Starship Krupa

(tl/dr in parens) #1 by a long shot: Non-destructive normalization. (Why is this one process destructive? Like @Craig Anderton, I'm used to normalizing dang near everything so that my FX gain staging is simpler, etc., etc., but I don't want destructive processing. At. All. I know, it's probably a throwback to Ye Olde Cakewalke. But for heaven's sake CbB can shift pitch, reverse entire bars, replace my entire drum performance so that it's perfect and played on a Roland 808, all without touching a single 1 or 0 of the audio. Yet if I want to normalize a clip to -1dB, bang, churn, grind, whole new audio file. YAAARRRRGGGGHHHH) Next, setting up Drum Maps could be made a lot easier and more intuitive with some menu additions, documentation additions and maybe wording changes. (For instance, there is currently no way to start the process of applying a Drum Map from the PRV Drum Pane. Once the user has called up the Drum Pane in the Piano Roll, they must leave it to go to a MIDI Channel Strip or Preferences to invoke the Drum Map Manager, then go back to the MIDI Channel Strip and apply the Drum Map. There is no indication in the program, no prompts telling them they must do this, they just have to know it. The documentation does not lay out a step-by-step process. There should at least be a menu item in the PRV for "Drum Map Manager" when the Drum Pane is showing and a right click menu item in the Drum Pane for "Drum Map Manager." In lieu of a larger overhaul of the Drum Map, a "wizard" or prompts or something similar could help. There could be tooltip help in the Drum Pane or in the Drum Map Manager indicating the user's next step. As it stands, the user is "stranded" at a few points along the way. It literally took me months before I got the process "down" to the point where I could start from scratch and get a drum map to work right away, reasonably understanding what I was doing at each step. It pains me to say it, but more than one promising beat got lost while I was flailing about trying to set Cakewalk up for drum editing. Beats are important, yo.) Last, what others have already said about the potential of the Matrix. (I don't have a "Morpheus" around to explain it to me, but if it has the ability to become integrated as a compositional tool (which the similar feature in Mixcraft is), that seems like it could be a killer feature for EDM composers/producers. My understanding is that these audio/MIDI loop grids are meant to give Ableton Live-esque functionality, and I would love to have that to mess with. Sounds inspiring.)

User, I'm not 100% certain because I don't use your workflow and only open EL for troubleshooting and only open SV for printing, but I think what you want might already be there (classic Cakewalker answer to a feature request, I know ?). I tried your request and right now on my 2nd monitor I have separate floating Staff View, Event List, Piano Roll and Console windows. I had a hunch that you, as I was until several weeks ago, may not be aware that you can drag Multidock'd tabs out onto the desktop and they'll be free of the dock. You'll still need to click on their headers to switch to them (or Ctrl+Tab to cycle), but they're all visible. Just open your views and drag their tabs out. Voila! One view will still be Multidock, and if you want the rest back in there, drag them back. The independent ones may be dragged on top of each other without re-docking. Or did you mean something else?

I have the benefit of blissful ignorance of the pre-SONAR features that many users found to work better. I do feel ya about it sticking in the craw when a much-touted "improvement" seems to result in the program feeling clunkier and much-used features being replaced by ones that don't work as well. Yet here we are in Cakewalk by BandLab Land, but it's one where the devs do pay attention to what we users would like and make an effort to implement it when it's within reach. ? Y'know, the lack of having the "narrow strip" function for the strips in the Inspector is so obvious now it almost seems like an oversight, and fodder for a separate Feature Request here in this forum. Why can't we right click on the strips in the Inspector and get "narrow strip?" I think you're the man to make that request. Also, it occurs to me that I suspect I can create a Workspace with no (or floating) Inspector or Browser if I want to run in audio edit mode, and another one for MIDI edit mode, and another one for mixing mode. I say "suspect" because I haven't yet, but that's because I haven't dug into the Lens/Workspace feature since it was overhauled. Maybe if I set it up just right I'll be able to click back and forth.

You can float it and close it with the "x" in the upper right corner and get even more TV space, and then call it up only when you need it. I do this with the Help window and the Browser when I really want real estate in the TV. Undock 'em, then close 'em with the "x." They don't re-dock. Then when called back up, they come back undocked and can be moved where convenient.

It looks like your system "Programs" folder is in a location that may have changed since you first installed SONAR or CbB? And as you no doubt know, despite the fact that Microsoft allows it, and they should be able to handle it, some programs have trouble with being installed in any path other than C:\Program Files. ?‍♂️ Since the CLSID's may actually be different between the last SPlat versions and the last (older) CbB versions, maybe yours don't match? TPTB remain silent on this matter.

Here's a temporary workaround: it only sticks if you have the AA line enabled when you drag and drop the Instrument or Effect from the browser, so if you hit "X" and switch the line off before you set up your synth(s) or FX, you can switch it back on. A bit of a pain, but I think the devs are on it and it should be fixed soon. Good shootin' finding the reproducible condition!

Thanks, Mario, this is most helpful. I tried it and it's also true for dragging and dropping audio FX from the browser to the Track Header FX bin.

To reiterate what everyone else has said and point something else out: iZotope Ozone already has an algorithmic mastering wizard. I don't know how it compares to any of the online services, but I find it useful as a starting off point, to compare my progress as I learn more about mastering. The traditional thinking on mastering is, as @bitflipper says, putting your mix in front of a pro who knows how to get the best out of it. The idea is that the mix engineer and artist may also be too "close" to the mix after working on it for weeks. And that the processes of mixing and mastering use different tools and have different goals. Mixing (to me) is at its essence getting everything sitting pretty in a sonic space. Mastering is applying final compression and limiting and EQ and maybe some spatializing to give an overall polish and loudness, coherence and depth. Depending on the genre, punch and/or warmth. I personally subscribe to the traditional thinking, but my problem is that I can't afford to hire someone, so I try to separate the processes as much as possible. I do my mix as a mix, with no effects on the Master bus, only channel and submix effects. Then when I have everything in its own space sonically, I start with one of my mastering chains. The mastering process may reveal a need to revisit the mix. If so, I do, but I turn off the mastering effects. One of the most important techniques is, of course, referencing to other professionally mastered material that has the sound I would like my piece to have. I think the online services would be useful inasmuch as they are another algorithm to compare my work to, but they are still just algorithms, like the one in Ozone. There was an algorithmic one I downloaded a couple of years ago, AAMS or something like that? Anyway, I ran it against one of my mixes and liked my own results better. There's no need to get redneck-y about mastering wizards. To use bitflipper's analogy about the houses, it's as if they gave you a beige house but left out the part that says you're not allowed to change the color. Ozone at least is just a set of the same FX that we all use manually. Some of those FX can be set up by robot, some not so much. Limiters, for instance, can do pretty well with an adaptive algorithm. An EQ curve can be applied based on what genre. I notice that Neutron is utter poo when it comes to setting compression parameters.... Heh, maybe at some point, we'll see a "John Henry" or "Big Blue" type mastering competition to see if an algorithmic mastering program can outdo a human. "Bob Ludwig was a disk masterin' man...."

I don't completely understand what you mean. Ozone Elements 9 is a small suite that has only the EQ, Maximizer, and Spatializer modules. Yes, it does have the Mastering Assistant, no you are not forced to use it. It can only be used as a plug-in inside a host. It can't be used in standalone form and the modules can't be used separately from the main suite.

I'm not a fan of "this doesn't answer my question," answers but I'm going to follow in Sidney's footsteps and offer an alternate/similar/complementary suggestion. I have no experience with online mastering services. However. Pluginboutique is currently running a promotional deal where all the iZotope Elements packages are $8.88, including Ozone Elements 9. It includes the aforementioned "good EQ and limiter" in addition to a spatializing tool. Somewhat controversial advice: it also comes with a very useful set of presets and a "mastering assistant" wizard that can analyze your track and apply suggested settings that you can then tweak to suit your taste. I have found it to be a valuable tool for learning my own mastering techniques. It's also great for quickie use when I've just recorded some stuff, thrown together a rough mix and want it to sound good right away. $8.88 is the proverbial "no brainer" just to get the EQ and maximizer/limiter. They also have Neutron Elements for the same price, which I would snag as well, if you don't have that, and RX Elements. I'd skip Nectar Elements, as it doesn't allow access to the parameters, but they have Stutter Edit and Breaktweaker if you are into EDM. When I first got Ozone Elements, it was a bit heartbreaking, because I had been trying to learn mastering for some time, and then I slapped a few presets on this thing and they sounded so much better. But it challenged me, and I eventually got to where I like what I can do as much or better. Sometimes I use Ozone, sometimes other tools, sometimes a combination.

It's weird that the BA installer/uninstaller continues its downward spiral (if you hadn't noticed, it's also started to leave behind references to previous versions in the Windows app list), considering that it's pretty obvious that (while the Cakewalk devs have nothing to do with BandLab Assistant development) Cakewalk development has certainly not been scrimped on. I haven't spent as much time with the other BandLab DAW's, the Chrome, iOS, and Android ones, but they're sharp, modern-looking apps and haven't crashed on me. BandLab Assistant itself is a good-looking, stable utility with features that go beyond just being an installation manager for Cakewalk (no, really). But this one specific component of BA, its own updater/installer, they just can't get that thing right. And the "check my own version, download and install update if needed, restart myself" problem is not one that is new or unique to BandLab Assistant. Which is....unfortunate, because I have a hunch that most Cakewalk users are like me and only start BA when they need it, which is usually to update to the most recent build of Cakewalk. And the first thing BA does is try to update itself, which fails, giving the subsequent proceeding an air of fail. We all know better intellectually, but it's still like having a baggage handler bang a cart into the side of your plane loud enough to hear it before the plane takes off. From what I read on the forum, BA is not the most popular feature to start with....?

And I apologize in return, it was my ***** attempt at disingenuous humor, I didn't think that you meant it as a mean joke. I was in a weird mood and posted after I had been up many hours. The more I thought about it, though, it is kind of odd to see an obituary in with "deals," isn't it?

I hope that someday the installer/updater for BandLab Assistant reaches the high standards achieved by other BandLab software.

I agree! Welcome to the community of Cakewalk users! The company who own Cakewalk don't spend much to advertise it, so tell your friends how much you like it, what a good deal you think it is.

That's kinda harsh, posting news of a fellow musician's death as a "deal." I've never much cared for Pat Metheny either, but I don't begrudge other people listening to his stuff and I think I've seen Mr. Mays credited on some recordings that I do enjoy. What if someone on this forum were friends with Lyle Mays and saw this mean joke?

Good call. I think I may also have had a PAS (plug-in acquisition syndrome) response to the inquiry: of COURSE this guy wants to find more plug-ins for CbB, doesn't everyone? ?

That is odd. So there were newer versions of these plug-ins than the ones that come with CbB? Do you remember if they had any differences in appearance or function?

A little attempt at humor. Actually, so many people who post here butcher the name of the software that no matter what they call it, I just assume they are talking about Cakewalk by BandLab, the name of which is up at the top of the forum, and which they would have had to have seen on several messages before even getting here. So whether they call it "BandLab" or "BandLab Sonar" or "the new SONAR" or "Bandlad Cakewalk" or "CbD" or "CdB" I just reply with what I hope is something that will help. If they say "SONAR," that help will include the suggestion to switch/upgrade to Cakewalk. I've never heard of a "bandlab mix-editor" that one may download. The only BandLab DAW's I've ever used were Cakewalk (of course) and the browser, iOS, and Android ones. There is a button in BandLab Assistant that will take the user to the browser version, but it's not downloadable and to my knowledge one may not "acquire" effects for it. The effects are included and proprietary. I find it puzzling that people get this far with registering an account and all the windows and forum headers and topics and everything and still be so confused, but they do, and obviously they can use some info once they get here. I don't even know if there are user forums for the other BandLab DAW's, but if the OP is trying to figure out how to add FX to his tracks in the browser-based Mix-Editor, such forums would be a better bet than this one.

Cheers, John. Sounds like the rep was being kinda unscrupulous and misrepresenting the true position of the parent company at the expense of making sales. Maybe that's part of why Roland USA is now a big thing. ? I'll bet that if you had confronted him a year later he would have claimed ignorance of how much Roland had already thrown their weight behind the new spec. Since MIDI is literally a refinement of DCB (according to the Wikipedia article, anyway), if it were "defective and full of flaws," that wouldn't speak too well of DCB! By now I'm sure you know about lead times and how long it takes for a company to get an electronic product into production from conception to delivery. Back then it was even longer, so for Roland to be selling MIDI-capable gear as soon as they were after that rep's spiel....however the math works out. At least anyone who bought into DCB was able to get a converter box. In my imagination, the legendary lunch discussion at NAMM between Kakehashi (Roland), Oberheim, and Smith (Sequential) may have started with the idea of the other two companies licensing DCB from Roland. Now if I'm Tom Oberheim and Dave Smith, I'm going to balk at that because Kakehashi (or forces at Roland) may decide to change the spec to favor their interests. It's a great idea to have everything able to connect to everything else, all those companies are starting to have "systems," and they are willing to admit that some artists prefer workflow and sound from one company's box over another, and ultimately it will be good for the industry as a whole. So Kakehashi compromises: okay, let's do an open standard, but let's make it pretty close to my DCB so that it will be easy for us to retrofit existing product. Sends the schematics off to Smith in California and after hundreds of FAX exchanges between California and Japan, it's on. Then they need to define a data protocol. Yamaha buys in, hey this will be great for the new low cost FM synth we want to introduce.... And every keyboard salesman everywhere begins to have nightmares where people are asking them "does it have MIDI?" My main MIDI input controller is a Kawai K1 that my ex gave me when she moved out. It has this annoying "feature" where it sends All Notes Off (aka "panic") whenever the last key is lifted. So any patch with a long release is suddenly chopped. They considered this so important that there is no way to turn it off in the synth, I have to use a MIDI plug-in to filter it.

Wellll, actually. Roland were one of the original companies who contributed to the idea in the first place, and hardware-wise, 5-pin DIN MIDI owes a lot to DCB. But don't just take my word. From Wikipedia: "The MIDI Standard was born out of conversations between Oberheim Electronics founder Tom Oberheim, Roland founder Ikutaro Kakehashi and Sequential Circuits president Dave Smith at the Summer NAMM show in 1981.....Using Roland's DCB as a basis, Smith and Sequential Circuits engineer Chet Wood devised a universal synthesizer interface...." It was a long time ago. I was living in Sunnyvale, California, USA, not far from Sequential Circuits' headquarters. I was also an avid reader of not only Electronic Musician, but Polyphony, the self-published 'zine that @Craig Anderton published before EM began. I think I may still have a cache of back issues of Polyphony around somewhere. Craig probably named the magazine that because at the time it seemed like an unobtainable goal, like nirvana. I worked across the street from Atari, which was just then about to implode. The ST400 and ST800 were the systems to have for musicians, though. I attended the 1982 US Festival and met Bob Moog, who, between having lost and regained control of his company name, had taken a gig doing something or other with Fairlight, IIRC. He gave a lecture and demonstrated the Fairlight System at the festival. My first exposure to musical sampling, so I can say "Bob Moog was the one who introduced me to sampled instruments." Mattel showed off their Synsonics drum machine at the US Festival as well. I wanted one immediately! 5-pin DIN, no MIDI. Never got one, but I did get a TR-606 a couple of years later. 5-pin DIN, no MIDI. Sold it on eBay 20 years ago for a small profit. A few years later I veered off into San Francisco and the underground music scene of the day. The groundwork was being laid for the grunge wave that was (to us at least) a rebellion against corporation-approved-and-packaged pop of the early and mid-80's. Which had been characterized by both big synth sounds and by pop metal shred dudes with MIDI-controlled guitar rigs. The hip music world went low tech for a good while and I happily went right along with it. I didn't become interested in MIDI or electronic music again until around 1999 when the rave scene was in full bloom in the San Francisco area and I started digging deep house and downtempo electronic sounds as well as the Big Beat thing that Fatboy Slim got up to. Now that stuff is retro and I still like it. It's fun to be able to jump from writing and recording totally "live rock band" songs to composing "ambient electronic" to something else that is inspired by Air or Nine Inch Nails all centered around the same music-making software.

Aaaaargh! This is one of my personal peeves, if it is the case with Melodyne. When I am running an analysis program, and I kind of know where the data are going to fall, how about the program lets me do some of the heavy lifting before we start and I can tell it that for instance the song is definitely not going to wander beyond 150-160BPM? So then it can filter out glitch results like 78BPM. So that it can focus its powerful detection algorithm in that range rather than figuring out everything from 1BPM to 250BPM.

+1 on posting examples of the recorded files. It would be good to have examples of both acceptable and unacceptable recordings. If you use your BandLab profile to host the audio you can link to the files using a button right here in the message editor. Makes it simple. I endorse upgrading your system from Windows 7 to Windows 10. More and more software and hardware companies are abandoning development for Windows 7 and compatibility issues will only get worse the longer you wait. While Cakewalk will install and run in Windows 7, it is specifically optimized to take advantage of features in Windows 10, and is extensively tested in Windows 10.

One caution: when doing this, I consider it best practice to go easy on the FX I'm using. Just whatever I or the talent need to hear to get a good performance. Or if I have a rockabilly singer and they need to hear the slapback so they can do the "hug-a-mug-a-huh" thing in the right rhythm or whatever. If you find that there is a noticeable delay in monitoring, it could be caused by a plug-in. iZotope products are well-known for this. They sound amazing when I use them on mixdown, but I can't use them while I'm tracking because they cause so much latency. The thing to do in that case is only use the FX that you need for the vocal tracking session and disable the rest. Then flip the others back on at mixing time.

Good idea, unless the OP really just wants to skip that part and go straight to "acquiring effects."

Oh, the hopes I had for that part of the spec. Unlike the rest of it, which is redundant rubbish, this is something that I could get behind. That's really using your heads, thinks I. Instead of sitting there churning away, all these programs-within-a-program can intelligently go into a sleep state so that the processor-intensive cabinet simulation convolver you're using on nothing but the 4-bar guitar solo can just pop in and do its thing and then politely release its resources. Ah, but a couple of things about this spec that even I, as a cynical, informed veteran of the consumer software industry, didn't pick up on immediately. First, I'm going to hazard a guess that there's some kind of signaling protocol that comes from the host that tells compliant VST3's that they are allowed to go sleepy. Only if this=TRUE may VST3 go sleepy. Otherwise we play it safe and stay "on." This would be for processing FX that have long "tails" and perhaps for troubleshooting and such. So right off the bat the host has to be able to give it the okay to sleep. Maybe some hosts will decide that it's not worth the effort and just leave the condition=FALSE so that VST3's never go offline. Second, and this is most important, notice how the pitch says "can" rather than "will" or "must." That means that it's only a feature that the plug-in may implement or not at the choices of the developer. For now, most developers are still coding their VST plug-ins in both VST2 and VST3 formats. With the exception of Waves, have any of them touted any features that are exclusive the VST3 version of their product that are or were not available in the VST2 version? That would be a good way to find out. I am pretty sure that as much as possible they are keeping a common codebase for both the VST2 and VST3 versions, and/or in some cases, using their own portable VST2-to-VST3 wrappers. All of which seems to preclude using the "processing economy" feature. If I am remembering correctly, someone asked Vojtech on the Meldaproduction forum if he were using the feature or had any plans to in the immediate future and he replied that he had experimented with it and decided not to for whatever reason. He seemed a little dismissive, but dismissiveness toward other people's technology is kind of his default mode. From what I've seen on DAW forums in general, I've yet to find anyome who noticed a difference in resource usage doing side=by-side tests of the same plug in VST2 and VST3 versions. Still. I use VST3's wherever possible, because that's the way the industry is headed and if there are problems, I want the people I get my pluggies and hosts from to know about them.