Clunky?

[Larioso]

I saw this video with mike at creativesauce and he favored StudioOne because he could drag and drop something, whatever it was.

- cakewalk had intermediate dialog in between

I say No Big Deal.

 

I dropped StudioOne(4.7) finding that all midi recorded is turned into automation which created showstopper issues for me.

- I recorded a hammond track and in middle somewhere I turned on leslie and off again for a little swirl.

- playing this back, leslie was on from start of clip already, not at the node this was recorded

 

So why did this happend

- automation need a starting point

- first event of a midi CC, also become the starting point

- hense why my leslie became on from start of clip

 

So this will happend for all midi gear recorded, you start turning a know as you play and this value will become first event and playing from start. Loads of post recording work to fix that.

 

You had no way to opt out of that handling in StudioOne. Sonar just sends what you recorded, no messing around unless you convert it.

 

Also finding I had 5-6 feature requests for StudioOne that all were already in good old Sonar Artist, I dropped StudioOne.

- meny parts of interface is unreadable like in inspector, dark on dark everywhere and eyes are wandering to find guide where to look

- Sonar is all readable, and also prettier than StudioOne

 

Clips in StudioOne just become a rectangle with a border, not a proper header as in Sonar.

 

No support for sysex at all in StudioOne, the amount of work I had to do to get sysex controllers sent to external midi gear was horrific.

Even my first Cakewalk Pro 1989 had sysex support and sysex manager. You cannot record any sysex in StudioOne.

 

As I recall StudioOne had no ability with surround busses either. But don't quote me on that.

 

Things I miss from StudioOne

- chord track is rather useful, and ability to convert a parts of a midi track to get chords spelled out

- I think help assist ruler, kind of, is rather useful to show what different modified keys do in that context you are

- having tempo map along time ruler is very convenient

- some neat abilities to align grid with already recorded (I never got the assign measure to timeline in Sonar to work, it did strange things with everything after)

Edited June 11, 2023 by Larioso

[Lord Tim]

8 minutes ago, Larioso said:

I saw this video with mike at creativesauce and he favored StudioOne because he could drag and drop something, whatever it was.

- cakewalk had intermediate dialog in between

I say No Big Deal.

In fact, if you untick Ask This Every Time then you don't get a dialog, and you'd get that back with Paste Special.

I think this is again another powerful option that's hidden in a Shell Game.

 

9 minutes ago, Larioso said:

Things I miss from StudioOne

- I think help assist ruler, kind of, is rather useful to show what different modified keys do in that context you are

- having tempo map along time ruler is very convenient

We do have the Help module (press Y to show that) which does the same thing, and if you do ALT+T you get a Tempo track at the top of the Track View, so we already have those features. Why are people saying they miss that from other DAWs? That's the big question for sure!

[Larioso]

1 hour ago, Lord Tim said:

Why are people saying they miss that from other DAWs? That's the big question for sure!

Because I run Sonar, not CbB. I could have stated more clearly.

Good to know these things are there buying the new Sonar,  tempo map on timeline at least.

 

I hope web pages with comparisons on new Sonar will be up soon, so to see everything that happened since SPlat.

[Lord Tim]

7 minutes ago, Larioso said:

Because I run Sonar, not CbB. I could have stated more clearly.

Good to know these things are there buying the new Sonar,  tempo map on timeline at least.

 

I hope web pages with comparisons on new Sonar will be up soon, so to see everything that happened since SPlat.

Ahh Cakewalk by Bandlab is a HUGE upgrade from SONAR, especially when it comes to workflow. Have a good look through this page: https://www.bandlab.com/products/cakewalk/whats-new?lang=en

[Glenn Stanton]

1 hour ago, Lord Tim said:

Ahh Cakewalk by Bandlab is a HUGE upgrade from SONAR, especially when it comes to workflow. Have a good look through this page: https://www.bandlab.com/products/cakewalk/whats-new?lang=en

yeah, i was re-installing early version (8.5, X2, X3, SPLAT) and opening them, was like "ouch!".  i don't remember how i functioned in those... lol

[Chilldanny]

23 minutes ago, Glenn Stanton said:

yeah, i was re-installing early version (8.5, X2, X3, SPLAT) and opening them, was like "ouch!".  i don't remember how i functioned in those... lol

I have recently done the very same thing on a new system build!

I have to say…Track Layers vs Take Lanes.  I think I still like Track Layers, can’t we have both?  ?

[Glenn Stanton]

41 minutes ago, Chilldanny said:

I have recently done the very same thing on a new system build!

I have to say…Track Layers vs Take Lanes.  I think I still like Track Layers, can’t we have both?  ?

i thought the configuration setting let you generate a new track on comp looping? "store takes on separate tracks" ? 

[Lord Tim]

It does.... but the way the different clips overlap was pretty different in Layers. Both have their pros and cons, but I do think the current Lanes is probably a little more powerful and it's probably closer to the way other DAWs implement it (every DAW has its own thing going on though, of course).

[Larioso]

2 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

Ahh Cakewalk by Bandlab is a HUGE upgrade from SONAR, especially when it comes to workflow. Have a good look through this page: https://www.bandlab.com/products/cakewalk/whats-new?lang=en

That was perfect, thank you.

I printed a pdf, 64 pages. Will be a good read.

[Starship Krupa]

3 hours ago, msmcleod said:

If anyone has any ideas as to how we could make these operations more obvious to a newbie, we're all ears.

What you said about putting them in the the Help module is a good one. It might even get me to turn my Help Module on. I'm rather fond of tooltips myself.

The confusing business about slip editing modifier keys, there could be a tooltip saying "hold Shift to edit single clip" when you click on a clip edge to do some slip editing and the edge either butts up against or lines up to another clip. When dragging a clip, "hold Ctrl to copy," that sort of thing.

I know I've beaten the drum for consistency before, and I don't think it's ever had much attention paid to it, but I really do think that having more consistency in operation between the various views would make the program seem more polished and less whacked-together.

Also stuff like being able to rename tracks and replace synths and the like in the PRV's track pane. Having to switch between views for common operations like those also leads to a perception of clumsiness. Double-clicking on a track's name to rename it should work everywhere you find a track name. If I'm working in the PRV, why have me open Track View to rename a track or replace a synth? It just wastes time.

[JnTuneTech]

Starting from the viewpoint that "clunky" will be interpreted, and in fact used by others as a widely-variable, often throwaway term, I think I will just react mostly to @msmcleod in his addition to this thread, and try to keep it simple. (Right... after reviewing later, well...)

And to be clear, I am mostly reacting as a fairly comfortable user of the current CbB release, otherwise we could go on & on. New users, non-forum involved ones, critics, will all have their own, often quite valid statements as to what is "clunky".

Feature options and methods generally available, have always been my stumbling block for almost any complex tool, and Cakewalk is no exception. Even in the days of the new feature video (for while you download- are you kidding me, with average bandwidth back then?) in the install & start screens, -none of that ever fixed not knowing the existing basics in the first place. So, while the current help module option is a good addition, some kind of separate user guide for common tasks, very prominently offered, and a comprehensive natural-language search query response engine to access that and all the documentation, would be my first suggestion. -Maybe AI will be able to help with that (as long as we are careful...). -Even having more prominent links to allow casual users to know about these forums (and hopefully feel comfortable to do so) could help with that.

I know, -that one subject is a huge ask for a software company, since it can be so resource intensive and hard to gauge a return from. I can only say that my guess is, that if more users can easily jump on board, and feel comfortable, it would pay off.  -Note: - I have found no other DAW that is less "clunky" in that respect though, so far.

Outside of that, specific items for what I work with, mirror many of the issues already stated earlier in this thread. For MIDI-centric users, some of the older tools are hard to use, such as the drum maps, event viewer, and tools to deal with older MIDI such as PRV display & conversion options, as well as legacy items like instrument definitions - note mapping in general. MIDI routing options are still limited in some ways (BTW - one option I use for sending 1 MIDI track  to multiple VSTis is to right-click duplicate the track & check link to original then name accordingly...) - they could be more comprehensive I guess, though a lot of that simply needs to be more usefully explained, as per my suggestions earlier.

Audio options (and performance) in the use of comping are something I still find a bit wieldy (not clunky exactly...) for some reason. I wish I could explain that better, but for whatever reason, I tend to avoid using that feature, often in favor of new tracks instead. -Perhaps consolidating & adding to the methods for adding tracks - it still seems many folks don't understand what live input routing does, especially in audio, -that might be another add track option somehow. But again, explaining, and cleaning up the various entry points for that type of thing would be a good direction to go in my experiences of using Cakewalk over the various iterations up until now. -Also, I did have issues learning audio path - fx routing for using the ProChannel plus the fx bin combo - some of that is improved from earlier versions, but I still keep a screenshot of the Cakewalk audio routing path handy to refresh my aging memory...  Aux track & patch point usage/info is still a bit rough too. And yes, I know many of these things can't be fully changed without affecting backwards compatibility, and adding is what is contributing to clutter, so understandably, some of that is always just going to have to be taken into consideration by all here.

Still, the bottom line for me is always explanation - and getting myself and others to accept/find it readily. -Tough task in most of life's workflow - to be sure.  All the templates, documentation, Cakewalk gives us, and yet, there's always something... and then somebody calling it clunky, I guess!

Edited June 13, 2023 by JnTuneTech
clunky but workable way to send MIDI to multiple outs

[Andres Medina]

Well, there is one huge improvement in the workflow of CW that can be made, as requested in this topic: the handling of video.

Just checked the Studio One 6 version, and wow, you can move the video around as any audio clip - you can insert multiple video clips in the same timeline - You can perform basic editing of the video itself.

This area has been a weak point in CW. Of course you can make workarounds to adapt, like editing the video outside CW, but it is really nice to just do the basic things inside the DAW.

Note: it took me one hour to insert a video in Studio One. Still I have no idea where the audio of the video is hidden! Of course it's not their fault or a lack of intuitiveness, it's just a whole different software!

[Starship Krupa]

I'd like to clarify that I think there's a difference between "seems clunky" and "lacks a valuable feature" and "doesn't work the way I want it to."

"Clunky," to me, means things that are needlessly obscure or complex, things that require too many steps or switching back and forth between different views.

Case in point regarding obscurity, the process for deleting a marker. Why not have markers be selectable, then just hit Delete to delete them? And how about a nice context menu with "delete" being a selection?

I love Cakewalk's PRV, but when I'm working in it, in order to rename a track or replace a synth, something I do plenty often when working in PRV, I have to switch over to Track View and then back. That interrupts the flow.

[Lord Tim]

I do definitely agree that the video part of CbB needs an overhaul, but I think that falls a little outside the scope of a lot of what we're talking about here, which is refining the existing tools to get rid of the real (or perceived) stumbling blocks when using a function or performing an action.

Video view.... yeah, that's going to need more than a little tweak to get it on par with a lot of modern DAWs. I've scored stuff to it, and it's worked, but the moment you need to step out of some very tight restrictions, the wheels fall off pretty fast, unfortunately. And when we think about the percentage of users who would put that as a "priority feature" for their work (which I am one of those users), it's quite small compared to more general stuff that would benefit more of the userbase I think.

[Larioso]

4 hours ago, Andres Medina said:

Just checked the Studio One 6 version, and wow, you can move the video around as any audio clip - you can insert multiple video clips in the same timeline - You can perform basic editing of the video itself.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

I do definitely agree that the video part of CbB needs an overhaul, 

Video view.... yeah, that's going to need more than a little tweak to get it on par with a lot of modern DAWs.

I only need an decent preview of video in daw, and leave editing to PowerDirector.

To move video in timeline in Sonar, I render a video in PD where I put clip 8s into timeline.

- this is just for preview

That create 8s black video as a start, and I get video start 5 bars into timeline in Sonar.

Zoom in so each frame can be seen,  and assign measure 5 to start exactly at first frame.

Audio export I put into original video in PD as last operation.

All video editing and rendering done in PD.

 

Just thinking about priority what Bakers should be spending time on - a daw or video editor.

it can quickly become a can of worms if doing half baked stuff regarding video.

- if to get audio and video perfectly synced you would need full rendering video in new Sonar too

- this means lots of limitations for audio formats, video formats already in a video editor

- there is one bug though to fix, if using count in, video stalls in a strange way when transport starting recording. (reported then, and maybe fixed, not sure)

 

As I learned here on forum 3 years ago, you can change to use DirectShow or similar in Sonar/CbB to move clip directly with offset.

Just felt this idea generating 8s black video at start worked really well.

Video feels solid otherwise. You hardly notice it is there running the project.

- reason I left Cubase 2018 was the horrific cpu hungry new video engine, as quicktime was deprecated

- I'd hate to see similar things in new Sonar

- so I ran vidplayvst instead for a bit with fraction of Cubase cpu use if using built in engine

https://vidplayvst.com/downloads.htm

It works well if getting an updated video and some scenes are shorter/longer to run beside previous video.

You can run many different videos too. But has to be edited elsewhere as final operation.

- or use the vidrendervst which is placed on masterbus to render it all

 

I think more music related stuff like updated Staff View is more useful for the many.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Larioso

[jackson white]

On 6/10/2023 at 5:21 PM, OutrageProductions said:

when I commit pilot error at high speed

me^.  Cakewalk has a feature set I find much more productive than any of the alternatives i've worked with. however, there are some things that would be considered "clunky" without having to reference any competitive offerings. many of these can be found here. things like being unable to disable some global keybindings, the "sends" menu display is painfully inefficient, drum map creation, basic audio engine issues when trying to loop record, changing track states takes longer than expected. and those rogue dark matter automation nodes several parsecs from the expected end of the project. however, the only reason i use other DAWs at this point is for Mac based peeps.

Perhaps Cakewalk Next should be -the- platform to talk about, built from the ground up? with best-in-class features? leveraging the decades of experience in the team.

Edited June 12, 2023 by jackson white
drum map++

[Craig Reeves]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:37 PM, Lord Tim said:

Hopefully this won't descend into a free-for-all mess like some threads do! Please try to keep on topic and post respectfully.

So, we've all seen the announcement by now that going forward the new Cakewalk products are switching to a paid model. Whether you agree or disagree with that isn't really the point of this thread (by all means, continue to duke it out in the Announcement Thread).

This thread is in relation to seeing the mention on several Cakewalk-centric YouTube channels, and a few posts around here and social media saying that now that Cakewalk is a paid product, it should be treated as such, and not get a free pass for its "clunky" areas.

Now, I'm going to state up front that I 100% agree with the "it should not be given any free passes now that it's becoming a paid product" statement, but I'll go further to say that even as a free product, I don't think anyone should have been looking at it as such. This was the formerly full flagship commercial product during the pre-Bandlab days, with countless bug fixes and extra features. No matter what it cost, it should be judged on its own merits. Nothing should be different now.

But one thing has stuck with me from these sentiments: "Clunky."  The notion that other DAWs are doing something different/better than what CbB (and presumably Sonar going forward) is doing.

Some base qualifications here:

1. I'm not starting this thread to blindly defend CbB, this is a genuine attempt at getting other perspectives. It's also not the opposite, I'm not starting this to invite CbB bashing either. It's also not here to crap on any of the YouTube channels either - they're good people with their own valid opinions on things.
    
2. I'm particularly talking about other traditional recording style DAWs, so things like Ableton Live and Tracktion Waveform, etc. that use an entirely different paradigm is beyond the scope of what I'm talking about here. There's a reason most of us are using CbB here, rather than any of those other ways to record, so my comparisons would be things like Cubase, Studio One, REAPER, ProTools, etc. that share a similar workflow.
    
3. This is NOT a discussion about features or OS ports. So while saying "there's no Mac version" or "where is the Sampler" etc. are fair questions, they're better suited for the Feedback Loop forum. I'm definitely not talking about missing effects or anything like that.

So with that all said, for those of you familiar (and especially very fluent) with other DAWs, what are they doing that's making CbB look clunky in comparison?

Is it part of the UX (I don't mean the design, I mean how it works - the User Experience) that's easier to use on a competing product? Creating tracks? Editing? Multiple open project work?

What stuff do you do in your other DAW that feels like it's not as intuitive or takes longer in CbB?

Why am I asking? Am I a paid Bandlab shill? No (although if someone wants to give me money.... ?)  I'm just a user like the rest of you guys, who has been around quite a long while and uses Cakewalk stuff professionally in my day to day job.

I'm seeing these comments and... honestly, with all the playing around with other DAWs I've done over the years, I can't see where a lot of the criticism is coming from (some, yes, but the amount of "this is better in other DAWs" comments I've seen over the last few days with absolutely nobody expanding on exactly what, is making me go "am I missing something here, or is this all just a lot of subjective opinions triggered by the payment model announcement?")

Again, please take this as a genuine question in good faith, I'm keen to know what everyone thinks! 

A final disclaimer: as I said, I'm just a user like everyone else, and nothing I'm saying here is in any way connected to Bandlab or any decision making they do, but I'd like to think they'll have a good look through the thread here and take on board any good suggestions or comparisons.

 

So, people, what (if anything) specifically is making CbB seem clunky in comparison to the other similar commercial DAWs? Let's hear it  

I'm literally working on a highly detailed video that showcases all the areas in which Cakewalk's workflow can be improved. I wish I could finish it a little sooner but I have a day job so I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to it, but it should be ready by the middle of this week.

[Craig Reeves]

On 6/10/2023 at 4:42 PM, Craig Anderton said:

Take any DAW, and different people will find aspects of it they find more or less convenient than other DAWs. "Clunky" gets into very subjective territory, very fast. 

 

 

 

Yeah. I use Ableton Live and Cakewalk frequently. Love both and find great use in both. There's about 40 things I absolutely hate about both...

[Craig Reeves]

22 hours ago, msmcleod said:

I just want to re-iterate what @Lord Tim said in his original post, and add my 2p's worth...

What we're really looking for here is examples of where it's easier (or perhaps more intuitive) to do a particular task in another DAW compared to doing the same task in CbB. 

So we're talking about workflow features that CbB already has, and how the workflow could improve.  One example per post would help, describing how it's done in a particular DAW vs the same operation in CbB.

Also existing features that could simply be improved.

We're NOT talking about new features - they're better off as separate posts in the Feedback Loop section.

I would re-iterate (as Tim has already said), that any changes in workflow is a double-edged sword.  We don't want to upset/derail existing users by changing the existing workflow, nor do we want do dumb-down the workflow so much that the flexibility/granular control users rely on is lost.  At the same time, we do want to look into facilitating a far more intuitive & streamlined workflow.  Kind of contradictory, I know.  However the smart-tool is one example of how this could be done.

Drum Map / MIDI routing / Tab re-ordering are excellent examples of how existing features could be improved (thanks @Starship Krupa / @scook ).

Some comparisons with other DAW's would be great though (especially animated gif's to make it obvious).  Devs working on a single DAW day to day, means we rarely get time to really use another DAW beyond the most basic operations, and from some of the replies so far, it seems we're not the only ones.

One other thing... it strikes me that there are ways of doing things very quickly in CbB, but they're just not immediate obvious/intuitive to new users.  Drawing / manipulating shelves in automation springs to mind here, and also what modifiers do in drag/drop operations. The functions of modifiers are almost never explained in the help-module... maybe they should be.

If anyone has any ideas as to how we could make these operations more obvious to a newbie, we're all ears.

I'm working on a Youtube video right now that showcases every workflow issue with Cakewalk and detailed explanations on what can be improved.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 6/11/2023 at 10:38 AM, msmcleod said:

I just want to re-iterate what @Lord Tim said in his original post, and add my 2p's worth...

Tab re-ordering are excellent examples of how existing features could be improved (thanks @Starship Krupa / @scook ).

Ahem..

Seriously though  I have plenty of ideas for streamlining and improving workflows, some have them have been implemented over the years but others like this one seem to have been ignored. Is the feedback loop the best place for them ?