Cakewalk - iZOTOPE compatibility

[k.a.y]

Cakewalk by Bandlab is not listed in the supported DAWs under system requirements of iZOTOPE. Does anybody know if all products and features of iZOTOPE can be used in Cakewalk?

[Byron Dickens]

Yes

[John Vere]

Yes but be warned that you need a powerful computer system. I only have a 6 core i7 3.4 hz and 16 GB of RAM SSD drives etc.  i basically can’t use a lot of their products or my projects will freeze up on me. Good stuff but CPU hogs.  

[mark skinner]

 I use Ozone "elements" on everything I create . I'm using a win 7 pc with an i5 , SSD ,  16g ram and it works flawlessly . It's a good place to start and you can always upgrade Ozone at any time. Well worth it for the mastering stage process alone. mark

[abacab]

On 9/13/2022 at 3:20 PM, Cactus Music said:

Yes but be warned that you need a powerful computer system. I only have a 6 core i7 3.4 hz and 16 GB of RAM SSD drives etc.  i basically can’t use a lot of their products or my projects will freeze up on me. Good stuff but CPU hogs.  

Well that is probably at least 6 year old hardware at this point. Expecting it to perform well with the latest software tools is a bit of a stretch. Also mastering tools like Ozone are intended to be used after the mixing stage, where they are the only plugin running, and everything else is already bounced to audio.

[noynekker]

Very Latest iZotope products installed on my 10 year old computer, and they all work with no issues in the latest Cakewalk by Bandlab . . . iZotope are the best, IMO

Cakewalk by Bandlab is usually never listed as "supported" by most major plugin manufacturers, like we don't exist, but it all just works fine.

[Starship Krupa]

On 9/18/2022 at 4:37 PM, abacab said:

that is probably at least 6 year old hardware at this point. Expecting it to perform well with the latest software tools is a bit of a stretch.

I have so many good plug-ins that I can adopt a policy where if a plug-in can't run well on my i7 6700 system, it's not the computer that's going to get replaced.

I don't know if it's that I'm good at winnowing or what, but my i7 3770 system is adequate to the task of being my main DAW, and was so up until a couple of months ago. When I audition plug-ins, I look carefully at their performance, how well they use resources. The ones that use too much processing power don't make the team.

[abacab]

35 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

I have so many good plug-ins that I can adopt a policy where if a plug-in can't run well on my i7 6700 system, it's not the computer that's going to get replaced.

I don't know if it's that I'm good at winnowing or what, but my i7 3770 system is adequate to the task of being my main DAW, and was so up until a couple of months ago. When I audition plug-ins, I look carefully at their performance, how well they use resources. The ones that use too much processing power don't make the team.

My philosophy is that the generation of hardware and software should match up, within reason. Expecting the latest software to perform on hardware that is a few generations behind is unrealistic IMO.

It's fine if you want to keep running hardware for years, as I do. I hate to put systems that still run well out to pasture, but it is what it is...

Using software designed for that specific hardware generation is a much better experience! Future proofing your computer from years ago only carries so far into the future!

It's like an arms race, as I'm sure that developers are using the latest hardware available to do things that were never before possible on older hardware, and are trying to be first to market. It may not seem fair, but their primary business objectives are likely not to be backwards compatible with older hardware when they are pushing the bleeding edge of new capability (read as CPU hogs).

[Starship Krupa]

13 hours ago, abacab said:

My philosophy is that the generation of hardware and software should match up, within reason. Expecting the latest software to perform on hardware that is a few generations behind is unrealistic IMO.

I agree in some cases, in others, less so. In the case of iZotope's suites, they're known for applying the latest analysis methods to automate as much of the process as they can. So if you want what they have to offer, part of the price you'll have to pay is resource management. Either get a system that's powerful enough to run what you want to run without a second thought or get good at managing what resources you do have, by freezing tracks, waiting until mastering time to use mastering FX, etc.

Me, I don't really care much about iZotope Ozone. I didn't even install it on my new computer. It was great when I was newer at this, but it's been the case for a long time that I like how my mastering sounds better than what Ozone comes up with.

I guess my philosophy is that, regardless of the generation of the software, if it's doing something computation-intensive, well, that's just the way it is. If I want to run it, I have to have a system capable of running it. When I start to scrutinize is with established types of software. There's no reason that I can think of for a basic compressor or EQ to push the limits of my hardware. Maybe that's part of what you mean by "generation?" Not so much "version" as "what it will do?" I learned early on to steer clear of Acustica. I was trying to run things from them that were just compressors and EQ's, and it was bogging my system. Sorry, Acustica, but there are plenty of great-sounding compressors and EQ's out there that barely touch my system resources.

The reverbs that I consider to be the best-sounding I've heard (Exponential) have been around for a long time and are not too hard on resources. I only use one or two instances of reverb in my mixes anyway.

I'd even go as far as to say that if the software is still being updated, and those updates are mostly maintenance updates, it's not unheard of for the latest versions (as opposed to generations, I guess) to be less resource-hungry, due to code optimization. Looking at Cakewalk itself here. Nothing has been added to Cakewalk in some time that would justify it becoming more resource-hungry in basic use, and indeed, it runs more efficiently than it did 4 years ago on the same systems. If some high-powered data-crunchy analyze-y functions were added to the program, I would expect greater resource usage when using those functions, but not at other times.

It's good business for software companies to pay attention to system requirements. The more systems out there that are able to run a program, the more potential customers there are for it. Especially in a field like music that often attracts people with less disposable income.

It used to be that we'd have to just suck it up whenever a new version of Windows (or Office or whatever) came out because it would usually require a fair horsepower upgrade, but when was the last time that was the case? Windows 11 supposedly leaves behind a lot of computers based on hardware, but my understanding is that it's not due to performance requirements, it's due to nervous-nellie security requirements.

"Um....yeah, we're gonna need you to install those TPM modules. Great. Yeah."

The computer industry has reached a point, both with software and hardware, where we can actually choose whether we want to upgrade. The audio software I have is already beyond my ability to fully learn before I finish my time here on this lovely planet. Unless there's some innovation that results in the audio sounding much better (something I never rule out), I'm okay for a while.

Even though my interest in games has picked up in the past 6 months, the kind of games I'm interested in run like a bat on my aging computers. Slower-moving adventure-y things that don't require a fast frame rate to play.

[bitflipper]

Odd that iZotope would snub Cakewalk that way, given their long co-history (e.g. Radius since SONAR 6).

Several iZotope employees used to work for Cakewalk; I wonder if one of them holds some kind of grudge.

[abacab]

38 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

I guess my philosophy is that, regardless of the generation of the software, if it's doing something computation-intensive, well, that's just the way it is. If I want to run it, I have to have a system capable of running it. When I start to scrutinize is with established types of software. There's no reason that I can think of for a basic compressor or EQ to push the limits of my hardware. Maybe that's part of what you mean by "generation?" Not so much "version" as "what it will do?" I learned early on to steer clear of Acustica. I was trying to run things from them that were just compressors and EQ's, and it was bogging my system. Sorry, Acustica, but there are plenty of great-sounding compressors and EQ's out there that barely touch my system resources.

My intent with referring to "generation" as it relates to software was to imply a leap forward in computational intensity, such as with FX that are more AI oriented, or virtual instruments that run models that were not feasible before on slower hardware. Not just new and improved versions of the same old existing technology, I'm referring to "game changing" technical leaps.

Similar case with hardware, as the CPU clock GHz race, multiple cores, faster memory throughput, and SSD drives have all enabled many new capabilities that software engineers are eager to implement with. For example, when I went from a PC with a 3rd gen Intel Core at 3.4GHz to my latest PC with a 9th gen Intel Core running at 3.7-4.6GHz, virtual instruments that I once considered "CPU hogs" run without breaking a sweat! Game changer for me! I used to use u-he Diva and iZotope Iris 2 to stress test my old system, LOL! Definitely needed lots of "resource management".

And I do agree about Acustica. I removed all of their stuff.

iZotope Ozone or Neutron is probably okay for a non-engineer musician to get to a quick starting point for further tweaking. Obviously someone that can do all that by hand doesn't need an AI to lead the way, and less intensive stuff will do a fine job.

But for better or worse, I think the bottom line is that software companies are not catering to customers with older systems when they are trying to market the latest and greatest "new thing". That's why minimum hardware and OS requirements keep trending upwards...

 

Edited September 23, 2022 by abacab

[Starship Krupa]

45 minutes ago, abacab said:

My intent with referring to "generation" as it relates to software was to imply a leap forward in computational intensity such as with FX that are more AI oriented, or virtual instruments that run models that were not feasible before on slower hardware. Not just new and improved versions of the same old existing technology, I'm referring to "game changing" technical leaps.

I thought that might be what you meant, and I'm right there with you on that.

Also agree about iZotope's suites. When I got my first precious license for Ozone Elements 7 (was that the first one with the Mastering Assistant?), it was humbling. Just running through the presets, they just slew my best efforts. Then I decided to go John Henry on it and worked on my chops and mastering chain until I liked my results better. Fortunately it worked out better for me than it did the legendary Mr. Henry.

It seems to me, though, that as audio (and video) production software matures, these leaps forward are coming farther between. I used to work in the software industry, then IT, and I kind of got bored with computers about 20 years ago. That was the point at which they stopped doing new things that interested me. We had full screen first-person video games, we had DAW's that would do audio and MIDI (I had a paid SONAR license back then!), and we could edit videos. Word processing, spreadsheets, online communities, laser printers, color printers, all that stuff that revolutionized what people could do.

Once those were all in place, I stopped getting excited about computers themselves and just went about using those tools.

The big innovation is that the price of admission has dropped so steeply. Those were the things that interested me, and now I can have them literally for free. My last 2 DAW computers were ones that people gave me. They both still run Cakewalk with aplomb. I don't know that I'd want to try much video editing on the Core 2 Quad system, but it's now in the hands of a friend who will be recording with Cakewalk and a load of plug-ins that I handpicked to run well on it. It ran Vegas Pro 10 reasonably well, and again, I never scratched the surface with that version.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Starship Krupa

[NOLAGuy]

On 9/23/2022 at 12:05 PM, bitflipper said:

Odd that iZotope would snub Cakewalk that way, given their long co-history (e.g. Radius since SONAR 6).

Several iZotope employees used to work for Cakewalk; I wonder if one of them holds some kind of grudge.

One possibility on the support issue... I recall a conversation with a plugin vendor, I think it was Waves at the time, and the when I asked their support tech about the lack of endorsement for Cakewalk for a particular plugin, he made the comment that Cakewalk updates their software too frequently and users tend to have the latest update (because it's free?) so it's difficult for a vendor to constantly have to test their software to the latest version.

I'm quite fine with that... versus the periodic upgrades on other DAWS and a cost for the upgrade!!

[bitflipper]

And they were absolutely correct to take that attitude.

When a vendor advertises that its software is compatible with another vendor's software, they are publicly committing themselves to making sure that it is and will remain a true statement. Cakewalk - like every other DAW vendor - has in the past had to modify its own code post-release after it was shown to cause an incompatibility with some popular third-party plugin. Within the software industry, version compatibility is a big deal, as any programmer who's worked in a corporate team environment can attest. Woe to the poor coder who breaks compatibility between modules within their own product  and incurs the wrath of and is ridiculed by the entire department. (At least, when the change hadn't first been demanded by Marketing).

That said, I much prefer Cakewalk's development philosophy. A small team that moves fast, doesn't make users pay for or wait for bug fixes. And most important, doesn't intentionally break backward compatibility to squeeze a few more bucks out of their customers. True fact: most if not all of Cakewalk's beta testers are iZotope users.  If Ozone stops working with any new version of Cakewalk, you'll know about it pretty quickly, and in most cases a fix will have been implemented before its formal release.

iZotope should simply add another list, DAWs that it reportedly works with but that they haven't tested themselves. Some vendors do that already, for good reason. Why discourage any segment of your market from buying your stuff?

 

[prey]

I purchased products and/or a bundle including:

 

Nectar 4 Elements

Neutron 4 Elements

RX 10 Elements

VocalSynth2

Neoverb

Ozone 11 Elements

Stutter Edit 2

 

All show “Installed” in iZotope Product portal in Windows 11

 

I cannot get any of it to show in Cakewalk by Bandlab despite including the file paths (Edit – Preferences – VST Settings – VST Scan Paths... where I see the plugins, namely:

c:\program files\steinberg\vstplugins

and:

c:\program files\common files\vst3\ izotope

(and the usual other VST paths, for other brands)

(cakewalk changes all path characters to lowercase but it works fine for all other plugins)

 

I see all the iZotope .dll files in these folders ...

...but why are no iZotope plugins showing in Cakewalk like all others, when looking in said, correct folders?

 

Thank you.

Jeff

[DeeringAmps]

@prey basic question I know, but I have forgotten to run the plugin manager after an install,
so here goes; Did you run Scan VST Plug-ins in Plug-in Manager?

t

[mettelus]

8 hours ago, prey said:

All show “Installed” in iZotope Product portal in Windows 11

As silly as this sounds, I had this happen a while back and seemed to be during the acquisition by NI. Both Native Access and the Product Portal had updates that didn't automatically prompt the update, but did affect the installs. I cannot remember the exact recipe I used, but be sure you have the most recent Product Portal version installed and try a re-installation from within that. IIRC, there was some fruity log-in requiring me to log into Native Access (with my iZotope credentials of all things) to get the Product Portal to log back in. I would hope that was fixed by now, but it is possible that is what has happened. If that and a manual VST rescan doesn't work, try shooting an email to iZotope... they are pretty responsive there.

[Starship Krupa]

8 hours ago, prey said:

I purchased products and/or a bundle including:

Nectar 4 Elements

Neutron 4 Elements

RX 10 Elements

VocalSynth2

Neoverb

Ozone 11 Elements

Stutter Edit 2

All show “Installed” in iZotope Product portal in Windows 11

Those are fine products, and there are many Cakewalk users who use them.

When the iZotope installers ran, did you choose the option of installing the VST2 or VST3 versions or both?

There's usually no reason to install anything but the 64-bit VST3 version of a given plug-in. I sometimes do because I run a couple of non-Cakewalk hosts that don't yet support VST3. There's nothing bad about installing both, but it can make the initial scanning of the plug-ins take longer.

Since you've already double checked the vst folder paths in Cakewalk, and you've checked the folders to make sure that iZotope's installer populated said folders, you've ruled out the most common reason for plug-ins to fail to appear in Cakewalk.

After that, it could be that for some reason or other, Cakewalk did find the plug-ins but ran into an error while scanning and disabled them. The solution to that is to force a complete re-scan of your plug-ins, and Tom has given you one method for doing that. Scanning options are also accessible from the Preferences/File/VST Settings page under Scan Options. There's a "Scan" button that will initiate a re-scan and a "Reset" button that will discard the information from previous scans and do it fresh. If the first doesn't help, the second should.

[prey]

I appreciate all the comments

(still having issues with anything in the iZotope folder, but it now sees the two iZo products that are in the Steinberg folder)... 

I'm a huge Cakewalk fan and have used it since the late 80's. I used Voyetra, then Cakewalk from then on.

My last Roland Cakewalk was Sonar 8 Studio which is kinda still working but doesn't like  my UA Volt2 in Windows 11.

 -- Anyway anyway:

I just realized UAD products are also failing to show in Cakewalk, in addition to most iZotope ones, after thorough steps described.

Out of the following iZotope products:

Nectar 4 Elements

Neutron 4 Elements

RX 10 Elements

VocalSynth2

Neoverb

Ozone 11 Elements

Stutter Edit 2

... I have managed to get just Neoverb and VocalSynth to show up in Cakewalk by Bandlab, by using Plugin Manager.

When I click them, it shows me: it's listing those in:

c:\program files\steinberg\vstplugins

while all the others are being ignored in:

c:\program files\common files\vst3   ...and/or

c:\program files\common files\vst3\izotope  

... of course I've added one or both paths and it's just ignoring what's in there, except other brands pf plugins that are in there, working fine.

A lot of stuff that's not iZotope or UAD are showing fine in Cakewalk, from 

c:\program files\common files\vst3 

 I reset and re-scan (with correct paths added) both from Plugin Manager and/or , Edit, Preferences, VST Settings.

I tried reinstalling iZotope Product Portal and even re-installing Ozone, but it doesn't help, even if I go back and re-scan in Cakewalk.

Did the same with the UAD stuff. Go figure everything that is stubborn is all (today) NI owned.

Really stinks... just bought all those Izo products. I should have known why the big sale. Been downgraded to NI support and I didn't know that would stink. 

Test --  all the missing iZotope and UAD plugins show fine in Cubase trial. I just hope to God I can get them working in Cakewalk because I don't like the Cubase layout at all and don't want to have to learn all over gain.

Thanks for your help. Not sure what else can be done at this point. I'll try uninstalling and re-installing Cakewalk.

I did accidentally install VST2's but I thought that just caused extra scanning. I've deleted all the ones I'll never use. Cakewalk is set to ignore all VST2's that have a VST3 version present.

Edited January 21 by prey
typo

[bitflipper]

Try a reset/rescan with the scan log enabled. Be sure to do the Reset.

The log file will be %appdata%\Cakewalk\Logs\VstScan.log

Open the log file in Notepad and search on any of your missing DLLs.

Just seeing the DLL appear in the log means the scanner was able to find it and the problem isn't your scan path list.

Keep searching for additional mentions of the DLL. If the DLL failed to initialize, there should be a clue in the log as to why it failed, e.g. a missing dependency or insufficient Windows permissions.

One other thing to check is the exclusion list. I think the Reset clears that list, but I don't know for sure. Plugins on the exclusion list (assuming you didn't manually exclude them) usually get there because they failed to scan the first time around. Open the scanner utility and click on the "Show Excluded" radio button.