user905133

To try WASAPI (Shared), go to Preferences > Audio > Playback and Recording. At the top you can choose different Driver Modes in the drop down box. The ASIO4ALL Control Panel can be accessed from the Windows task bar's hidden icons. A small arrow displays the hidden icons. If you hover over the icons, there should be a tooltip if its not clear which one is the ASIO4ALL icon. Once you open the control panel, there is a wrench in the lower right corner that toggles between basic and advanced mode. In advanced mode you can turn different ins and outs on and off (Device List on the left side).

You want audio in from FA-08, but audio out through realtek? Some people have had success with ASIO4ALL, but WASAPI (shared) might work better for your needs.

Try unchecking the Realtek ASIO I/O first.

I would like this when setting up a template or creating a new project from scratch. However, knowing me, I'd forget it was check and accidentally overwrite several track names before realized I had done that. So, if this option is implemented, I'd like to have an additional option: [ ] uncheck upon close [ ] keep checked -- or something like that.

I tried your *.ins file with another manufacturer's gear that uses the same bank switching method used in your *.ins file. Changing the [ B ] ank and [ P ] atch values in the track control widgets successfully changed the Bank [MSB/LSB] and Patch on my sound module. Hope this helps you sort out the issue.

Have you tried a solution using Workspaces? Not sure it will meet your needs, but I have a number of special project workspaces that retain the location, size, and state of various windows including floating windows and other windows/panes. Just a thought if you haven't tried it yet.

Is this solved yet? I tried it the day it was first posted and got to the point that in order to get the Bass on Track 3 to make sound with SI Bass, I needed to double click on a bass program in the Program Browser after each time the sequence stopped. I just opened the *.cwp I saved and its the same thing--any time I stop/pause the transport and then I restart it, SI-Bass [Track 3, Midi Channel 2] makes no sound until I double click on a prog. I did not send the sysex banks. I did not see any NRPNs in Track 3. I did not look in every track for sysex or RPNs or NPRNs. All track are pointing to TTS-1 except Track 3 [Fingr Bass]. Just did another test--while the song was playing (including the Track 3 bass part), I used the rewind button [and the FFwd button] and the bass part stopped sounding until I double clicked the prog in the Program Browser. I can't look under the hook, but as a lay observer, I am wondering if something having to do with chase is dislodging the preset/patch/program/sample. 100% speculation. I defer to others. I don't think I can add anything else, but maybe my tests and observations point to something other than the prior comments suggest. Good luck with this. UPDATE: At least with my version of the file and the observations I had, it was solved by getting rid of the PB Sens. RPN per scook's suggestion. To confirm, I saved the file with that RPN deleted, even said OK to send the two sysex files and the SI-Bass played. Pausing/stopping & restarting + Rwd and FFwd do not silence the bass. Seems to me the transport observations pointed to something being resent. My "guess" is that the RPN in the Fingr Bass track at 1:02:032 caused the problem at start and every time the transport was used.

The Going-Out-Of-Business-Sale That Almost Got Away! Talking about bankrupt music stores, does anyone remember Mars Music? I lucked out (in part)!!! I stumbled onto the very last day of the "Going Out Of Business" sale (1) when I actually had money to spend and (2) on the day they cut the sale short because someone made an offer to buy all the remaining stock, they locked the doors with more good buys I was still considering, and they ended the sale several days early.

If Cakewalk ever implements an optional "Did you know . . . " utility [with page-by-page "Do not show this tip again" check boxes] patterned after the old "Did you know . . . " start-up info/dialog boxes, I would nominate this tip for inclusion. (Easy enough to add to my personal "affirmations" as a reminder until I use it enough times to remember. ) Thanks for this tip (and the countless others!) . And thinks for marled and to jimlynch22; I glossed over this tip the first time I read it.

When I started using the Custom Module, I stumbled onto a workaround using Workspaces--different sets of buttons based on different types of projects. Not disagreeing with you or @Lord Tim's suggestions immediately below; just mentioning one possible workaround until there is a change. Another option might be to have a Folders Module so that a button will call up a floating window of custom buttons (for example). WRT Workspaces, a while ago I explored micro changes using Workspaces. Based on my experience, it might be possible to have a Workspace that changes just the current set of custom buttons. Again, having a parameter that allows users to choose 9, 12, 15, 18 . . . n buttons sounds like a good idea to me and is probably easier and less confusing than using a Workspaces work-around. Lines as dividers, icons, category labels, etc. would work for me, too.

Are you talking about making the font(s) smaller? re-sizing the modules in the Control Bar? re-sizing windows/panes? resizing instrument and FX plug-ins?

I am familiar with chord tracks in hardware (e.g., sound modules) as implemented in what Roland called "Intelligent Arrangers" a few decades ago. I am not sure if the chord tracks in other DAWs have similar capabilities, but I can envision Cakewalk implementing them in such a way as to work together with and complement articulation maps, the arranger, and the inspector-based arpeggiator as well as 21st century functions (e.g., chord manipulation).

Are saying that the thread that you didn't start has been started by someone else and you would like people with knowledge of music theory to post comments about the Chord Track in the other thread?

I had this too for a few minutes. Seems OK now.

I wanted to change bus warnings (thank you for raising the issue and to scook for the solution) so I intuitively followed the correct procedures for adding a setting and setting a value. It agrees with what's listed at the Initilization File link above.

I looked a few months ago and couldn't find it either. I'd be very interested if it exists--either as an official document or a user contributed document.

You prefer Cakewalk right? I am not sure the intent of RBH's wordplay on "Cake" is clear. Sometimes the idiom "to take the cake" means something is bad.** However, in this case it means something good. RBH prefers it over Samplitude, Mix Buss, and Reaper. **See for example this.

And you are a _______ _______!!!!!!

(1) You have posited a number of erroneous assumptions. (2) Your rationale for having a feature request is based on a non sequitur (If we can do X in one place, we should be able to do Y in a different place). (3) What do you think the F stands for in RTFM? (Clue: See this. WARNING: The site linked here contains a swear word that some might find offensive. Please do not click on the link if you might be offended.) (4) Please go back to the basis for my original question: "It would also be consistent with how you can drag & drop a new instrument in the track view." Dragging and dropping a new instrument from the Browser [X] in the Track View [one place] doesn't always directly insert a new track. Your rationale for the feature request is based on this. I could be wrong, but I think you want to be able to drag and drop an FX plug-in from the Browser {Y] in the Console View [a different place] and in so doing directly insert a new buss. It was a simple question, asked respectfully, since your rationale is for consistency in workflows: It seemed to me that to have consistency, there could be an intermediary "Insert FX" dialog. It was really a simple question asked respectfully to which you replied, no, please re-read. I pointed out what I see as a logical inconsistency in your reply: I did not engage in name-calling [ad hominem] and I did not swear at you. (5) Don't confuse my willingness to explicitly reject your insulting and rude comments with pedantry. I would not otherwise have had the desire to reiterate all these details. As I said earlier: Really! It was a simple question, asked without any tinge of disrespect. You chose to just say no, re-read. I have now gone from "Sorry I asked" to "Sorry I asked and wasted my time and the time of anyone who spend any time reading any of this." Just to be clear, I have made no comments about the usefulness of your proposed feature.

I tried.

It sounds to me based on your reply that you think that everyone's workflow should be identical to everyone else's workflow, that everyone uses the program the same way that you do, and/or everyone should do things your way. If so, that is your choice, but I disagree. In fact one of the things that I have long appreciated about SONAR/Cakewalk is its extreme flexibility and customizability. Maybe you also agree that every feature available in one view should be available in every view. I don't know, because rather than responding to a reasonable request stated in a reasonable way you became insulting and swore at me.

Dude, I was just trying to understand your workflow. So I asked a respectful question in a respectful manner. Rather than respond with respect, you gave a terse and said to re-read the original post as if I would find something that addressed what I was asking about. I re-read it, still didn't find what I was addressing, and added but I didn't think it was worth discussing. When you replied with something non-responsive to what I was asking about, and had an if . . . then . . . statement, I simply pointed out that your logic was a nin-sequitur. You replied with name calling. If you want to continue the path from reasonable discussion to name calling, I will give that more thought--if you insist.

ad ho·mi·nem (adjective) - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Since you insist: