Lord Tim

Getting this error usually means it's screwed the detection up. Zoom in really close to the part where it's complaining - there's likely a double transient marker detection on a beat in there. Find it and disable it. Either that or select around that area in general and disable all of the transient markers and manually add them back where you like. This is definitely one of the more annoying quirks of the current detection process. In this case where you're getting it to make a tempo map, this is a bit more complex as to how to fix it, if you're getting wildly wrong tempo info. Rather than using AudioSnap for tempo detection, drag your original track up to the time ruler at the top of the window and let it detect that way. This uses Melodyne and usually gives you much more accurate results for this kind of thing.

Cheers, guys! That's killer - really appreciate it I'm getting on a bit now, I definitely needed a lie down afterwards...! Haha

You literally said: No, it won't. As I explained in my last post that I don't think you actually read. If you ran a commercial studio with all Mac based software, what incentive do you have to adopt a newcomer to the ecosystem? Not a real lot unless there's a sustained marketing push to convince you that you need to do it. There is NO WAY this could happen overnight, not in any reality. Anyone who has done any kind of work in marketing knows this. I run a record label and a good 80% of the returns we get is purely from the effort we put into marketing, and knowing that you need to play the long game if you're competing with an existing industry that has a lot of money to burn. Our last couple of releases have literally hit #1 on the charts here, so we must have a bit of an idea. Plus, as I said, if all of the new bright shining stars are all buying Macs, and it already has an upgrade path to Logic, why get anything else? There's a reason Microsoft faced a bunch of antitrust drama for bundling in Internet Explorer by default - there were better browsers, but that was literally right there in front of people - why look elsewhere? But ultimately, all of the foot stamping and flag waving about a Mac version is entirely moot. There isn't one, there likely won't be one. Refer to the good ideas in the OP.

I'm missing nothing. I was responding to the "what teenager runs Windows" statement you made, which is absolutely not true, especially in this part of the world. Having a Mac version would be great, but realistically it isn't going to happen, no matter how much anyone may want it to. The Bakers have pretty much said as much. There was a reason the SONAR Mac alpha never continued to be developed. Think about it for a minute: You divert development on your very Windows-centric app to create a Mac version. The software is very much tied to Windows so it would need a substantial re-write, which takes time and the resources of your small dev team away from the Windows version. You're aiming to go up against established Mac-based software, and software that not only is promoted by Apple but is even bundled with its OS in some cases. By the time you have something out, what do you think will happen? People will suddenly go "hey, how great is Cakewalk? Let's stop using Logic!" right? Nope, it'll need a huge PR push to get this all relaunched, which will take years to get the same foothold that the other Mac based software already has - nobody is going to stop using stuff they're comfortable with. You're not going to replace ProTools because of how ingrained it is in the big studio world. You're not going to win over a bunch of kids with Ableton because it's drummed into their heads that this is what they need to use to make beats. N00bs have Garage Band right in the box with a clear upgrade path to Logic. All of this will take time to seep into an ecosystem where Cakewalk has never been before. In the meantime, PC development stagnates, existing users get frustrated that "X" DAW has all of this stuff that Cakewalk doesn't because the resources were diverted to make a Mac version, while the world moves on without them. It makes zero sense from a logistics point of view. Would a Mac version be great? Absolutely. Is it realistic for it to happen? Not at all. So going back to the OP, now that the Mac version is ruled out, a proper media presence for the PC version is the only avenue that can be exploited. None of us know Bandlab's ultimate plans for Cakewalk. As I said, they're not hurting for money at all, and there's a lot of Cakewalk IP that hasn't been monetised yet which would be rudimentary to have a web store set up to cater for those kind of things and get an income from it, but it hasn't happened yet for whatever reason. The only thing we're currently sure is the development is very active and stability is high on the agenda, which is really the most important thing for their userbase ultimately.

I actually don't know any teenager that owns a Mac, to be honest. It's not quite the ***** measurement appliance down here that it is in some other parts of the world.

Pro Mix Academy has some excellent stuff and some great teachers. I really think Warren is offering a fantastic service - if you don't get at least something useful out of the calibre of teachers and different styles they offer on there, it might be time to go off and become an accountant or something ? And yeah, man... louder really does fool your brain, even when you're expecting it to do so! I do think (personal taste aside for some changes) that the pro mix is really great, but I'd also almost guarantee that if you had that up against an identical mix that was 6dB quieter, you'd say it sounds better. Brains are dumb. ?

Sure, but as I said, If there's a long-term plan for this stuff, it hasn't been put into action yet. But also as I said, I agree - it would be great to see more of a push and a bigger media presence.

Yup, that's my usual M.O. too but in this case, and a lot of pop/country, it's really all about the vocal. Like I said, I really don't care much for working this way myself, but sometimes if you can't manage to get a certain element to stand out, shaking up your workflow can really open up some doors and make how you approach a mix differently, even if you ultimately don't use it much going forward

Yeah, the "professional" mix sounds pretty good but I agree, there's stuff that's prioritised at the expense of a few things I'd personally like to hear. Not to say it's bad (it's a great mix) but everyone has their own personal tastes. It sounds very much like this is a vocal-first, then drums mix - that's a very pop song oriented mixing technique that I personally really don't like to use myself, but it's really effective. Start with the vocal sounding good first, then bring up the kick and balance it against the vocals, then bring up the snare, and then bring up the bass guitar. At that point, if anything is clashing or stepping on something else, this is time to EQ or compress or multiband compress to get that all working well together. Then bring up the guitars, the rest of the kit, and then any other additional instruments after that. What I'd tend to do at this point is make sure your levels are fairly good going into the master Bus (obviously not peaking or nudging 0dBFS) and then throw a limiter over the master and crank it until it starts to destroy things, then back it off. What this does to the balance of the mix will make your head spin - the drums will disappear, the bass will get muddy and loud, the guitars will overpower everything. Rebalance it all to sound similar to your un-limited mix. You'll think your limited mix will sound better because it's louder, but there's a trick to rebalance your brain: Do this first before you strap the limiter on the Master Bus and change anything, while you still have that original un-limited mix sounding good: Set up 2 main Busses. One for your actual mix to go through and call it Master, and set up another Bus called Reference. Send your Master out to Reference, and send that to your hardware outputs. In your project, set up a new track called Reference and set its out to go to the Reference Bus. You want to bounce down an un-limited mix of the song to that track - the one that you had sounding great before you smashed it with the master limiter. Now throw that cranked limiter on the Master Bus. Solo the Reference track, check to see how loud that is going into the Reference Bus. Then mute it, and see how loud the Master Bus is in comparison, and drop the output to match the reference. The idea is that if you're happy with the balance of how the un-limited mix sounds overall, if you match the limited version to it, you can focus on what the limiter is doing to the sound of everything, rather than your brain being tricked by it being louder. (When you're done doing all of the work you need to do, you'd obviously set your output correctly rather than trying to match the reference mix.) Right, so now that you're simulating this having a master limiter on it, and you can rebalance stuff accordingly, you can accurately tell if your reverbs are too loud or elements are being lost. Go back through your mix at that point and think about what stuff you're not hearing. If you've already gotten the un-limited mix in the ballpark, there's a good chance it'll be a case of "yeah, that snare could be a little more pokey" or "the kick is being lost in the chorus, what can I carve out to make room" or even "I know the piano is getting lost but does it matter? Is it supposed to be heard or is it only there as a reinforcement? And if so, how much can I cut out of its EQ that really isn't adding anything other than mud?" Then add your stereo enhancements, any necessary multiband compression, EQ, etc. to your Master Bus after that. If it's still working for you as compared to the un-limited mix, you're in a great place. It's tweak city from that point. But definitely start with your vocal, kick and snare first for this kind of material if you want to go for something along the lines of the "professional" mix. Everything else is just there to support those things. And every guitarist in the world just went "Boooooo!" HAHA!

I agree with everything said here and think they're missing a bit of a trick as well, but at the same time Bandlab are not wanting for money making avenues at all and they certainly didn't pick up the Cakewalk IP as a money making venture, at least in the short-term because there's still a bunch of product they haven't monetised at all. I personally don't care too much so long as the software is being developed, and I agree that this is the best it's ever been - there's no commercial considerations to keep bolting on fancy new stuff at the expense of bug squashing (I think they have the balance about right now), and it's still happily getting my music into the charts, so thumbs up here! But marketing is definitely something not being exploited, and the lack of a Mac version (which is extremely unlikely) is what's keeping a lot of publications from jumping on board for sure. I can't say I've ever had a client tell me "oh yeah, you did that on PC, right?" so it's kind of irrelevant in nearly every way except for marketing. From what the Bakers have said though, the user base is actually gaining rather than losing since the Gibson days. I'd love to see more of a presence but by all accounts it's doing pretty fine behind the scenes.

Getting in late but I had a listen to mix 5 just then and the arrangement and performances are really great I reckon where you're running into a bit of trouble on it is the mastering. There seems to be both a lot of stereo enhancement and limiting on it, which is making things like guitars super loud (and this is me - you know I love super loud guitars! HAHA) and to get that vocal up front, that needs to be cranked, but that's also making the limiter pump and that's making the stuff that's getting lost get even more lost, like the drums. I'd be inclined to really drop back on any mastering effects and then get a nice balance happening first, then see how far you can push it without things getting lost or pumping. I don't think it's really necessary to have a really slammed mix these days, as much as it does work for certain styles (ours, for example) but if you do want to go that route, there's a few things I'd suggest: First, compress the ever loving snot out of stuff as you go, rather than waiting until the end. Get your signals nice and even (within reason, of course - some stuff you really want to be kind of pokey), then submix each element to its own Aux or Bus and get THAT sounding even. By the time this all gets to your Master Bus, you're going to need to do far less work clamping it all down with a single end limiter. I think EQ-wise, this is pretty good. It's bass heavy but I like it. But where that can hurt you is the low end is where you're going to be having the most problems taming. A fat, bass-heavy mix will make your limiter work super hard, which will make the entire mix pump far more than it should. What I'd tend to do here is throw a multiband over the Master Bus and set it so it's only clamping down on the frequencies that build up a bit too much. Ideally, this is stuff you should be solving earlier in the chain (are certain notes on the bass ringing out a bit much? Either EQ or throw a multiband on that first to tame that before needing to do it over a full mix at the end) but if you're liking how this is all working together, a multiband is good for catching rogue frequencies and evening them out before it hits your limiter. I'll almost always throw a multiband on my master just for the subs and the lows (so under 100hz and from about 100 to 250, respectively) and compress those independently, just to make sure I'm able to push the levels a little hotter at the end. Be mindful of any stereo widening effects on the end too. A well spread out mix sounds great but can be diabolical on a mono speaker, like a phone or a smart speaker, and can really take the focus away from the important stuff, like the lead vocal and the kick and snare. Those 3 things are the most important parts of this mix, with the guitars coming in a close second. If the guitars are too far out in the mix, it's more distracting rather than enhancing. But overall, I think the sound of everything is great in general, the performances are great too and it's well constructed. It just needs to breathe more. Top stuff!

Yes, this is most definitely 80s era Priest here rather than their also excellent 70s output. I did have to take out a small bank loan for spandex and studded leather to make this track authentic! (Aw who am I kidding? My closet is full of this stuff ?) Cheers for the awesome comments, guys! Really cool ?

Haha! Now see that comment could either mean great or terrible (or both ?)

Cheers, Jack

Cheers! I really appreciate that! I tell you what, you definitely get a new appreciation of how incredible Rob's voice was around that time period when you have to match it...!

Sounds like I burst a blood vessel in my forehead hitting those high notes ? "Blood Red Skies: The Hernia Mix"

We had a bit of fun recently doing a cover of a bit of an overlooked gem in the Priest catalogue, Blood Red Skies from the Ram it Down album: It's pretty faithful to the original, but with a lot of the orchestration that I always felt was missing - this is definitely a cinematic sci-fi kind of song, so it was just begging for some movie score treatment in it (but without overdoing it so it's no longer a metal song). Nice big fat 80s synths, BBC Symphony Orchestra as the main orchestration, and tight pants all-round! HAHA! Hope you guys dig it.

You have to save the workspace if you make a change to it if you want it to remember the module state, and it's probably best to save it under a new name in case any of the factory ones get overwritten.

Yep, this is still a big one for me too. There's got to be a reason why this is tricky to sort out.

Glad you sorted it out

I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary here at all, and I've never had problems with any kind of audio export from CbB, so this is really strange. Is CbB still open when you're attempting to play it in the other media players? It's possible it's not sharing drivers which is making the other apps throw weird errors. If you haven't done so already, close CbB down entirely and see if the MP3 plays in other apps.

I mean, all of those things are songwriting tools. Could you write songs without the Arranger track? Or Tempo track, Articulation track, most of the editing tools, etc? Of course you could. But it's easier when you have them there as aids. Do other DAWs have some or all of these tools? Sure. But this is a dot-point list of stuff presented in a way to show off the items in the best possible light. I don't think you'll find any app out there with their blurb going "yeah so like we have the same sort of crap you'll find in other comparable apps" - their marketing guy would be looking for work faster than the speed of the editing tools we got. ? I think it's a pretty comprehensive suite of songwriting tools overall. Definitely stuff that can be added but I don't think the blurb is misleading at all.

Check your other peripherals too. I have a RGB keyboard that sends an annoying pulse noise thorough one of my cheaper interfaces whenever any of the keys are lit (aptly, the cheap interface is an entry level Behringer, while my Scarlett 18i20 is perfectly silent). Re: guitar sounds needing gates, most of the really good hardware gates have both pre and post gating. The pre-amp gate cuts off any inherent guitar and RF noise, then the post-amp gate gets rid of any hiss or general crud your amp or introduces. The best thing about this method is you don't need to set any one gate too aggressively to try and eliminate the noise because they complement each other. In CbB you'd run a Sonitus gate > amp+cab sim > Sonitus gate if you were doing it all in the box.

You can adjust the options for freezing by right-clicking the Freeze icon and choosing Freeze Options from the context menu, where you can set the Freeze tail duration: But I tend to mostly do what Steve mentioned above and just drag out the clip end to as long as I need.

Yeah that would be useful. In the interim, I'd have the source track feeding a couple of Aux tracks and put the effects on one of them instead of the source. Not ideal, but it gets you over the line.