Another appeal to get the external insert issues sorted when Sonar is released

[norfolkmastering]

Some of us have been campaigning for years to get the issues with Cakewalk/Sonar's external inserts sorted, since way back into the Gibson ownership days.

I tried raising this with the help centre again recently but was told it was probably on a to-do list but with no timescale.  This is the reply we have always received for many years.

So the help centre suggested I try posting again on the issues,  in this forum.

Of course I realise that most Cakewalk users are probably working 100% in the box but for those of us with hybrid set ups, it continues to be a real pain.  Let me summarise the issues again:

1. CbB does not offer true mono external insert sends.  So if you allocate e.g. the left leg of a stereo pair, then the right leg is no longer available for use by another send.  CbB is the only major DAW with this very out of date limitation.  It is also inconsistent with the external insert returns which can be configured for true mono use.

2. CbB appears to offer the facility to configure a external send only.  The configuration is allowed and the meter shows the audio activity BUT no audio actually appears at the port.  If this was fixed we would have access to pre FX sends which is incredibly useful.  Again, there is inconsistency in that external insert returns only (i.e. with no corresponding send port allocation) are supported and I use these extensively as effect returns. 

3. CbB has issues with external inserts which are part of FX Chain Presets.  When such a preset is recalled and is in use, the audio engine often halts .  The only workaround is to extract the plugins from the FX Chain.

After all these years of asking for the external inserts to be overhauled, and with the new Sonar release in sight, it would be nice to get some level of commitment from the Bakers to get these issues on to a timetabled release.

If you are one of the design team reading this post, PLEASE reply.

[Starship Krupa]

I'm not as well-versed in this issue, as I only have a couple of outboard processors, so not in danger of running out of sends. But I've seen the plaintive cries over the years and sympathize with having "if they'd only fix this ONE DAMN FEATURE it would be the greatest thing ever" going around in my head.

To the extent that the devs have replied, I think they mentioned that mucking about in that area would be opening a can of dusty spaghetti, and they'd likely also want to do it better this time. The current method seemed kind of kluge-y when I tried it. When I've done it in the hardware world, that kind of thing is well-integrated into the mixer itself, not as an add=om.

From what I've seen, the devs really have their hands full trying to get the initial release of Sonar ready with the vector UI being the big new feature The silver lining with Sonar going payware is that the development will naturally shift in the direction of features. "Now with!" being a favorite marketing phrase. That could be "now with completely overhauled and expanded support for external rackmount signal processors!" Gotta have the word "rackmount" in there.?

Payware license-driven software development can hit the pitfall of adding a new feature, then letting it dangle in the wind when the development team is then put on the task of working on the next big set of features before things are fully right with the new feature, and from what I've seen, SONAR, with its various changes in management, may have suffered from that one. At least for the nasty crashy bugs, the current team have been ferociously active about setting that right.

There are older features that could get some love, like Matrix view and the Arpeggiator. My understanding is that those were grafted on from Project 5. The Matrix isn't as well-integrated as it could be (right click on clip, Send To Matrix cell, eh?), and there's no way to create and edit arpeggiator patterns. They're both features with more potential, especially for current music styles.

The boom in use of external processors is not a thing to discount. People shell out a LOT of money for those little mono 500 rack gadgets. I hope that BandLab goes back to the NAMM Show someday, last time I was there it seemed like half of Hall D was taken up by people peddling 500 rack stuff. I know from personal experience with my boutique pedal company that musicians LOVE using stuff that not everyone can find/afford/figure out how to use.  It's a segment of the market that doesn't mind opening their wallets. There's no reason not to treat them with the same importance that compatibility with software processors gets.

[norfolkmastering]

Thanks for your input and support.

I have a whole bank of 500 series gear (including a rack of Wes Audio EQ units which are VST controlled) and I use very little digital processing during mixdown, so external inserts are a big deal for me.

I know the development team is super busy getting Sonar ready but I hope they take a moment to feedback into this thread.

External inserts have been neglected for far too long!

[Xoo]

I gather it's because of how Windows exposes driver channels to Sonar/SONAR/CbB, at least in some driver modes (or all?).  If that is the case, then I assume, possibly incorrectly, that this doesn't apply to ASIO (also assumption based on the fact that other DAWs manage mono channels).

If this is the case then a couple of options:

- Support this when driver mode is ASIO but not otherwise;

- If this is too difficult (for some value of difficult!) then consider dropping support for non-ASIO driver modes.  Do a wide poll of users to ask whether they would prefer mono external I/O support or non-ASIO  driver support and go from there.  In the former case, time would need to be spent getting Sonar to work well with ASIO4All or equivalents (other DAWs do this, even shipping their own wrapper, so it's not an unreasonable position to take).

I do wonder if not having to deal with a myriad of driver modes is why other DAWs come with an ASIO4All or equivalent - just work with a single software interface and push the compatibility issues elsewhere.  It's not a stupid idea at all.

[norfolkmastering]

That's good input.  I could understand the logic (no pun intended!) if the track sends had the same restriction, but they don't.  You can quite happily allocate e.g. Track 1 send to the left leg of the stereo pair and then allocate the right leg to Track 2 send; so I can't see why insert sends should have to work differently?

Hopefully someone from the development team will be able to explain the issue in detail and what they can do about it.  It's been years and years of waiting!

[Starship Krupa]

8 hours ago, Xoo said:

I gather it's because of how Windows exposes driver channels to Sonar/SONAR/CbB, at least in some driver modes

Keep in mind that the Windows versions of REAPER and Studio One can handle mono external inserts no problem (or so I'm told). If anyone tries to tell you that the issue is some limitation or other of Windows.

I hold that if Windows program A can do something, it calls into question the credibility of claims by developers (or dedicated users) of Windows program B that they can't make Windows program B do that thing due to some shortcoming of Windows'.

The reason that some audio programs don't support WASAPI and instead either supply or recommend ASIO4ALL is that the people developing those programs are simply put, lame-o's. There is no other explanation or excuse for a Windows DAW not supporting WASAPI.

Cakewalk is in no danger of dropping support for WASAPI, and one of the many reasons is that the CTO worked closely with Microsoft when they were developing it.

[Xoo]

17 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Keep in mind that the Windows versions of REAPER and Studio One can handle mono external inserts no problem (or so I'm told). If anyone tries to tell you that the issue is some limitation or other of Windows.

 

17 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

Cakewalk is in no danger of dropping support for WASAPI, and one of the many reasons is that the CTO worked closely with Microsoft when they were developing it.

These two statements are quite hard to reconcile.

[Starship Krupa]

14 minutes ago, Xoo said:

These two statements are quite hard to reconcile.

Only if you believe that Cakewalk's inability to send a single stream of audio at a time via its external insert feature without also tying up a second audio stream is somehow down to a limitation of WASAPI. In my years of following this issue, I don't remember anyone else suggesting that.

While the introduction of WASAPI may have made it more difficult for Cakewalk's coders to change the external insert feature for whatever reason, it wasn't that WASAPI somehow only allowed I/O channels to be used in stereo pairs. SONAR introduced the ability to output individual mono channels with the same release it introduced support for WASAPI: SONAR 8. (source: Noel's blog)

The bottom line for me is that if Studio One and REAPER can do it, it is possible to do. And they're just the programs that I personally know can do it. There are probably more.

[John Vere]

I noticed in the release notes for Sonar something about fixing Inserts. Have you downloaded it yet? 

[norfolkmastering]

I have downloaded the new Sonar and it has all the same issues with the external inserts which I listed in the first post in this thread, so with a little bit more info:

1. Sonar and CbB do not offer true mono external insert sends.  So if you allocate e.g. the left leg of a stereo pair, then the right leg is no longer available for use by another send.  CbB is the only major DAW with this very out of date limitation.  It is also inconsistent with the external insert returns which can be configured for true mono use.

2. Sonar and CbB appear to offer the facility to configure a external send only.  The configuration is allowed and the meter shows the audio activity BUT no audio actually appears at the port.  If this was fixed we would have access to pre FX sends which is incredibly useful.  Again, there is inconsistency in that external insert returns only (i.e. with no corresponding send port allocation) are supported and I use these extensively as effect returns. 

3. Sonar and CbB have issues with external inserts which are part of FX Chain Presets.  When such a preset is recalled and is in use, the audio engine often halts . ('A Dropout has stopped the engine (12)'.  The only workaround is to extract the plugins from the FX Chain.

So sadly the development team haven't done any major work of external inserts.  I can only continue to make the case and see if I can further encourage one of the team to engage in discussion on this thread.  I'll keep trying!

[John Vere]

I guess the way things happen is they have to decide what they spend time on.

So if a lot of users are asking for a feature then they listen.

Then it also is depending on how easy/ hard  ( how much time) it will be to code in the requested feature. The easier ones are often added quickly.
The hard ones take much longer and if there’s only a few people requesting it it will never happen. 

So my guess that this one is both hard to implement as well as very few people are asking for it. 
 

My observation is real studios that use a lot of hardware would probably never use Cakewalk anyhow. 
 

Sure the developers could make an attempt to win those people over but software gets a reputation and it never goes away. 
Those people actually are also a  small part of today’s market share.
By making Cakewalk free they have created a giant user base of new users of which the majority are not professional audio engineers or even musicians. 
 

Don’t give up on your hardware. Personally I would be looking for the DAW that suits your workflow. 
You can always work with 2 lots of people do.
The old studio workflow involved different rooms and equipment. 
 

Edited March 7 by John Vere

[Glenn Stanton]

in the presonus space, it looks like they're using the PipelineXT plugin to create the "mono" paths on the stereo pair, and (in the examples shown) mono assignment on each of the non-stereo pairs of the presonus IO unit. (seems similar to the Kontakt output matrixing where you are virtualizing the outputs). https://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/4443978272397-Studio-1810c-Using-Pipeline-XT-in-Studio-One

so are folks asking for something like a matrix option in the external insert rather than the simplistic L-R-Mono on the outputs (send)? i only have a pair of outputs on my in-use unit whereas my rack unit has 8 so presumably i can select those L-R-Mono pairs as presented by the Windows OS.

[norfolkmastering]

I had a look at the Presonus PipelineXT plugin IO Matrix.  It looks to be a really easy way to program connections to external audio gear.  Personally I don't have a problem with the current CbB/Sonar External Insert interface.  It just needs to work properly!

Still waiting to get some comment from the design guys ...

[Glenn Stanton]

yeah, i think the matrix is a good way to hide the stereo vs mono OS designations by treating each as a selectable / independent channel.

[Starship Krupa]

17 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

are folks asking for something like a matrix option in the external insert rather than the simplistic L-R-Mono on the outputs (send)?

I think that at a basic level, what Norfolk wants to be able to do is: if an audio interface has 8 outputs, use 8 different external mono processors on 8 different channels. So if you have a mono sound source on channel 1, you can send to your interface's output 1, then also send a mono source from channel 2 to your interface's output 2.

The way it is now, a send can be configured as L+R, L, R, or Mono. The problem (as I understand it) is that if you put the External Insert on Channel 1 and set it to L, you can't put another instance on Channel 2 and use the leftover "R." Assuming that output 1 on your interface is half of stereo pair 1 and output 2 is the other half, you lose an entire output.

On 3/7/2024 at 6:46 AM, John Vere said:

my guess that this one is both hard to implement as well as very few people are asking for it. 

My observation is real studios that use a lot of hardware would probably never use Cakewalk anyhow. 

I believe that the use case for single mono sends is not "real studios that use a lot of hardware."

The theoretical pro studio will likely be using: 1, interfaces with plenty of stereo pairs and, 2, stereo rackmount processors. They'll also likely have 3, Waves Mercury and/or iZotope Everything subscriptions.

The target market I see for this functionality are people taking part in the current craze for "500" rack boutique processors. Here's an article from a few years ago about this phenomenon: https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/choosing-500-series-modules

I have a couple of friends who have these, some built from kits.

These things tend to be mono because of the modular nature of putting together a system (if you want "stereo," you buy 2 of them) and because their small size may not allow for more than one channel of analog goodness.

If you are working with a lot of these things (they seem to be rather addicting), you'll be aware of what the DAW needs to be able to do to make your life easier. Some DAW's don't provide for it at all, some provide for using as many outputs your interface has as sends, and at least one, Cakewalk, ties up 2 outputs per insert whether you need stereo or mono.

For instance, I have an interface with 10 outputs, 2 of which are dedicated to monitoring. With Cakewalk as it is, that would mean that if I had 2 vocal tracks and wanted to use external hardware compressors on each of them, I'd already have used up half of my interface's capacity and only be able to use 2 more compressors, which would mean choosing any 2 of bass, snare, kick, left overhead, and right overhead. Or maybe put a stereo Fairchild 670 clone on the master bus. But I would quickly be all out of sends.

On the other hand, were I able to use all of my sends, I could have mono processing on all of the aforementioned mono tracks and still have one send left over.

I personally mix entirely in the box these days. I have a few stray pieces of rackmount stuff that I rarely use. Cleaning up this feature isn't my personal fight. My wishes are for a nice software sampler ported over from Next, and/or some love shown toward Matrix.

But I do believe that this boutique hardware processor enthusiast market is worth accommodating. And it seems like an artificial limitation. There's no reason I can see for treating each hardware output as half of an inseparable stereo pair. It's a waste of resources.

I like Sonar and I would like to be able to recommend it to my friends without caveats like "but it's not the best if you want to use a lot of external sends." And if someday I get into 500 rack toys in a big way I'd like to be able to use them with Sonar with no restrictions.

[John Vere]

That surprises me that all of a sudden 500 series are popular. They’ve been around for a long time. I will make a guess that you’ve been sneaking around in Gearspace which is very dangerous! ?

Ya I just took about $3,000 worth of analog hardware to our new music store. The owner is super into collecting old gear and his store is now full of very interesting stuff on commission. I think he’s smart. New stuff is easy to purchase on line, but older stuff still sells and he’s got a good thing happening already. He also sells vinyl records and takes them on consignment too.  
My stuff I has been collecting dust for  a long time now. I still had all the original boxes an user manuals. 
So in a way my hardware is in the box! 

[norfolkmastering]

9 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

I believe that the use case for single mono sends is not "real studios that use a lot of hardware."

Thanks for an interesting take on the use of hardware outboard.  I do use quite a lot of mono hardware gear on mono tracks during mixdown, so typically:

Mono  EQ and mono compressor on bass guitar

Mono EQ and mono compressor on lead vocal

Mono EQ and mono compressor on each backing vocal

Mono EQ and mono compressor on each acoustic guitar

Mono EQ and mono compressor on fiddle

Mono EQ and mono compressor on mouth organ

I have a rack of Wes Audio EQs which I mostly use on the mono tracks

And I have a range of mono compressors, 1176s, WA2As and some SSA TTs.

Yes I have some stereo gear which I use on either stereo tracks or on the buses but quite a number of mic'd sources are mono in a typical project.

So that's why it would be great to get Sonar in-line with other 'big' DAWs like Cubase and Presonus Studio One and offer a properly sorted external insert system.

 

[Glenn Stanton]

it does seem odd then, as the exmaple from presonus - their interface was listed as L-R, L, R, Mono (as may be expected in Windows for example) but the matrix allowed each to be separately assigned (as if the LR stereo out/in was 2 sets of mono, and  the remainder of the 8 I/O where selectable in the matrix (as i would think is expected). 

so it seems the presonus matrix configuration is able to use the stereo I/O as two sets of mono.

[Starship Krupa]

22 hours ago, John Vere said:

I will make a guess that you’ve been sneaking around in Gearspace which is very dangerous!

I go back a bit further than that. When the boutique stompbox wave hit in the late 90's and early 00's, I was something of a figure in that scene. I had my own small company with a line of loving recreations of specific vintage fuzz boxes. My products were reviewed positively in Guitar Player and Guitarist. I don't talk about that phase of my life much around these parts, it doesn't usually come up.

I first became aware of the 500 rack craze about 15 years ago, watched it grow, knew a couple of the early movers, etc. There was of course some cross pollination between those scenes.

Which is all to say that I understand and am sympathetic with people who want to add some analog sauce to their productions. And the people who are into this kind of thing are not afraid to spend some money, which is always nice when building a user base.

It's a crowd I would hate to have alienated from using Sonar. They're good people to have around.

14 hours ago, norfolkmastering said:

I do use quite a lot of mono hardware gear on mono tracks during mixdown

So from that list of tracks and processors, I, with my pair of Saffire Pro 40's would easily be able to accommodate all that hardware only if  Sonar would let me use my outputs individually. Otherwise, I'd not be able to pull it off, and half of my outputs would be useless,

[David Baay]

FWIW, there is a workaround to use the left and right sides of the External Insert to process two mono signal independently though you'll still have to give up two I/O channels to the one EI instance:

1. Set the Outputs of two mono source tracks to a new Aux track named generically 'EI Host' and pan them hard left and right.

2. Add the External Insert to the FX Bin on 'EI Host' and assign I/O pairs to it as usual. 

3. Output the 'EI Host' track to a new Patch Point.

4. Create two 'EI Return (L)' and 'EI Return (R)' tracks and set their Inputs to the left and right sides of the new Patch Point (renaming it "EI Return" in the process for clarity).

5. Leave the Interleave of the two Return tracks set to stereo.

You can now route the two I/O channels through indpendent mono FX. The 'Return' tracks will echo and record the processed signals independently and muting/soloing/panning will work as usual. The one anomaly you might notice is that the Confidence Recording preview will show the two return signals merged to a mono waveform while recording, but when you stop recording, you'll see the correct mono waveform in each track. 

Also, I found the input assignments of the Return tracks changed to Stereo when I saved this setup as a Track Template which is unfortunate.

@msmcleod Did say he would look into addressing this limitation at some point, but that it wasn't trivial.