norfolkmastering

I agree with most of the comments on this topic. Larger text, better contrast between text and background and I’d like to see the relative sizes of the rotary knobs increased a bit.

What you need is a stereo offset control to shift the stereo image to the left or right of centre and also a stereo width control. They used to be standard on early BBC consoles with stereo channels.

How are you finding working with a curved monitor? I find working with two 24” straight monitors that I’m struggling to see the GUI stuff at the left and right hand edges, so the idea of two curved monitors providing a constant viewing distance looks like a good solution.

I’m looking to upgrade my current Sonar two monitor setup. Currently I have a pair of BenQ GL2450s which has a max resolution of 1920x1080 and an aspect ratio of 16:9 It’s about 21” wide and 24” diagonal. I use one monitor for the waveform display and one for the console view. I guess my main need is to display more tracks in the Console view. I’m not sure if a 4k display will allow more tracks in the same physical width? Or whether I need to get a physically wider monitor? If anyone has experience of a similar upgrade and can suggest what’s best, that would be great. As a supplemental, I have space to the side of my monitoring position for a third monitor. I wondered about dedicating this third monitor for fx plugin display. Has anyone tried this? Is there anyway to tell Sonar to pop up plugins onto a dedicated monitor?

I think I found the culprit which was causing the timing issue. I had a reverb plug-in on a track feeding one of the auxes. The feed track was hidden and I didn't spot it. All good now. I'm getting perfect timing on all insert send feeds to my analogue mixer and machines.

That’s great. I’m on the road for a week so I’ll post again when I get back and organise a test project.

I use the External Insert sends because they sit within FX presets each of which contains one other FX which is used for a couple of other important purposes, one of which is to give each track a unique identity. As example I can assign an FX preset named ‘R8-3’ to a track. This preset contains an ID tag which tells my external controller to route that Cakewalk track to a specific analogue port within my analogue recording and mixdown system. I previously used Cakewalk track and aux output routing (as you describe) but it did not allow the level of integration which FX based routing via External Insert Sends allows. When I do the final mixdown ‘out of the box’ Cakewalk controls all the routing, gain, pans and faders in my analogue mixer and also remote control of my analogue tape machines should I be using them in a project. So it’s possible that some of the other FXs I use are causing the issue. When I’m back from travelling I’ll share a project if you would be willing to spend the time checking timing.

I’ll experiment with a click on each track and measure the different timings that way. Should be easy enough to figure out which tracks need delays to match timings. Hopefully it will be consistent.

The Cakewalk external insert sends are not returned back into Cakewalk so the auto delay compensation mechanism is not used. The sends go to my external analogue mixer when I decide to do the final mix down in analogue. That’s why I wondered if the extra path length via auxes was causing the timing problem.

No problem when I’m mixing totally within Cakewalk. However I also mix in analogue using feeds from Cakewalk which are fed to my analogue mixer via the new external insert send only feature. This is when I think I found a timing issue. So consider this example: Some ‘external’ feeds are derived directly from Cakewalk tracks. These always time align in the analogue domain. Then I add some ‘external’ feeds to my analogue mixer which are derived from Cakewalk aux masters. Why aux masters? I use auxes to collect together my 12 Session Drummer sources into five ‘microphones’. So each of the 12 drum sources is sent to each of the five ‘microphones’ (i.e. an aux bus) at different feed levels. So I am simulating mic’ing a real drum kit with five microphones. It works really well. It is the external insert sends of these aux masters which don’t seem to be quite timing tight with the track feeds. And that’s why I wondered if the two paths had different timing path lengths within Cakewalk. I’ll do some more tests in case there is another cause.

If I have a track and I send that track to a bus and also to an aux; then I also route the aux master to the same bus, does Cakewalk have to do some timing work so that the two paths; track to bus and track to aux to bus are time aligned?

I got the Channel Tools figured out except for the tool to change the width of each stereo leg. i understand how width on a stereo signal works but what does changing the width of one leg of a stereo pair do?

F1 key didn’t work but I found the online help using a mouse right click. That brought up the online help. Channel Tools allows the left and right legs of a stereo source to be freely moved anywhere in the stereo field which is great. It also has the facility to alter the width of each of the left and right legs of the stereo source but I don’t understand how this works?

Channel Tools looks like it has the tools to do what I want. Do you know how I can get full documentation for this plugin? I tried hitting F1 and nothing appeared. In fact I'm struggling to get any of the plugin help to appear using the F1 key!

I recently wanted to move a stereo piano track (recorded from a Yamaha CP33) a bit to the right of centre to sit better in a fairly busy mix. It's not something I would often do but it was what the mix needed. I noticed that as I panned the piano right, that I started to lose a bit of the low end. What I think is happening is that as I pan right, the right leg of the audio stays the same level but the left leg is reduced in level (so the sound of the piano is altered) . In my thinking the standard pan function provided by Cakewalk is fine for mono sources and fine for balancing the relative levels of left and right legs (should they have been recorded at different levels) but that it doesn't act as a true stereo pan. Thinking back a very long way to the 1970s, I remember that mixing consoles in the BBC (in London) used to have mixing consoles (analogue of course!) with dedicated stereo channels. Each stereo channel included: - An input stereo balance control, used to correct any unintentional misbalance between left and right audio legs (much the same as the input pan on Cakewalk buses) - A stereo offset control used to move the stereo image left or right within the stereo field - A stereo width control From memory, the function of the stereo offset control was as follows: As you e.g. move the stereo image to left of centre: - the original left audio feed stays at the same level - the right audio leg is reduced in level - an amount of the right audio source feed is fed to the left audio So in an extreme case, if you moved the stereo image fully left or right then you would end up with a mono version of the original stereo source In practical use, it means you can move a stereo source a bit left or right of centre without changing the essential tonal sound of the stereo source. I think that the stereo width control was also used to widen a slightly moved (from centre) image (which would otherwise lose width as its moved). Another practical example would be an acoustic guitar recorded in stereo (maybe one mic pointing at the sound hole and a second mike pointed down the fretboard). Treated as a stereo source, you would ideally want: - an input balance control to set up the best sounding combination of the two mics - a stereo offset control to be able to move the guitar left or right of centre without unduly changing that tonal balance - a stereo width control to be able to set the desire 'width' of the guitar within the stereo image So I guess I would pose a question. Does the standard Cakewalk Pan Pot work as it should on stereo track sources and on stereo buses? If not, would a stereo offset control be an improvement?