Misha

I don't know, maybe this is possible already... I usually spread tracks of the project to ~4-5 busses. but since tracks are not added randomly (and busses assigned as I see fit) it takes a bit of time to locate which tracks are assigned to which busses at a later time in making. It would be convenient to have an option at the Bus, to shows / highlight which tracks are going into it.

In simple terms, I wonder if "Extra Buffers" set in Cakewalk in in preference sync & caching not in the ASIO driver settings can emulate behavior of (extra) buffers set in the dedicated ASIO driver settings? For example if I am mixing at 2048 and I need 4096 for the project to be stable, adding these extra buffers in Cakewalk should act somewhat similar to increasing a buffer in the ASIO driver, but unfortunately it doesn't feel it does anything. At least nothing close to when interface's buffers are doubled. In short, this is what I mean by a more stable ASIO - to have extra buffer beyond what interface can offer. For mixing.

While some statements are true, it seems to me that some folks just like to "insert" their views without even reading. If everything concerning your workflow works out for you, that is great. No need to reply to thread that is of no interest to you. I am an average user with a little better than average hardware and I do get "Stopped Audio engine" more than I would like to on interfaces that max on 2048 when mixing. To be very clear, I don't see much of real world difference when using Cakewalk's in-house adjustments such as increasing buffers in preference sync & caching, load balancing, aggressive CPU etc. I am not looking for "advice" on optimizing my system or what DAW to use, or purchasing a $1000 interface. But if it's possible to optimize Cakewalk to handle mixing better, when latency is not a factor on average prosumer interfaces maxed at 2048, that would be great.

azslow3, You made many valid points. My main request is to optimize Cakewalk for mixing, just a slightly beyond what is on plate now. As another user mentioned keeping things "liquid". I can happily mix huge projects with 4096 buffer on my Arturia. The hope is to get somewhat similar result with 2048 buffer, which is common "highest" buffer of many new interfaces. As I mentioned, I don't see much real world difference when mixing heavy projects with 2048 buffer + trying increasing additional buffers in Cakewalks preference sync & caching, load balancing, aggressive CPU etc. A different story when compared to 4096 buffer on my second interface with all Cakewalk's internal bells and whistles turned off. Almost like these Cakewalk settings don't do anything what they where supposed to do. Again, this is not an issue that prevents me of writing music, but if it's possible to optimize things within Cakewalk a bit for mixing for the interfaces maxed out at 2048, that would be very much welcomed. P.S. When people talk about the "quality" of Asio driver that is only partially true for the test of how frequent "stopped audio engine" occurs. When mixing at 2048 I get pretty much similar results in about 6 different mainstream interfaces I have tried on two different computers. I feel there is no need to praise some over others for that specific issue. Overall they hold up well, but could hold up slightly better

Mark, I am not looking for ways to hunt down ghosts in my machine. That is not the object of the thread (as it was mentioned in initial post) I will answer your question, but kindly do not derail this important topic. "How do you mean 'most circumstances' - it usually either passes or fails" That is not true. It depends on the load that computer carries at specific time frame. That is a variable that can change with some program scheduling or other intermittent processes that could occur within large intervals of time. It is a useful tool, but not a silver bullet. Having said that, overall Cakewalk runs just fine on most of my projects. But on some heavier it chokes often unless some tracks are frozen and other methods used to alleviate issue . I am not a programmer or mathematician, but on a user level, in my particular case, I feel that Cakewalk and perhaps future Sonar, if it will have identical engine needs 5-10% more tolerance on the top all other existing optimization user settings within Cakewalk to meet my needs under heavy projects. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A side note for Bakers, if someone from team is reading. Most of consumer and prosumer interfaces have a max buffer limit of 2048. That is usually what I set when mixing. Fortunately, I have Arturia Audiofuse interface that has buffer option of 4096. When I select that I don't have issues with "stopped engine". But couple of other interfaces I have and a couple that I have tried, with max buffers in the range of 1024 and 2048 would choke on heavier projects. I've tried increasing Cakewalk "additional" buffers to all kinds of parameters on these lower buffer interfaces, but it seems that it makes almost no real world difference. At least nothing close to what I would expect comparing when cranking a buffer on a device written driver.

OutrageProductions, It seems your computer is slightly faster and obviously has a different chipset. I am just a hobbyist. I am certain that buying a better computer will feduce "stopped engine" issues to something very, very occasional. I wanted to squeeze couple of years out of it before upgrading, and pretty much I can, if new Sonar will not be more demanding in real life scenarios. My request of this thread is for Cakewalk to be slightly more forgiving on larger projects. I think it is doable. Again, besides optimizing engine, a decent performance monitor with sortable list and options to reduce load of specific items would be perfect.

Byron, if everything works great for you, that's wonderful. Really. This would be a depressing place if everybody would do nothing but complain. My request is based on annoyance, not desperation. And it's a request, not cry for help Back to the topic. I never said Cakewalk sucks. Nor I accused anybody of having top of the line computer. What I said is that Reaper and Cubase seem to be more stable handling larger projects than Cakewalk and my suggestion is for Cakewalk to improve on that.

+1 on Mp3 presets, bitrate and other mp3 related stuff within same export window without that pop up. --- P.S. I would like to be able to change the order of File name>Location to Location>File name. And also an option to get rid of that {projectname} in the type box. Just blank.

Byron, Your suggestions are likely aimed at someone in their 1-3 years into computer recording. I have 2+decades into tinkering with music. The last thing I want to do is: " thinking long and hard about whether or not you really need to add that plugin" If I think for too long, creativity goes to drain "keep adding plugins to try fixing the problems they created with the previous ones." I believe you are mainly talking about FX plugins, not VSTi's or combination of both types. Likely your projects are slim, that is why everything works smoothly for you. I have absolutely no issues of running smaller ~10 track projects with 5-10 FX plugins, even with "Look aheads" and oversampling.

Mark & Byron. Yes, I don't have top of the line $4k machine. Mine is i7 (8th gen) / 6 core 8750H with 32ram and 980Pro nvme ssd. Interfaces of choice is Arturia Audiofuse and Apogee One. It is not a walmart e-machine. I would put it as a "better than average" PC. Obviously crapware and about 2 dozen "familiar" software suspects had been addressed. DPC checks fine under most circumstances. What I am saying is that Reaper and Cubase handle larger projects better. (More stable) How they do it? I don't know. Cakewalk is my DAW of choice. I was testing the other two for the sake of testing, curious to see the progress they made. (I usually give them a spin every couple of years). My take is, Cakewalk by Bandlab and future products are aimed at masses, and most people don't have top of the line computers. So in my view better effort has to be made aimed at efficiency. mettelus above pretty much said most what I didn't. What I want to add besides dynamic optimization based on a project is perhaps a true resource / performance monitor. Detailed, yet easily understandable. Perhaps one that would separate active project plugins into a neat list and their project loads, to sort by biggest offenders, pinpoint and address specific items of a particular project, instead of searching for something blindly. For example, if a user has 30 plugins, there might be only one or two that break audio engine, so an option would be right at performance window to freeze that particular item. P.S. I am familiar with a couple of such third party plugin monitors, but fully integrated inhouse tool with tools for doctoring these would (should) obviously work much better.

If I were to name a single issue that I personally have with Cakewalk, it is stability with ASIO drivers under heavy loads. Before someone suggests a "solution"... I have tried probably over 100 tweaks tunning PC + various Cakewalk settings like general and "extra" buffers, processor scheduling, load balancing, etc. Obviously freezing tracks and disabling FX "fixes" issues, but that is not a preferred workflow. So again, please, I am not looking for tips for optimizing my PC My request is for Cakewalk / future Sonar to optimize audio engine to handle heavily VST infested project mixing. Similar to Cubase "ASIO Guard"... or make it even better, so there is more cushion before "Stopped Audio Engine" occurs. I am only talking about mixing, not "live" recording.

"DeeringAmps ...drivers, drivers, drivers. " Hmmm, how about poorly (inefficiently ) written plugin, plugin, plugin? Jacques, ...The power of your PC is what makes the most difference here" That is partially true. But considering that plugin was released ~7 years ago, I would think they should of tested it thoroughly making sure it is acceptable on current machines (of that time). Fortunately, I didn't pay full $150 price for it, so I am happy to have it in my arsenal. Also, thank you for the link on downgrading. I just finished a project, I will try your method on the next one. --- Glenn, Yes, 2048 is what I have. In most cases, I am able to use it, and complete tune, but it is very fragile. Slight change of adding even a light footprint VST or minor GPU bump makes it go "Stopped audio engine" ---------------------------------- Thank you all for commenting. The sole purpose of this thread was to see if I was the only one who experienced this. Perhaps with new, paid Sonar bakers will consider making an "in-house" Mastering console?

Thank you all for commenting. I know, it's a "lazy man" mastering, but it does a decent job for what it is. Perhaps they will address it, or come out with next version which will be lighter on resources. P.S. John, seems that you are lucky

OutrageProductions, Its good to know I am not alone on this one. Thank you for confirming!

I am sure some of you are familiar with IK Lurssen mastering console plugin. I was wondering if I am the only one who has issues with it? In most cases I use it in the project that has only one stereo file - (bounced mix imported to new project) It seems that even with a buffer set at 2048 experience is not always smooth and I would get dropouts (stopped audio engine) often. If I add anything else (another plugin) it becomes even more unstable. I am not looking for ways to "tune up" my system. I can run projects with pretty heavy plugins without issues. I am curious to know peoples experience with this particular plug. Asked IK about this.... They gently avoided answering directly. What gets me, is that this plugin released long time ago and on my machine, i7 6 core/ nvme/ 32ram should run without any issues, yet it's not. Thanks.

Since a feedback loop is a very general topic, I would like to request a small but handy addition , that perhaps can be added to future Sonar while it is being forged. One of the main reasons why I like Cakewalk is a super easy way of tracking. I am talking about auto creation of take lanes on transport Rec/Stop. I use that feature pretty much on every tune. At times I would have a few dozen of take lanes on a single track only with a few take lanes active, while most are muted. Multiply that by several tacks and I get hundreds of muted take lanes (subtracks). Gets a bit busy on the screen. Here is my request: Simple mechanism to hide / un-hide muted take lanes within a track. Or maybe even everything that is "muted" including main track (if it's muted) Thank you for considering.

"2. Chord track" & "14. Updated Browser" should be considered at the same time. Minding "previews" based on Chord Track from browser. +1 16. Updated MIDI editing. ------------------- Chord track had been a very popular request. Hopefully we will see that in new Sonar some time in near future.

When Gibson thing happened, it felt like a storm. Most of us were worried that Cakewalk was to be pieced, sold for scrap and forgotten. Yet, Meng & team proved many of us wrong. Cakewalk became a much better software than it ever was. Five years of pretty intense updates and fixes, amazing support by staff, including Noel himself + retaining status of one of the best virtual music communities in the world. Since it is confirmed that there will be several models, including perpetual licenses and subscription, I really don't see what some people are whining about. Last five years was a joy ride. Given all that had been done so far, I have a feeling, pricing model will be a very fair one and development will progress at faster pace. Thank you Meng, Noel and Bakers for 5 years of fun!

Larioso, Thanks, I have done all kind of troubleshooting and just accepted the reality not to use something extremely heavy for tracking/composing and freeze tracks if computer goes overboard. I just though that rendering vectors are a much "lighter" process then of rendering image content. It would be super nice if one day Cakewalk would get a more detailed performance monitor, similar to latency mon., but that would pinpoint particular active I/O vampires related to current Cakewalk session. Including hardware bottle necks, total plugin load, sorted by intensity, and links to address particular found issues. P.S. I am only guessing, recommended hardware is 8 code CPU for new Sonar. Perhaps they found a way to spread load more evenly. Can't wait to try it.

Sorry if question is silly or was already answered. To my understanding vector graphics might mean better overall I/O performance right? My biggest issue with DAW recording is "Stopped Engine" thing. Sometimes when trying different things I overstuff projects with heavy VSTs. I know that is my issue and I should freeze , bounce etc. But besides that, one big contributor is NVIDIA graphics adapter. It is known for causing issues with audio recording under Windows. I was wondering if new Sonar vector is mainly for "looks" or it might actually lighten up the I/O load? Thanks.

Rendering is definitely not something I want to pursue. We are talking thousands of individual tracks/take lanes. A local license for old Sonar Home or even better last patched CwB will put this to rest for a long time for backup purposes (yes, even if it will be a paid option). I am also aware that there are some converters out there that will decipher / convert Cakewalk projects. But a working backup copy of older original software is obviously better choice as it give much more control. I think, an older i7 / 6 core Thinkpad with 16gb ram mothballed with battery taken out and everything duplicated to flash drive is a good enough plan for backup for my needs. I am looking forward to new releases and to what Jesse said. Perhaps bakers already worked something out that will take care of this. I got to stop typing now and finish up mixing my tune. Thank you all who supported my woodpecker like licensing requests.

Jesse, Thank you for replying! I am concerned, but far from panicking. Likely I would be among first to upgrade, as I use Cakewalk almost daily and have no desire to switch to anything else. Ok I will shut up and patiently wait.

Noel, you are a wonderful programmer and a very dedicated and helpful person. I have zero complains about how Cakewalk was developed in the past 5 years and looking forward to versions that will come soon. I get that this is likely is not up to you... However, it shouldn't be hard to understand to why I repeatedly insist that at least versions sold under Gibson should be permanently unlocked for those who bought them. Simply to have a peace of mind that I would be able to revisit tunes wrote within past 20+ years and not be dependent on a server that might or might not work in the future. Insurance / security whatever terminology fits better. I belong to another forum, where people often re-mix their tunes from decades ago. Senior folks. I can totally see myself tinkering with early stuff when I retire. It is unlikely that I will be using 2017 for re-mixing and do other technical things, but that version will give me the ability to export individual stems with their volume automations, and among a few other things properly. Very likely Sonar will be around and backward compatible .., but things might change. Those older projects of mine will not. I would very much would like to get some kind of input on this. Thanks.

"Cakewalk by Bandlab (the free DAW) will continue to work and be free with it getting its last and final update. " Until it deactivates one day and will not be "allowed" to activate by Bandlab. Local license please.

"old Sonar version do not need the internet or any on line activations." That is not true. Serial is not enough to activate it. For offline activation, you are still dependent on Bandlab's server that generates DAT file for offline activation for these last 2017 versions. ----- "The big question still unanswered is the same as for Splat, will they unlock CbB so those who don't wish to upgrade can carry on. " +1