I've been very interested in getting this program, but it seems like no one I know uses it. I also can't find many helpful reviews about it either. So, I'm a bit unsure of a few things about it. If a P5 user, or someone who knows a lot about it, could answer the following questions, that would be great.
1. How CPU intensive it?
2. How is the piano roll compared to the piano rolls of other popular sequencers (Cubase SX, Reason, Sonar, FLStudio, for instance)?
3. How stable is it in Windows XP?
4. How intuitive is the interface compared to something like Reason or FL (which I think are relatively similar in functionality)?
I'm interested because it seems like a good alternative to Reason, which I really like, but lacks expandability and has (imo) a bad interface and piano roll. Thanks in advance for your help!
Questions about Project 5
-
- KVRAF
- 4707 posts since 16 Mar, 2004 from Columbia, MD
-
- KVRian
- 933 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Guanajuato, Mexico
I don't own Project-5 but I've used it and nearly bought it (might buy it at a later time), so I'll try to answer your questions:
1) Is it a bit of a CPU hog. Reason, for example, is very light on the CPU because it's a closed enviroment, where the developers have total control over optimization issued. P5 needs a faster CPU, but it is very stable when used standalone. I had some trouble rewiring it to Sonar, though.
2) The piano roll is great, since you can use it as a normal piano roll or as a x0x style sequencer. Also, it displays and lets you edit automation data very easily. I've yet to see a better piano roll than this.
3) Very stable, I would say. But some users have had some trouble with corrupted files.
4) It is intuitive but you have to get used to it. I think it's better than Reason in this regard.
You should post your questions in the official Project-5 forum (http://www.cakewalk.com/forum). You'll get a lot of opinions there.
Good luck.
1) Is it a bit of a CPU hog. Reason, for example, is very light on the CPU because it's a closed enviroment, where the developers have total control over optimization issued. P5 needs a faster CPU, but it is very stable when used standalone. I had some trouble rewiring it to Sonar, though.
2) The piano roll is great, since you can use it as a normal piano roll or as a x0x style sequencer. Also, it displays and lets you edit automation data very easily. I've yet to see a better piano roll than this.
3) Very stable, I would say. But some users have had some trouble with corrupted files.
4) It is intuitive but you have to get used to it. I think it's better than Reason in this regard.
You should post your questions in the official Project-5 forum (http://www.cakewalk.com/forum). You'll get a lot of opinions there.
Good luck.
-
- KVRian
- 1103 posts since 19 Apr, 2004 from Trent Severn WaterWay
Its a bit cpu hoggy
Crappy piano roll
Its stable
Crappy interface
Theres a reason not many people use it,,,,,don't worry about that reason,,,just get Orion Platinum..
Efficient
Best piano roll I've seen and attached to each module for fast editing
Very stable
Fantastic interface with great eq's on mixer and ready for live recording
Crappy piano roll
Its stable
Crappy interface
Theres a reason not many people use it,,,,,don't worry about that reason,,,just get Orion Platinum..
Efficient
Best piano roll I've seen and attached to each module for fast editing
Very stable
Fantastic interface with great eq's on mixer and ready for live recording
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
you might want to ask the same set of questions on the Cakewalk P-5 forum
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tt.asp?forumid=6
as far as cpu usage it does seem heavier than most. This was improved with the 1.5 version. I've heard but not confirmed only the 1.0 version is the demo download.
I find the user interface and editing of midi data to be very intuitive, and more to the point very fast to work in and get ideas in place.
It does have a very narrow focus on that aspect of miusic-making/composing. And it tend sto be that people either get that interface and the narrow focus or they don't.
It should get interesting if the Cakewalk's core customers take advantage of the extended offer to buy P-5 for cheap when they upgrade to Sonar 4. The Sonar users I know are almost all strictly audio-oriented, not midi pattern based.
But, imo, midi editing in the piano roll is much easier in P-5 than Sonar and FLStudio -- those are the only others I've exercised. Building tracks and alternate parts and other instrument parts (bass, hi-strings) is similarly easy. That's the product's focus.
others obviously have their own opinions, which is why it's always a good idea to try out the demo.
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tt.asp?forumid=6
as far as cpu usage it does seem heavier than most. This was improved with the 1.5 version. I've heard but not confirmed only the 1.0 version is the demo download.
I find the user interface and editing of midi data to be very intuitive, and more to the point very fast to work in and get ideas in place.
It does have a very narrow focus on that aspect of miusic-making/composing. And it tend sto be that people either get that interface and the narrow focus or they don't.
It should get interesting if the Cakewalk's core customers take advantage of the extended offer to buy P-5 for cheap when they upgrade to Sonar 4. The Sonar users I know are almost all strictly audio-oriented, not midi pattern based.
But, imo, midi editing in the piano roll is much easier in P-5 than Sonar and FLStudio -- those are the only others I've exercised. Building tracks and alternate parts and other instrument parts (bass, hi-strings) is similarly easy. That's the product's focus.
others obviously have their own opinions, which is why it's always a good idea to try out the demo.
-
- KVRAF
- 2121 posts since 14 Jun, 2002 from Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
1) It's not as CPU intensive as the first release was as originally all synths' outs were on by default...that was changed in the update...
2) The piano roll is somewhere between Sonars and FL Studio's; I personally don't feel it's as easy to use as FL's, but it depends what might suit you.
3) No XP problem I've ever had with it...
4) "Intuitive" again is still relevant to the user.
Some people took to it quick and loved it, yet it was a shock to others' way of working and the initial CPU being high scared off a lot of people, but all I can say is demo it yourself(setting aside for the moment the CPU issue if the demo is outdated) and see if it just grabs you or not...
2) The piano roll is somewhere between Sonars and FL Studio's; I personally don't feel it's as easy to use as FL's, but it depends what might suit you.
3) No XP problem I've ever had with it...
4) "Intuitive" again is still relevant to the user.
Some people took to it quick and loved it, yet it was a shock to others' way of working and the initial CPU being high scared off a lot of people, but all I can say is demo it yourself(setting aside for the moment the CPU issue if the demo is outdated) and see if it just grabs you or not...
-
- KVRist
- 71 posts since 29 Apr, 2003
I owned it for a while and here's what I thought...
1) The Piano Roll is very impressive (pretty close to Fruity's, which is considered one of the best)
2) The Sequencer is super-duper easy to use, just load a vst, press record and go - nothing crappy about that IMO unless you need multiple out's.
3) It's heavy on CPU - Cakewalk never added any features to help with this, I sold it for that reason mostly but also the included generators and samples are geared heavily twords generic Techno/House/Trip-Hop sounds.
1) The Piano Roll is very impressive (pretty close to Fruity's, which is considered one of the best)
2) The Sequencer is super-duper easy to use, just load a vst, press record and go - nothing crappy about that IMO unless you need multiple out's.
3) It's heavy on CPU - Cakewalk never added any features to help with this, I sold it for that reason mostly but also the included generators and samples are geared heavily twords generic Techno/House/Trip-Hop sounds.
-
- KVRian
- 1238 posts since 12 Mar, 2002 from Kentucky
1. How CPU intensive it?
Not bad depending on what VSTi's you use with it. Running Project5 with Reaktor and Z3ta+ is going to cost you, but while Reason is much easier on CPU you don't have access to sound sources as complex and Reaktor or Z3ta+.
2. How is the piano roll compared to the piano rolls of other popular sequencers (Cubase SX, Reason, Sonar, FLStudio, for instance)?
I like it better than the piano roll in Reason and FL. I only use the piano roll in Sonar to make minor corrections so that is hard to compare.
3. How stable is it in Windows XP?
Very stable. I have it on my main DAW, my laptop and my desktop for my day job. All running XP. No problems.
4. How intuitive is the interface compared to something like Reason or FL (which I think are relatively similar in functionality)?
Good and bad. The screen can get very crowded and it is irritating when you forget to use key combinations when moving a window. I like the Reason screen much better with the single scroll bar. However, one reason that the Project5 screen can be crowded is the options. I use pattern bin a lot, along with drag and drop. This makes it crowded but it is not even available in Reason.
Robert
Not bad depending on what VSTi's you use with it. Running Project5 with Reaktor and Z3ta+ is going to cost you, but while Reason is much easier on CPU you don't have access to sound sources as complex and Reaktor or Z3ta+.
2. How is the piano roll compared to the piano rolls of other popular sequencers (Cubase SX, Reason, Sonar, FLStudio, for instance)?
I like it better than the piano roll in Reason and FL. I only use the piano roll in Sonar to make minor corrections so that is hard to compare.
3. How stable is it in Windows XP?
Very stable. I have it on my main DAW, my laptop and my desktop for my day job. All running XP. No problems.
4. How intuitive is the interface compared to something like Reason or FL (which I think are relatively similar in functionality)?
Good and bad. The screen can get very crowded and it is irritating when you forget to use key combinations when moving a window. I like the Reason screen much better with the single scroll bar. However, one reason that the Project5 screen can be crowded is the options. I use pattern bin a lot, along with drag and drop. This makes it crowded but it is not even available in Reason.
Robert
All I need to be happy is one more VSTi.
-
- KVRist
- 46 posts since 20 Feb, 2003 from Scotland
P5 itself is no more CPU intensive than any other host. See the graphs (by myself) in this thread:
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m= ... chor#53256
Andy C
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m= ... chor#53256
Andy C
Music from the cut and paste generation
http://www.myspace.com/rtwoproject
http://www.myspace.com/rtwoproject
-
- KVRist
- 71 posts since 29 Apr, 2003
P5 as host itself isn't processor intensive, but because there's no way to bounce to audio, P5 rightly deserves it's CPU intensive reputation. Sure there's 'workarounds' but Cake doesn't plan on solving this for P5 users EVER. They want to make sure you buy Sonar and then rewire P5 if you ever want to bounce. If you've got both programs and a hefty CPU, more power to ya', but I have a real problem with companies that follow this philosophy.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4707 posts since 16 Mar, 2004 from Columbia, MD
Lots of differing opinions on the piano roll.. but all the other info was very helpful. Thanks! I suppose I should outline what I consider to be a good piano roll: FL's, for the following reasons
1. When I place a note down with the mouse, I hear the note. I can drag the note as I'm placing it and hear the notes as I drag through them.
2. No need to switch tools to delete or resize. Simply right click or left click respectively.
Since I use the mouse *only* for writing music, and I compose mainly based on relative tones, those features are extremely important to me.
The CPU thing doesn't sound like much of an issue. I can handle 5 instances of Reaktor in FL and still use only 50% or less CPU, so I don't think I'll have any problems.
One other question. FL has always done one thing better than any other sequencer I've ever used, and it remains my main sequencer for this reason, primarily - the file browser on the left. It's unobtrusive, previews when you click on a file, *never* lags, and allows you to create new channels simply by dragging. This makes creating drumlines or setting up a palette of soundfonts unbelievably easy. I could always continue to do this aspect in FL, but really, I would love to use as few programs as possible. How does Project 5 fare in comparison? Is it extremely easy to add new elements, like FL, or frustratingly difficult, like Cubase SX or Sonar 4?
edit- by the way, I don't see why I would post this at the company's own forum. doesn't that strike you as not really good for an objective look at things?
1. When I place a note down with the mouse, I hear the note. I can drag the note as I'm placing it and hear the notes as I drag through them.
2. No need to switch tools to delete or resize. Simply right click or left click respectively.
Since I use the mouse *only* for writing music, and I compose mainly based on relative tones, those features are extremely important to me.
The CPU thing doesn't sound like much of an issue. I can handle 5 instances of Reaktor in FL and still use only 50% or less CPU, so I don't think I'll have any problems.
One other question. FL has always done one thing better than any other sequencer I've ever used, and it remains my main sequencer for this reason, primarily - the file browser on the left. It's unobtrusive, previews when you click on a file, *never* lags, and allows you to create new channels simply by dragging. This makes creating drumlines or setting up a palette of soundfonts unbelievably easy. I could always continue to do this aspect in FL, but really, I would love to use as few programs as possible. How does Project 5 fare in comparison? Is it extremely easy to add new elements, like FL, or frustratingly difficult, like Cubase SX or Sonar 4?
edit- by the way, I don't see why I would post this at the company's own forum. doesn't that strike you as not really good for an objective look at things?
-
- KVRist
- 294 posts since 27 Dec, 2003 from Woodland Hills, UT
I've had P5 ever since it was released. Tried using it a number of times, but compared to FL it just doesn't stack up. It looks nice on the screen, but there's nothing in it that, IMO, FL doesn't do better, or at least more intuitively. Perhaps I haven't dug deep enough into P5, but I don't think a program should force me to do that. I hardly have time to create music as it is. The fact that no one seems to be talking about it much is evidence that Cakewalk jumped the gun with this one. I don't think it should have been released. For what it's worth...
www.davidlinn.com
www.davidlinn.com
-
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
It sounds like you're very happy with FL, and I'm not sure what P5 could offer you that FL lacks...
-
- KVRAF
- 2217 posts since 15 Jul, 2003
there are certain threads that have a pretty predicable turn/outcome
this is one of many
fwiw, i use FLStudio as a vst within P-5 and gosh could it get any better? (cause I don't esp/ like midi editing in FLS -- it seems to be based on certain graphics editing conventions, but then I find Sonar even more awkward, but that may just be me)
I am learning to Rewire P-5 in Sonar to get all the features I would have liked in P-5: ability to 'freeze', creation of (acidized) groove clips, and a few more.
P-5'ers are hoping for P-5 v 2.0 to be available as a Dxi. That would seem to offer up more for discussion.
Is it better to use a set of tools with certain narrow specializations or look for a one stop does it all host solution?
this is one of many
fwiw, i use FLStudio as a vst within P-5 and gosh could it get any better? (cause I don't esp/ like midi editing in FLS -- it seems to be based on certain graphics editing conventions, but then I find Sonar even more awkward, but that may just be me)
I am learning to Rewire P-5 in Sonar to get all the features I would have liked in P-5: ability to 'freeze', creation of (acidized) groove clips, and a few more.
P-5'ers are hoping for P-5 v 2.0 to be available as a Dxi. That would seem to offer up more for discussion.
Is it better to use a set of tools with certain narrow specializations or look for a one stop does it all host solution?
-
- KVRist
- 46 posts since 20 Feb, 2003 from Scotland
Yes P5 does this, place a note, drag it up and down and midi is sent to the synth you are using to sound the notes.1. When I place a note down with the mouse, I hear the note. I can drag the note as I'm placing it and hear the notes as I drag through them.
Delete is right click, resize is point to start (or end of note) and click and drag to resize.2. No need to switch tools to delete or resize. Simply right click or left click respectively.
I've not used FL (in a long while) so I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for. P5 (V1.5 not in the demo version I think !) has a resource browser (picture Below). The browser shows P5 Patterns and Audio audio clips. Click on a pattern and it will play with the currently selected synth, click on a audio loop and it will play. Drag them one to the arrange window and it will be placed there. If it's an audio loop it will create a new track (if needed), P5 patterns create a blank synth (if needed). Couldn't be easier.the file browser on the left. It's unobtrusive, previews when you click on a file, *never* lags, and allows you to create new channels simply by dragging. This makes creating drumlines or setting up a palette of soundfonts unbelievably easy
I may have misunderstood your usage though. Maybe you meant patches for synths etc ? P5 can save synth/FX settings and chains as a patch, right click in the synth area and you can load from one of your preset patch setups.
Hope this helps somewhat.
Andy C
Music from the cut and paste generation
http://www.myspace.com/rtwoproject
http://www.myspace.com/rtwoproject
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 4707 posts since 16 Mar, 2004 from Columbia, MD
Piano roll definitely sounds good, and looking at some of the video demos, the browser looks pretty good as well. However, I don't think the browser quite compares to FL's in terms of oneshot samples (and thus, sequencing drums), though for audio parts it looks better. With FL, you simply take a wav sample and drag it to the center of the screen, and that automatically creates a sampler channel with no fuss. Combined with the integrated step sequencer (that can be turned into a piano roll), you have instant drum sequencing ease. Apparently, P5 does not have this feature.. but no programs besides FL I've seen do, either. Not a *huge* deal though if P5 performs well otherwise.
By the way, in response to an earlier poster, as much as I like FLStudio, it has some big problems. For one, several NI plugins that I love very much do not work properly in it. Modwheel functionality seems to be non-existant by default. Audio recording and sequencing is annoying and un-intuitive. Drawing automation is annoying because you can't see notes at the same time. P5 seems to address those issues.
Also, wrench, if there's one thing I cannot stand it's using multiple hosts together. I've tried it before, and it was nightmarishly annoying to figure out MIDI connections, ReWire, tempo sync, and so forth and so on. I tried it with Cubase and FL as well as FL and Reason, and it was just a total pain in the neck. I know that I will have to learn to deal with it as my music production requires more specialized programs, but really, until then, I'm only looking for all-in-one stuff.
By the way, in response to an earlier poster, as much as I like FLStudio, it has some big problems. For one, several NI plugins that I love very much do not work properly in it. Modwheel functionality seems to be non-existant by default. Audio recording and sequencing is annoying and un-intuitive. Drawing automation is annoying because you can't see notes at the same time. P5 seems to address those issues.
Also, wrench, if there's one thing I cannot stand it's using multiple hosts together. I've tried it before, and it was nightmarishly annoying to figure out MIDI connections, ReWire, tempo sync, and so forth and so on. I tried it with Cubase and FL as well as FL and Reason, and it was just a total pain in the neck. I know that I will have to learn to deal with it as my music production requires more specialized programs, but really, until then, I'm only looking for all-in-one stuff.