F.J. Lamela

No, no tiene ninguna lógica, si tu conduces una señal a una salida, si silencias esa salida el instrumento no tiene porque reconducir la salida porque el quiera sin más. De hecho eso no sucede en omnisphere 2, lo tengo en otro sistema sin actualizar y eso no sucede, logicamente. Es un Bug en el plugin Omnisphere 3. Está reportado. Gracias por tu ayuda y colaboración

I can confirm is a problem in omnisphere plugin. I hope will be fixed in next update.

Para mi es obvio que hay algun problema o en omnisphere o la suma de omnisphere y sonar. He descargado el proyecto que me has facilitado,gracias, (pero el problema persiste) Podrias hacer esta prueba para confirmarlo por favor?. Si tocas algo en el canal midi 2 (Omn2) al tocar suena la guitarra en el Omn out 2, hasta ahi todo ok. Ahora en el canal omn out2 cambia B output audio bus 3+4 por None Comprueba que la guitarra suena ahora en omn out 3 que es la salida C (algo que no deberia ocurrir porque esta configurado para sonar solo en la B). Podrias comprobarlo por favor, gracias de nuevo.

Aqui te muestro el problema que he explicado.He creado un multi con 3 sonidos cada uno ruteado a la salida A,B,C,D... Como veras una pista en sonar donde esta encaminada la salida A de Omnisphere, todo bien.Pero cuando encamino la Salida B, tambien sigue sonando en la B lo que solo tendria que sonar en la Salida A.Cuando ruteo la primera pista hacia la salida B, deja de sonar en la B incuso estando routeada en sonar.Fijate en el video y te agradeceria si puedes chequeases lo que aparece en el video. Here's the problem I explained.I created a multi-track with three sounds, each routed to outputs A, B, C, and D.As you can see, a track in Sonar is routed to output A of Omnisphere, and everything is fine.But when I route output B, it also continues to play in output B, even though it should only play in output A.When I route the first track to output B, it stops playing in output B, even though it's routed in Sonar. Please watch the video, and I would appreciate it if you could check what's shown.

Mi configuración es igual a la tuya, luego postearé un video donde se puede comprobar el problema. Gracias de nuevo.

Hola Andrés, si hablo Español. He reconfigurado O3 varias veces, he hecho diferentes pruebas pero por el momento no consigo que se activen todas las salidas. Imagino que es algun tipo de bug que tiene el plugin, ya que la version anterior no daba ningun problema y logicamente ,el funcionamiento de la ultima version,no difiere absolutamente nada en ese respecto. Te agradezco tu ayuda igualmente, me pondré en contacto con el soporte de Spectrasonics para ver si hay alguna actualizacion en camino. Gracias

opsss, sorry for my english. Is not a hardware amplifier....sorry (LOL) i wanna mean , i have a Omnishpere multi (with independent audio outputs a,b,c,d,e,...) that works ok in omnisphere 2 and sonarworks but, when i swith with omnisphere 3, the same multi dont send audio to bus D,E,F... only A &B, i've checked all and omnisphere 3 dont send audio to these outputs, i dont know if a problem with omnisphere or Sonar.

Thanks Andres. I've checked everything and it's correctly connected. It's a multi-channel amplifier that works fine in version 2, but when I switched to version 3, it doesn't send a signal to outputs D, E, F... Thanks anyway.

Thanks for your recommendation, they've been thoroughly checked. Also, since it's "backward compatible" with projects that previously used version 2, the projects don't work correctly when loaded; as I mentioned, the multiple outputs don't work.

Hello, I've been using Omnisphere 2 for years and never had a problem. After updating to version 3, I'm encountering an issue with Omnisphere's multi-outputs. To explain, the synth has 8 independent outputs (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H), but unfortunately, only output A is working. The rest show a signal in the plugin, but the sound doesn't reach Sonar. I've tested it in another DAW, and it works perfectly. Can anyone confirm this or has anyone experienced a similar problem? Thanks.

Greetings. I've had several different monitor sets. NS-10, Alesis Monitor One MK2, Auratones, Yamaha MSP7, and finally, Neumann KH150. The truth is that they're very flat, very neutral nearfield monitors, with very powerful bass for their size and good transients. Are they better than the ones you currently have? Technically, YES. Are they better for you than the ones you currently have? I don't know. I can tell you that, as a user of the Neumann range, the entire line is very, very neutral, a far cry from the ADAMs. Perhaps at first, they may seem a bit dull, but they don't boost or emphasize anything that isn't in the mix. (Isn't that what we want from a studio monitor?) For the size of your room, I would even recommend the KH120II, because, as I said, they might fit better. Likewise, buying these monitors indirectly involves purchasing the MA1 monitor alignment kit. They "manage" to mask some serious room problems, mainly peaks, which are recorded within each monitor, without the need for programs like SoundID or ARC within the DAW. I don't know if my explanation will help you. P.S.: Speaking of ADAM, the new line has improved a lot compared to the previous one. But having a ribbon tweeter, it has that characteristic sound that you either love or hate. It also doesn't have Neumann's level of precision. If you have the chance, listen to them in person with some tracks you know very well.

I have downloaded your project and tested it. I cannot reproduce the bug. Automation works correctly in the VST3 version of serum. Regards.

Thanks. I've looked at all the local help and the pdf document. Either I'm really dumb or I can't see anything related to creating new patterns.

Greetings. While I have no complaints about the operation of the arpeggiator (midi), there is something I don't quite understand. How is it possible that I can't find a way to create new patterns and add them to the existing ones? It would be logical that from the step sequencer it could be exported as a pattern for the arpeggiator, or failing that add some option to be able to add new content. If you are forced to use only the default patterns of the internal arpeggiator and to create new ones you are forced to use an external arpeggiator (blue arp for example) then the included arpeggiator would not make much sense. Is my deduction correct or am I wrong and is there a way without the need for third party software to add new patterns to the existing ones? Thanks and sorry for my english.

It's a shame can't change it, thank you!

I mean slope of spectrum view, no for band. Sorry for my english.

Greetings. Is there any way to change the spectrum view slope in the equalizer? Currently it is 0 but most of us work in 3db/oct and more commonly in 4.5 db/oct. Commercial equalizers have the ability to modify this slope and I would like to know if there is any way to modify it in sonar via aud.ini or similar. Thanks.

Thanks for the tip, but in my opinion its interface and workflow are a bit outdated. I think that by bringing ideas that are already implemented in other DAWs, CakewalkSonar can be competitive among other DAWs. Staying stuck in 10-year-old technology and plug-ins without improving the workflow is nonsense in these competitive times. I believe that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, it's a shame because other companies like Steinberg and Presonus have already adopted the idea.

The step sequencer was a great feature that many developers have copied for other DAWs. I have no complaints about how it works... But I've always missed the fact that you can't load samples and make it work as a drum machine. I think that feature would give the step sequencer a fresh and functional look, confirming its genius since its development. Thanks.

Thanks a lot

Greetings. I am currently using a 10-year-old workstation with an i7 4790k and 32GB of DDR3 RAM. I have never overlocked the processor so I don't know if buying the K version was a mistake. The time has come to upgrade this PC, because after ten years of use WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS, it is starting to show its weakness when faced with the different power requirements in the new software that is coming out on the market. Due to the number of problems that Intel is presenting with the 13900 and 14900, I am considering changing to Ryzen. Looking at comparisons, it seems that Ryzen 7 9700 is on par with the latest Intel in terms of power and processing capacity. But since I have never used AMD, I would like to know if any of you use it and what your experience has been. I would also like to know in your opinion if Intel is better for audio even with the problems that it presents. Thanks.

You have a great sense of humor, but beyond the joke, pop up screen are a nuisance

As a professional user of Cakewalk in its beginnings until Sonar and in this last stage with Bandlab, I do not understand this suicidal step (in my opinion) of the program developers. As a veteran user of a software that I have also publicly supported unconditionally, I think that giving us a pop up screen with which we have to wait 20 seconds to start working is not the best way to invite us to continue with your next paid software update that is announced in that notification. I really see it as an insult to all of us who have relied on this software over the years. I would like to be understood, I have always admired the efficiency, simplicity and robustness with which I have worked with Cakewalk/sonar/Bandlab as well as with their innovations that have later been incorporated into other competing DAWs. But the reality in 2024 is very different, there are many DAWs that offer many innovations and possibilities in the workflow, dsp, etc... that far exceed what this software and its next paid update offer so far. . Cakewalk has not had many users in my opinion, but it has had LOYAL USERS. Make loyal users go through: 1.- Impossibility of being registered offline. 2.- Need to authorize online registration from time to time. 3.- Show a pop up screen and wait 20 seconds until you can start working. All this for being loyal to a software that also stops being updated and that will soon become obsolete (due to how quickly the world of software in general and the musical world in particular is progressing), in my opinion, It does not give us the place that belongs to us I hope and wish that the software team will reconsider (just as the waves audio team did at the time) in the face of this wrong path, which will only make many users abandon a software that may have a great future, but a market strategy wrong (in my opinion). Thank you for reading, I hope I haven't offended anyone and please forgive my English.

Thanks