Starship Krupa

I recently had a horrible experience with this....well, I thought it was this, and then it turned out not to be this. I have a system in my bedroom with a 1/8" plug next to my bed running to an old Yamaha A/V receiver on my dresser, going into an older pair of Infinity bookshelf speakers. After I've wrapped it up at the workstation, I do love to plug the phone in, fire up VLC, browse on my home network over to my Mixdowns folder and listen to the fruits of my labor, lay back on the pillow and do a bit of referencing, check out the soundstage in the dark. It's usually a fun moment, my mixes translate well to that system. But this one time, I plugged my phone in, and everything just sounded like hell. And all those imposter syndrome "ha ha, how did you ever think you could be a musician or recordist or mix engineer, you suck harder than a Shop Vac!" voices were lined up in a mocking chorus. Oh man. How could I think such wimpy low end and weird phase-y rolled off highs were even acceptable? How did I miss that? What is UP with this? I was kind of in the dumps for part of a day about this. Then I went into my bedroom and decided to check on this situation. I plugged the phone in and played my favorite track from the last Dave Tipper album as a test and....hmm....one of the most amazing mixes I've heard in my life also sounded anemic. So I put on my glasses and looked, and somehow, probably me fumbling around in the dark, the processing button (which for some reason affects all inputs, not just the video ones) had gotten pressed and pressed again, to the point where the Yamaha thought that it was a 5.1 system decoding ProLogic. ?‍♂️

That's interesting, Tezza, my impression of Mixcraft vs. Cakewalk is just the same as yours, and I've heard it expressed elsewhere, too. Mixcraft, at least its playback, does (or did) seem to have an edge to it that became especially apparent once I got my hands on CbB. Cakewalk just immediately sounded....buttery by comparison. I'm now interested to try out the others you mention and see if my impressions are similar. But as I mentioned in my original post, what the audio engine does on playback is different than what it does on render. I'm thinking of all the options we get when it's time to export or mixdown or render or whatever your favorite term is for creating that .WAV file at the end of the project. I've verified this by testing between Mixcraft and Cakewalk. With the very first project that I imported via raw stems from Mixcraft to Cakewalk, using Windows' own Resource Monitor, I observed that when Cakewalk plays back a project, it always streams its audio from the disk, while Mixcraft somehow doesn't. It's true, on the same dataset, about 20 tracks of drums, guitar, vocals, bass, there was zero disk activity on the Mixcraft.exe process. Which suggests that they're somehow loading the whole project into memory and playing it from there, which also explains why dropouts are about as rare as women at a King Crimson show. When I got that first build of CbB I was astonished at the whole concept of the audio engine being this thing that could stop, and then I'd have to restart it, like pulling the cord on a lawnmower. With Mixcraft, if the audio engine stops, that's a crash, and you see if you can get it to happen again so you can file a bug report.? Thank heaven that Noel and the crew have gotten it not to do that so much. But it may be that the stability has a cost, which is that they might be doing some compression finagling to get all the project audio into memory for playback, and fidelity may be suffering as a result. But as I say, playback and rendering are two different operations. Yes, you touch on another aspect, the look, feel, workflow, and available tools naturally leading the users of them in a certain direction. I typically turn that Console Emulator on for all channels except for my Mix output bus, and I wouldn't seek out and use a console emulation plug-in to use in that role in another DAW. I use it because it's right there in the ProChannel, so why not? Similar with the QuadCurve EQ. It's knocked MEqualizer out of my top spot, which is a feat. If QuadCurve EQ were not such a top notch (pun intended) processor I wouldn't use it, but its presence (there I go again) will contribute to Cakewalk productions having a "sound." What I really wanted to vent about and get opinions on and headchecked about was what I consider the technical impossibility. I think it's probably true that they all record audio just the same, I would trust any of them to capture audio from my interface, but what I do with it after that? How is it possible that they would all handle it the same? Even, as @marled says, I agree, if they're using the same libraries, which I have considered when pondering this, libraries are a big deal with signal processing, the libraries are like using a certain company's tires on your automobile. There's still the rest of the car to consider. And why would I bring this up here and now, @ensconced? ? Well, because I like this forum, and the people who contribute, and I respect your opinions, and I've now been around here long enough for people to respond to a question I post, and I wanted to toss out my opinion and see what you all had to say. Your memes imply that this topic has been discussed to death here on this forum, but I missed those discussions. Seriously, all I've seen on this is people on other forums saying as an aside "of course all DAW's sound alike, that's been proven" and I don't know what "proof" they're referring to, it seems unlikely past the point of impossibility. Is that opinion universal? Happy to see it's not. Do you have a take on it (other than you think it's already been discussed too much?)? In the end, I do absolutely agree with @mettelus that the question itself is so, so not worth losing a minute's sleep over. Don't get me wrong on that. My rant had more to do about the idea of it than putting anything into practice. The perception of a sonic character is merely one thing to consider, along with ease of use, reliability, etc. and I am sure that any of us in this thread can make a decent-sounding mix using any DAW with sufficient familiarity (just as long as I'm not the one who has to use Reason).

I realize that I may be kicking a hornet's nest here, and if I were a mean enough guy, I would just state that it makes no sense to believe that all DAW's sound alike and then wait for people to disagree with me and then say why. However, whenever I see this stated in online forums (and it's never challenged), I roll my eyes so hard that it rearranges my mic locker. The person stating it sometimes says "it's been proven." It would be nice, we kinda all want it to be true, it would be one less thing to worry/obsess about. But under a little examination, it's just not even possible. I'm not a software engineer, although I have worked as a QA engineer at some large companies. The following is merely based on my considering what is likely and what is possible. First off, let's examine the methodology of what such "proof" might be. The only thing I can think of that would serve as objective proof would be to take an audio file, import it into the DAW, then without adding any effects or panning or mixing it with anything, render it back out to a lossless format and do a bit-to-bit or audio summing comparison. Anything else would introduce listener subjectivity. If there have been tests of summing engines, I am not aware of them, but the issues I bring up may also apply to those. Now if that's the criterion for proof of sounding alike, which, BTW, not all DAW's can even do once their engines have to up or down sample (don't worry, Cakewalk's engine handles it like a champ), then it's an operation that uses the DAW in a way that nobody actually does in real life. So the "proof" proves that they all sound alike as long as you don't do anything but import and export audio files without doing anything to them. In the actual world of using DAW's, and for the sake of my illustration I'll just talk about audio, a DAW has to do so much more with audio than that. And each operation has to be handled in a way that will affect the way it sounds. How could it not? The decisions that the algorithm makes, the panning, the way plug-ins are applied (Cakewalk has its own 2X upsampling!), how it's sent to the rendering CODEC, the way all of this is combined together to create a mix at the end. The potential for a difference between playback quality and render quality. We may not be hearing the same quality from playback that the rendering engine applies. How the engine handles clipping. Does it have its own high and low-pass filtering? DC blocking? Do they contribute to possible non-linearity? These and so many more are issues and choices that must be faced by DAW developers, and they are not all going to make the same choices. One would have to believe that every software development team for every DAW has made the same decisions about all of these things for "all DAW's sound the same" to be true. And I just don't believe that, as a matter of fact I think it's impossible. MAGIX, makers of Sequoia, Samplitude, and Music Maker (freeware DAW said to be popular in Europe) made a big deal with their last releases about having reworked their engine so that it "sounded better," and that they had applied the changes all across the product line, from Sequoia all the way down to Music Maker. I'm very curious what they did, but somebody thought there was room for improvement. So, am I off-base here? Am I not considering something crucial? If so, I welcome the trip to school. I'd love to believe that all DAW's sound the same. It would go against the empirical evidence my ears give me, but I'm open to opposing viewpoints.

Considering the subject matter of "Greensleeves," which many are not aware of, as it's usually played at Christmas time as an instrumental, "Jilted John" could be seen as an heir to it, or at least proof that some topics for popular song lyrics never go out of fashion: "Alas, my love, you do me wrong, To cast me off discourteously. For I have loved you well and long, Delighting in your company. Greensleeves was all my joy Greensleeves was my delight, Greensleeves was my heart of gold, And who but my Lady Greensleeves. Your vows you've broken, like my heart, Oh, why did you so enrapture me? Now I remain in a world apart But my heart remains in captivity"

Messed about with it a bit in standalone mode last night. Noticed the layout is rather reminiscent of SONAR, with the Browser and Help modules over on the right and a multipurpose area down at the bottom. Couldn't figure out how to adjust the master volume. The mixer was difficult to navigate. Was charmed to notice that the built-in collection of FX seem to be the AIR Creative Collection minus their UI's. Unfortunately they are only available within the DAW itself. One of the built-in synths seems to be a similarly stripped-down Vacuum, another, Hybrid.

How about report it in Feedback Loop, to the Cakewalk developers, to the Akai developers, so they can get together and make it work? ?

In many cases, that's also "the future." ?

Well, I hope VST3.5 is the future, because VST3, the New Coke of plug-in technology, has been nothing but a headache so far, the sole exception being that it has a canonical location for the plug-ins themselves, which of course some people don't like. The touted new features were either already well-implemented by most developers in their VST2 plug-ins or, like the one where the plug-in is supposed to suspend itself when its not processing audio, pretty much not utilized, at least so far. And having gotten everything to play pretty nicely together with VST2, host and plug-in developers are still having troubles with the new format. I always try the VST3 first, and if it doesn't work, fall back to the VST2, which usually does.

I wasn't aware that VST3 conformed to free and open source software? Did Steinberg change the licensing? So far I haven't run into VSTi's being the buggy poop in VST3 form that FX can be. With VST3 vs. VST2 the dance is: "plug-in developer announces favorite effect now available as VST3, try VST3, VST3 crashes or otherwise has horrible results in Cakewalk and/orMixcraft, revert to VST2 version, VST2 version is solid as a rock." I'm sure they all work fine in REAPER, but I don't.?

As suggested by @Brian Walton, here's a bump to alert you all to the newest version of the amazing freeware synth Surge: https://surge-synthesizer.github.io/ New features including a theme that complements CbB's Tungsten very well. If you haven't checked this pup out, it's a freakin' powerhouse.

Okay, I'm going to have to stop recommending plug-ins to you, other than Meldaproduction stuff, you seem to have everything else.? If you record audio with multiple mics, MAutoalign is a must, regularly discounted for $25.

They did collaborate with Boz on my favorite stereoizer, Sidewidener, for Computer Music magazine. Which you can get with a ton of other plug-ins with purchase of a copy of the magazine.

You are a smart shopper! Breaktweaker is one of my favorite toys, I got it when iZotope put a whole bunch of stuff on sale for $8.88 to celebrate PB's 8th birthday. Now that you've plundered iZotope's offerings, you can let @cclarry guide you through the ways of getting ginormous IKMultimedia packages for fractions of list. They are a good source of the "character" FX I referred to, and Sampletank is my favorite of its category.

Yeah, I got that. is it happening for you, too? iZotope Exponential is one of my favorite lines of FX and I'd hate for there to be any issues. I snagged Phoenix when PB had it on sale for $10 and it was a literal jaw-dropper. If it had nothing but the default setting it would still be the best reverb I've ever used. I've seen similar screechy weirdness (but with a different trigger) with Acon Multiply in VST3 form, so I just use the VST2. When I brought it up, it was suggested that I contact Acon, and I haven't gotten around to it. It seems to be specific to VST3's that can do mono in and stereo out, like choruses and reverbs. @Steve Patrick, just to get it to work, and for characterization purposes, have you tried switching VST3/VST2? Is it just in that one project with the tons o'pluggies or does it happen with smaller projects as well?

Neutron, probably. I'm a broke, frugal guy, so I only have the Elements versions. That's awesome that you have the Exponential Reverbs, who the heck has been advising you? It's like you've skipped 5 years of trial and error on FX acquisition. ? But you have all these tools, so start using them and then you can educate me! This thread has gone hijack, which is sort of a thing in the Deals forum anyway, but I have to acknowledge it for etiquette's sake, sorry, Larry, and it's good to see you back. A piece of unsolicited advice: you have all of those cool iZotope tools, which I am a fan of. They aren't as controversial as they once were, they were considered crutches and blamed for producing overhyped overloud masters. Thing is, you can do that with any tool, and iZotope really got their game on as far as the concept of their suites not being crutches or shortcuts, but rather excellent ways to acquire a world-class suite of plug-ins with special integration that can help novices sound good quickly and pros take it to the next level. Their website is packed with learning material. Their wizards, or assistants or whatever they call them, and their presets give a good starting point, and they're especially good for when you've just tracked a band and need it to sound good NOW, but I have found that especially the compressor settings can stand some tuning. Not surprising, compressors are very program specific. So my advice is: watch what the wizards do and absorb it. It can be like looking over the shoulder of an experienced engineer. It's still essential to learn the basics of how to set up an EQ and compressor on a track. The iZotope wizards do sometimes overhype a track, sometimes they thin it out, and it's essential to know how to correct for it.

I think your iZotope suites probably have it covered, but I just picked up Wavesfactory Trackspacer in their most recent sale and now consider it an essential tool. So simple and effective it feels like cheating.

If you mean the banner down at the bottom of the Free Bundle plug-ins, just ignore it until he has one of his 50% off everything sales and you can make the banners go away for $25 for a suite of 37 plug-ins, which he regularly adds new ones to. Or you can do it right away for $50. I never found them that obtrusive. One of the recent additions to the Free Bundle was MTuner, an instrument tuner that, um, if you look close, just happens to be polyphonic and has MIDI out, so that if you play guitar into it, you can trigger synth lines. My existing license covered it. I think the guy might be an android sent from the future.

To echo what Brian said, with Neutron 3 and Ozone 9, plus what comes with CbB and a download of the Meldaproduction Free Bundle, what you'd have would knock Magix' collection into the creek. You're already way beyond the need for that. It sounds like you're putting together a nice collection of processors. From my perspective, you're there. Wait for Pluginboutique to put one of the iZotope Exponential reverbs on sale again, Phoenix or Nimbus, and there would be few mix engineers who would say that you needed anything further. All it's about at that point is "creative" FX like Stutter Edit or whatever if you're doing EDM production, or "character" compressors and EQ's, like emulations of old hardware if you're into that sort of thing, which I'm not for the most part. You can join me in the zombie horde waiting for the next Pluginboutique freebie and seriously debating whether my budget can stand less than I'd spend on a bridge toll on a Soundspot plug-in.

I was just taking a browse back through our very own Freeware Instruments Thread and saw that someone posted a link to this: https://www.adsrsounds.com/product/software/adsr-sample-manager/ I haven't tried it, but from the description, it sounds purpose-built for what we've been talking about.

If you want to be blown away by filter and modulating FX that can be had for no money, download the Meldaproduction Free Bundle and rack up MComb on one of your audio tracks and start browsing through the presets. Then check out some of the other filter and modulation and sound-shaping plug-ins in the bundle. You'll perhaps get why I coined the term "Meldamoonie" to describe my admiration for the company's products. MCompressor and MEqualizer that come in this bundle are 2 of the first plug-ins I ever downloaded years ago. Cakewalk says I have over 600 plug-ins now and MCompressor and MEqualizer are still ones I reach for on almost every project. And if you're looking to amass a good collection of tools without shelling out a lot of money, go over to the Instruments and Effects subforum and check out the "Favorite Freeware FX" thread. The Dead Duck plug-in bundle is listed in there, LJKB Luftikus, all kinds of great stuff.

I think the suggestion to go to Preferences/Audio is a good one. Select Devices and see if your speakers and headphone out are listed as separate outputs. If they are, then you'll need to explicitly set the output of your Master bus (or whatever the last bus in your chain is) to the headphone output instead of the internal speakers. If they aren't listed as a separate output device, then your system isn't switching over automatically when you plug your cans in, and what rsinger says about needing to work with Windows' settings and/or Control Panel is your next step. I've seen it work both ways, where the speakers and the jack are separate devices, and then where there's just one device and the system handles switching them. And yes, once you get it set up properly, your USB keyboard as an input device with the headphone jack for monitoring is fine. Onboard sound chips aren't the greatest for recording audio, but they handle playback just fine, so if what you're doing is all soft synth and sample based, IMO, you don't strictly need an external interface. Start recording vocals or anything else requiring a mic, it's a worthwhile investment.

Thing is, though, Steve, there are these folks who show up with crash-y issues who for heaven knows what reason are actually still using SONAR, as in, SONAR. I saw a hapless feller a couple of weeks ago seeking help with SONAR PE of all things. How he could make it as far as registering an account to get on the forum and not realize that he could have the equivalent of a supercharged version of SONAR Professional for free.... This baffles me. There's even offline validation now, for the people who don't want to have to go online and have Microsoft update-bombing their DAW's. Anyone who has any kind of concerns about CbB can (and should, for all the premium content) keep SONAR on their system in case they want to revert. Given the incredible volume of bugfixes and enhancements the code has gone through since the program changed names, including not a small bit of messing about in the plug-in department having to do with handling of interleave and other things, if someone's having a tech issue and calls it "SONAR" or "SPlat" or whatever, that question's gonna be asked. Also, they're going to get me rah-rahing them about how they're missing out on 2 1/2 years of development and significant new features like the Arranger and the Take Lanes/Smart Tool overhaul. Comping and editing is so much more versatile now. I would hate to have to go back to CbB 2018.

I'm glad you like the idea. It wasn't really something I'd expect the BL engineers to add to Cakewalk. Just something that occurred to me that would be useful if someone coded it. If this were to be added to CbB, the Browser would surely be the home for it, as you say. The more I think about it, it just seems like something like this must exist already. I know they do for consumers' music collections, of course. There must be some deejay software like Serato that can pull BPM and key and so forth out of an audio file and catalog it. Seems like a short leap to adapt that kind of software for composers/producers.

Ha! So, having said all this, what did I just do. My old friend and onetime bandmate, now housemate, Alex, brought his Tascam 8-track digital Portastudio over after complaining that he couldn't get a workflow going with it the way he used to with his old cassette 4-track. He also has a Sterling ST-51 to go with it, so I had him bring them with the idea that maybe I could parse the manual and make him a cheat sheet for doing guitar/vocal demos, which is his main goal. I sat down with it, recorded a take of one of my songs using its built-in pair of condensers, then overdubbed my vocal using the ST-51. Good lord, the thing takes half a dozen button presses just to turn the phantom power on! It even has a button labeled "Phantom Power," but when you press it, all it does is make the dialog appear on the tiny LCD screen and then you have to confirm it and all this crap. After tracking, the big challenge was to get my 3 tracks from the Tascam to my Dell for import to CbB. What a zany process. In order to do this, it partitions the SD card into a FAT partition that the PC can read and then a proprietary file system that the Portastudio uses. So you must call up your song and Export it to the FAT partition to get it to a place where a computer can read it. Dropped the tracks into Cakewalk and went to town with my usual tools and techniques, and it sounds fantastic. I did a whole "unplugged" version of one of my songs, right after participating in this thread. ? (and I think I may be able to help Alex get his head around the Portastudio)

Los Pastaleros introduced a 4th a couple of versions ago. #3 is "Aggressive" mode. It's supposed to take even better advantage of newer, faster, many-cored CPU's, but exactly how is probably a trade secret. ? My guess is that Noel tightens up the timing as more processing power allows. And/or shifts priorities in regard to the audio engine vs. other tasks. That's just speculation based on my own experimentation with a couple of older computers that preferred model 2. It felt like Cakewalk was stretched a bit thin. Switching back to model 2 made everything okay. It's there to take advantage of higher-performance systems, not to squeeze more performance out of aging systems. The Word is: "Try it and see, but remember that you made the change, so that if your system responds unfavorably, you know to switch it back." I have trouble with the "remember" part sometimes....?