is cakewalk a good daw?

[antic604]

but it took hours for me to do simple 4-bar loop

Huh ?

Well it wasn't as intuitive as other DAWs are for me and defaults - keys, mouse modifiers, etc. were "weird". Part of this was also that there's so many features that I was almost clicking everything trying to at least see what it does, going through all the menus and windows, etc. One thing is sure - if I was to use one of those "complex" DAWs one day (Cubase, Reaper, DP, etc.) then that would likely be Cakewalk. Right now Studio One is at the heights of the complexity I'm willing to go

[dellboy]

Well it wasn't as intuitive as other DAWs are for me and defaults - keys, mouse modifiers, etc. were "weird". Part of this was also that there's so many features that I was almost clicking everything trying to at least see what it does, going through all the menus and windows, etc. One thing is sure - if I was to use one of those "complex" DAWs one day (Cubase, Reaper, DP, etc.) then that would likely be Cakewalk. Right now Studio One is at the heights of the complexity I'm willing to go

Maybe I should download and install it before I shoot my mouth off about how easy it is. Memory can play tricks.

Mind you, I thought if I buy an apple computer with its reputation for being easy peasy then Logic will be a pushover to master. But like you with Sonar I was clicking on everything to do basic tasks.

Maybe we should just give in and read the manual sometimes.

[antic604]

Maybe we should just give in and read the manual sometimes.

I always do that if I plan a longer stay. But this was just the case of checking what it was and why it's popular. And I can definitely see the appeal, although I felt uneasy with this Bandlab "widget" running in background.

[dellboy]

I felt uneasy with this Bandlab "widget" running in background.

I am out of the loop but I think it can now be deleted after setup.

The Bandlab app checks every six or nine months for activation. So the app will have to be reinstalled to keep sonar active, and then deleted again - etc.

[sping]

I always do that if I plan a longer stay. But this was just the case of checking what it was and why it's popular. And I can definitely see the appeal, although I felt uneasy with this Bandlab "widget" running in background.

Except for first install you no longer need the Bandlab widget.
Latest version can be updated and activated without it.

[antic604]

I felt uneasy with this Bandlab "widget" running in background.

I am out of the loop but I think it can now be deleted after setup.

The Bandlab app checks every six or nine months for activation. So the app will have to be reinstalled to keep sonar active, and then deleted again - etc.

Except for first install you no longer need the Bandlab widget.
Latest version can be updated and activated without it.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

[progmatist]

You mention plugin balancing for Cakewalk - but are you using any plugins in this case?

With plugin load balancing enabled, more emphasis is placed on effects and such. With it disabled, less emphasis is removed from the recording process. If I would forget to re-enable load balancing, effects wouldn't be nearly as "effective."

First, Cakewalk had somewhat of a brickwalling effect directly in the recording process, but no limiter was used.

What could be the technical reason(s) for this?

Your guess is as good as mine. Just looking at the waveforms in my video, the Cakewalk portions even "looks" louder in some places, but the same amplitude in others.

Below is a picture of the longer cuts, showing it can't be mistaken as wider dynamic range in Cakewalk. The Cubase clip (at the bottom) gets just as loud when it's supposed to.

NOTE: I focused specifically on a soft passage because that's the true test of noise reduction software. Thoroughly cleaning soft passages with a minimum of quality loss is not easy to do. Pretty much any free and paid software can do a (fairly) good job cleaning the loud bits. Including the plugin included with Audacity, and the audio filter built into ffmpeg.

[sping]

....

If you want this sorted, whether bugs or other cause, you should post this info on the Cakewalk forum. Nice & friendly forum with good knowledge, dev.s are there and responding.
If thats what you want.

[progmatist]

....

If you want this sorted, whether bugs or other cause, you should post this info on the Cakewalk forum. Nice & friendly forum with good knowledge, dev.s are there and responding.
If thats what you want.

The purpose of my posts is to answer the initial question starting this entire tread: Is Cakewalk a good daw? Anyone is free to counter my experience and evidence with experience and evidence of their own.

[Etienne1973]

Cakewalk
------------------
Sample Rate: 96KHz
Buffer size: 10.7 msec, 1024 samples
Dithering: none
Plug-in load balancing: deselected...(I've found recording quality is best with load balancing deselected, but processing quality best with it selected)
ASIO reported latencies........
Input: 15.3 msec, 1472 samples
Output: 18.3 msec, 1760 samples
Total Roundtrip: 33.7 msec, 3232 samples
Audio Data File Bit Depth Settings........
Record bit depth: 24
Render bit depth: 32
Import bit depth: original

In your video pure recorded unprocessed Cakewalk part is louder than its equivalent Cubase part. What do mean by "I've found recording quality is best with ..."?

[sping]

....

If you want this sorted, whether bugs or other cause, you should post this info on the Cakewalk forum. Nice & friendly forum with good knowledge, dev.s are there and responding.
If thats what you want.

The purpose of my posts is to answer the initial question starting this entire tread: Is Cakewalk a good daw? Anyone is free to counter my experience and evidence with experience and evidence of their own.

If you want Cakewalk to be a god DAW, why not post your info on their forum and have it sorted?
Or do you have another agenda?

[progmatist]

Cakewalk
------------------
Sample Rate: 96KHz
Buffer size: 10.7 msec, 1024 samples
Dithering: none
Plug-in load balancing: deselected...(I've found recording quality is best with load balancing deselected, but processing quality best with it selected)
ASIO reported latencies........
Input: 15.3 msec, 1472 samples
Output: 18.3 msec, 1760 samples
Total Roundtrip: 33.7 msec, 3232 samples
Audio Data File Bit Depth Settings........
Record bit depth: 24
Render bit depth: 32
Import bit depth: original

In your video pure recorded unprocessed Cakewalk part is louder than its equivalent Cubase part. What do mean by "I've found recording quality is best with ..."?

What I specifically said was Plugin Load Balancing disabled renders higher quality recording than with Plugin Load Balancing enabled. If Cakewalk users take nothing else I say to heart, take this one thing to heart...you'll all thank me.

....

If you want this sorted, whether bugs or other cause, you should post this info on the Cakewalk forum. Nice & friendly forum with good knowledge, dev.s are there and responding.
If thats what you want.

The purpose of my posts is to answer the initial question starting this entire tread: Is Cakewalk a good daw? Anyone is free to counter my experience and evidence with experience and evidence of their own.

If you want Cakewalk to be a god DAW, why not post your info on their forum and have it sorted?
Or do you have another agenda?

Bottom line: the fact RX8 processes Cakewalk generated WAV files so much differently than files generated by Cubase, Reaper, my old M-Audio Microtrack, or a raw command line capture using ffmpeg is evidence there's a fundamental difference in the way Cakewalk encodes WAV files. That would reside deep within the audio engine, not a quick bug fix. It would be more like Apple rewriting the FreeBSD Unix Kernel at the heart OSX...which has proven problematic for many.

Further evidence is Sonar, going back many versions has generated W64 files unreadable by any other platform. When exporting any file larger than 2GB in size, Sonar would automatically export a W64 rather than a WAV file. The only way around that would be to export in FLAC, AIFF, or some other format. Even then, I've had AIFF files unreadable by other hosts.

[sping]

....

If you want this sorted, whether bugs or other cause, you should post this info on the Cakewalk forum. Nice & friendly forum with good knowledge, dev.s are there and responding.
If thats what you want.

The purpose of my posts is to answer the initial question starting this entire tread: Is Cakewalk a good daw? Anyone is free to counter my experience and evidence with experience and evidence of their own.

If you want Cakewalk to be a god DAW, why not post your info on their forum and have it sorted?
Or do you have another agenda?

Bottom line: the fact RX8 processes Cakewalk generated WAV files so much differently than files generated by Cubase, Reaper, my old M-Audio Microtrack, or a raw command line capture using ffmpeg is evidence there's a fundamental difference in the way Cakewalk encodes WAV files. That would reside deep within the audio engine, not a quick bug fix. It would be more like Apple rewriting the FreeBSD Unix Kernel at the heart OSX...which has proven problematic for many.

Further evidence is Sonar, going back many versions has generated W64 files unreadable by any other platform. When exporting any file larger than 2GB in size, Sonar would automatically export a W64 rather than a WAV file. The only way around that would be to export in FLAC, AIFF, or some other format. Even then, I've had AIFF files unreadable by other hosts.

So why don't you just post this on the Cakewalk forum?
It would really help them to fix it, you don't want that?

[lfm]

You mention plugin balancing for Cakewalk - but are you using any plugins in this case?

With plugin load balancing enabled, more emphasis is placed on effects and such. With it disabled, less emphasis is removed from the recording process. If I would forget to re-enable load balancing, effects wouldn't be nearly as "effective."

Interesting in itself - but question was are you using any plugins while recording?

I did not while doing my test.

Unless you loose samples, and hard to do with 1000 samples buffer.

Does it come out differently if having plugin load balancing even if not using plugins?????

I always have set 64 samples asio buffer, but cannot see how that would affect recording unless you loose samples or something.

If you get W64 files, maybe there is something there that is different.
Are you getting same differences if recording shorter that don't need so large files?

As playing back in Cakewalk or Cubase it sounded different, so played back with separate Foobar2000 so I don't compare oranges and apples.

The huge difference you have in your video is really weird. Something is tiny bit different in my test too, but starting looping same sequence and between recordings really hard to hear it. Thinking it could be playback jitter or something that differ at some occasions.

I would try find other software if not having Ozone 3, and old one I don't use anymore for other purposes than this graph. But this comparison with frequency profiles might be useful if there are other software you can set for infinite time for update so a full recording can be profiled.

To me I loose something in Cubase - so not sure what listening device you use.
You obviously prefer less upper mids and high end - so your listening device might be boosting those a lot - so Cakewalk become odd for your ears.

I prefer Cakewalk any time in what I hear.

Different levels in between in drawn graphics of waveforms, that could be just different algos presenting it if level is tiny bit different as recorded to file. I see that in my old Sonar 8.5 I used for Ozone test too. But all recording were made on another computer.

I would start with why basic recording is different - when you have different input in RX will obviously make different result too.

We all have different preferenses how we want our hifi to sound. My little brother for one didn't care what settings I had when he visited, he always put bass and treble to max - no matter what. And I never listen to anything but flat and even bypass bass and treble controls in amp not to influence music.

So when you say Cakewalk is crap and Cubase way better - it's not what I hear.

And did you use any plugins while recording, since you emphasized that plugin balancing seem to matter?

I can provide my raw 96k/24 files as well for comparison if your listening demands it.

In your ears - does Cakewalk and Cubase sound different that you prefer one of my recording before the other?

I did record stereo track, just straight in.
Cakewalk has this Stereo Interleave as they call it, when both channels samples are side by side somehow.

I think there is just one way of doing it, but it could be 2 ways that left channel sample is stored before right channel, not sure about this. Just trying to see things that could be different.

In tracking down strange things like this - did you try record to two mono tracks and then pan hard left and right - and see if different at all as exported?

Thanks for putting your video up, this was really interesting test anyway.

If difference persist I would report and hear what devs have to say - at Steinberg and Cakewalk folks.

Something else has to differ that was not mentioned so far.
Are you using Steinberg low latency driver or original for interface etc.
Good luck. If you want any more test on my part, just say so.

[Etienne1973]

Cakewalk
------------------
Sample Rate: 96KHz
Buffer size: 10.7 msec, 1024 samples
Dithering: none
Plug-in load balancing: deselected...(I've found recording quality is best with load balancing deselected, but processing quality best with it selected)
ASIO reported latencies........
Input: 15.3 msec, 1472 samples
Output: 18.3 msec, 1760 samples
Total Roundtrip: 33.7 msec, 3232 samples
Audio Data File Bit Depth Settings........
Record bit depth: 24
Render bit depth: 32
Import bit depth: original

In your video pure recorded unprocessed Cakewalk part is louder than its equivalent Cubase part. What do mean by "I've found recording quality is best with ..."?

What I specifically said was Plugin Load Balancing disabled renders higher quality recording than with Plugin Load Balancing enabled.

That would mean there's a chance Cubase renders differently?