Olaf

Expanded to bar 3,700 now. I haven't even touched it since the last time. I haven't met a single program other than CW, to do that. Horrible management of this program. Appalling. Such a shame. It would have been great in so many respects. I think I might have to throw away everything I've recorded, cause it's completely out of alignment and won't get trimmed, because of a glitch in the follow project tempo. Or reset all the clips to unfollow the project tempo - which essentially means not being able to adjust the tempos, not to mention hours of work lost. Anybody had this experience? Did you find a way to solve the follow the tempo mismatch?

No, sorry, bar 950. It just extended a clip to 953, all silence, and you can't trim it down, cause every time you try to trim it expands even further.

Thanks for your answers, some great suggestions that I hadn't thought about, by which I've shortened the project to only 450 bars now. Problem is the Project doesn't have an end, you can scroll to the right infinitely, even beyond the initial max bar count. I've managed to find some minuscule clips which didn't even appear in the track view with a normal zoom, and that get created randomly when you move the tempo envelope and resize clips - it splits and throws clip pieces out with no reason or even indication. @John NelsonI've deleted a few events in the list. I think it helped shorten the bar count a little. @bitflipperI've followed your suggestion, I didn't know that shortcut, and it worked, the paradox being that that snaps it to the end of the last clip, at bar 159, which is the right position, but there's still hundreds of bars left now, after that. ? I haven't released on song on 6 albums before. Ironically, this is an atypical song that's been the hardest to put together from all my songs so far. That's why I'm even messing with the tempo envelope in the first place. It's like pulling teeth. In the end I've come up with more ideas than I needed, but assembling them has proven a bitch. A CW definitely isn't helping. As usual, I'm spending half my time doing damage control in the project - without even much avail, at that. And half of the rest undoing stuff that it shouldn't do, or finding workarounds. For instance, when you get clips to follow project tempo, and you try to resize them or align them to beats, it does EVERYTHING else, including expanding when you contract, trimming the opposite edge to the one you're working with, of throwing the clip length to bar2,500. Just like that. Just for trying to trim it to beat. Of course it's not gonna get fixed for another 30 years, just like anything else, cause it's not in the EA version, which comes up with new stuff, but never fixes the huge problems - and the new stuff it implements just as badly - to add to the things that will not get fixed for the next 30 years. So now I'm at 450 bars.

Seriously. 5 hours 47 minutes. Unfortunately, it's only got music on 158 of those 260,000 bars (7 minutes and a half). Anybody knows why that happens, and how to get rid of it? I haven't detected any content, on any track that will push the project to that length. The only thing that seems to happen is it gets longer every time I mess with variable tempo parts in the Arranger - rearrange, copy, etc. Thanks.

This is what I call doing business. A week ago, I made a suggestion to Overloud, about their new Supercabinet. I didn't even contact them, it was just a comment to one of their videos. Today they've launched a new version, exactly to implement that feature. It took them a week. No comments, no to and fro. It's their interest to make their product better. And from what I've seen the first reactions are positive. And I'll be happy to use the feature. This is what I'm talking about.

You've just set a limit to "doing it right", to 4 bands plus filters. It follows that all fully parametric EQs with unlimited bands, in the world, are for those who "do it wrong". I seriously don't think that's the case, and I can quickly give you an 8 area EQ template as a default. No one has to do anything. But you won't be able to take part in a discussion on 85 topics , or 50, or 30, unless you read about them. It is the way it is. Personally, I don't only read titles. And if you're looking for certain features in a DAW, you're gonna have to take part in the topics about them. It's a favor you're doing yourself, not anybody else. That maybe sounds like a little too many motivational books, right there. I don't need to make anything work, I didn't even need to come up with ideas. It's not my job to, and I have no personal stakes in it. I don't have a personal crusade to change CW. I have done that as a well intended initiative to put my ideal version of the DAW out there. Further down, it's everyone's prerogative to support, for themselves, what they also wish to have as features, and it's CW's prerogative to improve their product, in whichever way makes sense, as they're looking to have a competitive DAW. People can get together and support those changes they want themselves, I didn't intend it as a personal favor to me, and there's no point in making it an 8 hour job to convince anybody of anything. It's neither an ego trip, nor a personal pursuit. Moreover, the suggestions are already explained in full, and if anybody needs any further clarification on something, they can just ask - I've had talks with those who wished to participate, on several of them, and some were quite nice.

@murat k.@Teegarden Thank you guys for your encouragement, but I don't think posting individual posts for now around 85 suggestions would be a good idea. The amount of reading would be the same, it would just be harder to navigate, correlate and follow the suggestions, the overlapping and repeated ideas, etc. Anyway, if people are too lazy to read through a 5 minute text, I don't think following 85 separate posts will be easier. My idea was simple - people would read, and say "I agree with C4" or "I want B16, too", or whichever, or just quote what they like, and whoever else wanted the same thing could give it a like. If anybody had an additional idea, they could suggest it, and have it added. This way we could have created a group effort, which would have had a little more impact, and correlate all ideas together, cause many pertain to similar aspects or the same general workflow, etc. For instance, another idea I have for the EQ, that I haven't added to the list, would be the optional doubling of the EQ bands, to a total of 8 bands + the filters, via an interface button. Basically add another row of knobs in the interface, sharing the same visualizer, via a button that says "(switch to) 8-band" or similar. Personally I found that 4 band is a little limitative, and many times I need more. 8 bands would turn it into a power house, and pretty much cover any EQ needs. Programming wise, I think it would be nothing, just insert another EQ module in the same track, without the additional visualizer and filters. It could be done in a few hours.

how did you make that video? it's cool. to the able to detach the window from its fixed position and reposition it is also among the suggestions on my list of requests.

yeah, everywhere i've seen it mentioned it's got great reviews - especially the zen3 platform. i have the same aggressive setting for the thread scheduling. speed wise the vishera can pull it off, even though i've got some hungry plugins, but it's the rest of the problems that ruin the mood. in benchmarks, i've seen the 3700x on zen3 is at least double the speed of the 8 core vishera, depending on the test.

They are, but in terms of revisiting choices already implemented, they seem less than to not-at-all enthusiastic. They say that it doesn't matter, but it's true that maybe more of the guys reporting crashes and all kinds of irregular behavior are on AMD. If I were CW, I would probably make a statistic, so I can get an idea. A lot of the market is on AMD, so that shouldn't be normal behavior, either way. I'm looking to go on to Ryzen, which is still AMD, but I've heard is optimized a lot better as a multi-core.

Thanks, man, I'm glad you agree - I mean it would be useful and beautiful to see all those things implemented. I've stopped updating it, because it seems they were left largely unanswered, and there is a resistance to change - and even the two that were implemented when I last updated, could have been implemented in an a lot smoother and more intuitive way, in my view. Since then I've had maybe another 10-15 ideas about improvements or workflow corrections - like setting all the VU visualizations settings from a single dialog window, for all the views and work modes, instead of 5 or 6 separate menu items, in two views, each with separate submenu items that need to be clicked individually, going at least 20 times through the menu tree, like now. Or registering all the customization and Preference settings in a single file that can be saved and reloaded on a fresh install - including menus, lenses, visualizations, you name it. I've stopped adding the new ideas, because it seems there's no point. I've cut D17 on the list. I hadn't even noticed it. To be honest, I haven't worked a serious heavy session in CW for a few months now. I'm still waiting for some serious betterment in terms of that list, and especially stability, but I hadn't noticed that change announced in any release notes.

That's request D1.

Normally, you don't have the Browser in the full screen Console View. You need to undock it, switch, dock it back in. That's the problem. Once I do that, I can do it just fine.

I like 2. Also be able to delete FXs in the bin via ”DEL” - last time I've tried it, it deleted a clip in the Track View, even though I was in the Console View ?. I think chains should be loaded without the container, too - just the way they were saved. And to be able to do that in the Console View, the Browser should be available in that view, too. I've found a workaround for that, but it's tricky to do, and not available normally.

Yeah, they're great. I also use TH-U, and it sounds awesome. I only wish they had an IR based cab simulator - much like mixIR or the new Amplitube - instead of that horrible IR browser. I like their LA-2A. I'm a bit disappointed with Tapedesk - I mean I like the concept, the features, the overall sound is OK, but I don't quite like what it does to the highs - there's some room for improvement there. On the other hand, I haven't seen too many tape plugins that I like, so - I imagine that's harder to get right, and that tape is one of their first generations. The problem is, just like everybody says, Overloud is pretty expensive.

1. SSL Native 2. Analog Obsession BusterSE 3. Slate Digital Buss Compressor FG-Grey 4. Overloud G Compressor 5. Cakewalk PC 6. T-Racks Bus Compressor I've also tried the Native Instruments Vintage Bus Compressor, didn't like it at all. My favorites - BusterSE, and G Comp. SSL Native is great, but rather limited in features. Surprisingly, don't get along with the FG-Grey, and don't much like the IK Bus.

IMO, CLA Mixhub sounds better than the SSL Native channel strip - plus it's got the whole Preamp section thing going on. On the other hand, Mixhub is a 4000E, while SSL Native is 9000J/K. On the Bus Compressor side, the latest Buster SE from Analog Obsession is awesome - just engage the transformer, and it's killer. It's also got more ratios available, plus a whole bunch of other features. And it's free - or donate what you will. With the Waves prices on one side, more Wave level PA sales, on the other, it seems SSL have been convinced to get back to Earth, at least temporarily.

Strange... I just got it. February 21, still up. Try this coupon. https://www.solidstatelogic.com/sslupgrade

Hey, @Jim Roseberry, thanks for your extended answer. There are some utilities, and registry changes you can make to permanently unpark all cores - it's one of the first things I do on a fresh Win install. Some links you can try. https://itechviral.com/enable-or-disable-cpu-core-parking-in-windows-10/ https://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/CPU-Tweak/CPU-Unpark.shtml https://www.craigthetechteacher.com/how-to-disable-cpu-core-parking-in-windows-10-2020/ There's also disabling some of the C states or motherboard power saving utilities in BIOS, that might help. I imagine that's the case for the entire 5xxx series, including the 58xx, right? Are you referring to the overall performance, or only the noise? I was looking at 570 motherboards for a new 5800X.

Yeap, been there, done that, repeatedly. I think if you add up all the report topics in the feedback or product related topics, and those on social media groups, it's gonna come up that we're not that much of a minority, after all. It also depends on how everyone uses it - how much it pushes it, customizes it, how many plugins, etc. It seems to work, though. It certainly stops the crashing problems, which is essential, especially if they happen often, and an extra 3 ms of latency induced in a high plugin count project doesn't seem to be a make or break factor, particularly since we're all bound to transition to newer platforms as hardware improves. I think if that's what sandboxing costs, latency wise, as per the article you posted about Ardour, that will be a more than doable tradeoff. In my experience you can work with up to maybe 15 ms roundtrip, when recording - when mixing even more. I think where you lose the most, latency wise, is in the engine, and in the hardware, like you said. On the other hand, I don't know how sandboxing can be optimized even further, or if there are better alternatives, but I really do think something must be done to stop the crashes. Even if you don't lose stuff, it's incredibly off putting. If you add the various settings that you need to redo on every project load, because CW doesn't save them - or some plugins, like with certain low range values in the compressor release times of CLA Mixhub, for instance - which is great, otherwise - it's enough to make you want to quit for the night. If it happens two-three times, you're really out of it. And then you have to record, and you're already pissed off. I still have mine - 16 GB. I've made it smaller - 1 GB, but haven't tried disabling it completely, to compare. What I've read mostly recommended leaving it on, so I left it on. I haven't tried overclocking because I don't know how to mess with the voltages, and I didn't put in the time to read enough about it until now. I didn't imagine it you make that much of a difference to actually delve in it. How much of a difference, percentage wise, would you say you've got? You've got big plans. That sounds good. But do you think you'll need all that RAM? Personally, for me, even with other stuff open, my most loaded project doesn't seem to push the RAM beyond 50-60%, with 16 GB, so I don't worry about that, for the moment. I think you're right about the availability, and the prices seem to be catching up to Intel, pound per pound, more than I'd like to - there's still a notable difference, but not as much as there used to be. On the other hand I don't want to switch to an all Intel platform not only because of the performance/cost ratio, which is still, in my opinion, noticeably favorable to AMD, but because I know AMD better than Intel, and I don't want to spend days understanding Intel, to know what to get - especially since the name codes seem to have to connection with the number of cores, generations, etc. - or I can't easily decode them, anyway. I won't hurry to get the new CPU for a few months. I've gotten the new NVME SSD this month - huge transfer rate difference vs a 2.5 SSD, but since I can't boot off it, I can't compare it in terms of system speed. I'll get the motherboard next month, the RAM the month after, and see where the CPU prices are in about April, it's probably the best thing to do.

I know, and you're right, problem is with all the generalized plugin blaming they don't seem to be aware of the problem. I've told them all this more than a year ago. I've reinstalled CW many times, pretty much with every update, although I sometimes try to push it as much as I can - to avoid migration and stuff. It seems every update makes something not work, some visualization, some settings forgotten - for instance, now, the console view always opens half-way, instead of full screen, as i have it set. Windows I've reinstalled twice, I believe, when I switched to 10. And I need to redo it again, once I move in my new drive. I've bought an m.2 drive, looking for an adapter to PCie, now, and I'm gonna install it, since my storage solid state is starting to drop. Next month, I'm gonna buy an AM4 motherboard, maybe the memory modules, too, for the new Ryzen 5800X that I'm planning to buy in the near future. Your 5900 will probably be better, but I think the difference is too great in price, right now. Compared to my FX 8 core, I expect a doubling of speed from the CPU alone, from some reported benchmarks, so, adding the new drive speed, new RAM and new motherboard, the increase should be even greater, so that should take care of that. But how do you explain the fact that you've got incredible dropouts and stutter when the CPU shows a ton of headroom in the CW performance meter, even on the FX, and - check this out - only disabled the Ignite module on my Animate plugin - which is an exciter - and everything goes away? Or, even better, enable it back on, but when you switch the master from stereo to mono, it plays like a charm. It's optimizations, in my view, connected to the engine - CW, communicating with Win, I don't know, that's where my ability to tell stops. But if you don't do that, there's no point in adding to new features and new gadgets - sure, they're useful, but first things first. You're right, I do have an nVidia. I haven't installed the Experience, I've disabled the telemetry, and I have unchecked the startup of the whole graphic application. Your link might be very useful, I'll check it out, too. Check out how Reason reacts to a crashed plugins. Very elegant. What does CW do? Usually just crashes. Some Area 51 stuff: Colour Copy starts in CW, but not in Reason. Townsend Sphere starts in Reason, but not in CW. Now, I imagine that's something to do with the permissions - not blaming CW for everything - my antivirus at some point blocked all my exes, but the rest still stands. When do you wanna buy the new CPU?

Sure, but giving up the "it's all plugins' fault, all the time" attitude would be a good place to start. Last night I had a crash after trying to close several windows in short sequence, and a short hang up. At least it wasn't five crashes, and I haven't noticed my Tape reset randomly a few times a night either, recently. I'll give a thumbs up on that - getting conditioned to low expectations ?. Sphere won't start after the update. It worked before, didn't touch it in the meantime. And my WA Prod plugins won't visualize anything - I mean not even the knobs moving or the number values changing, let alone the waveforms. They work, audio wise, I can hear the changes, but not visually. Close them, open then up again, I get the updated values and new knob positions - which I adjusted blindly, but no movement in real time. A million and first confirmation that it's connected somehow to the graphics/visualization/multimedia core in CW, or to the integration with that part of Windows. I'd bet on CW for some strong reasons. My latency buffer if 512 samples - 10 ms one trip latency - I can mix fine, no hangups, no stutter, plenty of CPU headroom (but no engine headroom, strangely, which overshoots), until I record - and there's half a second of latency, on that setting - or any other. I'm sure I can reinstall and it will go away - but I'm tired of reinstalling and migrating my settings all the time - pretty much after any update. In a year and 4 months I must have reinstalled around 10 times. The same orphaned automations which you still can't delete, 16 months later. And lots of workflow "longcuts" and strange behaviors. EDIT: The WA Prod visualizations worked last night on a different project, until adding the plugin that topped the CPU load, when they stopped. It seems they stop responding visually when the CPU is full - the same conflict I was talking about.

Yeah, I know, but wouldn't at least acknowledging the problems - and the fundamental causes - be a required step towards solving them?

Good description. Moral, even on a decent configuration, anything that resembles real life and not an aseptic configuration, where you don't even look at the screen and tread very lightly, leads to crashes, and, even with that, performance issues. Direct monitoring recording is basically not being able to record - other than maybe vocals, but not helpful for a good performance even then. https://www.facebook.com/groups/333570523387557/permalink/3698301283581114/

Don't bother, I'm not even gonna read it. You don't actually read what is being written, you fly over the points, so basically you repeat yourself over an over, with stuff that's been already answered, but somehow you missed it. I'm gonna return the favor and not read it, myself. Besides, the first phrases already show the more-sterile-theorizing over using your ears approach, even though even the theory is wrong, because it's oversimplified theory - that doesn't involve psychoacoustics, principles of physics, etc. There's not point to it, and I don't really care what Ethan said. Besides, somebody who enjoys saying "you're wrong" so many times - while a decent guy actually tries to avoid saying it, I could have said it, and maybe more than that - clearly has an emotional agenda behind his "certainties", so I suggest solving that first, and then having certainties. But once you do, you'll probably find you don't need "certainties" and to dizzy yourself with talk, as much, and you'll probably become more open to understanding and (somewhat) objective assessment. Again, we're all subjective, but not everything is entirely subjective. And I see a avoidance mechanism here, so...