Clunky?

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

21 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

If this would include having a single MIDI track being able to drive two different VSTi's, that's something I'd love to be able to do.

This is another oft mentioned request which I think would super helpful,. At the moment I normally copy / paste the midi to tracks of instruments I want to layer/double 

If we were able to select another midi track as the source from the input dropdown menu shown below ...that would do the trick I think ?  Hopefully not to hard to implement and wouldn't impact on those who don't want to use it.

   

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

20 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

Following that idea (and this was alluded to earlier in this thread) why can't we drag things around to the different docked areas, eg: like in Adobe products? In Audition, I can make any one of those areas show whatever I want, so for example, docking an ARA view on a side tab rather than the Multidock would be handy, or putting Big Time above the Synth Rack View, or Markers View in a side dock rather than down in the Multidock, or that kind of thing. Ideally for me (and I've mentioned this before), I'd like the "everything is a multidock" idea where rather than specific areas like Inspector/Browser/Multidock, we have "area 1" "area 2" "area 3" etc and in each area we can add whatever view we want to see. Then, to keep consistency with how CbB is now, have a "classic" Workspace that puts things like Media/Plugins/Notes in the area where the Browser is, Arranger/Tempo/Clip and Track Properties, etc. in the area where the Inspector is, and that kind of thing. And then allow us to split those views or add tabs as we see fit.

 

I said the same thing several years back as well, but it was something along the lines of having a super multidock with moveable tabs where you could just stick whatever you wanted there including plugins and have them resize to fit etc . It would be a very fluid UI and highly customisable to suit different needs. 

[Andres Medina]

11 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

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.

Yes, I understand that video may be not the main use for the majority of users. Agreed.

Regarding functions, I think video handling is a function of the software that has to perform an action, and right now force users to use external software and several workarounds to perform a very straightforward task: move the video over the timeline. That seems to be cumbersome.

If I recall, this was part of a long discussion about the difficulties to implement that. That's why I was surprised to see it solved and working in Studio One.

[Lord Tim]

The shortcomings in video is definitely a reason a lot of film composers do recommend other DAWs to do the tasks, like being able to shift the video on the timeline without resorting to changing rendering engines, and putting in SMPTE offsets and all of that kind of stuff. As much as I'd love to see it, going too far with the video features is just asking for wasted resources when it makes more sense to use an actual NLE for a particular job, but I do think things should at least reach a minimum parity with the other DAWs that people are using for scoring/games work now.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Lord Tim

[rsinger]

Handling multiple audio I/Fs. I play guitar and often practice in the box. My DAW and laptop have audio I/Fs, but I also have a Roland SY-1000 GTR Synth that can be used as an I/F. When the SW detects that the last I/F I used is not available it would be nice if I there was a dialog at that point to setup another I/F. And better yet, it would be nice if it was possible to setup default assignments for multiple I/Fs.

[jackson white]

47 minutes ago, Andres Medina said:

video may be not the main use for the majority of users

44 minutes ago, Lord Tim said:

The shortcomings in video is definitely a reason (to) recommend other DAWs

imo, given macro trends such as streaming, covid, ubiquity of mobile apps, accessibility of low cost (and highly capable) creative tools, GoPro, etc, video has/is/and will be a major factor for promoting/distributing creative content. imagine there's a substantial number of legacy users who might not prioritize it, but i see it as a key capability in maintaining relevance and expanding the user base. many NLEs already support some form of audio production. Cakewalk would only need to consider the basics of import/export and audio integration on a timeline. the 80/20 rule should be more than fine. 

as it's more of a production feature than a creation feature, sounds like a focus for Cakewalk Sonar vs. Next.   

[John Vere]

8 hours ago, rsinger said:

Handling multiple audio I/Fs. I play guitar and often practice in the box. My DAW and laptop have audio I/Fs, but I also have a Roland SY-1000 GTR Synth that can be used as an I/F. When the SW detects that the last I/F I used is not available it would be nice if I there was a dialog at that point to setup another I/F. And better yet, it would be nice if it was possible to setup default assignments for multiple I/Fs.

That’s not up to the DAWS That is in the ASIO specification. You just switch to WASAPI mode and it will work fine. Just be aware that you can’t record in sync when in WASAPI mode.  
 

I will totally agree that video is the future of all music releases now. Nobody cares about MP3 files. If you want to book gigs you better have videos.  But I would never expect Cakewalk to be anything but for creating audio. Definitely the video preview system is indeed CLUNKY 

[rsinger]

45 minutes ago, JohnnyV said:

That’s not up to the DAWS That is in the ASIO specification. You just switch to WASAPI mode and it will work fine. Just be aware that you can’t record in sync when in WASAPI mode.  
 

I didn't write simultaneously. If you use one I/F then close CbB, turn off that I/F and turn on another I/F and open CbB again you get a message - There are no audio devices for the current driver model on your system. I think it would be cleaner/more streamlined if you could select another I/F at that point. One day I'm using one I/F and another day or later in the day a different I/F. 

[John Vere]

2 hours ago, rsinger said:

I didn't write simultaneously. If you use one I/F then close CbB, turn off that I/F and turn on another I/F and open CbB again you get a message - There are no audio devices for the current driver model on your system. I think it would be cleaner/more streamlined if you could select another I/F at that point. One day I'm using one I/F and another day or later in the day a different I/F. 

OK but That still depends on the ASIO driver. Example. I have 3 interfaces connected but 2 are turned off. They are a Motu M4, A Scarlett 6i6 and a Tascam us1641. I do not get the message you are seeing when I switch between those 3 interfaces.  

But I also have a Soundcraft USB mixer that has an ASIO driver. That device will toss the message you are seeing and it takes going into Windows settings and selecting it as the default device as well.  Therefore this is the particular ASIO driver not Cakewalk doing this. Some drivers are just better than others. Cakewalk is fussy about drivers in some ways but possibly other DAW's would behave the same too. I don't know. 

 

[Max Arwood]

I didn't know we were supposed to complain? I thought it was examples we were supposed to do???

Example

Cakewalk clip FX manager VS  Samplitude V4

 

 

 

 

itch

Edited June 13, 2023 by Max Arwood
moved things around for clarity

[Max Arwood]

19 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

The shortcomings in video is definitely a reason a lot of film composers do recommend other DAWs to do the tasks

Or video software.

 Adobe Premiere Pro

Vegas Video (The audio here is much like Cakewalk. It would be easy to use for any Cake user serious about film and audio)

DaVinci Resolve (Want to test some real power free?)

Apple Final Cut Pro X

CyberLink PowerDirector 365 (I hate renting)

Active Presenter (Want to just have some fun try this)

 

I would like to see a little more video functionality. Adding a "podcast" feature might grab a few more users.  (Sorry, no new features I'm off track again)

(Sorry for the Video stuff)  I didn't mean to get so off track but it's really late.

With positive discussion, we might be able to help mold the future of Cakewalk.

[John Vere]

There’s actually some very important things brought up in this thread and I hope the developers are aware of them. The feedback thread is where this belongs but I’m not even sure how often they scan that.  
I think the next few years will be important for them. Now’s the chance to either grab new users or totally loose them.  

[rsinger]

12 hours ago, JohnnyV said:

OK but That still depends on the ASIO driver. Example. I have 3 interfaces connected but 2 are turned off. They are a Motu M4, A Scarlett 6i6 and a Tascam us1641. I do not get the message you are seeing when I switch between those 3 interfaces.  

But I also have a Soundcraft USB mixer that has an ASIO driver. That device will toss the message you are seeing and it takes going into Windows settings and selecting it as the default device as well.  Therefore this is the particular ASIO driver not Cakewalk doing this. Some drivers are just better than others. Cakewalk is fussy about drivers in some ways but possibly other DAW's would behave the same too. I don't know. 

 

? The message is from Cakewalk, it says Cakewalk in the message title.

[Lord Tim]

1 hour ago, JohnnyV said:

There’s actually some very important things brought up in this thread and I hope the developers are aware of them. The feedback thread is where this belongs but I’m not even sure how often they scan that.  
I think the next few years will be important for them. Now’s the chance to either grab new users or totally loose them.  

Yeah, agreed - this is all Feedback Loop section stuff and we do see the Bakers in there fairly often, but I'm thinking this is probably a timely thing for all of us to have a look at in the main forum since it gets most traffic, in light of the payment model changing and lots of comments - both real and perceived - suddenly being thrown around over the last few days. I'd rather get some facts from people than letting the FUD take hold and people going "well it's paid, X person said it's not as good as THIS OTHER software so I might as well pay for that one if I'm paying at all" and not realising this was either pilot error or the method in CbB is different but just as easy as any other DAW once you know it.

[Lord Tim]

6 hours ago, Max Arwood said:

I didn't know we were supposed to complain? I thought it was examples we were supposed to do???

Example

Cakewalk clip FX manager VS  Samplitude V4

 

 

 

 

itch

To me, if this was the only way to adjust fades and all of that, I'd call THAT clunky because in CbB you can do a lot of things right from the Track View. As it is, there's a lot of this in the Clip Inspector.  Some good ideas in that, though!

[Lord Tim]

OK, so scanning through the thread so far, I have a few thoughts on this all.

First of all, MANY THANKS to all who came in and indulged my questions and replied respectfully and thoughtfully! Anyone that's been on a busy forum will know that's not always the expected outcome, especially when there's been a big shift in the payment model of a product and emotions are running a little hot. You guys are awesome  

So what I'm gathering is this:

• For a lot of us old-timers, we're not noticing a lot of the problems because we just use it. It's all so second-nature to us that we either work around the issue or just know not to do a certain task to ever encounter a certain clunk that some other (especially new) users might find.
   
• A lot of the things people are calling "clunky" are shortcomings in their knowledge of CbB to a point. EG: Complaining you need to change Track Edit Filter to Clip Gain to adjust gain rather than just holding down CTRL and dragging from the top of a clip, or thinking you have to put in nodes to adjust an envelope section rather than doing a time range selection and dragging down from the clip top. This bypasses all of that assumed clunk and makes it just as fast as other DAWs who have a similar paradigm for envelope adjustments. There's a bunch of other great examples through the thread like this.
   
• DAWs are complicated, and the fact is if you're new to DAWs in general, or even CbB specifically after being used to the workflow elsewhere, there'll be a learning curve while you get used to where everything is. This isn't entry level software, it's a full flagship grade product. I'd argue that this would be the same for ProTools, Cubase, Studio One, etc. as well.
   
• New users do get tripped up by some of the non-standard Windows conventions used for things, eg: lasso selection in one view with the Right Click Drag rather than Left Click Drag like in Windows to select items, or adding or deleting notes in the Piano Roll View with the Right Mouse Button rather than bringing up context menus. There's a very good reason these things were introduced, and they actually *do* speed up workflow substantially when you understand them, but if you come in expecting it to work like traditional conventions, it becomes what feels like unnecessary clunk.
   
• No matter what a fan of CbB you are, even the most ardent supporter knows there's areas that could absolutely be better and refined, with some amazing examples in this thread. Some hold-overs from the old CWPA days that have persisted through the change to SONAR and then into CbB, just to keep things familiar for legacy users. As much as I appreciate it, being a legacy user, I also realise this has to evolve and improve too.
   
• Some things look like they're already on the Baker's to-do list but it's a hell of a job to do it. EG: vector based UI. I'm actually shocked that this went ahead, honestly, because changing the entire function of a bitmap based UI to a new model and then ensuring it will work at different resolutions and still feel familiar to us old-timers can't be understated. Some companies NEVER attempt this kind of work on such a long-running product because the time needed is entirely disproportional to other lower hanging fruit that might benefit the general user base. But in this case, I think there's most definitely an eye on the future and a commitment to the long-term goals rather than keeping upper management happy this month.  This makes me super optimistic about other requested stuff, EG: External Inserts, Scripting Language, etc.
   
• The Bakers are listening. They wouldn't be in this thread chatting about it with us otherwise. This speaks volumes to me.

 

This is really eye-opening for me reading all of the replies and perspectives here. We obviously have to keep in mind that this is a Cakewalk forum so a lot of things are skewed in Cakewalk's favour, of course, but there's been some genuinely great suggestions and comparisons so far. I think all of us want our preferred DAW to be the best it can be, so I'm taking this thread - criticisms included - as being something really positive.  

But don't stop here, I'm sure there's plenty more ideas you guys have!

[iNate]

2 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

To me, if this was the only way to adjust fades and all of that, I'd call THAT clunky because in CbB you can do a lot of things right from the Track View. As it is, there's a lot of this in the Clip Inspector.  Some good ideas in that, though!

Samplitude Pro X allows you to create and edit fades in the arranger.  The object editor fade panel is there for a faster workflow.  It's a much more precise way of working vs. eyeballing things in the arranger, as a lot of things that take multiple clicks in Cakewalk can be done directly with one click in the Samplitude Pro X Object Editor.  The Object Editor also allows you to do clip-level automation that goes where the clip goes - a very useful feature.  Samplitude Pro X7 introduced a new Crossfade Editor, as well (and even X4 has a dedicated crossfade editor, just not as good as the new one), so you can get even better granular control over fades on both overlapping clips in one combined user interface.  I think it's the best crossfade editor in any DAW (I think it's the same as Sequoia's, now).

Cubase also got a new Crossfade Editor in v12.

When Editing Audio, I did not find working with fades and crossfades to be pleasant in Cakewalk.  I actually ran into a constant issue (probably exacerbated by ignorance) where if I dragged a clip to crossfade and then zoomed in to finesse the clip placement, the faded portion would "break off" from the source clip and stay stuck to the other clip.  It's like the crossfades would just break off and form their own distinct clips - basically automatically splitting off at the left and right boundary of the crossfade itself.  That is ... a weird thing to ever have happen...  There was probably a certain level of ignorance that exacerbated the frustration, but I have never encountered such a thing in any other audio editing software or DAW.

A crossfade editor at least similar to Cubase's would be a very nice addition.

Additionally, the round tripping to external editors isn't as good as Samplitude, which can automatically send only the part of the source audio file contained in the audio clip you are sending to the external editor.  In Cakewalk, you have to bounce the clip to its own audio file, or it will send the ENTIRE file to the external editor - not just the portion in the clip.  Also, you still have to edit the registry to add an External Editor to the Tools menu.  In any case, the workflow isn't as smooth or quick.

The Score Editor often scrolls out of sync with the arranger/playback sound, which can make the software feel sluggish.  It's probably literally sluggish in this instance, but I'm assuming that it's just a timing/sync issue (benefit of doubt).

I do think it's about time Cakewalk/Sonar starts putting some work into becoming "better" at working with audio, becasue I don't actually think Samplitude Pro X is really that much behind - if at all - when it comes to MIDI.  In some areas it's actually ahead (MPE Support, MIDI VST FX, etc.).

1 hour ago, Lord Tim said:

• A lot of the things people are calling "clunky" are shortcomings in their knowledge of CbB to a point. EG: Complaining you need to change Track Edit Filter to Clip Gain to adjust gain rather than just holding down CTRL and dragging from the top of a clip, or thinking you have to put in nodes to adjust an envelope section rather than doing a time range selection and dragging down from the clip top. This bypasses all of that assumed clunk and makes it just as fast as other DAWs who have a similar paradigm for envelope adjustments. There's a bunch of other great examples through the thread like this.

If you have to change Track Edit Filter to adjust Clip Gain, how is it ever as fast as another DAW that just allows you to directly make this adjustment directly on the arranger via a simple modifier (assuming you even need a modifier)?  The onus is not on the user to increase their familiarity with the software so that they can turn around and pretend the implementation is intuitive.

Intuitiveness increases accessibility and decreases friction and frustration for new users.  It DECREASES learning curve.  It allows new users to be more productive faster.  Software that has weird implementation manifestations are going to feel clunky when the vast majority of its competitors implement the same feature in a very similar - but quite different - manner.  This is important because first impressions are crucial for getting users to buy into the product.

None of what you say bypasses any clunk.  Familiarity doesn't create intuitiveness.  That's an oxymoron.  The clunk is why you have to look up how to switch Track Edit Filter to adjust clip gain in Cakewalk, but not in a number of other DAWs that basically do it in a manner that most users would simply expect it to be done.

In any case, I think "clunky" is an imprecise and overused term.  I think Fiddliness and [Practical] Operational Inefficiency is more apt in this case.  Similar to the comment about the Object Editor vs. Doing it in the Arranger.  If you're just creating sloppy Fades in an Arranger and moving on, the arranger is fine.  Every DAW can do that.  The reason why these Fade Editors exist (in several DAWs) is because when you actually need more precise work to be done, it's WAY faster to use those dedicated interfaces than to eyeball it and try to nudge it on the timeline, while clicking through context menus to change Fade Types, etc.  How something looks is often much different than how it actually feels to use when you're editing a lot of audio in a session.

And don't get me wrong... Having a feature with a slightly less optimal implementation is a far superior situation than not having it AT ALL.  But, it's a very competitive market and other products are already dominating the mindshare.  Fair or not... those trying to break into the conversation have to work harder because they're already fighting an uphill battle through the fog of disregard.

Edited June 13, 2023 by iNate

[Lord Tim]

21 minutes ago, iNate said:

If you have to change Track Edit Filter to adjust Clip Gain, how is it ever as fast as another DAW that just allows you to directly make this adjustment directly on the arranger via a simple modifier (assuming you even need a modifier)?

You don't, this is exactly my point.

Changing Edit Filters is one obvious way to do it, or you can just hold down a CTRL key and work on the clip directly.

The same goes for the crossfades, I think what you're finding is you're time selecting the clip and dragging it off so it splits it rather than moving the clip itself, which is why you have parts left behind.

Both of those things come back to what I was saying earlier - a shortcoming in knowledge of particular areas in a very complex and full featured program. There needs to be a much better push to get better tutorials (even baked in tutorials) so people don't get caught up on this and go "well that sucks and needs to be fixed" when it actual fact it already is "fixed" but it just works differently to what you might expect coming from some other DAW.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Lord Tim

[iNate]

No, I'm just grabbing the clip and dragging it over.

And it breaks off.

Dragging a clip and expecting the fade to increase or decrease when auto crossfade is turned on - without the portion of the clip in the crossfade splitting off from the source clip - is not a complex thing.  All DAWs are complex pieces of software, so I don't understand what the gist of that point is.  I'm absolutely not a DAW novice - this just struck me as an odd default behavior that I've never encountered elsewhere.

As I've stated (twice), ignorance could be an exacerbating factor - like a setting I'm unaware of being toggled on by default (though I typically go through all settings and menus after installing any software to make sure I know what the defaults are).

In almost any other DAW, this works pretty much the same way.  Cubase, Samplitude Pro X, REAPER, ACID Pro, Resolve Studio Fairlight, Logic Pro, WaveLab Pro, VEGAS Pro, etc.

User is not at fault for the developers choosing an esoteric implementation for a feature that works practically the same way in almost every other audio editing software on the market.  There may be legitimate reasons why they had to implement it in that way.

Like I said, it's not about things needing to be "fixed."  It's about the implementation being unintuitive.

Most beginners aren't trying to do complex multi-track audio warping for recorded drums and things like that.  They are getting tripped up on the very basics - things that they can simply install another Free DAW and not encounter the same friction.  That is not their fault.

Why read a manual when you can simply use a different application and it "just works the way you expect it to?"

I'm looking at it from their PoV, not my own defensive PoV.

Edited June 13, 2023 by iNate

[Lord Tim]

I can tell you now that moving a clip like that does not work like that for me - and it absolutely shouldn't, that would be a massive workflow stopper, and I'd suggest it doesn't do that for most of us here either, so something else is likely going on somewhere. It might be worth opening up a fresh thread and getting some animated GIFs or video preview of what you're doing and what tools you have selected so people can help that not happen for you. It would be little wonder they would get a bad impression if this is how they think it works - it really shouldn't. It works exactly as you'd expect in other DAWs for most of us here, so it's not some weird implementation.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Lord Tim