Jump to content

Lord Tim

Members
  • Content Count

    637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord Tim

  1. Yeah, it was always recommended to use a Texas Instruments chipset, and even then there were variations that still caused glitches for people. I'm the same as you - when I had my Mackie Onyx, it just tended to work on anything I plugged it into but I definitely put that down to luck more than anything else.
  2. I'm going to counter that and say that Aggressive (3) can really make some systems really unstable, since it's still an experimental option. On my particular system, it does nothing under regular load but when I'm really trying to stress it at low latencies, it improves things a lot for me, so in my case it's great. But it's not for everyone. I'd suggest to try 2 (if it's not set by default) rather than 3 first. 3 is worth trying of course, but don't be surprised if you get worse results from it.
  3. But this is exactly my point - just because they've done that doesn't mean this is the way to make sure this is in the system. We're lucky when our posts get noticed and logged, but it's no guarantee because this is a peer-to-peer forum. Contacting support is the way to guarantee it. There's nothing at all wrong with what you're posting, in fact it's a great way to get people to corroborate your results. And if you're lucky, one of the devs will also see that. But you just never know how far it'll go. Exactly right - 100% agree with you. I do think it's a lot better now than it was in the past on the old forum but we all do need to be a little mindful of not being jerks I think. It's even easy to have what you write be interpreted really wrong, even when you're not trying to be a jerk on purpose, let alone someone who is going out of their way to be abrasive. It doesn't take much to be a decent person, even if you disagree with someone. Definitely on the same page with you there.
  4. I will say this though, nobody should feel like they shouldn't be able to bring up problems with CbB here at all. CbB most certainly does have bugs, and certain environmental settings can expose them or make it look like it's a CbB thing. Nobody should feel like this (or any) software is above criticism just because someone else isn't experiencing the problem. It's never going to be better if we just stick our head in the sand, right? Let's be methodical and constructive so we can be helpful before anything else. And definitely don't discount the usefulness of Support. As peers here, we can only do so much, even the experienced users.
  5. I'm not really defending or condoning anything here, just to be clear - everyone's post and the tone of their post is their own. But the point he was making kind of is correct, regardless of how the tone is presented. But again, the videos can only go so far. That's showing that something isn't working correctly, not WHY. This is a peer-to-peer forum and we're lucky enough for the devs to stick their heads in fairly frequently and help when they can, but nothing we say here gets put into the system unless a dev happens to see it and log it. Just looking at the bug list Noel was talking about from the last 3 years, if there's been thousands of long standing SONAR bugs addressed since then, think about how much is in the backlog they're getting to. If something isn't in the system and being allocated and prioritised, you don't know if anyone has logged your issue from a video on a user forum at all. Maybe it has? You just don't know. Again, sorry if anything I've posted is coming across as antagonistic or patronising at all - it's really not the intent. I just think there's other avenues you need to go down before you up-end your desk and write stuff off.
  6. There's nothing wrong with venting when things aren't working for you - we all do it - and it's certainly fair enough. I've seen you post enough stuff around the forums to definitely not discount what you're saying as a troll, or the rest of us just sticking our fingers in our ears and going "lalala not happening, this guy doesn't know what he's doing." I believe you're genuinely having some issues there, but I also think that because you're frustrated that you're not taking all of the steps to fix stuff either. Not having a dig or trying to be insulting here, apologies if it comes off that way. There's been a few guys with some horrible problems that a lot of us haven't seen before that weren't able to be reproduced, but if you have a scan through the product release threads, because they were reported and documented correctly (not just videos, but environmental settings such as hardware, drivers, installed software, etc.) then it was sorted out - you'll even see Noel mention how he's hopped on to a Teamviewer session to to run tests to get to the bottom of it all, and yes - sometimes this HAS turned out to be an obscure bug or something else that's exposing a problem that most of us aren't seeing. I don't know any other DAW company that does anything like that without charging you a crazy premium for it. Showing the result of something only helps so much. "Check it out, when I press Alt+A the entire screen turns purple - this is buggy!!" only shows that - yes, that's really weird and looks like a bug - but not WHY. I think this is what @bdickens was getting it - if you don't work with support to get to the bottom of it and just complain about the outcome, how could they know what the issue is? That sndfile.dll Waves issue I mentioned was a good one. On first glance, CbB is rubbish because it's not able to copy over a file properly and you have to tell it to skip a file during installation. Looks like a bug or horrendous UI programming. But in actual fact, it was a bug in a specific product that is only triggered by a certain sequence of events, and it it's actually getting fixed by the people who can actually do anything about it - the CbB team have no control over it. You see what I'm getting at? You have real problems there (outside of certain shortcomings with things that need to be looked at, eg: Audiosnap, CAL, etc.) but whatever is going on in your environment won't get fixed if all we see is the result, and not able to get to the cause. Like I said, I'd be gone if my system was anything like you're experiencing, and if CbB was the app I would really prefer to use, I'd be making Support absolutely sick of my name in less than a week. (Reiterating again, I'm not trying to poke the bear or be patronizing or anything like that here!)
  7. Pretty much what John and Noel said above - if CbB was anywhere near as buggy as you wrote in the OP, Craig, I'd be either sitting on a street corner with no clients and no money or I'd have moved on years ago. I simply have no time at all for buggy software - it's literally my livelyhood. Just looking at the percentage of people complaining about problems on here is about as common as most of the other DAW forums out there, and I think if anything is hurting Cakewalk at all, it's the minimal marketing, not the stability. Has CbB got bugs? OF COURSE it does. You can't use software as frequently as I do without coming across any, and I've reported my fair share over the years. Many have been fixed, and some things, I've been told, are on the "we hear you, it's in the queue" list. I have a laundry list of features I'm more than happy to bore everyone with if you ask me about them that I'd love to see incorporated too. But at least on all of the systems I've ever had CbB installed on (with a couple of very rare exceptions) I'd actually call it some of the most stable software I've ever used. Certainly far more robust than a lot of NLE packages I've had over the years. The places where I've had the most issues are on setups that already have big problems with the system or hardware or some super buggy plugin or something. I'm certainly not implying you're not having a horrible time at all - it sounds like it completely sucks - but there's got to be a reason for it, and why it's vastly different to a lot of us. Ultimately though, you have to make a decision here. If you enjoy using CbB, and this isn't just a rant, you have the CTO in your thread listening to your problems right now, and a team of really hands-on devs who want to help. Nobody wants to hear their software is crap, it's in their best interests to fix it. You can either work with them to see why you're not having the experience a lot of us are, or you can cut your losses and move on to something that works for you and your environment. No software is worth this kind of stress, seriously. Edit: FYI, that sndfile.dll problem was a Waves issue they're sorting out. There's a sticky thread at the top of the forum about it. Reboot your machine or kill that process before you update. This is what I'm saying about the bugs stuff - haven't got that version of Waves? No issue. Wasn't previously running CbB before you updated? No issue. But for someone doing either thing, you get that error and it's from a bug in a 3rd party product that CbB had no control over. The environment is the biggest factor here.
  8. It *is* but it's problematic. Those plugins need to be hacked at the DLL level directly to change the bitmaps, and only some can work without breaking anything. I've done a few tests and gotten some pretty good results, but the big problem is that with any update that CbB gets, those files tend to be overwritten, so you'll need to keep copying your modified versions back over the top of the updated ones. Here's some VERY quick edits I did, with the original Sonitus EQ there as a comparison. Some things, like buttons and sliders, can't be changed so it's very limiting. I do think the dark ones look better, but ultimately I think the solution is the Bakers update the UI internally. These plugins are real workhorses and I use them everywhere, so it'd be nice to see a facelift one day!
  9. My v12 plugins crashed badly too, this is on a clean system with no prior Waves installs too. I uninstalled and put v11 in, and all is rock solid now. There's definitely something funky going on with v12.
  10. This is going to sound snarky and unhelpful (apologies for that!) but... what does it sound like to you? There's really no guide for saying something should be X amount of dB louder or the wave display should look different, it's all about how it sounds in the end that matters, and that'll be subjective to every listener. Now adding to that, this is all down to personal taste for a start, and - probably more importantly - what's right for the song you're doing. As a good example, if you're doing a huge wall of sound tech death metal song or pumping EDM track, your file is going to look like a solid brick and be utterly slammed - and it should be, that's the intent of those styles (generally). Do that to a folk song or a really dynamic jazz piece and you'll get run out of town by everyone because it'll sound terrible. Those styles need dynamics to work. Listening context is pretty important here too. If you're sitting in front of your stereo and appreciating all of the dynamic ebbs and flows, that's great - the extra dynamics are probably going to add interest to the song. On the other hand, if you're sitting in your car in traffic you might find that your quiet sections will go away. This is really a long-winded way of saying "context." What sounds right to you? How will you (or your audience) be listening to it? What is the goal of your mix? If you can answer those questions, then that'll answer your original question.
  11. When you do the @ make sure you immediately type their username right after and then wait for a names list to pop up, then click on the username you're wanting to tag. Just typing it doesn't do anything, as you've discovered. @Teegarden
  12. For professional interfaces with good ASIO drivers, that's almost always going to be the best choice to use. On the other hand, if you're stuck with something like an inbuilt Realtek soundcard, the latency is now substantially better using WASAPI. There's been a lot of other optimisations with large projects and timeline scrolling too, so while the latency may not be better in your case, it'll generally feel snappier than SPlat I'd say.
  13. I found SI Drums extremely loud compared to a lot of my libraries here, so it's most definitely quiet in comparison. I've got a hybrid kit template of SSD and Addictive Drums for my drum template (there's nothing that touches the toms on SSD I reckon, but I don't like the SSD cymbals a real lot, especially for long sections of crash cymbal grooves), and a few custom samples being triggered as well. Everything is run out to their own tracks where I'm running compressors, EQ, etc on it all, and I'm finding it pretty decent levels wise. Try upping the gain a little on each output if you can, that might help a bit. Alternatively, run everything to a drum buss and crank that a little bit (or put a limiter over the top if you're not worried about playing anything in real time due to the latency they typically add to a project) and see if you can match the levels you're expecting.
  14. Lord Tim

    Reverse lag?

    My vote is to shoot support a message. This obviously isn't widespread or the forums would be on fire right now, so it's got to be something specific to your environment. There's really only so much we can suggest without being a bit more hands on with your system like support can be. These weird outlier cases are horrible to diagnose, but if you can solve it, often there's a good knock-on effect for everyone - if the issue actually does work out to be some shortcoming of the CbB engine and it gets fixed, we all win. But yeah, shoot support a line I reckon. If they solve it, definitely report back here - I'm sure a few of us are keen to know what the solution is!
  15. Great advice right there You might find that you'll get better luck by using impulse responses and an IR loader rather than the built-in cab simulation. But proper gain structure and EQ, as well as a good DI signal in will go a long way to getting a great tone.
  16. Derp. I was right-clicking and selecting Delete rather than pressing the Delete key. Am schooled, and glad for it.
  17. @scook will likely be along to tell me I'm wrong and there is a way (HAHA) but while you *can* select multiple nodes by right-click-dragging around them, if you try to delete them you'll only delete the first one. The info *is* in the page you linked to: ... however, there's a LOT of information on there, so it's very easily overlooked. This is really one of those things that you kind of just pick up over time and incorporate into your workflow, and forget how you even know this in the first place...!
  18. Or, make 4 nodes, and in the section you want lowered, hold down CTRL while you drag down on the automation line and it'll move the entire section.
  19. Yeah, I have to agree with the sentiment here. I think the features that are being prioritised are ones that benefit ALL of us rather than a subset of users. And if I was a dev looking for stuff to do, @Maestro's list is a solid one. For the record, I'm not at all opposed to adding in things like samplers and that kind of stuff - I'd certainly use them, and for those people who rely on that kind of thing, it would be great to have, and would be a fantastic addition to CbB. But this is now free software, and as yet none of the paid add-ons are up for sale. If Bandlab were aiming for a huge market share or to recoup their investment, they're either the WORST businessmen ever (which seems unlikely given what the company is worth) or they have a completely different plan to what paid/subscription software usually does. At the end of the day, why force something to work how you want it to? A Ferrari might be fast, but if you need to take 25 kids to a soccer game, you're probably going to get the job done faster in a mini-bus, even though the other vehicle would run rings around it in a race. CbB is a fantastic DAW that can easily take you from nothing to final master, with some workflows that are superior to other DAWs, and others that are sorely lagging. Just like every DAW. There's no rule you have to use just the one DAW, right? You wouldn't use a multiband compressor to EQ a mix - sure, you can, but an actual EQ plugin is far better suited to the task. A DAW isn't really that different to using a different plugin to achieve the goal when you think about it.
  20. OK, let's try a different approach then and make it relevant: Upload some unmastered music, and someone who does mastering could do an example master and explain their reasoning and method to get there.
  21. It's hard to give any kind of technical contributions without A: hearing the material, and B: knowing the goal. I could easily say "You want to strap a Linear Phase EQ over the master buss and boost 60Hz, and apply 2:1 ratio compression, correct the stereo image, and then add 6dB of limiting and dithering to 16 bit at the end of the chain" but what does that mean? How does that apply to anything? Even knowing half of the picture isn't useful. If someone gave me a really open sounding jazz piece and I mastered it like a death metal release, it would be slammed to hell and sound awful. Understanding the goal is just as important as understanding the steps to get it there.
  22. I can think of 2 great related examples from the hard rock / heavy metal world: Dance of Death by Iron Maiden and St. Anger by Metallica. With Dance of Death, they mixed it (with Kevin Shirley, so not exactly a green engineer by any means) and sent it off to mastering. They got it back and the band basically said they liked the mix from the desk better and put that out as the actual audio release. Now the mix is... fine? But it doesn't have the polish that their other releases have, and on some speakers it's pretty uneven. This is a great example of the band being too close to the product and ignoring the best sonic interests in the end. They've since come around and mastered everything since, mind you. I think everyone even slightly acquainted with Metallica will know what a debacle St. Anger was. In defence of the band. it was exactly what they were going for: raw, ugly, unprocessed... and they got it. No amount of high end gear or mastering was going to save this recording from being anything more than sounding like a very expensive demo. If any unknown band put something like this out, they would be crucified for it and told to go re-record it properly. Regardless of that, both of those albums were massive. On exactly the flip side, you can go massively OVER-produced and overblown too. Spending a year on your snare sound or getting rid of every little drum ring, or correcting timing for every part so it sounds perfect is probably the antithesis of what rock is. Unless you're experienced enough to tell yourself when to shut up and just get on with it, you can dig yourself into a massive sonic hole pretty easily, both with mix AND master. I know I've done this in the past, and I know how easy it was to get myself into that mess. Having an outside perspective is sometimes crucial for a sanity check, and having the ego to be able to accept that check is just as important. We all have the tools to do a pro job ourselves these days, and some of us are lucky enough to have a great sounding studio space to make informed decisions, but it's that last sanity check that's usually the big decider as to who should mix or master your stuff.
  23. Both @Craig Anderton and @marled are on the money - how much you cut is really dependent on the material around it. If it's a very sparse arrangement and you're going for a natural sound, you might leave more of the low end in there (getting rid of any problem frequencies like rumbles or proximity effects with certain mics, etc.) but in a dense mix, you can certainly stand to cut both male and female vocals a lot higher and more aggressively because you won't really hear that cut in context, and it'll clean things up considerably in the mix.
  24. Just adding to what John is saying, while you might have a fundamental frequency of a voice or an instrument audible, sometimes you'll find that once things are in a mix, certain frequencies - even the fundamentals - start to sound wooly because they're sharing frequencies with other instruments, or even more of the same instrument once they're layered. For example, I do a lot of metal and typically a rhythm guitar in metal is a pretty chunky sound. Layer 4 rhythm tracks together and you get a huge build up in the bass frequencies that you need to dip so it all sounds balanced again. Then you add bass guitar and kick drums and suddenly it all sounds wooly again. So you roll off the low end to make way for those other instruments. By itself, those guitars sound super thin and weak, but your ears are going to fill in the missing parts in context when it's combined with the other instruments in the mix. Vocals are the same. You'd be surprised at how much you can roll off of the low end before you start to notice anything going missing once they're in the mix. This doesn't mean that at exactly 300Hz (or whatever) you cut everything off entirely under that, but you can do a gradual roll-off to nothing so you're not putting more stuff into a mix than you'd actually hear in context. I'm sure I'm not saying anything most people that mix don't know already but when you're first starting out, there's a big disconnect between "this thing sounds good" and "this thing sounds good in context." It may not be "faithful" to what's down, but I can guarantee it'll sound a lot better and more professional when you find the space for each instrument and get rid of the stuff that's not necessary in a complete mix. Context is the key. There's some really good advice in this thread that I agree with. My 2 cents: If you're doing vocal prominent music (pop, etc) then start with the vocal, give yourself a decent amount of headroom for that first, and then bring up all of the other instruments around it. If you're finding it's starting to peak out then drop every track down proportionately. Then start carving things out with EQ, and evening out the peaks either with a compressor or clip gain envelopes. You'll likely find the vocals are very dynamic, so certain words or attacks into words will really crank up the levels, so getting into each clip and just turning down the peaking parts will give you a much more even result and make it a lot easier to slot things together, assuming there's no gear related issues making your life harder than it should be.
  25. One additional thing to try is a different offline rendering algorithm too. Some work better than others, especially when there's tempo/meter changes involved. I've been having pretty good luck with Elastique myself, although others have mentioned that tempo changes can really screw up the transients. AS definitely needs some love, but if you know how to deal with its idiosyncrasies, it's pretty powerful.
×
×
  • Create New...