Quinellipe Zorn

OH, I missed that, thanks!!

GOT IT! At least in part! For some reason, in the affected CWP/MID files where this problem manifests (and will remain resident on opening at least MID files afterward), is that when I change the MIDI output/instrument the Bank Select method for the *TRACK* does *NOT* change!!! It remains as "Normal" instead of changing to "Controller 0"! Why, well, that part I have no idea. But I see now all I have to do is go down and change that, and then everything works as one would expect. For whatever reason, update or whatever, I never ran into this behavior of the Bank Select method not changing when the MIDI output/instrument changes before. Thank you to everyone who volunteered ideas! Now everything is back to functioning as I had come to expect. I don't know why this weird little bug now happens, but I can easily fix it and move on when it does.

This is just the weirdest thing I can recall in a long, long time... After messing around and with the only change being disabling and reenabling devices in MIDI, it seems at least some MIDI files have no issues such as this. And creating a brand new file, there's no issues. Also no issues opening CWPs which have worked. But if I open this one CWP (or other versions of it), the banks will not change properly on the XW-P1 AND from then on they won't, as if the file has sent the XW-P1 some sysex it doesn't "like." I'm probably going to just give up on it as it's so weirdly isolated an issue that seems to have otherwise, other than this odd project, "fixed itself" re opening new MID files after I reenabled the devices. (Separately, not an issue at first after I updated and not an issue until just today after a Win11 update and I rebooted, VSTs are taking forever to load (independent of above). Though I'm guessing that this is an independent Waves thing as I see I'm getting weirdness I've seen before where Waves Central claims not to see "any" activated plugins and seems to somehow think my C drive is "disconnected", yet the plugins are working just fine. But I imagine that's an unrelated Waves thing, now I'm just venting, haha.)

Thanks!

It seems that suddenly when I go to "Audio Library" in the Media section, it does not go to the same place set in Preferences. My Preferences has the Audio Library location equal to the audio drive I use and where I keep samples, not the C drive "standard" location. I can see "Preferences" shows the correct location, but when I go to the "Audio Library" shortcut it continues to go to the C drive where there's nothing. I have to manually navigate to the folder now. Any thoughts?

Yup, thanks Promidi, until now it's been working like that w/o issue (I reloaded the definition file as part of trying to figure it out). This seems restricted to just some oddity with imported MIDI clip files, as strange as that sounds. (And some point earlier finally remembered/found it was master.ins that had the actual data, all looks fine/as it was before as far as I can tell and per checking a backup version.)

Okay, I'm zeroing in on it and it seems weird to me and seems to point to project-specific-something and related to being in the same project with imported MIDI tracks, here's why... I've realized the only projects in which this is happening are ones with imported MIDI tracks - something I don't normally do and has been just in a couple recent projects. Going back further with typical-for-me/most projects with no imported MIDI tracks, no issues in banks changing when selecting a sound in the patch browser. Quite strange, at least so far, I'm probably missing something obvious. (Yes, I am soloing a single track, trying different ones, in testing this. If I add using the same track template to the projects with imported MIDI, they don't change banks, while they do change patches, but if in non-imported MIDI projects, so far so good.) In case that helps anyone help me. I'm sure it's something foolish on my end...anyway, thank you! (And I am guilty of not doing a reboot, I will do that later, probably early AM local time Monday).

Thank you. Perhaps I can demonstrate this problem a different way that helps, If I record MIDI, and I change to the preset hex layer bank (97), the recorded event will show as a "Normal" Bank Select Method Patch Change, and while it will play back correctly on the XW-P1, selecting the correct bank and sound, the Bank # that shows in Cakewalk is 12416 (which is out of range) and the name that appears is "Overdriven Guitar' (which doesn't even appear on the XW-P1 list of patches as such. Notably, 12416 = 97*128. Just as notably, the next patch change shows in Cakewalk as 12288 which is 96*128 and, yes, the bank is 96 on the XW1 (and, yes, playback works fine if I leave it that way). And, yes, if I change the Data to Controller 0 and the value to 97 or 96, for each of these, it will play correctly, as well as show the correct name. But ever since reassociating the Casio XW-P1 to the device, as I had to do after the upgrade as it lost association, selecting from the Patch Browser for the track does not send the correct bank change, whether I set it to Controller 0 or Normal Bank Select (it should be Controller 0, I believe, as seems demonstrated given that as I "hardcode" a Patch change event with Controller 0 and the Patch #, it always performs as expected). I'm making a dumb MIDI knowledge mistake here, I just can't remember the tweak I had to do last time this happened.

Hi, After the most recent update, it seems that something altered how the instrument definition for the XW-P1 is working on my machine. The patch changes are not properly transmitting, they seem to be only changing to a patch within a bank rather than properly across banks. For example, selecting a hex layer patch ends up simply selecting the same number one among the XW P1's general MIDI bank. I remember having bank/patch change setup issues before, but am for now stumped trying to figure out what to do or if there's simply a file I can restore from before the update, any advice appreciated, thank you. I seem to recall it's something simple about the bank change method but somehow as I try 0 and 32 and etc. I'm not quite getting it...bugs me as I did fix this years ago... Seems to have happened due to the upgrade

May I ask, as I'm curious, why that specific version as opposed to at least considering the final CbB version forthcoming, after it's done with testing and the final version is officially released?

If you understood the answer to this, please advise, thanks. Obviously, there's events beyond the point; as the question goes, it remains "how to prevent."

Okay, I was just trying to understand your "The answer is contained right within this year old zombie thread." comment, that's all, sorry I asked.

@Byron Dickens care to elaborate? Are you referring to the workaround, or is there somewhere in this thread what the cause is and how to proactively ensure it doesn't happen?

I think we're way off track... All I can say is I was asking the question, I asked, I wasn't trying to make a point: do you think Cakewalk's user will parse it as finely as you did in the particular post way back when? PS - I think this was specifically re "lifetime" subscribers, not just "Cakewalk's users," rather, IIRC, but the lack of quote-in-quote makes it harder to go back, though I seem to recall that was the particular matter and subgroup at hand.

??? Even aside from that I wasn't discussing what I, you, or any particular individual thinks, as it is about what might be reasonable expectations for Bandlab to face among some segment of their user base, however unfairly, I don't understand the relationship of this to the discussion at hand as we were talking about whether Bandlab should expect, fairly or not, people to hold them responsible to make things right with Cakewalk's history, abiding by the things that were "good" and fixing the things that were "bad" (e.g. accounting for Gibson's lifetime offers somehow). What you seem to be discussing is whether Gibson would be held responsible for something that Bandlab does with Cakewalk, which seems out of the blue to me. But if you want to know, for whatever reason, I doubt it very much. Although I'm quite sure people are holding Disney responsible, probably rarely fairly but mostly unfairly, to "fix" as well as "honor" George Lucas' legacy with Star Wars. That said, I don't know anything about Star Wars under Disney, about George Lucas outside of Star Wars and some wild rumors about his personal life, nor about Star Wars beside seeing 2 of the chronologically first released 3 (was never a fan, saw the first one as a kid and didn't care for it, saw the 3rd one with friends because it was with friends) and reading smatterings of the mythos around Star Wars, though not enough to remember exactly what a Sith is or how the Paladins or whatever separated from them, etc.. For the record, as you asked me. On topic, I believe that Bandlab should expect that, fairly or not, a lot of people will hold them accountable to make good on the good and bad of Gibson's past. Now, that doesn't mean they should just do what people want. It just means they shouldn't be surprised about, e.g., people demanding consideration for their lifetime subscriptions. So long as they can see a valid business direction which continues to turn a profit and/or, given contemporary expectations, grow their user base, what they do is yet another matter. Whether I or any "right-thinking" person should or will hold Bandlab responsible is irrelevant; I don't, but, as said, I think they have to know - just as seen on this thread - people will, fairly or not (actually both I've seen, from my own opinion; personally I think the fair thing they should do is give some sort of benefit to lifetime subscribers, some upgrade/crossgrade opportunity at a discount, or maybe, if their finances seem to make sense, some small discount eternally; I don't think it's fair or reasonable to hold Bandlab to lifetime subscriptions, especially considering that the business practice, even besides being inherently questionable, was undertaken by a failed company, so hardly seems reasonable to expect a successor company to repeat the same practices).

Thanks!

I'm not sure if that's rhetorical or a literal question, and if it's for me or the OP asked the similar question. But if literal to me as asking whether I think that the situation is akin to Disney taking over Star Wars and that Disney, in that situation, should realize (whatever they decide) that they have to deal with the notion they take responsibility for the whole legacy of it, then, yes, I think it is similar as to the nature of the question/situation, though a key difference is, of course, the sort of industry and how that impacts expectations: in the Disney/Star Wars case there's the whole additional question of the production of a story/narrative/mythos and questions around individual artistic expressions, etc.. But, yes, I suppose it's similar, and, if we were talking about Disney and Star Wars, I would raise the same sort of question as shouldn't Disney expect to inherit all the issues of Star Wars, even though they didn't create those issues, again noting that this can still be totally unfair.

I wonder how technically true that is legally re old Sonar software? The only reason I wonder is that a lot of abandonware isn't technically legal to run, but as it is abandonware, it really doesn't matter, unless, of course, as happens, the publisher or some successor is actively exerting control over that (which a few do, which I find ridiculous in most situations). Along these lines, even if it's legal to run, it's usually illegal to "mess with" the software (e.g. the owners of PARIS, at least as of a couple years ago, were still forbidding third party redevelopment and hacking of the old licensing). I don't mean to dispute the fact of being able to run Sonar "forever" (hardware, OS, etc. permitting), and I don't mean any argument over the point you make there, I was just musing having known of the legal idiocies around abandonware. Love to see the old disks, I think that's the one I started on, though I may have had "1.3" or something that a friend first turned me onto back then, can't recall well anymore.

I can't really understand this. I mean, yes, clearly, the move from a payment-by-email/usage information and payment-by-money model is a relationship changer in some way, but I don't get this notion that somehow we were "in this together" when we paid by usage and email and now this is divorce. We gave them usage information and helped them decide on their commercial next steps thereby; their decisions from our input until now wasn't out of any pure good will as a part-time hobby in off hours, Bandlab paid the "bakers"/engineers and designers and so forth, not us. PS - I am saying the first sentence literally, this is a question, not an argument back or such, as I really don't understand the point being made about, how the relationship is changing because the price of the product is changing from "free"/identity and usage tracking to money. I don't understand the meaning of " what [was] created [was] a participatory, collaborative community, where everyone [sought] the same end, which [was] the constant improvement of the program." I mean, I'm quite familiar (despite my extremely low prior engagement) with the close interactions of the Cakewalk users and the Cakewalk engineers, but I'm not aware of how that became a "participatory, collaborative community" where "everyone" sought the "same end" these last 5 years versus the prior decades, where (most of the time) I saw the same back-and-forth between users and engineers, and it has always been in the interest of the engineers, even if not management necessarily in certain critical times, to "improve the product." So I really just don't understand, I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to express why I don't understand. I thought I should edit and elaborate given a couple reactions.

Good points. Re "Update the workflow in several areas where things haven't moved in years. Other DAWs have much easier ways to do various things." - I'd love to hear what things people want in this regard. I think it makes sense, but with my history, I don't personally have great ideas of where to update the workflow. (And I'd hope improvements wouldn't render the "less efficient" steps from being possible, if only because at least it seems to me what I'm doing is what's intuitive, even if there's going to be much better ways.) Agree especially re API/javascript/something modern to replace CAL, and re improving MIDI generation and editing (it's a little sad that the once-upon-a-time MIDI flagship no longer is. and I still find MIDI manipulation quite valuable). And re scoring.

100% with this. I'm professionally familiar with software in enterprise as well as small business and personal contexts. The notion of bug fixes beyond some shelf life is so rare that I find it unrealistic to expect. I'm happy wherever that exists and for those with the benefit. I believe the marketplace expectation these days is that a software deliver its so-called "material" obligation, i.e. that it delivers essential functionality while it normally (for a software of any complexity) has ongoing bugs which, while annoying, should not present an intolerable breach of functionality. Should life be different? Probably. Nature "should" be fair too...but reality...

I imagine it's trial-ballooning a bit, and I hope that Bandlab is hearing how many want a "perpetual" license and that many support the notion of paying an "annual" fee only once (or in installments) resulting in said "perpetual" license.

What do you expect coming at people with statements such as and in particular "Anyone who thinks it through long term will come to the same conclusion."? You are stating no opinion at that point, you are claiming an absolute fact and with not an implication but a declaration that anyone believing otherwise is just plain wrong, no matter what their situation.

Ah thanks! Apologies (to everyone) I posted my question too soon.

DELETED