Cakewalk now exclusively available through BandLab Membership

[Bapu]

24 minutes ago, Bapu said:

Here's an update based on nearly two days of experimentation with ReaCWP and Project Converter attempting to take a MIDI only CbB project to Studio One. @PavlovsCat may be interested.

It required some manipulation after these steps:

1. Consolidate all MIDI tracks (not 100% sure this is necessary but a 'safety' step', Save song as well as Fabfilter C 2 VST3 settings as a preset. 10 minutes.

2. Open Reaper (with axslow3's ReacCWP plugin installed) and open Lasse's .cwp, Save a s a Reaper .rpp file. 2 minutes.

3. Open the free Project Converter (v1.2.2) and convert the sabed .rpp in step 2 to a DAWProject file. 2 minutes.

4. Open Studio One and open the DAWProject file. 3 minutes (Kontakt and Opus took some time to load). Now here is where the fun started.

4.1. Project temp was off (120, not 90) and the MIDI performed as such. So I went back to Cakewalk and saved the project in MIDI 1 format. 3 minutes.

4.2. Removed all MIDI in Studio one and replaced it with the output of the MIDI 1 saved file. 5 minutes.

4.3. Now the DAWProject file seemed to think that Kontakt and Opus were audio Fxs not instruments (that took some time to research). So, it created audio tracks with Kontakt and Opus as 'inserts'. As we know Studio One wants instruments in the Instrument Rack and then have instruments tracks feed their MIDI data to the respective instrument.

The conversion did create instruments tracks with the MIDI correctly. But they had no "instrument" to pint to.

Nothing played.

Thiis mishap is on Instruments is either azslow3 or moss (from the Reaper Forum) issue to be solved. I'll be taking it up with them.

Small issue is that although FabFilter C-2 (VST3) was in the Reaper project, and the guts of the DAWProject file creted by Project Converter knew about it, Studio one did not have Fabfiler C-2 VST 3 in it (not the VST version either). That too needs to be taken up with moss in the Reaper forum.

But here's the weird part. All instances of Kontakt and Opus do a send to EW Spaces II. Spaces II is in the .rpp and DAWproject files. And it's in Studio One after opening the DAWProject file with the correct settings.

Fortunately, the inserts of Kontakt and Opus (11 in all) were configured correctly. So, I simply dragged them to the instrument Rack and then pointed the instruments tracks to their correct instance of Kontakt and/or Opus. (20 is minutes or so).

Then I added Fabfilter C-2 VST3 and loaded the saved preset made back in Cakewalk. (1 minute)

The project plays "pretty much like the original wav file. I did not null test yet. I'd expect them to probably not null but I'd rather just trust my ears that it's good enough to start with if I were inclined to either edit/add to/remix the orchestra.

Knowing what I know now, it would take about an hour or so to do similar sided projects.

Hopefully azslow3 and moss can get their issues sorted out.

I've contacted both @azslow3 and moss on the Reaper forum. We'll see if either agrees they need to fix something.

The biggest finger pointing I'd expect is how the DAWProject file thinks that Kontakt and Opus are FXs and not instruments. (as a programmer I'd say the issue is somewhere between ReaCWP and Project Converter).

Footnote, if I create a Studio One project with Opus in it and I interrogate the DAWProject XML file it thinks it is an  "instrument" (uh DUH!).

The secondary finger pointing is either between  ReaCWP and Project Converter or between Project Converter and Studio One. That's the FabFilter C-2 VST3 plugin being in Reaper but not Studio One.

Footnote: In interrogating the DAWProject file created by Project Converter there is no entry for FabFilter. Still is ReaCWP creating it incorrectly in the .rpp (it's there and works) or is Project Converter not seeing understanding it correctly.

[Larry Shelby]

[PavlovsCat]

On 6/15/2024 at 7:44 PM, cclarry said:

That's not wrong. It is largely a complaint that is very reflective of Boomers. When I was looking at some related research several months ago, the differences between how older and younger generations view software subscriptions is very different. Also, there's a huge difference in how pros / business buyers view software subscriptions compared to how consumers view it. My business has a good deal of software subscriptions (it's a dot com). But as a hobbyist, in my personal life, my views are very much like that of Boomers.  I prefer perpetual licenses for my software. 

Edited June 17 by PavlovsCat

[aidan o driscoll]

11 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

That's not wrong. It is largely a compliant that is very reflective of Boomers. When I was looking at some related research several months ago, the differences between how older and younger generations view software subscriptions is very different. Also, there's a huge difference in how pros / business buyers view software subscriptions compared to how consumers view it. My business has a good deal of software subscriptions (it's a dot com). But as a hobbyist, in my personal life, my views are very much like that of Boomers.  I prefer perpetual licenses for my software. 

Yip, I run my own small web/IT biz ... reason biz might favour subs is that they are good for cashflow .. 

Edited June 16 by aidan o driscoll

[Bapu]

1 hour ago, aidan o driscoll said:

Yip, I run my own small web/IT biz ... reason biz might favour subs is that they are good for cashflow .. 

Yup, your cash is always flowing to the company that only offers subscriptions ? 

 

j/k see my signature

Edited June 16 by Bapu

[Dave Maffris]

Thanks for the link, I read the article. Still on the fence about it. What is clear is that this is the cost of updating and incrementally developing Cakewalk, ie. Sonar, et al. I didn't see too much that jumped out at me as a "must have" but I can see it's heading to a  point where it might be worthwhile to subscribe. I guess having the option is good.

[aidan o driscoll]

What I dont get is it seems they wantv you to subscribe for a whole package including alot of promo tools and all that and then also you get NEXT and SONAR as part of the deal.

Why would you need both NEXT and SONAR? and supposing you just want NEXT and not SONAR or visa versa? 

If Subscribe is the route then there should be different subscriptions and prices for different tiers surely. Again I cannot see a reason why you would need SONAR and NEXT

[Starship Krupa]

21 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

My business has a good deal of software subscriptions (it's a dot com). But as a hobbyist, in my personal life, my views are very much like that of Boomers.  I prefer perpetual licenses for my software.

Might you not also say that when it comes to business, your views on subscriptions are like that of businesses, and when it comes to your personal computing, your views are like that of hobbyists?

I don't think it comes down to a "preference" or what one is most comfortable with, it comes down to what role the software has in your life. And how often you expect to use it.

For some kinds of software, subscriptions make the most sense.

It depends on what the software does, how much it costs (subscription vs. perp), and it's different for different people.

For me, making music is a hobby. I want a DAW around with a bunch of good plug-ins for when the mood strikes me. I don't get up, brush my teeth, have breakfast and then sit down and work at my DAW to get paid. So I buy it once, and there it is.

If I were running a business, and DAW software was part of the business, I'd probably be on some kind of a subscription.

Not because of a preference driven by being part of a generational cohort, but because when it has that role, it makes sense. It's preferable for accounting. Businesses would rather lease things than buy them outright.

People say "subscription is what the trend is," but y'know what I see in the audio software market? The "trend" is for companies to initially try to sell their products only via subscription, but then back down and offer perpetual licenses.

This has been the case for AVID and Waves, arguably two industry leaders in audio software. So I think THAT's what the actual "trend" is.

So perhaps BandLab are following the audio software trend: try subscription-only and see what happens.

Whatever, the lack of a definite answer regarding a perp license is trying even my patience, and I think I'm historically one of the biggest rah-rah's on this forum for BandLab and their Cakewalk experiment. But at the moment I'm just tired of it.

One of the important things about whatever software I use is whether I can recommend it. I love to get friends hooked up with software that they can use to make music. CbB was perfect for musicians just getting their feet wet using DAW's. Good program, hands-down the best deal (free).

I can't recommend a DAW that's subscription-only, so at the moment, Sonar can't get any recommendations from me. That's too bad, because I do see it as the largest step forward for the program since BandLab stepped in. Looks great, runs great, and it's clear that there will be more UI improvements as time goes on.

At the moment, my recommendation for people new to DAW's is still CbB, given that it remains free, but I'd like to be able to recommend Sonar.

On the other hand, both Studio One Artist and Mixcraft are excellent alternatives that both offer reasonably priced perpetual licenses.

Edited June 16 by Starship Krupa