JnTuneTech

Definitely sounds like a MIDI driver and/or hardware connection related problem. And, I have actually experienced a few USB MIDI connection failures over the years, sometimes just the USB bus in the PC drops the connection, sometimes it's other reasons, but never something within Cakewalk itself. That is a tough one to troubleshoot sometimes. Sometimes I have had to re-allocate my USB devices, or add/remove a hub, etc.

As with many things, mixing style & tools use in general really depends on the application and end-use goals. -For instance, the majority of my mixes are done with very little track and mains compression (though as pointed out, using samples & other aspects of instrumentation inherently uses compression at many levels before some of the actual tracking), but that is by design for what I want it to come out like. I do the same, but primarily when the material I have laid down already has most of what it needs. And, in my case anyway, I generally mix to use as backing for live jamming and performance. In most cases, I have found adding mix compression before live amplification tends to make it harder for a good live sound output. -That also inherently assumes that the mains and the environment are going to affect the mix (and often a lot). -But again, that is a planned choice, and I make sure the initial tracking sounds like what I want first in the process. On the other hand, when I want to send mixes to be listened to via other means, compression can often be necessary on the final product. So, it's good to also learn how that will work, when you need it. If the environment your music is going to be played back in has other material that yours will be compared with, for instance, putting a "dry" mix up against heavily compressed ones, will often cause issues. So again, it depends a lot on your end goals. And often, without a mastering engineer or the appropriate qualifications, in some cases you can't submit material for publication and such. Basically, if you are happy with the sounds you get, technically. it shouldn't matter, unless there are literal (such as bandwidth and spectrum) requirements you have to meet. If you are just playing for yourself, -just be creative and use, -or don't use, anything you like! Compression can certainly be another tool to get the sound that you want, it does have value as a musical instrument itself, -if you want to use it. That's how I approach it anyway.

I subscribe to the method of creating one instrument track for each Kontakt output/pair, and (at least) one basic MIDI track to "feed" each instrument. That gives the option of using/assigning/re-assigning MIDI tracks to any individual Kontakt instrument by channel assignment pairing, and in the case where an instrument may have several MIDI inputs in of itself, helps figure things out. In most cases, only one instance of Kontakt is necessary for that as well. You can definitely use multiple Kontakt instances, but by design, the use of its multiple outputs seems to work best for me - resource and patching-wise, by using the Kontakt app for creating/assigning outputs, and using Cakewalk track routing & naming to set up the mix. -The simple instrument setup can be great for fast instancing, but you may get more long-term mileage out of learning to specifically route MIDI & audio tracks - IMHO.

If you are referring to assigning external MIDI controller input, to say multiple VST MIDI synths, the method I most often use is creating a MIDI only track for input to each synth I want to control, and then selecting the same MIDI input (port, channel option, output, etc.) on each virtual synth setup, so that in effect, all the targeted synths are triggered from the same external input. -There are many other variations on that type of routing scheme, including as mentioned having "all" selected in the routing. Basically any MIDI instrument can have multiple MIDI tracks assigned to it, and any external MIDI port input can be assigned to multiple tracks as an input. Choices in the routing can seem confusing at first though, just remember each track, instrument, will have its own specific routing choices, and the various external controller setups have their own MIDI settings, and so forth.

Just a quick addition to think about: I have found over the years that making use of the Drum Map feature in Cakewalk really allows me to do what you are seeming to do within the sampler map, only in my experience, much more flexibly & adaptable - in the long run. I can (and do) for instance, create Drum Maps that only use the note/kit pieces I care to see and deal with on the screen, -entirely eliminating any other ones visually. And once you learn how it works, you can add & remove mapping on the fly when needed. And many more optional uses become available - but only if you want to use them. I also have spent many years dealing with the GM (GS, XG, what have you) note mapping conventions, and never have been quite happy with that drum mapping, other than the interoperability aspect (which can be very important of course). I am glad to have the capabilities of Drum Map creation in Cakewalk for making my own organization.

In bold are comments from what I go by, and have experienced, and I apologize in advance for any errors I may have made! I hope any of it helps. -BTW - I find it great that you are following up on your posts - even if it took some time! Glad to hear you are still at it, and reading the answers & opinions. - More regarding the bulleted items you posted: Almost all the drum sample players I've used so far operate on similar descriptions, but use the same mechanics, if you will, to emulate a physical drum kit piece recorded, and typical variations. There is one notable difference, however, when programming sampled hi hat sounds. In most samplers, there is an option to control hi- hat "open" articulations with a pedal (which is normally a MIDI CC variable), and most of us will input that manually in real time, as you would a real hi hat pedal setup. For the answers to your assumptions, though, that doesn't seem to be evident in your screenshot. so: All the rest of the hi hat sounds, are different "articulations" - not actions - representing actual hi hat samples. Generally those are used in fixed-note playback scenarios, or mostly by programming manually. -I will note that in your example, "Open A, B, C, D" is rather generic labeling IMHO, but you did the best thing by listening to the sounds and clarifying how you would actually name and potentially use them! -Other samplers often use Quarter Open, Half Open, 3/4 Open, Full Open, which may make more sense - but again, listening is usually more accurate anyway. And other than that, HH Closed simply means the sample was played with the hi hat closed - and the various articulations are various versions - articulations - of that, and similarly HH Open means the sample was recorded with the physical hi hat open - and again often you want various positions and styles of that, and again it can all be described many ways in different samplers. - There is no action - just samples being played. The hi hat "foot" samples are recordings of the sound made - generally - by pressing quickly down on the pedal (and closes it from an open position - listen and a good sample should sound just like that), and the "Splash" is the sound you get when you let the foot pedal on a physical hi hat come up - and typically that lets spring action open the cymbals (splash). -But just listen to it and see if it is what you want. -If you have never played drums before, it may not be clear how it all works for many of these sounds though, but once you do, you will know where it usually all fits! -That is of course, if you want to emulate a physical drum kit. -But you could actually just create whatever sound sequence you dream up! -Wonderful thing about drum mapping is that you can make any layout you want. Hard thing about drum mapping is that you have to choose between your own maps - choices, or adapting to others that already exist, depending on what type of MIDI you are working with!

That's a good thing to know - thanks! -Though I suppose you are referring to using 16 Kontakt output channels / pairs per Kontakt instance loaded in Cakewalk technically? I was unsure, because as of 2023 documentation for Kontakt Player: - I don't suppose many of us will try that fully... but I wanted to be sure what you mean here! -On a related note, or actually question: Does the performance of Cakewalk change as more VST3 instrument outputs are engaged - added to tracking? In my case, since about the time of Kontakt 7 release, I seem to have had more system load issues with Kontakt 7 VST3 as I begin to add multiple outputs and use them in Cakewalk. Perhaps it is more a function of Kontakt routing that takes up the resources differently? I am unlikely to have the time to test against older setups, but I know it happens to me now with single Kontakt instruments that have internal routing options. Whereas I used to add multiple Kontakt outputs, and then just use the Instrument GUI to split some elements out with no discernable system load, lately I have not had such good fortune? I have always wondered - how does the multiple output assignment/usage option itself affect the system performance in Cakewalk?

Yeah, rip it into stems, copy it, steal it, use until you're blue in the face - if you are the average broke musician. -Heck, with only 12 major tones in the western scale, you can accidentally happen upon a melody like one produced & sold before somewhere - mathematically, it's not unrealistic, by just chance. -Humming a tune from your subconscious, maybe listening to bird song (who is looking out for their IP..?) music seems so simple. -But if you have lots of money involved, that becomes a whole other thing in the western world. Just ask the spirit of sadly departed George Harrison, and on & so forth.??

Well.... That's always been rather a gray area in a truly legal sense @John Vere. Be careful, because from what I've seen, it's all a matter of scale (as with anything litigious really). To put it simply - if your use case garners you a lot of money (exposure that leads to that, what have you), then rights holders will come after you. It has always been that way. -And if you were one of the creators, producers, (wait, they are usually last behind) -rights holders of such material, you would look at it that way in most cases as well. With regards to re-using "cover material" - as long as you stay under a certain financial/exposure level, you will be just fine most of the time. -As to using MIDI representations of copyrighted material, and regarding this original post topic - in using AI or otherwise derived "stems" goes, you won't want to be taking that belief to court. I agree with @OutrageProductions that we will see a lot of that kind of trouble to come from this. And at the same time really, from a positive perspective, the average Cakewalk user should be able to use it as another creative tool, as @msmcleod points out, or yes Johnny V -as a great option for creating backing track MIDI & whatnot. As an aside - ever notice how MIDI backing track material is curated? Most of the "free" repositories, versions, are rather sketchy to obtain, and/or just plain bad arrangements that probably are so far off as to avoid major copyright. -There are monetized, official versions, and even services that will provide them for a fee though. -In a related fashion, you will find that playing cover tunes onstage, at a certain level of the business, -or of course for charity or academic purposes, has always been no big deal - right? But you won't find any major venue, or act on a major, making their business playing "cover" renditions, or having that kind of material without paying rights usage fees. -Even some of the small places I played in cover bands years ago had issues with performance rights dues, once they were singled out or became prosperous enough. I've had to advise businesses on whether they could use their own tracks for on-hold music, or general in-house piped music systems. -The point is, taking & reusing existing works can be tricky, but hopefully not for the average user. I look forward to using some of the techniques being talked about here, and hopefully none of us will get tripped up by any of the legal wrangling that will inevitably be involved with "ripping stems from a mixed track", or whatever it gets labeled as. And hopefully, just like with cover renditions, some new & interesting creativity will be involved, as well as continued original material - without AI - maybe??

I'm guessing that with the advent of AI processing, this will become a common thing soon. -In my mind, socially/creatively it would seem to be a successor to the DJ remixing trends from the 90's & such. Now we will just have to put up with complete individual tracking remixes put together (and rights fought over) by 3rd and extended parties. Hopefully somehow original content will still remain to be created anew, but for now, a swath of "new" techno remixes of "classic" material "re-imagined" and in Dolby Atmos is on the way! -Don't get me wrong - I am enjoying some of the newer classic remix material & projects. -Just some of it will go a long way though, for me anyway!

Well @John Vere - I think a lot of us "older folks" are getting sticker shock - nay, future shock, as all this stuff seems to be changing, and timing out, etc., so much faster than we seem to recall. And thank you for your info on Gold Wave - they do seem to be one of those types of businesses that have managed to continue in what is now an old-fashioned business model. And I sincerely hope that keeps working for them, and thus you & I. But I have seen a lot of my old business contacts either age out, and/or sell out. Of course, we still have the legacy of Gibson here as an example of how all this change & conglomeration affects us eventually. Lifetime - getting to be a bad word. And, sadly, as a computer support person, I have seen my share of bad things happen when you don't at least try to keep current. -At the very least, I would recommend keeping any legacy systems you run either completely off of the Internet entirely or at least behind a very tight & manageable firewall. -I know that doesn't help much towards creativity, but well, a big portion of the rest of the world doesn't seem to care. -But wait - now we're all connected, 24/7. ? -Anway, for now though, yes, at least Cakewalk is still useful for running on older systems, and there will be those of us who still appreciate that!

I can say that in my "day job" I have administered networks that had the license for Windows Enterprise, and in the past those SKUs ran on any typical hardware, with very little difference from retail versions. Most of the Enterprise features were enhanced networking & support toolsets, as well as a different Windows Update structure by default. -The only notable difference for AV operations, was in earlier versions, they did not include some of the built-in Media Player codecs & functions, as I recall having to load a 3rd-party app to play DVD content. Otherwise, I never encountered any need for Enterprise-specific hardware, drivers, nor software. Just the proper Windows Activation license! -I hope that info helps!

Wait - we stay on topic in The Coffee House! -My Bad!! ? -In my defense (should we lawyer up to comment?) - I wasn't ignoring the topic of errant censorship (that's my interpretation anyway ?) - it just occurs to me that the whole premise of these online services doing anything right for free seems to be forgotten in the first place. Not apologizing for any of those kind of business practices in any way though, but if you were paying for the posts, then it would really be the topper. -And I have seen a few folks report that happening, actually. And yes, with AI moderation I'll wager it's going to get even worse now. But yeah, @craigb - maybe there was some "ghost data" in your post that triggered the flag... -Conspiracy theorists - jump in here! (Nah, probably just bad censoring algorithm usage). -Definitely sucks! -Almost as bad as the way YT cuts off playback with ads, as @Byron Dickens mentioned. That really sucks IMHO, and seems to be getting worse.

This whole subject is so painfully amusing! Who has the best free stuff..? Why isn't it free any more?? Sounds like grumbling from Yosemite Sam (oops, I may have used a copyrighted reference...). ? I figured long ago that the majority of public entertainment, and now "access" to it via Internet, is all mainly bait & switch. Starts seemingly free, but gets you hooked, but eventually the anvil will fall, and we will pay somehow. I've always disliked most media advertising, starting for me in youth with TV commercials. Eventually I wanted to work in entertainment and media, and it took me a while to figure out how to get paid from that. Hmm. Also, in the 90's I shared some early Web material from my own server & connection. It slowly got taxing, in too many ways to want to bother with. Hmm again. -But I know, we all just want to watch, listen, to what we want for free. Yet really, would you just let any stranger come by and borrow your tapes, CDs, movies, any time they wanted, use them however they wanted, and so on? Have them ask you to play them some tunes they like whenever it suits them... For free? (Not including family and prospective partners - of course!) ? So we were optimistic about things like YouTube, -yes, it's the endless cycle of modern life I guess. Hmm. Maybe I should have taken note, and tried to go more the way of a roadrunner, and stayed farther away from the wily coyote types (metaphorically speaking) in life... Dag Namit!

I apologize for understanding the original post title and text incorrectly. Now that I have re-read it, I would have to correct my original response by first answering that I do not currently know of any advice on using knobs on a MIDI controller to change the existing CC parameters as shown in a Cakewalk MIDI track in PRV. The original advice was based on the rest of the text in the post below the title, and mainly the following section: There was no other purpose for the rest of the earlier advice as given. - Do carry on, as I know this is a good forum, and others here will surely be able to give the advice you seek.

Use of an external MIDI controller in a DAW is a very useful function, and as you mention, often quite less cumbersome than mouse/pen control. My advice would be to read the documentation regarding the options you have for settings on your MIDI controller - such as the assignment of values to the knobs, for instance, and figuring out how you want to use that in your DAW tracking. You may also need to delve into basic MIDI channel & CC usage, depending on your existing experience level. Once you know what options are available and how to use the MIDI functionality on your external controller, the next advice would be to read through the DAW documentation on the options for connecting external MIDI controllers, and then decide on which input & control method(s) you want to use in your tracking. There are many workflows possible. Your initial post refers to "write[ing]" MIDI control values, as well as doing it while playing, so you may want to read the DAW documentation on recording & playback of MIDI from an external controller in real time. Once you learn those basic techniques, you can then follow the documentation on MIDI track editing & playback options, particularly regarding MIDI track CC editing & automation options. -Basically, you can start as simple as recording controls as you play, and eventually decide on whether to edit that recording data as basic MIDI data, or perhaps converting some (or all) of it to automation tracks. -You can indeed often do better with hands-on MIDI control for data entry, than just using the mouse or a pen onscreen!

-Indeed - you hit upon one of my biggest worries when I started using backing tracks in performance. I still do, but mostly the audience reactions so far have been positive, though of course I usually have more gear onstage and don't play in the format & style of Karaoke - purposely. But you can play fixed arrangements that still have dynamics of a live performance, and then add your live action to complete the picture - and that is always my goal anyway. Some of the quiet 2-minute renditions such as the above mentioned Beatles tunes are actually the most rewarding, and what initially got me inspired. Back in the band days I would never even consider such a rendition as possible, at least with my fondness for faithful cover arrangements anyway. And having good virtual instruments to draw from, -creatively so many things are possible, and challenging at the same time, with multitrack backing. And as to using FX - it really, really depends on your goals & capabilities there. But generally, I have never found the room to be any more a factor than when I did a full combo setup & mix. And depending on the material you want to do, it can be part of the performance. -Another of the tunes I have been proud of, is a rendition of "Us & Them" (along with other linked tracks now too), with DAW FX automation & nice reverbs, it has always gotten good compliments when played, and I just enjoy doing it. No sound engineer, just planning, recording, balancing, and rehearsing. It can be worth the effort!

I just had to pull up my now 11-year old mix of backing tracks I use for "Norwegian Wood", after reading your post. -It really all comes down to what your workflow preferences are, as I always tend to say. On quiet songs like that one, I mostly use a basic soft pedal & taps on virtual hi-hat, at a low level, in my cue-only bus mix, and the rest of that particular mix has enough options that keep the song going for me to play along easily, with in-ear monitors. -Definitely nice to be able to have the sitar parts, and by the end adding the tambourine & kick eliminates my need for click by then - but that is just what works for me. In the venues I have had. The points you mention - optional tracking for adding/removing parts for performing along with - are great when you have a pattern and a set of tools that works for you. Each of us finds the method that fits - and works within your budget of course. The biggest challenge to me is always making sure to mix down a complementary amount of reverb & compression to match what I use on the live mains mics I will use, and then previewing it if at all possible. I often use a separate recording of either the mains feed, or sometimes just a video camera recording from offstage for checking that. But again, it's really just up to your available tools & creative satisfaction to arrange it all. -Nice to have part/player options with a multitrack mix at hand, though sometimes you can get carried away with complexity & alternate mixes. Definitely a different beast though than just playing with a real group, -pluses & minuses! I still hate hauling in & setting up, and then breaking down & packing out though... Depending on the type of music you play, of course, but that part still takes work or extra help - if you can get it!

As to the original post topic, I find that LUFS software, as mentioned above, is probably the quickest modern method to achieving more consistent output levels. But - I still tend to shoot for "previewing" a set, or at least any newer tracks first before showtime, from a few places in the venue. -When possible of course, Otherwise the LUFS method is probably very good insurance that your loudness levels between tracks will be fairly consistent. -Still, I find that as always, the actual mileage varies, any live mixing engineer will tell you to beware that audio environments change on the fly during a gig, and that's why we still often need live mixing to be adaptable. Which leads to the slightly off-post answer to @TVR PRODUCTIONS - What you describe is indeed a variation on live gigging many of us have or do use. My basic recommendation, in modern times, is to use a system that allows for adjusting the backing tracks or stems in real time, and having a helpful assistant to step in in case what you think you are hearing is not what is actually happening. -Sometimes we don't have that luxury though! Also, since it has become more affordable, I try to use in-ear monitoring, and at least a 2 channel output device before your mains. -Now, I haven't used mono since the 80's since stereo mixing & amplification has become so ubiquitous, but really the concept works the same in any case. 1 mix for the mains, and a separate mix for the monitors. The mains don't get the cues, etc. -I have used my DAW & sound interface for that exact setup for quite some time, but yes you can do it with standalone digital mixer/recorders as well of course. Just remember to do as much LUFS balancing & pre-show run through as possible, using some of the excellent info in the other posts here, otherwise trying to mix it & play it live can be worse than going with a known pre-mixed show in many cases! At least, that is my experience thus far. (P.S. - Don't forget folks, you can edit spelling, etc. on your topics & posts. And it won't be a waste if that helps searches in the future!)

Don't forget - this forum has a topic specifically about Instrument Definitions... So, this answer AGAIN: https://discuss.cakewalk.com/index.php?/topic/55275-instrument-definition-file-edit-with-custom-sounds/&do=findComment&comment=483340 Making your own .ins file entries in Cakewalk is quite easy, not necessarily that time consuming. Plus, it's less dangerous than trying to download unknown quality files safely from the jungle that is the Web. -Please open up the Cakewalk documentation, and search Instrument Definitions. It all works fairly easily with the GUI tools, then if you like, you can also open, examine, learn to tweak your own manually in a text editor if you still want that,

Yes - I also still use the Battery 3 libraries a lot, and the cymbals definitely are useful. As it is, Battery 4 seems like a step back - I hope the app isn't on its way out or something. I'm glad I have managed to archive and migrate my original Battery 3 library material, as it still authorizes (so far) with my NI account. The other good thing with Battery, is that just as @John Vere outlines, you can record your own custom samples and set them up easily for MIDI playback. _Again though, hopefully that app will last a while longer, sometimes I'm not so sure. Perhaps I should export my Battery cymbals samples to files, and then use other samplers to play that back when needed... planned obsolescence mitigation? ?

Back when I was using my now ancient Eleven Rack, I tried both SPDIF and AES, at 48/24 - as my sound interface has inputs for both, -It was interesting. My sound interface allowed me to manually detect the clock synchronization status of the SPDIF as well, and the Eleven Rack has a clock source & sync selection. -While using that procedure stopped pops & clicks on the SPDIF connection, it was still a pain, and I just switched to using AES. In AES normal mode, both input methods sounded relatively the same, though AES offers an optional mode that definitely had a more audible high end spectrum balance. Not to my taste, so I left that alone. I am glad I pretty much gave up with wrestling over that stuff. And I no longer deal in the broadcast standards mess like @whoisp describes, as well thankfully - that can really be taxing, even today with more of the bit level protocols having leveled out somewhat (but now there's MADI, LAN & Wi Fi transports and so on...) - I just can't stay focused on creating fun music worrying so much about all of that. I do still watch out - Listen - for poor digital conversion issues, to be clear, and have a good respect for good performing mic & line preamps - in an audible way, but arguing (and worrying) over the mathematical issues is of little use to me. If I have the opportunity, I listen through as much of the process as I can, and choose what sounds right for me, as I say, when I can, And, it's a constantly moving target, new hardware, new sample libraries, they all have differing qualities and interactions. Never ends. Just like this topic!

Not sure if you've noticed, but threads on this subject go on & on. In technical theory, what happens is well outlined by @msmcleod in this thread. One example - and imagine how many variations there are with all the possible interfaces available, and to come. -Sadly, we never know until we try them specifically in practice. This also varies by many, many factors. The drivers for the various interfaces all handle the same connection & data conversion differently, and when you add that to the differences in hardware capability, using digital theory to predict it becomes troublesome. For instance, I would have to hear some identical recordings made with identical outboard gear & sonics to see if your 32-bit rated interface & driver actually produce what I might prefer over a 24-bit rated one in the end. -Avoiding any dithering may indeed be a good goal though. The underlying conversions & best match choices in VST instruments is another of those rabbit holes. About all we can do is try each one, and find the best results with our ears, and of course monitoring system performance & graphs can help - sometimes. -And the discussions will continue... But it's sometimes interesting to hear some of the experiences from other folks out there. -Might even help me with the next audio interface choice I make, -who knows!

I don't know about automatic adds for those events you mentioned, but rather than scripting, I would simply suggest copying the section with the events (or each one individually), and pasting them back after you trim the MIDI as you describe. -I do also use a temp blank MIDI track sometimes, to store blocks of these kind of events for copying & pasting as I go along. - Your mileage may vary!

I agree with what you've been saying (and especially the optimism!). For right now though, I've never had many VST3 instruments that I need it to apply to, and I am still pondering trying Articulation Mapping on the few that it might help with. And in past discussions on this subject, so many other responses seem to indicate there aren't many of us out there who want to use program changes dynamically in VST, since nowadays it's easy to just have several plugin instances... but I apologize - now I'm being pessimistic again! -You are probably quite correct.