VST Wrapping is Issue in Sonar 4.01 - It's NO red herring

[johnmorales]

Just because you have never experienced a problem with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for other people.

The VST wrapper that came with Sonar 4 has a hard time dealing with the many free VST out there. I do mean free, NOT cracked versions. I don't use those.

Also Cakewalk keeps on fiddling with their wrapper. With Sonar 4.01. They made some "improvements" That disabled several VSTs that previously wrapped just fine.

I called Cakewalk and verified this.

This is NOT my opinion.

In particular, Sonar 4 cannot wrap the freeware softsynth Galactix properly. It render it unusable. This was by one of my most favorite synths.

I think I have a workaround and that is to manually uninstall all the elements of the "improved" VST wrapper that came with Sonar 4. and replace said components with the ones that came with the original "less perfect" but perfectly functioning older wrapper version.

Cakewalk did not tell me this though. I figured it out on my own.

Also each time you "wrap" a VST or Plug in, doesn't that use a tad bit extra processor usage? It has to be an active process as you use Sonar. It does NOT alter the VST. It displays it in a DXi usable form. It does this real time. So logic dictates if it is doing this real time, and a wrapper is inserted inbetween the wrapped VST and Sonar. Each instance of wrapping should increase the processor power usage.

If you feel differently, tell me based on computer logic, please spare me the "it doesn't do that to me - so it's not so" nobrain responses. LOL

I tend to think that those who say there are NO problems with VST synths and plug ins are more into clips and pure audio mixing, and not so much into MIDI, softynth and plug in usage.

If they were they'd realize how quickly Sonar maxxes out. When you try to use wrapped VSTs.

I have to be ready to bounce down after each midi-track with any effects. If I exceed 3 or 4 tracks.

I'd have no problem with this. IF CAKEWALK WAS HONEST about this limitation.

They again weren't and instead directed me to do numerous re-ins/un-ins for the host program and the wrapped VSTs to ensure there wasn't something wrong with that, and of course they eventually blamed my computer. Which is a p4 3.4ghz extreme edition with hyperthreading and I'm using a 1010lt for a soundcard. So that didn't set with me too well.

I finally realized that the cakewalk tech support did not know what they were talkng about. Reanalyzed the problem based on what I had learned, and found this workaround.

The suggestion to uninstall and reinstall a program to handle a glitch is the suggestion of a lazy tech mind. Who doesn't want to waste their precious limited brain power trying to figure out a software problem. Sure there are times programs need it, but it is no panacea, and should NEVER be the first option suggested as Cakewalk techs will often do - by MY OWN experience.

[McLilith]

Hi John,

I would be very interested in hearing about any progress in solving these issues. If you find a possible solution, or even just an improvement, please post some information to this thread and let everyone know about it. I have some friends with similar Cakewalk and VST issues. They would love to know how to improve things. If someone at Cakewalk contacts you with some useful information, please share it with the rest of us.


thanks,
McLilith

[kp]

While I've bitched about the "wrapper" in the past, I think you're confusing 3 separate issues that aren't necessarily "wrapper" problems.

- Specific VSTs not working. Well, yep, that can happen. And it can happen in any host, whether there is a visible wrapper or not, for example, see http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23740 "The New VST incompatability thread" (in Tracktion)

- The update broke VSTs in Sound Forge. Yeah, I saW this too - and it has been fixed, has it not? And since the VSTs continued to work in SONAR (and Project 5 I believe) and since it's a *Cakewalk* adapter and since Sound Forge doesn't support VSTs natively, why is it an adapter problem? Would it be "better" to make the VSTs wrapped with Cakewalk adapter work only in Cakewalk applications? Maybe, but that's not necessarily a good solution for people who want to use their VSTs in other VST-lacking applications. VSTs wrapped in the Cakewalk adapter should work in their applications and if they work in others, then that's a bonus, *not* a requirement or a given.

- SONAR maxxing out with wrapped VSTs. Well, I think this really is something specific to your set-up: I've got a similarly powered machine to you and do not run into this "3 or 4 track" limitation at all, and I know a reasonable number of SONAR users who are heavy VST/VSTi users who don't either (many of whom have much slower machines). In fact, a recent track I did had something like 7 or 8 VSTi tracks, maybe a dozen effected audio tracks and one DXi track and the CPU meter hit maybe 40%. Sure, we know that different VSTi's use different amount of CPU, but to say that "3 or 4 tracks" is a limit is blatantly unture - are you sure you're not hitting a P4 denormal problem with the specific VSTi's you're using?

[WillieJenkins]

John,

the problem with your argument is that if this were as big a problem as you say, then others would be complaining about it all over KVRAudio, Cakewalks forums and many other places.

Regarding FREEWARE VSTis and Cakewalk's Adapter. Its pretty common knowledge that the majority of the few plugs that don't work with cakewalk's adapter are Freeware VSTis, and in most of these cases the developer of the VSTi is improperly implementing the VST spec.

There might be a NOMINAL increase in VST usage vs. DXi usage. Its hard to tell however as most DXi implementations are simply 'wrapped' VSTs supplied by the vendor. I would assume if this CPU hit was really something to be worried about, major developers would have done a proper DXi port.

90+% of what I do is VST synth and plugin usage, and I don't find Sonar to max out that quickly, I'm quite happy with the performance at this point. Although I haven't compared to other hosts in years now. 3 or 4 tracks? Which VSTis are on there? 2 instances of Reaktor and one of Tassman with Ambience Reverbs on each channel? That sounds like you're maxxing out way too quick.

On some recent hiphop tracks I did, I had 60+ rewire tracks, routed to 32 busses, an instance of trilogy, a couple instances of atmopshere, an instance of Kontakt, native EQ's on about half those channels, some native compressors, then voxengo elephant, soniformer, and curveeq on the master bus, and the project ran fine.

When doing an orchestral template, I can easily have 2 full instances of Kontakt, (with 1+ gig of samples loaded), 1 instance of Stormdrum, a couple of instances of Atmosphere, trilogy, and maybe even another drum sampler open and be able to record and mix realtime.

This is on a 2700+XP Athlon, with 1.5 gigs of RAM.

and about the last statement of re-installing being the last option. If we weren't using Microsoft OS's I might agree with you, but the sad fact is that rebooting/re-initalizing/re-installing the products actually solves the problem 90% of the time.

This is meant to be an explanatory/advisory/friendly post, what kind of softsynths and effects are you loading on each track to have it where you can only use 3-4 of them? If I have them too, I'll try and replicate what you'er talking about and check the usage myself.

[johnmorales]

for me the solution was removing the .dll and all the associated files (one or two) that Sonar 4.01 installed. That overwrote the VST wrapper. That I originally bought.

I then found on a CD the original wrapper, in it's installed form, and copied and pasted all the files in that folder into the "VST wrapper" folder I find in the Cakewalk folder in the main drive Program - Cakewalk.

It took care of my problem.

However if they also had problems with the original VST wrapper cakewalk put out. This obviousl would not solve their problem.

The original VST wrapper worked flawlessly. For me the problems occured with the "new and improved" updated versions. Remove the updates, and problem solved

[WillieJenkins]

john,

another thing, is to be sure to tell cakewalk of these problems. I know you did in this case, which is awesome, because one of the best parts about Cakewalk as a company, is that often times if you submit bug reports, the next patch of Sonar will fix the problem. Foreign concept these days

[Memorex]

Why don't you just buy Directixer. Every plugin I have found that does not work with FXpansion VST wrapper (and that includes some commercial ones)works fine in Directixer. It's just harder to set up because each plugin has to be done manually. So, I use Fxpansion for most and the ones that give me trouble, I disable them in FXpansion and add them to Directixer. It works every time. Plus, VSTi's that generate MIDI output like Groove Agent, Broomstick Bass, etc. need Directixer's built-in MIDI loopback feature to fully work.

[johnmorales]

While I've bitched about the "wrapper" in the past, I think you're confusing 3 separate issues that aren't necessarily "wrapper" problems.

- Specific VSTs not working. Well, yep, that can happen. And it can happen in any host, whether there is a visible wrapper or not, for example, see http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23740 "The New VST incompatability thread" (in Tracktion)

Uhh, so how does this contribute to solving the problem? So other hosts have this too. That neither solves my problem or makes me me feel better I'm using Sonar. I have the problem with Sonar. The fact that it happens with other hosts is irrelavent to solving the issue.

- The update broke VSTs in Sound Forge. Yeah, I saW this too - and it has been fixed, has it not? And since the VSTs continued to work in SONAR (and Project 5 I believe) and since it's a *Cakewalk* adapter and since Sound Forge doesn't support VSTs natively, why is it an adapter problem? Would it be "better" to make the VSTs wrapped with Cakewalk adapter work only in Cakewalk applications? Maybe, but that's not necessarily a good solution for people who want to use their VSTs in other VST-lacking applications. VSTs wrapped in the Cakewalk adapter should work in their applications and if they work in others, then that's a bonus, *not* a requirement or a given.

Again I'm not wrapping for other hosts, just Sonar. So the fact that it does that to other hosts does not address my issues.
When I called Sonar Tech Support. They didn't mention a fix. If there is a fix. I didn't see it on the website. Are you using Sonar 4.01 or Sonar 2 or 3? Perhaps you are speaking of updates to previous wrappers. AS I understand it. The wrapper that came with Sonar 4.01 is their latest and greatest.

- SONAR maxxing out with wrapped VSTs. Well, I think this really is something specific to your set-up: I've got a similarly powered machine to you and do not run into this "3 or 4 track" limitation at all, and I know a reasonable number of SONAR users who are heavy VST/VSTi users who don't either (many of whom have much slower machines). In fact, a recent track I did had something like 7 or 8 VSTi tracks, maybe a dozen effected audio tracks and one DXi track and the CPU meter hit maybe 40%. Sure, we know that different VSTi's use different amount of CPU, but to say that "3 or 4 tracks" is a limit is blatantly unture - are you sure you're not hitting a P4 denormal problem with the specific VSTi's you're using?

INSTEAD OF SAYING WE HAVE A SIMILAR setup JUST what is your set up. You may have something I don't, and since you use OTHER hosts. You may skip several critical steps in your pruduction work and NOT do them in Sonar at all, Instead you MAY JUST do them In Soundforge OR Project 5 and bring over the completed clip to Sonar. Thus completely avoiding the area of difficulty I have. Since I ONLY use Sonar from start to finish. Perhaps the problems I constantly have with Sonar will diminish. Once I also get my new host Cubase, and when I run into an issue with Sonar I will just port whatever I am working with there to finish it up, and vice versa.
Hmmm, it sounds like I'm talking to a Sonar Schill rather than a real poster. The line "I use a similarly powered machine....." line is the standard one they use to try to make the person with the problem feel like it's an issue with them in order to deflect what they feel is negative commentary on a Cakewalk product. REST assured if we DID have a similar setup, AND used the computer similarly. YOU WOULD be experiencing similar problems. I've been through this before. When I first tried to use Sonar, I used it ON 3 DIFFERENT MACHINES with similar power set ups and had identical problems on all three. That finally shut up the Sonar Techs when it came to the standard "it's a user set up problem" I sent them the 3 different specs. I've used computers for 20yrs now. I'm very versed in understanding and differentiating between user problems and software issues. I've gotten pretty good and understanding many of the excellent features of Sonar as well as the limitations Sonar/Cakewalk likes to pretend does not exist. Lest they be slammed for putting out an inferior product.

I'm trying to solve a problem here, not get into a pointless conversation about HOW WONDERFUL and PROBLEM FREE SONAR is,and try to convince people who are sonar schills that the problem is NOT me. Sure I make mistakes, but after using computers for 20yrs. I'm pretty good at knowing when it's me and when it's the set up or the software or a combination.

[johnmorales]

But I have to be clear.

Right now I ONLY USE SONAR.

If you use project 5, rewire, cubase or any one of a number of other HOSTS for your production MOST LIKELY u use them for specific things.

It is very possible you do NOT have my problems, because you avoid certain steps that a person who ONLY USES SONAR makes when producing.

Obviously if u use Project Five you are doing your midi-production work there? If you aren't. What are u using it for? I do NOT have that option. I am using Sonar ONLY.

Same with all the other HOSTS people use. It's apparent that many advanced users use several different hosts and other applications in order access the tasks each of those hosts do better than anyone else or work in an environment they feel most comfortable.

Because of this, problems that occur with a SONAR ONLY user will probably NOT happen to you. Since you split the duties, and AVOID many of the steps. That I make to produce something.

One thing is becoming quickly clear. No matter how good a computer user is, NO MATTER how good SONAR may be, and I do like the program and like many of it's features and it is so easy to use. It is a silly decision to depend on SONAR or it's products for 100% of poduction as Cakewalk marketing likes to suggest is possible.

Limitations are not a problem if they are honestly understood and confronted. That's my issue with Cakewalk. They would rather die than admit anything like that.

And finally, re: bringing the problem to Cakewalk's Attn. I thought talking to tech support was doing just that. When the tech guy insisted I prove it. I dropped it. I'm not going to spend even more time on top of the time to argue it exists. Obvously you are far more in the "inside" with Cakewalk.So why don't you tell them. You obviously will not encounter the doubt and forced marketing crap I did. You will be taken seriously.

[WillieJenkins]

hey john,

I understand your frustration, but you gotta calm down.

I also use Sonar for 100% of most of what I do (I sprinkle in some Ableton Live4, but for specific purposes).

The way you're laying out your argument is that you basically just want someone to agree with you and say, yes Sonar is flawed. But again, the problem is that if you look here and on the message boards, this seems to be a problem isolated to you. Noone is claiming you're a computer or sequencing idiot, just that they, and the majority of people on the message boards aren't seeing the same issues.

Again, if you stop to think about it, if everyone could only put 3-4 vstis on a track before bouncing you'd think that the forums would be burning up about it, but that isn't the case.

Also, again, getting back to the troubleshooting part of your post, could you describe what VSTis and effects you're using to see this kind of CPU usage?

-Eric

[whyterabbyt]

johnmorales quoth
Also each time you "wrap" a VST or Plug in, doesn't that use a tad bit extra processor usage?

Yes. But the overhead is basically function redirection, which has an absolutely negligible overhead compared to the amount of DSP calculations a softsynth or effect would be carrying out, and the overhead is occuring on functions which process blocks of audio samples, so the overhead is reduced by a very large factor indeed.

It has to be an active process as you use Sonar. It does NOT alter the VST. It displays it in a DXi usable form. It does this real time. So logic dictates if it is doing this real time, and a wrapper is inserted inbetween the wrapped VST and Sonar. Each instance of wrapping should increase the processor power usage.

I sincerely doubt if the overhead would register even 1% of your CPU usage

If you feel differently, tell me based on computer logic, please spare me the "it doesn't do that to me - so it's not so" nobrain responses.

I tend to think that those who say there are NO problems with VST synths and plug ins are more into clips and pure audio mixing, and not so much into MIDI, softynth and plug in usage.

It doesnt really matter what you 'tend to think'. Your uninformed opinion has no bearing on the facts. I use dozens of softsynths and effects in my projects.

If they were they'd realize how quickly Sonar maxxes out. When you try to use wrapped VSTs.

No, you're the one who needs to realise that this does not happen for other people.

I have to be ready to bounce down after each midi-track with any effects. If I exceed 3 or 4 tracks.

Then I would suggest you might have other significant issues, because this

I'd have no problem with this. IF CAKEWALK WAS HONEST about this limitation.

If it doesnt happen on other peple's systems, then it isnt a limitation. It may be a problem for you but that does not make it universal.

They again weren't and instead directed me to do numerous re-ins/un-ins for the host program and the wrapped VSTs to ensure there wasn't something wrong with that, and of course they eventually blamed my computer. Which is a p4 3.4ghz extreme edition with hyperthreading and I'm using a 1010lt for a soundcard. So that didn't set with me too well.

So you're claiming that no abberant behaviour could ever be caused by someone's setup, installation problems, or software conflicts?

Quite frankly, that makes your claim of '20 years' of experience sound ludicrous.

[johnmorales]

hey john,

I understand your frustration, but you gotta calm down.

I also use Sonar for 100% of most of what I do (I sprinkle in some Ableton Live4, but for specific purposes).

The way you're laying out your argument is that you basically just want someone to agree with you and say, yes Sonar is flawed. But again, the problem is that if you look here and on the message boards, this seems to be a problem isolated to you. Noone is claiming you're a computer or sequencing idiot, just that they, and the majority of people on the message boards aren't seeing the same issues.

Again, if you stop to think about it, if everyone could only put 3-4 vstis on a track before bouncing you'd think that the forums would be burning up about it, but that isn't the case.

Also, again, getting back to the troubleshooting part of your post, could you describe what VSTis and effects you're using to see this kind of CPU usage?

-Eric

Agree with me as to what? I haven't made any arguement. I have stated a problem. I want to know if others have had the same problem. Check the posts. There is one woman. Who had similar issues, and asked what I did to solve it.

It is YOU who answer by ignoring the said problem as stated AND TAKING ON THE ROLE OF A SONAR BOOSTER.

People DO COMPLAIN ALL THE TIME. You just refuse to see them as legit, and write it off as user or set up problems.

It's clear by your response you have some sort of professional relationship, NOT necessarily paid with Cakewalk. Part of your duties Is you are Trained like attack dog to decend on anyone who dares whisper about anything bad re: Sonar. in order to discredit them before they or their issue can be taken seriously.

Saying that SONAR is the greatest thing since creation and that the problem is a user issue IS NOT CONTRIBUTING TO SOLUTIONS

I LIKE SONAR. IT'S EASY TO USE AND FEATURE RICH.[/b] You wouldn't know that. Since you didn't really read my whole post did you? That is one reason, up to now. I used it exclusively. However unlike you, this does not blind me to Sonar's limitations nor make me afraid to discuss it

Forums are primarily for solving problems and sharing experiences, NOT BOOSTING or PROMOTING a product as you seem intent on doing in response to an issue

[whyterabbyt]

johnmorales
Right now I ONLY USE SONAR.

90% of my audio tracks ONLY USE SONAR.

If you use project 5, rewire, cubase or any one of a number of other HOSTS for your production MOST LIKELY u use them for specific things.

Irrelevant.

It is very possible you do NOT have my problems, because you avoid certain steps that a person who ONLY USES SONAR makes when producing.

Funny. I dont see these problems and I ONLY USE SONAR when producing most of my tracks. If I use Sonar, I use it from beginning to end. And I dont see these problems when I am ONLY USING SONAR.

Same with all the other HOSTS people use. It's apparent that many advanced users use several different hosts and other applications in order access the tasks each of those hosts do better than anyone else or work in an environment they feel most comfortable.

And many 'advanced users' ONLY USE SONAR.

Because of this, problems that occur with a SONAR ONLY user will probably NOT happen to you. Since you split the duties, and AVOID many of the steps. That I make to produce something.

Avoiding any problem will certainly cause it to not happen. That is, however, not the same as someone saying they do not have the problem.

One thing is becoming quickly clear. No matter how good a computer user is, NO MATTER how good SONAR may be, and I do like the program and like many of it's features and it is so easy to use. It is a silly decision to depend on SONAR or it's products for 100% of poduction as Cakewalk marketing likes to suggest is possible.

Then why do you do it?

Limitations are not a problem if they are honestly understood and confronted. That's my issue with Cakewalk. They would rather die than admit anything like that.

This is, of course, complete nonsense, as anyone who has ever observed the Sonar forums at Cakewalk can testify.


Obvously you are far more in the "inside" with Cakewalk.So why don't you tell them. You obviously will not encounter the doubt and forced marketing crap I did. You will be taken seriously.

You have repeated this assertion several times; that people who disagree with you or do not see what you do are somehow connected to with Cakewalk in some way. Feel free to rely on cheap and underhand arguments such as these all you want, but all it actually proves is that you have no desire to discuss the issue sneibly or rationally.

[WillieJenkins]

yeah you know what john, you're a jerk, go back and read my posts, I answered pretty much every one that you posted, I asked you to send me audio files, I asked which vstis you'd use and told you I'd load them for you.

You were asking for logic in an earlier post, and I was trying to logically describe to you that there are thousands of not tens of thousands of sonar uses, when 2-5 people on any given forum have an issue, most of the time its user error.

I asked you for all these things, and spent time writing replies to your posts, trying to help you, and that crap is what you respond with?

You're a truly pathetic human being, I'm through with you. Good luck in solving your problems with anger and hate. I tried to be nice, you seeming didn't care, so since you feel you can be an unprovoked moron to me, I'll be an equally provoked ignorant fool back.

[johnmorales]

johnmorales quoth
Also each time you "wrap" a VST or Plug in, doesn't that use a tad bit extra processor usage?

Yes. But the overhead is basically function redirection, which has an absolutely negligible overhead compared to the amount of DSP calculations a softsynth or effect would be carrying out, and the overhead is occuring on functions which process blocks of audio samples, so the overhead is reduced by a very large factor indeed.

VERY COOL, THANKS FOR THE EXLANATION AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. I had asked a question, not stated a fact.

It has to be an active process as you use Sonar. It does NOT alter the VST. It displays it in a DXi usable form. It does this real time. So logic dictates if it is doing this real time, and a wrapper is inserted inbetween the wrapped VST and Sonar. Each instance of wrapping should increase the processor power usage.

I sincerely doubt if the overhead would register even 1% of your CPU usage

In otherwords your very knowledgeable sounding previous answer to my question is kind of bogus. You do NOT know truly if it uses much power. YOU ARE ASSUMING based on how you understand things. HOWEVER based on your assumption. It does sound like you know what you are talking about, and I would be inclined to accept. What you said as true.

If you feel differently, tell me based on computer logic, please spare me the "it doesn't do that to me - so it's not so" nobrain responses.

I tend to think that those who say there are NO problems with VST synths and plug ins are more into clips and pure audio mixing, and not so much into MIDI, softynth and plug in usage.

It doesnt really matter what you 'tend to think'. Your uninformed opinion has no bearing on the facts. I use dozens of softsynths and effects in my projects.

Very cool, I must have another Cakewalk is God person. You reply to my "OPINION" Which I honestly state is an "OPINION" with an ad hominum personal attack in order to make me seem stupid. Unfortunately you only wounded yourself. I love this. I wish I had started posting sooner. Schills are easy targets

If they were they'd realize how quickly Sonar maxxes out. When you try to use wrapped VSTs.

No, you're the one who needs to realise that this does not happen for other people.

I always feel very special to know a someone who is SO 100% confident that he KNOW EVERYTHING. JUST how did you come to this conclusion. Did you expend your omnipresent mind into every studio that uses Sonar and find this to be true, or perhaps you have visited sat down with and worked with every sonar user and proved this beyond of shadow of a doubt. I mean this is possible. Since as you said THIS DOES NOT happen for other people.

I have to be ready to bounce down after each midi-track with any effects. If I exceed 3 or 4 tracks.

Then I would suggest you might have other significant issues, because this

I did slip on this one. With my current set up. I don't run into this until much later. I was thinking of the previous 3 set ups. Oh and thank you for deducing without any information whatsoever. That this is a set up problem. You must work for Sonar Tech support and specialize in obnoxious replies to real problems.

I'd have no problem with this. IF CAKEWALK WAS HONEST about this limitation.

If it doesnt happen on other peple's systems, then it isnt a limitation. It may be a problem for you but that does not make it universal.

Who said it was universal? I MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT. I said it happens to some people. On the other hand YOU DID. You are the one who so confidently said IT DOES NOT HAPPEN for anyone anywhere.

They again weren't and instead directed me to do numerous re-ins/un-ins for the host program and the wrapped VSTs to ensure there wasn't something wrong with that, and of course they eventually blamed my computer. Which is a p4 3.4ghz extreme edition with hyperthreading and I'm using a 1010lt for a soundcard. So that didn't set with me too well.

So you're claiming that no abberant behaviour could ever be caused by someone's setup, installation problems, or software conflicts?

NO YOU ARE SAYING I SAID THAT STUPID SH** IN ORDER TO HAVE SOMETHING STUPID TO REPLY TO and make yourself feel smart. LOL Get real, did you fail english comprehension? You infer way too much from what I said. I stated a problem. Since I was able to solve it. Without resorting to the drastic measures suggested. Then answer the question. Why do you think it's my system?

Quite frankly, that makes your claim of '20 years' of experience sound ludicrous.

AH, how sweet how superior, desert is last. You wind up with yet anotehr personal attack. What I don't get is why you feel the need to defend Sonar so. You respond as if I am personally attacking you. Why is that? Do you get Sonar for free as a testor or perhaps more?

RE: My experience, Obvously you have far less. Since your responses were so completely and utterly easy to destroy, and rather than dealing with the issue you insulted me. ROTFLMAO I had a lot of fun. Please Mr. "Cakewalk is God" I feel extra special today getting to access your vast storehouse of irrefutable knowledge and certainty as to the
workings of every sonar set up everywhere.


It's unfortunate that your duty as a schill for Cakewalk prevents you from helping others as you are clearly capable of doing due to your advanced knowledge of computers in general as demonstrated by your initial responses. (Oh and that was a back-handedcompliment-but most likely you will only feel insulted