Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version as a special Christmas treat to us all. Do I get a hooray? Merry Christmas every one. Steve http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp
"Steve Corr" <> wrote in message news:... > Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version > as a special Christmas treat to us all. > Do I get a hooray? > Merry Christmas every one. > Steve > > http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp OK G'bo. Do yer thang. Poly
In news:495257a4$0$20298$ the killer robot "polymod" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... >> Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version >> as a special Christmas treat to us all. >> Do I get a hooray? >> Merry Christmas every one. >> Steve >> >> http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp > > OK G'bo. Do yer thang. I will in fact be trying it out over the next few days. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
"Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns9B7E6553F2CF6BrownShoesDontMakeIt@207.115.17.102... > In news:495257a4$0$20298$ the killer robot "polymod" > <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship > cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > > >> Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version > >> as a special Christmas treat to us all. > >> Do I get a hooray? > >> Merry Christmas every one. > >> Steve > >> > >> http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp > > > > OK G'bo. Do yer thang. > > I will in fact be trying it out over the next few days. Would have never guessed <G> My bet's still on the big "R". Poly
"Steve Corr" <> wrote in message news:... > Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version > as a special Christmas treat to us all. > Do I get a hooray? > Merry Christmas every one. > Steve > > http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp Hip! Hip! Hooray!
In news:4952a06d$0$20303$ the killer robot "polymod" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... >> >> Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version >> >> as a special Christmas treat to us all. >> >> Do I get a hooray? >> >> Merry Christmas every one. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp >> > >> > OK G'bo. Do yer thang. >> >> I will in fact be trying it out over the next few days. > > Would have never guessed <G> > My bet's still on the big "R". Ok, so here's what I've amassed so far. I installed the Sonar 8 demo, and started playing with it in ASIO mode, set the way I run Reaper. I was pleasantly surprised to find, it could run at that low of latency. So I proceed to setup a template that will have my drums configured and a bunch of audio tracks ready to go. Since I have my soundcard set to *not* do direct monitoring, I don't hear anything like a bass, guitar, or vocal until I have input monitoring happening in some app. So I use Sonar 8's global input monitoring button, which turns on input monitoring for every channel and I save my template. Then I get out my little shorty Gretsch bass, plug it in, arm a track for recording, hit a note and MASSIVE FREEKING VOLUME happens. It turns out that Cake's implementation of input monitoring is not dependent on having a track in record ready LIKE IT SHOULD BE, but instead the input monitoring is live, whether in record ready or not, which means that I had 20 some audio tracks, all playing my bass, even though only one track was actually lit up for recording. Didn't anyone at Cake ever own a reel-to-reel multitrack tape deck? All the hardware based recorders I ever had didn't pass signal from the board through the tape deck until you put a track into record ready. Then you got meter activity and sound passed through. So I turned *off* input monitoring for every channel, but that now means that every time I record a track, I press record, but I can't hear my bass, guitar, or vocal *until* I also press input monitoring on that track. When I'm done with that track, I have to deselect record and deselect input monitoring. Not that huge of a deal, but not really implemented the way it should be IMHO. The bigger deal was once I recorded four audio tracks and some midi drums. As I added parts, I began to notice more and more little snaps in the playback. They do not exist in the recorded wave, but randomly appear in the audio during playback. Because they are random, they never occur at the same place. I noticed also that one core of my Core 2 Duo was always loaded a bit higher than the other, and the load switched back and forth at a rate of about one second. With four audio and one midi track I was seeing loads of about 30% on one and 20% on the other, constantly switching which one had the bigger load. So I turned off multi-processor support, and all the snaps and pops went away. While this works, I'm not real hip to it, as the CPU use jumped up to 50%, but was very steady then. I also was able to get the snaps and pops to go away by killing the midi track, so that I was playing back only audio data. Here's a screen cap of it playing my 4 audio and 1 midi track. http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8.jpg Look at the CPU meter at the bottom right of the pic. One core is doing twice the work of the other, and I'm hearing little snaps and pops as it plays. Here's a screenshot of the same song playing with multi-processor support turned off. No little snaps or pops happening, but 50% CPU use on only 5 tracks now. http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8-2.jpg I have been looping this entire song for quite some time now, and haven't had any motorboating, or crashes, and maybe there's some tweaks that can be done in Sonar 8 that gan get rid of the little snaps and pops when running with multi-processor support enabled. Other than the input monitoring issue, which is more of just an annoyance, the only real problem I'm seeing is with multi-processor support. My gut feeling is that how the tasks are being divided is not very equal, and as such, one core gets more work to do and is likely the guy that's introducing the little pops I'm hearing when using multi-processor support. The first pic I posted shows that one core has twice the load of the other. This happens through out the entire playback of my test song plus the more heavily loaded core keeps switching places with the lighter loaded core as the test song plays. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
Glennbo wrote: > > I have been looping this entire song for quite some time now, and haven't > had any motorboating, or crashes, and maybe there's some tweaks that can be > done in Sonar 8 that gan get rid of the little snaps and pops when running > with multi-processor support enabled. Other than the input monitoring > issue, which is more of just an annoyance, the only real problem I'm seeing > is with multi-processor support. My gut feeling is that how the tasks are > being divided is not very equal, and as such, one core gets more work to do > and is likely the guy that's introducing the little pops I'm hearing when > using multi-processor support. The first pic I posted shows that one core > has twice the load of the other. This happens through out the entire > playback of my test song plus the more heavily loaded core keeps switching > places with the lighter loaded core as the test song plays. > Have you tried turning X-Ray view off. I believe the switch is in the Global options. I had a problem with the Cakewalk Studio Instruments causing pops and snaps and I was advised by tech support to do that. I thought that odd that tech support had to tell me to turn off a feature so that I could use one of their own products. -- Dave (Mod Bod) Modisette www.gatortraks.com www.gatortraks.com/forum
In news:49552247$0$4890$ the killer robot Mod Bod <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... >> I have been looping this entire song for quite some time now, and >> haven't had any motorboating, or crashes, and maybe there's some >> tweaks that can be done in Sonar 8 that gan get rid of the little >> snaps and pops when running with multi-processor support enabled. >> Other than the input monitoring issue, which is more of just an >> annoyance, the only real problem I'm seeing is with multi-processor >> support. My gut feeling is that how the tasks are being divided is >> not very equal, and as such, one core gets more work to do and is >> likely the guy that's introducing the little pops I'm hearing when >> using multi-processor support. The first pic I posted shows that one >> core has twice the load of the other. This happens through out the >> entire playback of my test song plus the more heavily loaded core >> keeps switching places with the lighter loaded core as the test song >> plays. >> > > Have you tried turning X-Ray view off. I believe the switch is in the > Global options. I had a problem with the Cakewalk Studio Instruments > causing pops and snaps and I was advised by tech support to do that. > > I thought that odd that tech support had to tell me to turn off a > feature so that I could use one of their own products. Well, I just tried disabling X-Ray, but it made no difference. I still get several snaps and pops while playing back my 4 audio and 1 midi test song. Any other ideas (other than increasing latency), like ini tweaks, etc.? -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
On the input monitoring issue, remember that there are two types of input monitoring in SONAR. One is based on your explicitly turning input monitoring on for a specific track (or set of tracks). That seems like the one you are using. I rarely use that, but do have to use it when recording multiple MIDI tracks at once, such as in the case of B4, where I use one track for each manual of the organ. The other simply monitors whichever track has the focus at the time. If you're overdubbing an instrument at a time, that is likely the one you'll want to use in most cases, but it does require that you consciously place the focus on the given track before recording it. Of course, if the last thing you do is arm record for the track, then odds are you're doing that anyway, but you do have to be careful not to then do something on another track that shifts the focus (or to come back to the track you are recording to shift the focus back to it). While I can understand your point on the tape deck analogy, I personally would not want to have to arm a track for recording to hear what I'm playing, because there are many times, while working up an arrangement or just experimenting, when I want to play a softsynth along with whatever is going on, and it's rare for me to have the track in Record at that point. Of course, any tape decks I've had also had an "all input monitored" switch to do what you mention SONAR is doing in the one case. I'm not sure I understand the "MASSIVE FREEKING VOLUME" comment, though. Are you suggesting the input monitoring of your Gretsch was playing, in parallel, through all the tracks you input monitoring on? If so, it probably means you were running the same audio input to all those channels, whereas you wouldn't have that analogy in a normal tape deck with its eight, or however many, different hardware inputs. In that case, your Gretsch would only be coming through one of the inputs connected to one of the channels, instead of one input multiplexed to all of the channels. In any event, my suggestion would be to simply use the input monitoring option that input monitors whichever track has the focus. I"m pretty sure that is the default anyway, in which case, as long as you're not trying to record to two or more tracks in parallel, you'd never have to worry about explicitly turning input monitoring on anywhere. With respect to the multiprocessor CPU usage, I don't find it odd that the numbers wouldn't be even on the two CPUs. SONAR (or any application) has to divide the threads up logically with regards to internal dependencies, and it's quite conceivable that, especially with an odd number of threads, but even in cases with even numbers of threads, there could be some imbalance between the requirements of any given threads, especially in cases where there isn't a whole lot going on (i.e. where minute differences are bigger in relation to the overall workload). The crackles and pops in the output in MP mode may suggest your audio interface isn't very MP-friendly at low latencies. I remember, for example, that one time I was running a standalone NI softsynth (probably KONTAKT 3, but I don't recall for certain), and I tried to set the ASIO latency to the lowest latency my sound card supports, and it warned me that I had to use a higher latency due to using MP mode. That seemed strange to me at first, but then perhaps the potential of context switching between CPUs happening at any time means things get riskier with low latency streaming going on. (I think in that case I had wanted to use 2 ms, and it required me to use 4 ms or higher.) Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic ======================================= "Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns9B806BDABACA4BrownShoesDontMakeIt@69.16.185.250... > In news:4952a06d$0$20303$ the killer robot "polymod" > <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship > cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >>> >> Seems Cakewalk have finally stuck up a trial version >>> >> as a special Christmas treat to us all. >>> >> Do I get a hooray? >>> >> Merry Christmas every one. >>> >> Steve >>> >> >>> >> http://www.cakewalk.com/support/kb/kb20081217.asp >>> > >>> > OK G'bo. Do yer thang. >>> >>> I will in fact be trying it out over the next few days. >> >> Would have never guessed <G> >> My bet's still on the big "R". > > Ok, so here's what I've amassed so far. I installed the Sonar 8 demo, and > started playing with it in ASIO mode, set the way I run Reaper. I was > pleasantly surprised to find, it could run at that low of latency. > > So I proceed to setup a template that will have my drums configured and a > bunch of audio tracks ready to go. Since I have my soundcard set to *not* > do direct monitoring, I don't hear anything like a bass, guitar, or vocal > until I have input monitoring happening in some app. So I use Sonar 8's > global input monitoring button, which turns on input monitoring for every > channel and I save my template. Then I get out my little shorty Gretsch > bass, plug it in, arm a track for recording, hit a note and MASSIVE > FREEKING VOLUME happens. It turns out that Cake's implementation of input > monitoring is not dependent on having a track in record ready LIKE IT > SHOULD BE, but instead the input monitoring is live, whether in record > ready or not, which means that I had 20 some audio tracks, all playing my > bass, even though only one track was actually lit up for recording. > Didn't > anyone at Cake ever own a reel-to-reel multitrack tape deck? All the > hardware based recorders I ever had didn't pass signal from the board > through the tape deck until you put a track into record ready. Then you > got meter activity and sound passed through. > > So I turned *off* input monitoring for every channel, but that now means > that every time I record a track, I press record, but I can't hear my > bass, > guitar, or vocal *until* I also press input monitoring on that track. > When > I'm done with that track, I have to deselect record and deselect input > monitoring. Not that huge of a deal, but not really implemented the way > it > should be IMHO. > > The bigger deal was once I recorded four audio tracks and some midi drums. > As I added parts, I began to notice more and more little snaps in the > playback. They do not exist in the recorded wave, but randomly appear in > the audio during playback. Because they are random, they never occur at > the same place. I noticed also that one core of my Core 2 Duo was always > loaded a bit higher than the other, and the load switched back and forth > at > a rate of about one second. With four audio and one midi track I was > seeing loads of about 30% on one and 20% on the other, constantly > switching > which one had the bigger load. > > So I turned off multi-processor support, and all the snaps and pops went > away. While this works, I'm not real hip to it, as the CPU use jumped up > to 50%, but was very steady then. I also was able to get the snaps and > pops to go away by killing the midi track, so that I was playing back only > audio data. Here's a screen cap of it playing my 4 audio and 1 midi > track. > > http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8.jpg > > Look at the CPU meter at the bottom right of the pic. One core is doing > twice the work of the other, and I'm hearing little snaps and pops as it > plays. Here's a screenshot of the same song playing with multi-processor > support turned off. No little snaps or pops happening, but 50% CPU use on > only 5 tracks now. > > http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8-2.jpg > > I have been looping this entire song for quite some time now, and haven't > had any motorboating, or crashes, and maybe there's some tweaks that can > be > done in Sonar 8 that gan get rid of the little snaps and pops when running > with multi-processor support enabled. Other than the input monitoring > issue, which is more of just an annoyance, the only real problem I'm > seeing > is with multi-processor support. My gut feeling is that how the tasks are > being divided is not very equal, and as such, one core gets more work to > do > and is likely the guy that's introducing the little pops I'm hearing when > using multi-processor support. The first pic I posted shows that one core > has twice the load of the other. This happens through out the entire > playback of my test song plus the more heavily loaded core keeps switching > places with the lighter loaded core as the test song plays. > > -- > Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email > ________ __ > / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ > / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ > / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / > \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo > Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits > Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
In news: the killer robot "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > While I can understand your point on the tape deck analogy, I > personally would not want to have to arm a track for recording to hear > what I'm playing, because there are many times, while working up an > arrangement or just experimenting, when I want to play a softsynth > along with whatever is going on, and it's rare for me to have the > track in Record at that point. Of course, any tape decks I've had also > had an "all input monitored" switch to do what you mention SONAR is > doing in the one case. I totally want to have to have record enabled to hear what I'm playing. If I'm playing something, it's because I'm getting ready to record a part, and I only want to be hearing the part play through the track that I have in record ready. > I'm not sure I understand the "MASSIVE FREEKING VOLUME" comment, > though. Are you suggesting the input monitoring of your Gretsch was > playing, in parallel, through all the tracks you input monitoring on? That's exactly what happens. If every track has input monitoring turned on, then every track is showing meter activity and blasting sound through to my monitors, even though only *one* track is in record ready. > If so, it probably means you were running the same audio input to all > those channels, whereas you wouldn't have that analogy in a normal > tape deck with its eight, or however many, different hardware inputs. Well duh, I've got a stereo output mixer and a stereo input sound card. Yes, when I had the ten thousand dollar Ampex and two thousand dollar mixer, there were 8 sends on the mixer and 8 inputs on the tape deck. Actually, from the other forum I've found that you *can* hold shift and hit record, which gets the behavior I prefer to see (although it would be better if I didn't have to hold shift). > In that case, your Gretsch would only be coming through one of the > inputs connected to one of the channels, instead of one input > multiplexed to all of the channels. When I had my Tascam 80-8 and Tascam mixer, I only had four outs on the mixer, but 8 ins on the tape deck. I didn't have any problems with hearing the part doubled on another track with that equipment, because it didn't pass signal through to my monitors *until* I pressed record ready, so the track that shared the same output from my mixer didn't pass the signal, if it wasn't also in record ready. > In any event, my suggestion would be to simply use the input > monitoring option that input monitors whichever track has the focus. > I"m pretty sure that is the default anyway, in which case, as long as > you're not trying to record to two or more tracks in parallel, you'd > never have to worry about explicitly turning input monitoring on > anywhere. The method of holding shift when clicking record does exactly as I prefer, except for the having to remember to hold shift. > With respect to the multiprocessor CPU usage, I don't find it odd that > the numbers wouldn't be even on the two CPUs. SONAR (or any > application) has to divide the threads up logically with regards to > internal dependencies, and it's quite conceivable that, especially > with an odd number of threads, but even in cases with even numbers of > threads, there could be some imbalance between the requirements of any > given threads, especially in cases where there isn't a whole lot going > on (i.e. where minute differences are bigger in relation to the > overall workload). I'm seeing one core with twice the load of the other, throughout the song. They alternate too. IOW, when the song starts playing it may be that core 1 is hitting 50% and core 2 is hitting 25%, but within a second or two, they switch such that core 1 has the 25% load and core 2 gets the 50% load. > The crackles and pops in the output in MP mode may suggest your audio > interface isn't very MP-friendly at low latencies. Rick, with all due respect, I run Reaper on this same card with the same effects and the same type of load and *never*, and I mean *NEVER* get these types of snaps and pops running ASIO with 64 samples latency in my Delta control panel. > I remember, for > example, that one time I was running a standalone NI softsynth > (probably KONTAKT 3, but I don't recall for certain), and I tried to > set the ASIO latency to the lowest latency my sound card supports, and > it warned me that I had to use a higher latency due to using MP mode. > That seemed strange to me at first, but then perhaps the potential of > context switching between CPUs happening at any time means things get > riskier with low latency streaming going on. (I think in that case I > had wanted to use 2 ms, and it required me to use 4 ms or higher.) I run all kinds of stand alone ASIO synths at 64 samples latency, and never have any snaps or pops. I use the standalone player version of Superior Drummer 2, I've played extensively with the Proteus VX standalone as well as NI B4 and FM7, but to be honest, if I want to play any of those just for fun, I end up doing it through Reaper, because I might suddenly want to record what I'm jamming on. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
I have often wished for Cake to have more user-configurable default behaviors for many of these features such as how input monitoring is handled. Features can be very flexible but it means a lot of extra clicking or keystrokes when what you'd really like is a specific default behavior from the program. For input monitoring, I'd like to set my default a little different than what Cake has available. For me it would be: Input Monitoring follows Recording Armed/Disarmed state. I'd implement that option this way: 1. If user arms the track, input monitoring for that track is automatically on (if not already on), 2. If user disarms the track, input monitoring for that track is automatically off (if not already off). Note that input monitoring can still be further manipulated following an arm/disarm function. If I arm a track, I can subsequently turn off input monitoring for that track. If I disarm a track, I can subsequently turn on input monitoring for that track. But if next I use arm/disarm, input monitoring would always follow as per my default behavior setting. Just my $0.02 USD. -- Sue Morton Glennbo wrote: > I totally want to have to have record enabled to hear what I'm > playing. If I'm playing something, it's because I'm getting ready to > record a part, and I only want to be hearing the part play through > the track that I have in record ready.
In news:y8v5l.11563$ the killer robot "Sue Morton" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > I have often wished for Cake to have more user-configurable default > behaviors for many of these features such as how input monitoring is > handled. Features can be very flexible but it means a lot of extra > clicking or keystrokes when what you'd really like is a specific > default behavior from the program. > > For input monitoring, I'd like to set my default a little different > than what Cake has available. For me it would be: Input Monitoring > follows Recording Armed/Disarmed state. > > I'd implement that option this way: 1. If user arms the track, input > monitoring for that track is automatically on (if not already on), 2. > If user disarms the track, input monitoring for that track is > automatically off (if not already off). > > Note that input monitoring can still be further manipulated following > an arm/disarm function. If I arm a track, I can subsequently turn off > input monitoring for that track. If I disarm a track, I can > subsequently turn on input monitoring for that track. But if next I > use arm/disarm, input monitoring would always follow as per my default > behavior setting. > > Just my $0.02 USD. Your description is the exact behavior I expected I would get when I globally enabled input monitoring. I expected that it would not perform input echo until I armed a track, and then only do input echo on that one single armed track. When mixing on the big board with a lot of discreet channels to tracks on the tape deck, I used this type of monitoring so that I would for sure that what I am hearing is what I'm getting to tape. If I don't hear a part, it's because it's not ready to record. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
FWIW, my default behavior would be to never use input monitoring on audio tracks (though you could override it you want to for whatever reason) and to always use it on softsynth tracks, though following the focus as it does by default in the latter case. Reason is because I use my audio interface's direct monitoring for audio tracks, and the only exception might be if I had a guitar player come over and wanted to let him/her plug in directly and monitor through an amp simulator. (For my own "guitar" tracks, I'm using softsynths, so that is already covered in the above.) I agree that it might be nice to have more flexible default options, however. SONAR's defaults do actually happen to be my preferred defaults, so I would not be likely to change my setup anyway. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic ======================================= "Sue Morton" <> wrote in message news:y8v5l.11563$... >I have often wished for Cake to have more user-configurable default >behaviors for many of these features such as how input monitoring is >handled. Features can be very flexible but it means a lot of extra >clicking or keystrokes when what you'd really like is a specific default >behavior from the program. > > For input monitoring, I'd like to set my default a little different than > what Cake has available. For me it would be: Input Monitoring follows > Recording Armed/Disarmed state. > > I'd implement that option this way: 1. If user arms the track, input > monitoring for that track is automatically on (if not already on), 2. If > user disarms the track, input monitoring for that track is automatically > off (if not already off). > > Note that input monitoring can still be further manipulated following an > arm/disarm function. If I arm a track, I can subsequently turn off input > monitoring for that track. If I disarm a track, I can subsequently turn > on input monitoring for that track. But if next I use arm/disarm, input > monitoring would always follow as per my default behavior setting. > > Just my $0.02 USD. > -- > Sue Morton > > Glennbo wrote: >> I totally want to have to have record enabled to hear what I'm >> playing. If I'm playing something, it's because I'm getting ready to >> record a part, and I only want to be hearing the part play through >> the track that I have in record ready. > >
In news: the killer robot "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > FWIW, my default behavior would be to never use input monitoring on > audio tracks (though you could override it you want to for whatever > reason) and to always use it on softsynth tracks, though following the > focus as it does by default in the latter case. Reason is because I > use my audio interface's direct monitoring for audio tracks, and the > only exception might be if I had a guitar player come over and wanted > to let him/her plug in directly and monitor through an amp simulator. > (For my own "guitar" tracks, I'm using softsynths, so that is already > covered in the above.) I record *everything* through effects. When I'm laying a part down, it sounds like it's going to sound in the final mix, because I'm mixing as I'm recording. When I record a bass, it's through a PSP Vintage Warmer. When I reord a guitar, it's through through possibly three to five effects, same with vocals or anything else that's not a softsynth. I find that I play or sing the part better, when I am hearing it sounding like it will sound in the real mix. Recording audio tracks dry to me would be like playing a squeeky clean guitar solo that will eventually have screaming distortion and sustain. You're not going to be holding out, and applying vibrato to a sound that decays very quickly, so you "play the sound" you are hearing. Same is true when it's a vocal or bass line IMO. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
"Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns9B81A35482D82BrownShoesDontMakeIt@69.16.185.247... > In news: the killer robot > I record *everything* through effects. When I'm laying a part down, it > sounds like it's going to sound in the final mix, because I'm mixing as > I'm recording. When I record a bass, it's through a PSP Vintage Warmer. > When I reord a guitar, it's through through possibly three to five > effects, same with vocals or anything else that's not a softsynth. I > find that I play or sing the part better, when I am hearing it sounding > like it will sound in the real mix. Recording audio tracks dry to me > would be like playing a squeeky clean guitar solo that will eventually > have screaming distortion and sustain. You're not going to be holding > out, and applying vibrato to a sound that decays very quickly, so you > "play the sound" you are hearing. Same is true when it's a vocal or bass > line IMO. To each his own. For my purposes the only audio tracks I every record are vocals (all my instrumental tracks are softsynths, or, occasionally, audio loops), and I like to monitor totally dry when I'm doing them, then experiment with any processing later. If'I'm recording another singer who does need to hear reverb, and/or any other effects, on the voice, then I just use the DSP effects built into my audio interface for monitoring purposes only (i.e. the signal from the vocal goes to the ASIO driver before going to the effects for monitoring). Even when doing softsynth guitar parts, though, while I do monitor through an amp simulator, I often end up experimenting with amps and settings after I've done the recording, so things could change fairly dramatically compared to what I was monitoring by when tracking. And that is really one of the few cases where I do monitor through effects when tracking. In most other cases, I deal with effects settings at mix time. Where your way of doing things makes what is played be affected by the effects, my way makes how I set the effects be affected by what is played. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
In news: the killer robot "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > Where your way of doing things makes what is played be affected by the > effects, my way makes how I set the effects be affected by what is > played. Like you say, to each his own. On another note, after spending a few days with the Sonar 8 demo, I can say that they have really made the ASIO support much better and able to run at lower latency than previous versions, but in my particular case, where I am currently able to run my Delta AP2496 card in Reaper set to 64 samples latency, and never hear a snap or pop in the audio, I was never able to get the Sonar 8 demo to do the same. As long as I run ASIO at 64 samples latency, I get several snaps in the audio playback with S8. If I double the latency from 64 to 128 (which to Sonar is like from 1.5ms to 2.9ms), Sonar will play for me without audio artifacts. One BIG item I am finding with the Sonar 8 demo is that with just a single midi track of drums running ASIO, I am seeing real uneven core loading. See CPU meter bottom right: http://members.cox.net/bowie17/DrumsOnly.jpg Even worse if I use WDM: http://members.cox.net/bowie17/SonarMP_WDM.jpg This is playing through my normal setup of 9 VSTi feeds coming from Superior Drummer 2, submixed to four busses, and then mixed to a single stereo bus, and that's only using Timeworks EQ, CompressorX, and Pantheon reverbs. Core 1 has more than twice the load of core 2 on just my drums. I tried an older song, from when I was using EZ-Drummer and just bringing the VSTi feeds in as pre-mixed stereo, and I didn't see this uneven core loading, so I suspect that Sonar 8 isn't load balancing as well with the more complex routing I use with my current drum setup. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
"Glennbo" <> wrote in message news:Xns9B81B9A43D91EBrownShoesDontMakeIt@69.16.185.247... > In news: the killer robot > with the Sonar 8 demo, I can say that they have really made the ASIO > support much better and able to run at lower latency than previous > versions, but in my particular case, where I am currently able to run my > Delta AP2496 card in Reaper set to 64 samples latency, and never hear a > snap or pop in the audio, I was never able to get the Sonar 8 demo to do > the same. As long as I run ASIO at 64 samples latency, I get several > snaps > in the audio playback with S8. If I double the latency from 64 to 128 > (which to Sonar is like from 1.5ms to 2.9ms), Sonar will play for me > without audio artifacts. It's not terribly surprising to me that SONAR would use more resources than Reaper for this sort of stuff, given it's a much more complex app, doing lots of things that Reaper doesn't. Whether those things are important to any given user is another thing altogether. > One BIG item I am finding with the Sonar 8 demo is that with just a single > midi track of drums running ASIO, I am seeing real uneven core loading. > > See CPU meter bottom right: http://members.cox.net/bowie17/DrumsOnly.jpg > Even worse if I use WDM: http://members.cox.net/bowie17/SonarMP_WDM.jpg > > This is playing through my normal setup of 9 VSTi feeds coming from > Superior Drummer 2, submixed to four busses, and then mixed to a single > stereo bus, and that's only using Timeworks EQ, CompressorX, and Pantheon > reverbs. Core 1 has more than twice the load of core 2 on just my drums. > I tried an older song, from when I was using EZ-Drummer and just bringing > the VSTi feeds in as pre-mixed stereo, and I didn't see this uneven core > loading, so I suspect that Sonar 8 isn't load balancing as well with the > more complex routing I use with my current drum setup. Try adding more stuff to the unbalanced project, and I bet you'll see the CPU use start to even out. My guess is there is some dependency in the particular project that creates one heavy duty thread, while the rest of the threads are all lightweight, such that even having the one thread on one CPU and all the rest on the other CPU creates the imbalance. Whereas maybe your older project doesn't have quite as heavy duty a thread. To put it another way, maybe EZ Drummer is a lot more lightweight than Superior Drummer 2.0, or, probably less likely in my opinion but at least conceivable, the routing consideration you mentioned. To use an analogy, if you've got one 300 lb. guy and four 50 lb. kids and a seesaw, there's no way you're going to get the thing to balance out, even if you put all the kids on one side and the guy on the other. The only way you'll get it to even out is to find a couple of more kids to bring the other side up to the guy's weight. Rick -- ======================================= Rick Paul Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP) Web: www.RickPaul.info MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic =======================================
In news: the killer robot "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > Try adding more stuff to the unbalanced project, and I bet you'll see > the CPU use start to even out. Guess again. Here's my song "Sparky" which was recorded just a few months back on Sonar 5 running at 1.5ms. Here's that same song running at 1.5ms in Sonar 8. This song had nine audio tracks plus my drums playing when I did this screen cap. The CPU meter in this image is *way* more uneven. http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8Sparky.jpg -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
Glennbo wrote: > In news: the killer robot > "Rick Paul" <> grabbed the controls of the > spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... > >> Try adding more stuff to the unbalanced project, and I bet you'll see >> the CPU use start to even out. > > Guess again. Here's my song "Sparky" which was recorded just a few months > back on Sonar 5 running at 1.5ms. Here's that same song running at 1.5ms > in Sonar 8. This song had nine audio tracks plus my drums playing when I > did this screen cap. The CPU meter in this image is *way* more uneven. > > http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8Sparky.jpg > The lightly loaded CPU is doing measures 1 - 4, the heavily loaded one is doing measures 5 & up!
In news:gj84pa$o1a$ the killer robot BobF <> grabbed the controls of the spaceship cakewalk.audio and pressed these buttons... >>> Try adding more stuff to the unbalanced project, and I bet you'll >>> see the CPU use start to even out. >> >> Guess again. Here's my song "Sparky" which was recorded just a few >> months back on Sonar 5 running at 1.5ms. Here's that same song >> running at 1.5ms in Sonar 8. This song had nine audio tracks plus my >> drums playing when I did this screen cap. The CPU meter in this image >> is *way* more uneven. >> >> http://members.cox.net/bowie17/Sonar8Sparky.jpg >> > > The lightly loaded CPU is doing measures 1 - 4, the heavily loaded one > is doing measures 5 & up! Bwaaaahahaha!!! In reality, I remember reading something from some Cake official about how the way Sonar is coded, that everything in one FX bin has to be on the same core or something. Methinks that has something to do with it. -- Remove YourHeadFromYourAss to Reply by email ________ __ / ____/ /__ ____ ____ / /_ ____ / / __/ / _ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \/ __ \ / /_/ / / __/ / / / / / / /_/ / /_/ / \____/_/\___/_/ /_/_/ /_/_.___/\____/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Glennbo http://www.soundclick.com/glennbo Non-Linear Sound http://www.soundclick.com/jambits Hear My Music http://www.soundclick.com/ThePseudonyms
