Jump to content
Noel Borthwick

Nice article on Cakewalk and BandLab

Recommended Posts

I added my two cents in the comments. The more people who use CbB, the more people I can collaborate with trouble-free.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear acknowledgment from Avid...

Hopefully more of the industry will take note!

 

Funny how it seems we all caught them trying to take credit for naming convention. We all know the truth but I guess they couldn't find anything else that they might claim as they have been behind us in so many issues for so long.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official, the outside world now knows it's acronym is 'CbB' as quoted by Bandlabs.

 

Now if *all* the old timers could just get on board.😖

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Larry Jones said:

I added my two cents in the comments. The more people who use CbB, the more people I can collaborate with trouble-free.

The people who are collaborating, often, are doing so with DAWs with larger user bases... so they can collaborate "trouble-free" with those people.  Moving to CbB will introduce your collaboration issues to them, because they will not be dealing with a problem they didn't run into  [so much].

It's of a circular situation that will probably never correct itself, short of you moving to a more "popular" solution to join the herd.

That being said, Steinberg has VST Transit Join in Beta, so that may be a solution one can examine (now or in the future).

BandLab, theoretically, could have done something similar with their web service, but haven't [yet].  Wouldn't that have been nice, though?  I suppose you can sort of use it in a similar way.  It's just not as "clean" as what Steinberg has implemented, since their solution was designed for this specific purpose.

Also, with the way DAW vendors are building out their ecosystems, there is a level of lock-in at play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SomeGuy: I haven't found it particularly difficult to work with people not using CbB, although it's easier when they are. I'm familiar with most of the available professional-level DAWs and have done commercial work with some of them, but I'm a long-time Cakewalker, I do the majority of the writing, playing and singing on my own projects, and CbB remains my first choice. So it's pointless to suggest that I'd be better off changing platforms.

What I said in my comment on the magazine article itself is that CbB is a powerful, full-featured DAW, and that Bandlab has improved its stability and increased the level of staff support, and that the fact that it's now available for free shouldn't make anyone think it's inferior. I believe those are true statements. I wrote what I wrote to spread the word that CbB is a viable solution that has been under development for a long time and is currently being improved and maintained. If more people use it, I'll be likely to run into more people who use it. Simples.

That said, thanks for 'splainin' things to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Great article which I think covered more of the history of the product than any I have read. Aside from the misguided comment about the numbering scheme it was good.

There is much reason for optimism in the Cakewalk camp. I'm glad I hung on for the long haul. There is much for the Cakewalk team to look at  and be proud of. No matter how many DAWS I have I always go back to working mainly in my favorite DAW CbB. Price is of no consequence here for me. I like the DAW. I always have.I would have continued to pay for it had there been a charge to use it. I have tried to do the same things in other DAWS and I always loose momentum using anything else for fleshing out /making mixes.

There was a lot of complaining about the "aero" look when it came out. To me it was one of the best moves Cakewalk ever made. Everyone else went to a similar thing, drag and drop, resizable windows. Saving screen sets and lenses. All of this adds up to a much more friendly user experience. I could go on about the other things I like about it. Elastique, now ARA 2. What's not to like about this DAW?

Edited by Starise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that stuck me most in the article was

"By far the most rewarding part of the journey has been the support of a vibrant and growing community of new users and long time supporters, who have made a home in our new discussion forums."

I have to say that I am not really noticing the growing "community" of new users.  When I step over to the bandlab site I see crazy busy activity, but I have no idea how many of those users know about CbB.  When I come to the CbB forum it seems like a fantastic brew pub with a terrible location.  Practically Everybody who is there  raves about the quality, but there are a lot of empty tables.

I am not sure how airing the dirty laundry of the past helps promote the product other than exhibiting the persistence of the platform.  I would have liked to see the article extol the virtues more staunchly, instead of the simple bullet list under "What does Cakewalk look Like Now?"

Otherwise, it was great to see CbB get a nod outside of the enclave.  I have only used one other DAW, and that was Adobe Audition, but they do not support midi platform in any significant way (it is a great wave editor).   I love Cakewalk DAW, I dabbled with others, but I'll dance with the girl that brung me

Anyway,  that's my little squeak, germane or not.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good testimonial to the strides you guys have made and continue to make.  Now, who would have expected that on a Pro Tools Site.    Good objective analysis.  Thanks for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's not a Pro Tools/Avid site, the same people have a Studio One Expert site. I suspect it may be they're concerned that in the future, Pro Tools won't be the powerhouse it always was, and so they'll need to broaden their horizons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Craig Anderton said:


It's not a Pro Tools/Avid site, the same people have a Studio One Expert site. I suspect it may be they're concerned that in the future, Pro Tools won't be the powerhouse it always was, and so they'll need to broaden their horizons.

It actually is a Pro Tools site (note their domain name). They have expanded to other DAWS, however, and have actually copyrighted the phrases "Pro Tools Expert," "Logic Pro Expert," and "Studio One Expert," so no one else can be an official internet "expert" on any of those products. Maybe you or I should copyright "Total Expert on Everything."

From their disclaimer in the footer: Pro Tools Expert, Logic Pro Expert, Studio One Expert and Production Expert are all copyright and cannot be used without permission.

Edited by Larry Jones
clarity
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Jones said:

It actually is a Pro Tools site (note their domain name). 

From their legal and privacy tab: "All rights reserved. This site is not connected or affiliated with AVID or its associated companies/brands/trademarks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Craig Anderton said:

From their legal and privacy tab: "All rights reserved. This site is not connected or affiliated with AVID or its associated companies/brands/trademarks."

He means that the site exists primarily to cover Pro Tools-related topics, not that it is  site owned and operated by Avid (the owners of the Pro Tools product).

The way "iMore" is an "Apple Site."

Mobile Nations has sites for all major ecosystems (Android, Windows, Apple) - so this site can simply be diversifying in a similar way.  If it's popular, and it will draw new readers, it's kind of a no brainer to go there...  Unless you're just an independent person running their own personal fansite 😛

4 hours ago, razor7music said:

I'll keep that link handy the next time someone slams CW as abandonware.

Abandonware shouldn't be taken literally.  It's just the most apt term to describe people's view of the product's development pace.

The people who do that tend to cite reasons other than whether or not the new owners have added in a feature here or there.

If you read the Last Review on SoS for Sonar Platinum, almost nothing has changed since then.

  • Every positive remains the same, but isn't quite as good as it was in 2015 (just over 4 years ago). 
    • Any Product that remains this stagnant is bound to be summarily written off by many people... including Pros. 
  • Every negative remains the same, except it's even more noticeable now; as we are in a more developed market.
    • This fuels "which DAW is better" arguments in the competitors' favor.  Usually end up being troll threads, but how many people read them and have them influence (consciously or otherwise) their decision regarding what DAW to employ in their Studio?

They have added BandLab integration and ARA2, and that's pretty much the only major feature addition it has gotten since then (and certainly the only one worth mentioning). 

They have fixed some bugs, but even the bug fix updates are tiny compared to what other DAWs routinely push out.  The development pace is what leads people to say that. It affects perception in a huge way.

Also, having this huge bruhaha about the product being Discontinued/Shut Down before BandLab purchased it has put a permanent black mark on its reputation.  Gibson should have just sold it off as a steep discount, to offload it.

Edited by SomeGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as collaboration with folks using other DAWs:

I recently moved a project from CbB to the absolute latest version of ProTools Ultimate.

Exported the CbB project as OMF... imported to ProTools.  Worked just fine...

As long as you're not too far into any editing/mixing, the transfer process isn't too difficult.

 

Many current generation DAWs support Broadcast Wav files.

Broadcast Wav files store start position... so once imported into a DAW that supports them, they'll automatically line up in proper position in the time-line.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jim Roseberry said:

As far as collaboration with folks using other DAWs:

I recently moved a project from CbB to the absolute latest version of ProTools Ultimate.

Exported the CbB project as OMF... imported to ProTools.  Worked just fine...

As long as you're not too far into any editing/mixing, the transfer process isn't too difficult.

 

Many current generation DAWs support Broadcast Wav files.

Broadcast Wav files store start position... so once imported into a DAW that supports them, they'll automatically line up in proper position in the time-line.

I'm aware that Broadcast Wave stores Timecode. 

That's more interoperability.  Yes, that will work... if all you need to do is send it out to someone else for them to Mix or Master the project.

If you're composing with VSTis and collaborate with another composer, this becomes an unworkable mess.

It's easier to just use the same DAW and pass around Project/Session files.

This is why businesses tend to standardize on the tools they use (NLEs, DAWs, Color Correction Software, etc.).

Yes, interchange options exist, but they are not designed for collaboration.  They are designed for interchange and interoperability.

I would send my NLE timeline to a colorist with an AAF.   I will not collaborate with another editor using an interchange format.

This is why many professionals own more than one DAW or NLE.

It's only the lower ends of those markets that shackle themselves to one [and only one] solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jim Roseberry said:

As far as collaboration with folks using other DAWs:

I recently moved a project from CbB to the absolute latest version of ProTools Ultimate.

Exported the CbB project as OMF... imported to ProTools.  Worked just fine...

As long as you're not too far into any editing/mixing, the transfer process isn't too difficult.

 

Many current generation DAWs support Broadcast Wav files.

Broadcast Wav files store start position... so once imported into a DAW that supports them, they'll automatically line up in proper position in the time-line.

Good points, @Jim Roseberry. For me it boils down to "Where there's a will, there's a way," meaning if I (or you) really want to work with someone on a project we will figure out how to do it, regardless of what software each of us may be using. All the other hoo-ha is just noise.

Edited by Larry Jones
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...