Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'zoom'.
Found 4 results
Robert Bone posted a topic in Cakewalk by BandLabHowdy and good morning. The other night, I was working on a project with my bass player, capturing bass parts and Taurus bass pedal parts, when I began experiencing something quite annoying - anytime I clicked more than a couple times on the Horizontal Zoom (either in or out), rather than continue with the same sort of incremental zoom behavior of the first couple clicks, it would suddenly act like it was possessed, and would continue to scroll, in whichever direction I had been clicking, to where it would have taken me dozens and dozens of mouse clicks. SO - if I started with a measure being about 1 inch in width, and was zooming out, after about the 3rd click or so, it would just keep zooming, finally stopping where each measure was about the width of the measure number. If, before I had zoomed out, I was at measure 1, after its crazy auto-zooming, now the way the measures were squished together, within that same approximately 1-inch width, I would see 1, then measure 27, then measure 53, and finally measure 79. AND, this new 'feature' is happening with completely new projects, as well, where it happens with an empty new project. The above explains the horizontal zoom behavior, but the same sort of thing occurs with vertical zoom. Any ideas on how to get my Cakewalk installation to not be such an over-achiever? Bob Bone
Destire Soner posted a topic in TutorialsTo those who have a similar problem with latency issues "feeling" more delay than it actually says, I found an odd solution that seemed to fix this problem. The reason I say this is because when using my WASAPI Exclusive drivers on my midi keyboard had a noticeably less lag than if I were to use my Zoom U24 Audio Interface. To fix this, every time I open Cakewalk, I would close the start menu and open preferences. I'd go under Audio > Devices and uncheck all input and output drivers and hit Apply. Then I would check both again and hit Apply then Close. From there I can open any projects with a noticeably lower latency. Note, this also fixed my random audio dropouts and crackling noise. I wasn't surprised to see some compatibility issues when using this on Cakewalk after seeing the Manual's tested DAWs didn't have Sonar in it. But after finding this weird fix, I hope to help other people who may have a similar issue with this Audio Interface or some other brands. If anyone finds a permanent fix that would help us all please leave in your say
I am working with a consultant on mixing and producing. We work over Zoom meetings (similar to GoToMeeting, etc). But I cannot find a way in Cakewalk by Bandlab to set the audio preferences to share the audio over the Zoom meeting. I am using a PCs with Windows 7 and Windows 10, and using a TASCAM US-1800 as my audio interface. When I go into Prefs, all I see are the US-1800. On the consultant's end (he is using Apple), his Logic Pro DAW could select Zoom as one of the shareable audio outputs. Is there a way for me to share my Cakewalk by Bandlab DAW audio over a Zoom meeting like this? Thanks!
BRainbow posted a topic in Cakewalk by BandLabHi Cakestalkers, I'm setting up a new Presonus Quantum with an existing ZOOM UAC-8 interface -- connecting via ADAT optical connector (yielding extra inputs for my old hardware synths). Has anyone tested or does anyone know what sort of EXTRA latency I can expect between the arrival of an analog audio signal at the ZOOM's input and the ultimate output from the Quantum into Cakewalk for recording/monitoring? I know the Quantum has near-zilch round-trip latency so I am primarily concerned with any extra latency imparted by the ZOOM during: 1. Input signal to and through ZOOM's AD conversion, to 2. ZOOM's ADAT output, to 3. Quantum''s ADAT input, to 4. Quantum's Thunderbolt output, to 5. Cakewalk's recording channel I guess I'm really just asking if, in steps 1 and 2, the signal will incur ZOOM's usual latency (call it x) PLUS any latency added in steps 3 through 5 by the Quantum (call it z)? Or will it be faster than (x + z) since the ZOOM doesn't really have to deal with any drivers or computer-related processing -- only its own? Thanks, Bill