is cakewalk a good daw?

[nix808]

is PSYN synth still in the program?
- I do have it, I have Project 5 installed

but I was wondering about Zeta too?
are the included synth goodies tasty?

[tooneba]

....

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?

It is sure that his agenda is to not get buyers remorse for buying Cubase

[progmatist]

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?

We're talking about rebuilding the foundation of a house, not upgrading the kitchen cabinets.

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

It's not so much what plugins are present or not present, it's were Cakewalk directs its resource, depending on whether the box is checked

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

I use a much lower buffer setting when using it as an actual "DAW." That's when syncing existing tracks with overdubbed tracks becomes more critical. When simply recording, a higher buffer setting prevents digital clicks, and other artifacts. When using Reaper as a synth module on my laptop, if the buffer is set too low, it will play fine for about 10 or 15 minutes. After that, playback starts go garble, getting progressively worse.

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

My point exactly. The two platforms produce significantly different outputs, with everything else being equal. Reaper and my old M-Audio Mircotrack produce results very similar to Cubase, but quite different from Cakewalk.

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

That setting applies ONLY to Cakewalk. Plugin Load Balancing disabled improves recording quality IN CAKEWALK. Plugin Load Balancing enabled improves plugin performance IN CAKEWALK. There's no such setting in any other platform...at least none that I'm aware of.

It is sure that his agenda is to not get buyers remorse for buying Cubase

My buyers remorse is being on the Cakewalk/Sonar upgrade train for more than 2 decades, before it became a free product. That remorse is magnified by having to re-record hundreds of records. I'm certainly not going through that slow, time consuming process because I have nothing better to do. I may be a little crazy, but I'm not that divorced from my faculties.

[Etienne1973]

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

That setting applies ONLY to Cakewalk. Plugin Load Balancing disabled improves recording quality IN CAKEWALK. Plugin Load Balancing enabled improves plugin performance IN CAKEWALK. There's no such setting in any other platform...at least none that I'm aware of.

Exactly my point. Disabled Plugin Load Balancing improves recording quality in Cakewalk. So I don't wonder no longer why there are even audible differences. I can't believe you don't understand.

[progmatist]

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

That setting applies ONLY to Cakewalk. Plugin Load Balancing disabled improves recording quality IN CAKEWALK. Plugin Load Balancing enabled improves plugin performance IN CAKEWALK. There's no such setting in any other platform...at least none that I'm aware of.

Exactly my point. Disabled Plugin Load Balancing improves recording quality in Cakewalk. So I don't wonder no longer why there are even audible differences. I can't believe you don't understand.

I'm saying by disabling Load Balancing to produce a higher quality recording, I'm making it more of a fair comparison. By doing the opposite, I would've unfairly skewed the results in favor of Cubase.

[AKJ]

Plugin balancing improves performance (less dropout, ability to reduce latency etc.), it cannot (!) have an impact on audio quality (other than on dropouts).

[progmatist]

Plugin balancing improves performance (less dropout, ability to reduce latency etc.), it cannot (!) have an impact on audio quality (other than on dropouts).

My experience says otherwise. Playing back existing tracks, you're absolutely right. Recording on the other hand is a different story. Playing back and/or bouncing tracks with Load Balancing disabled will absolutely, most definitely make effects less effective.

[lfm]

Plugin balancing improves performance (less dropout, ability to reduce latency etc.), it cannot (!) have an impact on audio quality (other than on dropouts).

My experience says otherwise. Playing back existing tracks, you're absolutely right. Recording on the other hand is a different story. Playing back and/or bouncing tracks with Load Balancing disabled will absolutely, most definitely make effects less effective.

Overall I conclude that your pc is way too weak for this job.

96k sample rate is not just a number, it is a serious load for gear and computer to deal with.

You are on the wrong track, if you excuse the term, blaming daw software. And you been dealing with silly high 1000 samples asio buffer, turning off plugin balancing even though not using any plugins. Dispite this you get issues and one daw produce different result than the other.

On top of everything I asked and still wonder what listening equipment you have. Seems you run laptop speakers or something since you prefer Cubase part of what you posted in video. Seriously muffled recording and nothing I would use for anything. Yet, you proceed with RX processing of this file.

Then w64 files - why bother with that I wonder.
20 minutes, one side of vinyl, will use 750 MB.
A full concert or something both side 1.5 GB.
Nothing exceed 2 GB so why do w64.

And you mention having issues with Cakewalk w64 files, no wonder is what I am saying. You machine does not cope this load on computer obviously. They would be corrupted and lost samples or whatever.

I did the tests myself with downloadable WAV files earlier - and nothing differ to such a degree as your video. Very subtle difference.

Mentioning I use 64 samples buffer doing this - and you claim you run UR22 MkII interface much lower when used as a daw. You simply make up stories since this pc you use does not cope 96k at 1000 samples buffer.

Some tips for you to get the most out of your machine with Cakewalk.
- Record pre-allocate file - is reserving disk space from start creating a file that size in seconds. This way file is not constantly resized while recording which takes some resources to do.
- don't monitor while recording, so audio is not let through to out while recording reducing load on your interface and Cakewalk too.

There are many pages in manual how to improve audio performance too.

But overall I wonder what listening device you use - since you prefer Cubase in that video before Cakewalk. Sound all muffled to me.

I did my tests doing original recording at 96k and also one at 48k. If there is a difference I did not hear it. I did in both Cakewalk and Cubase.

So maybe if everything fails in optimizing computer, I would go 48k instead and see if different. It's easy to be cought up in numbers and thinking 96k must be better, but doing vinyl recordings I doubt it's relevant. 96k is a serious load - and your computer is not up to it - having to deal with plugin balancing and stuff. It's about spreading load even on cores for plugins - and if no plugins not even relevant.

Good luck, and again - if you actually download my files and compare from my experiment and need further assistance, just say so.

[progmatist]

You are on the wrong track, if you excuse the term, blaming daw software. And you been dealing with silly high 1000 samples asio buffer, turning off plugin balancing even though not using any plugins. Dispite this you get issues and one daw produce different result than the other.

When strictly recording and not overdubbing, making timing issues nonexistent, using a ridiculously buffer size is more a matter of eliminating any possible risk of having to record the side of a record all over again. It's like they say: over preparing for a hurricane never hurt anyone. Under-preparing can be deadly.

As I previously stated, when using it as an actual "DAW," I use a much lower buffer size. If I even attempted overdubbing tracks with such a high buffer, they would be badly out of sync. Even more so when recording my Nord Electro driven by a MIDI track.

On top of everything I asked and still wonder what listening equipment you have. Seems you run laptop speakers or something since you prefer Cubase part of what you posted in video. Seriously muffled recording and nothing I would use for anything. Yet, you proceed with RX processing of this file.

The higher apparent volume of the Cakewalk file is what I describe as the slight brickwalling effect. If you adjust your listening volume to compensate for the lower volume of the Cubase file, you'll find it retains much more of the high end. The seekbar and waveform in the video will tell you when it's going to get loud again.

Then w64 files - why bother with that I wonder.
20 minutes, one side of vinyl, will use 750 MB.
A full concert or something both side 1.5 GB.
Nothing exceed 2 GB so why do w64.

And you mention having issues with Cakewalk w64 files, no wonder is what I am saying. You machine does not cope this load on computer obviously. They would be corrupted and lost samples or whatever.

The only files I've ever exported exceeding 2GB are video soundtrack files. The W64 default is particularly frustrating when Adobe Premiere can't read it. I was pointing out the fact Cakewalk automatically transitions to W64 not only in exporting, but internally in the audio data folder to counter the poster who didn't know what W64 even was. Let alone that he'll likely use it at some point, whether he knows it or not. W64 files generated on a variety of machines, of varying specs have rendered unreadable by other hosts. Other hosts have rendered W64 files with vastly different results.

Mentioning I use 64 samples buffer doing this - and you claim you run UR22 MkII interface much lower when used as a daw. You simply make up stories since this pc you use does not cope 96k at 1000 samples buffer.

The laptop I use at work as a synth module is indeed a low spec machine. I also don't use any pro-level audio interface. I use ASIO4ALL through the built in sound chip. I referred to its performance only as an example as to why I don't take any risk whatsoever when recording vinyl records.

Perhaps I should mention, the machine I used to record the samples in my video is an I3 with 8GB of RAM. More than adequate to record a single stereo track of audio. The machine I used to process them, my main machine, is an I7 with 16GB or RAM. It can handle whatever I throw at it.

[lfm]

The laptop I use at work as a synth module is indeed a low spec machine. I also don't use any pro-level audio interface. I use ASIO4ALL through the built in sound chip. I referred to its performance only as an example as to why I don't take any risk whatsoever when recording vinyl records.

Perhaps I should mention, the machine I used to record the samples in my video is an I3 with 8GB of RAM. More than adequate to record a single stereo track of audio. The machine I used to process them, my main machine, is an I7 with 16GB or RAM. It can handle whatever I throw at it.

If you had to fiddle with turning off plugin balancing and 1000 samples buffer - machine is not that capable IMO. If laptop cpu is very stripped to consider battery usage and such - and i3 for laptop is not an i3 for stationary computer mb.

You talk about it as just being a stereo track - but it's not.
It's a stereo track at 96k - easy to forget this is a heavy load.

And doing it on built in onboard soundcard?????

And on usb in particular. I listened to a podcast with some experienced mixers some years ago - and they meant that 96k could sound worse - because of jitter and that system might not handle it. This is listening then - not recording - but just mention as not being trivial. Once you start processing - jitter may be part of it.

I did a profile for your video as well - rather interesting
http://cloudmanfilms.ownit.nu/CakeCubas ... tVideo.JPG

Here you see boost 6 dB/octave at 8 kHz, so between 8-12 kHz you see a 3.3 dB boost. This could explain why you feel Cakewalk doing all flat recording feels off and you prefer muffled Cubase recording then sounding more normal.

This could be your pickup is not having enough capacitance on RIAA input, so you get a raise. Time constant is not the correct one.

Drop at 12 kHz, not sure how that arise, but could be poor tracking of stylus in tracks. Upper end is disaster in comparison if you look at my example below. .

Or possibly the interface you use, but I am leaning towards pickup tracking weight, worn out stylus and capacitance not being enough. But could be AAC 128 kbps from youtube download that do most of upper disaster, but hardly that boost at 8k. But check locally by you how it looks.

Compare to my recording with a well interfaced pickup
http://cloudmanfilms.ownit.nu/CakeCubaseRecordTest.JPG

I bought Pro-Ject RIAA amp, where capacitance is selectable as well as gain.
Straight response all the way.

Just thought all the effort you put into these recording - maybe look at some more parameters. My turntable have capacitance in pF for cable specified going from pickup - and you can measure how long that is - and set the correct pF at RIAA stage input - that's one thing I think is major here responsible for this boost.

If you remember my first comment to your video - I mentioned a flashback as I was selling some vinyl to a store, and how clearly all noise were heard. They EQed so they hear quality of vinyl how damaged it was. I heard some of that in Cakewalk recording being a bit brittle or rather hearing so much of noise as prominent.

Good luck whether you prefer to proceed in Cubase or Cakewalk - just that you get it right at the core recording as you redo the work.

[NickBlanc]

Hello all, new to the forum, not new to the game. I started in the goold old tracker days in DOS. After a long time of doing nothing (music wise) and a brief demo stind with Renoise (because of it's tracker lay-out) I'm finally back with making music.

I'm currently using Cakewalk because, well, it's free. And while it has a learning curve mainly to do with the UI, it works. A bit overwhelming, but it works.

But I'm beginning to get annoyed with small stuff. Like I can't for the life of me figure out how to use something like Xfer LFO Tool to modulate external VST parameters. I can't figure out how to use sends properly (always at the end of the chain?). Could be that I'm not getting the concept? You cannot start a project on a negative count (like starting with a riser on bar -2 and starting the whole thing on 0, which I know Cubase is able to do).

When I look at tutorials of Ableton, the program seems very very easy. I have yet to fumble around in Lite which I have installed. So I don't know about those limitations.

I'm looking for your opinions on the matter. Before I spend 400 bucks on an upgrade coming Black Friday.

[TS-12]

Cakewalk is really underrated. It’s One of the best DAWs

[JoseC.]

Cakewalk is really underrated. It’s One of the best DAWs

Yes, it is a no brainer. There is no linear DAW worth 200 euros more. Buy Melodyne Essential and you are set. Of course, if you want a non linear DAW you should look elsewhere. Maybe.

Nowadays it is more solid as ever, development goes on at a steady pace, and the current devs team response to user´s feedback is something I have never seen elsewhere.

Free makes some people nervous. Let them pay through the nose.

[excuse me please]

Download size etc:

https://discuss.cakewalk.com/index.php? ... alk-setup/