is cakewalk a good daw?

[jens]

For anyone interested in recording audio With Sonar though it has to be said that it doesn't support real slip-editing, which is kind of a deal-breaker*. In addition the comping is a mess too, i.e. it's terrible for audio work.






*okay, the one other DAW I know which also doesn't have this is Reason, which I still love though, because it's lovely otherwise and very un-messy.

[Danilo Villanova]

For anyone interested in recording audio With Sonar though it has to be said that it doesn't support real slip-editing, which is kind of a deal-breaker*. In addition the comping is a mess too, i.e. it's terrible for audio work.






*okay, the one other DAW I know which also doesn't have this is Reason, which I still love though, because it's lovely otherwise and very un-messy.

What do you mean "real" slip editing? It does have that function and comping also works pretty well.

[Passing Bye]

My PC is still fairly powerful, a Core I7 920 Quadcore 8 Thread desktop system @ 3.7Ghz, with 20 gigs of Ram, and an AMD Radeon Sapphire Pulse RX 570 8 Gig Graphics card ect.. Far from a humble calculator.

That's first series of i7 processors, it's anything but powerful 12 years later, any Sandy Bridge i5 from 9 years ago can wipe the floor with it...

[jens]

What do you mean "real" slip editing? It does have that function and comping also works pretty well.

No, it does not really have it even though they claim it.

Each take is like an Independent single file. Thus it is not possible to expand a take beyond the boundaries it has been recorded within.

E.g if you loop-recorded between bar 9 and bar 17 you can not expand a take to bar 8 or bar 18
(you can, but it will be empty instead of showing what has actually been recorded)

So e.g if you record anything with a slow attack (say - really just a stupid example - Cello), you're f**ked - you'd have to expand the loop, but Sonar is already more than messy enough without the overlaps this would cause.


So no, not a good DAW (to answer the initial question). I had to learn that the hard way.

[jens]

My PC is still fairly powerful, a Core I7 920 Quadcore 8 Thread desktop system @ 3.7Ghz, with 20 gigs of Ram, and an AMD Radeon Sapphire Pulse RX 570 8 Gig Graphics card ect.. Far from a humble calculator.

That's first series of i7 processors, it's anything but powerful 12 years later, any Sandy Bridge i5 from 9 years ago can wipe the floor with it...

Yes, that CPU is a ridiculous slouch compared to anything halfway modern.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... GHz&id=834

[THE INTRANCER]

That's first series of i7 processors, it's anything but powerful 12 years later, any Sandy Bridge i5 from 9 years ago can wipe the floor with it...

It's not what you have, it's what you do with it that counts....and to still have an overclocked CPU working +1000 Ghz beyond it's stock speed after 10 years in my case and still let me doing what I want is remarkable. You can still have a great gaming experience with high or very high settings at 1080P, or medium at 1440p with older titles like Battlefield 3 or 4 with a bit of tweaking, Project Cars, plays well and looks great similary. With DAWs, you will find that the great majority of VST's are only addressing a single core, rather than being written to address multiple cores at any one time. So music production really hasn't been a problem either, as long as you know how to optimise the balance of the CPU load and the same can be said of 3D rendering applications in optimising your scene as required and you have realtime GPU rendering (Blender for example) with compatible graphic cards to improve things further. Video Editing when using a suitable NLE is balanced between the graphics card and the CPU... So really on balance the only limits are those of your imagination you have to create what you want, even with a CPU that is technically 12 years old... If I wanted to, I could bring the system up to 48 gigs of ram, but I might just settle for what I have or 32 Gigs if I really needed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbe2HPN3PM

[Passing Bye]

That's first series of i7 processors, it's anything but powerful 12 years later, any Sandy Bridge i5 from 9 years ago can wipe the floor with it...

It's not what you have, it's what you do with it that counts....

We are talking about what you have here and you don't have fairly powerful machine, period!

[THE INTRANCER]

We are talking about what you have here and you don't have fairly powerful machine, period!

Is that the best reply you can come up with, given the detail I put into my post... ?

[Hink]

[Passing Bye]

We are talking about what you have here and you don't have fairly powerful machine, period!

Is that the best reply you can come up with, given the detail I put into my post... ?

I quoted you saying that you have fairly powerful machine and that's only thing I'm willing to debate with you, don't have any interest talking about anything else besides that, so yes, that's the best and only thing.

[Passing Bye]

Sorry Hink, I will stop it now.

[jens]

With DAWs, you will find that the great majority of VST's are only addressing a single core, rather than being written to address multiple cores at any one time.

So? You only ever use a single plugin for each project or what?

[Roman Empire]

+1 vote for cakewalk. I´ve been using Cubase for 25 years, and will not stop to do so. But a friend of mine and me decided to start writing songs together in a raw and not so overperfectionistic fashion, and needed to find a platform that would be compatible for both of us. Cakewalk ended up being the choice because it´s free and unlike any other freebie outthere seems to have no limitations at all. I do find it a bit hard to get used to how moving segments around, and other workflow related things, since I´m used to how it´s done in Cubase and the look of it is not as great as Cubase. But this is stuff you´ll get used to, and I´m getting there. I´ve had one crash these last two months, and I´m not so sure if that´s a plugin causing it. I´ve had crashes in Cubase too though, so I would not consider cakewalk less stable.

Ah one thing: I found it rediculously hard to find out how to install it, after having downloaded Bandlab but I finally got there.

[Roman Empire]

+1 vote for cakewalk. I´ve been using Cubase for 25 years, and will not stop to do so.
But a friend of mine and me decided to start writing songs together in a raw and not so over-perfectionistic fashion, and needed to find a platform that would be compatible for both of us. Cakewalk ended up being the choice because it´s free and unlike other freebies out there seems to have no limitations at all. I do however find it a bit hard to get used to how segments are moved around, and other workflow related things, since I´m used to how it´s done in Cubase which also has a greater look. But this is stuff you´ll get used to, and I´m getting there. I´ve had one crash these last two months, but this could´ve been caused by a plugin. And I´ve had crashes in Cubase too, so I would not consider cakewalk less stable.

Ah one thing: I found it rediculously hard to figure out how to install it, after having downloaded Bandlab but I finally got there.

[JoseC.]

What do you mean "real" slip editing? It does have that function and comping also works pretty well.

No, it does not really have it even though they claim it.

Each take is like an Independent single file. Thus it is not possible to expand a take beyond the boundaries it has been recorded within.

E.g if you loop-recorded between bar 9 and bar 17 you can not expand a take to bar 8 or bar 18
(you can, but it will be empty instead of showing what has actually been recorded)

So e.g if you record anything with a slow attack (say - really just a stupid example - Cello), you're f**ked - you'd have to expand the loop, but Sonar is already more than messy enough without the overlaps this would cause.


So no, not a good DAW (to answer the initial question). I had to learn that the hard way.

I don´t really get what you mean. If you set your loop boundaries to record, it is logical that your DAW records within those boundaries. not before and after. If you need something to be recorded before a bar line, like an early attack, or a pickup note, you just need to take that into account and set the loop start there, nobody forces you to use bar lines. If you start recording right on the first beat of bar 9, and the cello attack needed to start earlier, I do not see how you would expect that to be recorded. Even if all takes were a single file, you´d lose that first attack no matter what. And if you played the same eight bars continuously several times in a loop, I do not know what you expect to happen if you try to expand a take to cover a bar that you did not play, even if the eight bars that you did play were recorded to a single file.