Will.

Literally thought "Freeze" was just to lock clip in place. Might have used it in the past and probably forgot when AUX and Patch points was introduced 5/6 years ago. ??

@scook My guy - first of all I want to apologize. I've found what I was looking for and requested. For years I'd literally thought "FREEZE" was just another name for "Clip lock" as how it is in most DAWS - that's why i never bothered to use it. I've always just RIGHT CLICKED on the clip itself and chose "CLIP LOCK" to lock a clip in place. So, I thought "Freeze" was to lock the clip and that's why i didn't first caught what you meant. I think the naming should change to MIDI RENDER/BOUNCE instead of freeze. I think it might help a lot of users with navigation. Strange thing is . . . I'm working 12 years in a professional studio and never knew this in cakewalk. I always just recorded the track to an aux. So now I know "FREEZE" in cakewalk is to "Render/Bounce" a midi clip/file in place inside the daw. ??

Exactly . . . It'll be much appreciated to if we can get the "On place render/bounce" from Midi to Audio on site - where and option to "render" the midi file to audio on place within the daw. This will obviously need a feature to "undo" the render/bounce file on site (Which ever you prefer using.) I just think this will be an awesome edition to our DAW as a future request. Working strictly with audio files saves a lot of CPU consumption too.

I'm playing around as we speak. Still feel like too much work and the audio track being there for what I'm trying to accomplish - makes no sense having it there if you can't quantize it with the midi together.

Still too many tracks. How do you fix quantization on both midi and audio tracks with the split option at the same time? That's why I prefer doing patch points or Aux tracks recording, cause being able to only quantize the midi and having an un-quantized audio file doesn't make sense.

What I mean was . . . the ability to "bounce" a midi file "instantly" to wave file - with just a click of a button, without having to setup extra tracks to record your midi clip to. See the clip in the picture? Wouldn't it be great to just select an option from that tab on the clip itself and turn it into an audio file instantly. The less you do, the more you get out.

Pretty sure you didn't highlight every single track. ? 10 years later and i'm still making this mistake. Drag every track from the number down to the last track. Don't just "Ctrl+A" make sure the numbers are highlighted too.

Wouldn't it be cool to be able to bounce a midi file instantly to audio wavefile independently - having the option available in the TAB shown in the picture. Recording through patch points are cool, but it sometimes messes up the individual track. Plus, having the daw to instantly bounce the file to and audio wavefile within the daw with an undo bounce function to do editing if necessary - time saver!

I've been here . . . Nothing nice about it. ?

Does it translate over on every device? I've experiment with this before, but couldn't hear the backing vocals in the car, but came through in my fiances and - think i had iphone 5 then, where it was not heard too.

Read the entire post again, maybe you will then.

To act as a mono "width" effect on each Left and Right. So that means if you pan the individual Left channel slightly 15% to the left, you can use the additional two knobs to widen it as an extra pan. I do it with patch points. You get a true mono sound and pan option that acts as a width effect. Plus, both Left and Right sounds more isolated in their fields.

The idea is to get CbB to eliminate the use of plugins for this.

Hey team. I've been extremely busy lately, currently working on a project for radio. I was playing around the Mono and Stereo button, also creating my own stereo channel with two patch channel going into a third as a single channel. This give me the option to - not only create a stereo to mono field but it also acts as a width field, which sounds awesome. It's a method i use a lot. This got me thinking - what if we split the mono/stereo button into two separate mono buttons with each having its own pan knob underneath it on one individual channel/track? Now, I know this sounds like the "pro tools" Mono/Stereo Concept, but with the' two seperate buttons and their pan knobs, it acts as a width/widening effect too, and more control. It will allow you to take a mono track and pan it 20%L and 20%R (creating a Width effect on mono tracks) or Hard left and Hard right creating a stereo track. Concept: Two individual left and right Button/Knobs for Mono to Stereo and two pan Knobs to isolate the channels in each field. ?Don't know if I am painting this idea fluently right now. It's in my head though. ? Let's brainstorm.

@scook Cool - Yeah, I know. Trying to eliminate the use of plugs for that. I think it is something that shouldn't be done with effect plugins rather through the channel itself. Flip! Does my idea still cut through as the Pro Tools concept? ?

Hey team. I've been extremely busy lately, currently working on a project for radio. I was playing around the Mono and Stereo button, also creating my own stereo channel with two patch channel going into a third as a single channel. This give me the option to - not only create a stereo to mono field but it also acts as a width field, which sounds awesome. It's a method i use a lot. This got me thinking - what if we split the mono/stereo button into two separate mono buttons with each having its own pan knob underneath it on one individual channel/track? Now, I know this sounds like the "pro tools" Mono/Stereo Concept, but with the' two seperate buttons and their pan knobs, it acts as a width/widening effect too, and more control. It will allow you to take a mono track and pan it 20%L and 20%R (creating a Width effect on mono tracks) or Hard left and Hard right creating a stereo track. Concept: Two individual left and right Button/Knobs for Mono to Stereo and two pan Knobs to isolate the channels in each field. ?Don't know if I am painting this idea fluently right now. It's in my head though. ? Let's brainstorm.

Oh -yeah! I see your frustration now.

I on the other hand find the +6db boost to be just fine for me. I never go above +4db boost, well that I can think of ever done - probably has to do with my mic placements. Why don't you try and cut the desired section, normalize it or gain by +6 than boost it with Automation. It's never good to boost higher than +6db, but than again - I don't know your setup and of course preferences. What I can advice is, try to keep it within the "humanize" spectrum, like a +3 or even +6db less than what you prefer to have set. Let the compressor with Automation on it balance things out for you with a human feel by not boosting that high? ✌️

I still think this needs a slider or knob popping up on the area selected, instead of the dragging down method.

With 1909 there were a lot of issues with Windows 10 updates running Cakewalk. Most older vsts constantly required you to a dotNET update manually. throughout the entire build of 1909 - which still remains a flaw in the build itself. The 2004 for me personally? I find it to be heavily hungry on CPU and RAM, which also requires a 32 GB hard drive space alone for installation. So, you need to run an i3 5th gen' or higher to eliminate some of that sluggishness it will bring if you have a less powerful machine. I've been a program insider for Microsoft since 2016. Visually wise, the 2004 is great with fewer issues than 1909. Which brings me to say, Cakewalk ran it's best on the 1809 build of windows. I didn't have any problems with it - also probably because I didn't find any problems with that version build of windows. I also have to add - I was doing all BETA testing on an H81M Msi motherboard, i7 3rd gen CPU, with 8GB ram before I did all necessary updates or upgrades on my studio machine to CbB and Windows. Since I bought this machine 3 years ago, I had to get an extra 8 GB just for the 2004 to run slightly smoother on the "BETA TESTING" machine. Thoughts: 1909 build: Irritably flawed! I've reverted back to 1809 on my studio machine running Cakewalk before the new 2004 build was launched. 2004 build: Highly recommended! I find the 2004 build to have eliminated the use of "Jbridge" on certain plugins being used in Cakewalk. With all this being said. Certain outdated hardware attached also leads you to run problems. Therefore always update your equipment drivers too, before doing updates. I'm running Windows 10 2004 build on my studio machine with Cakewalk 2020.09 update without any problems so far.

Well, there's a difference between a "Major upgrade" and a recommended cumulative update of your current windows build - not so? ? Update and Upgrade (aka "Major") see the difference? We upgrade to a newer version and "update" a current build version you're running - meaning, if you're current version is 1903 you'll constantly be doing updates. If you want the new 2004 version of W10, that's an upgrade.

The M-Audio interface, is your "sound card." Just plug it into a USB port on the computer you're owning now. No need to reach for your pockets to buy an extra unnecessary Pc/Mac at all! Just download Cakewalk - it's literally all you need. Ps: Windows 10 should pick up your drivers by itself. If not - update your windows drivers and cumulative updates. I'm stressing on "dotNet3.5." This version of Net frames seem to be a highly important to most hardware and plugins. Think of it as a "Jbridge."

I hear you. This is where I find the Arranger to be more advanced. I've been close to 4weeks at it hours at a time and found that the "Arranger" for me works best. I can easily draw in crossfaders/envelopes, automation, effects and so much more "LIVE" with the arranger than the Matrix and this is what's confusing to me. ? For me they're same. I don't know, maybe I need to watch more video's on the Matrix to understand it deeper. Hope to get a more light on this here too.

Hey family, how is everybody doing? "Question time" and this is making me feel stupid, but first . . . Recently I have taking some time of mixing to spend more time with the family. Well, my hand was forced anyhow - by taking full advantage of the pandemic, unless it's a really important client. This led me to start plying around in the MATRIX window, which I don't normally do - and the newly ARRANGER window. QUESTION: Aren't they the same thing, with one just being more flexible and advanced ("Arranger") replacing the other one?

Once you have all recommended updates of your windows build installed, it should runs smooth. It was never a CbB issue - but a windows update issue, especially not having the dotnet3.5 installed. To help you with some other issues - go here. https://discuss.cakewalk.com/index.php?/topic/16404-solving-known-issues-please-try-this/