when it is played back on another audio application? Is the "distortion" present at all levels and pitches for a given instrument? Is the "distortion" digital clipping (overs)? Is it analog clipping? Is the "distortion" dropouts? I wish I could point you at an article using music as the substrate, but this will give you some examples of different "noises" you are likely to hear. https://www.thepodcasthost.com/recording-skills/stop-whats-that-sound-troubleshooting-audio-issues/

It is pretty difficult to diagnose "noises" that "sound like shit" from the verbal description alone. You apparently have a trained ear and a lot of experience, so it is surprising that the vocabulary you use to describe the audio situation is so limited. Late versions of SONAR were not so different from Cakewalk in terms of the audio reproduction, and there are many people who do find instrument plugins usable in Cakewalk. If you are new to Cakewalk, then presumably it was installed with different settings or even on different hardware than SONAR was, which further complicates the issue. Getting technical help from peers or technicians is an onerous time-consuming and often frustrating exercise, but on its face this seems to be more of a case of venting than soliciting assistance.

I am not clear on what you are actually doing. If you are hearing the notes you are playing on your controller, while playing the notes you are seeing on the staff view, then you are recording with input echo on as you play. If you are recording on the same track as the notes that you are listening to, it might be possible that you are obliterating the note off of the note from the imported file by laying down a new note on top of it. If you are recording to the same track, try setting up your keyboard to record on a new track altogether by setting the new track and keyboard to communicate on a MIDI channel that is different from the imported track. I would think that would be the best practice in this case anyway. I think that is what David Baay is recommending as well.

Sox should do the trick if that is the problem. Another, maybe easier to use, option is https://www.sounddevices.com/product/wave-agent-software/ . that has a user interface that will tell you what the current metadata are and let you change them as well. In any event you do NOT want to actually re-sample the audio using something like R8brain. You just want to change the bytes in the existing file that tell playback devices what the sampling rate is. Re-sampling, actually adjusting the audio to fit a new sample rate, will just give you the same chipmunks at a different sample rate.

Another example of how lack of clarity in a question can lead to confusion in the answers. Rather than say "freeze...plugins," which is an idiosyncratic name for a process that I think no one except the OP understands, perhaps he should spend a few words to describe in simple English what it is he wants to accomplish and why.