bapu

ionecake
Hey Noel, Any chance you could give us an idea of the size of the team you have working on Cakewalk now? There's some confusion floating around that it's just one or two developers and maybe one or two support guys. Is that about right?

I'm not sure why you included the additional query of who wears boxers and who wears briefs.
 
What earthly good is there in knowing how many developers there are.
 
I've worked in all manner of team sizes and in my almost 40 years of programming experience I have found that (team) size does not matter. It's the deliverables that matter. How many people it took to do it is nearly irrelevant, IMO.

It's not an indictment if there is a small, medium, or large team. And I have no problem if it's a small, medium, or large team. Some great DAWs are essentially developed by tiny teams... no need to list them, but I can think of at least three where I know the teams are 1-4 developers total.
 
Anyway, I think there's a lot of misinformation floating around various forums, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know what kind of team is presently working on Cakewalk. I'm sure we'll eventually find out with a new website or credits in the software, etc., etc., and if BandLab wants to keep that private for now, no problem. It's just better IMHO to know *more* on something like this. And why not? Dispel some of the misinformation and provide more clarity to the picture.
 
Not a big deal, and I apologize if I've taken this thread OT.

paulo
Well, I guess that you don't consider 32 bit Vst's that I use often that either have restricted functionality (unable to write automation) or for some reason are not even recognised by the 64 bit version of Platinum (Miroslav Philharmonik and Sampletank) to be a good reason, but they are good enough reasons for me to just stick with Platinum for now.

You can write automation with 32 bit VST's in X64 Cakewalk even via BitBridge. What is the specific case that doesnt work for you? I just tried it with a a 32 bit VST and was able to write auto64 bitmation after arming the track for automation. If you need the full plugin toolbar you can even open that by holding down ALT while opening the plugin UI.
 
This is the first I've heard 64 bit IK plugins not showing up when scanned. Have you reported this to IK and logged a bug earlier? I'm sure those are solvable problems. Is this reproducible with SampleTank 3?
 
Most vendors are going 64 bit only these days. Its expensive to support a legacy format and double the testing and integration effort for a tiny subset of users. If you absolutely need 32 bit support for some projects then by all means use an older version of the software. You can always freeze tracks with 32 bit plugins and then load the project into the 64 version to finish it.

Also, not everyone is coming from SPlat. My last version was a semi-baked beta of SPlat that still functioned but definitely had differences. My last full version was X3. It wasn’t worth the upgrade for me at the time.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

paulo
Well, I guess that you don't consider 32 bit Vst's that I use often that either have restricted functionality (unable to write automation) or for some reason are not even recognised by the 64 bit version of Platinum (Miroslav Philharmonik and Sampletank) to be a good reason, but they are good enough reasons for me to just stick with Platinum for now.

You can write automation with 32 bit VST's in X64 Cakewalk even via BitBridge. What is the specific case that doesnt work for you? I just tried it with a a 32 bit VST and was able to write auto64 bitmation after arming the track for automation. If you need the full plugin toolbar you can even open that by holding down ALT while opening the plugin UI.
 
This is the first I've heard 64 bit IK plugins not showing up when scanned. Have you reported this to IK and logged a bug earlier? I'm sure those are solvable problems. Is this reproducible with SampleTank 3?
 
Most vendors are going 64 bit only these days. Its expensive to support a legacy format and double the testing and integration effort for a tiny subset of users. If you absolutely need 32 bit support for some projects then by all means use an older version of the software. You can always freeze tracks with 32 bit plugins and then load the project into the 64 version to finish it.

I didn't know how to uncover the various buttons that are covered by the blue strip in the bit-bridged UI's so thank you for that - I'm not near my DAW pc right now to check, but that could well be the answer to my automation issue in 64 bit version.
 
However..........Sampletank 2.5 and Miroslav .dlls is still an issue. They are in the same folder as many other plug-ins that are recognised by scanning that folder in x64 and are recognised by the 32 bit version scan, but are ignored by x64 for some reason and therefore do not show up in the list of available instruments. This has been the case ever since I had to install win 7 when it was no longer possible to install sonar on XP (X3 IIRC ?). I went through the problem with the folks who were here at the time and it was never resolved. IIRC I wasn't the only person having this issue with these particular plug ins. I never took it up with IK because my experience of their product support to that point didn't fill me with hope that it would be a fruitful way to spend further time, so in the end I decided that it was just easier all round to use the 32 bit version of X3Pro and then Platinum where all was well.
 
The issue remains as of Platinum 2017.10. I tried again recently in case it had been fixed in the meantime, once I saw that you were dropping the 32 bit version.
 
I have no idea re Sampletank 3 as AFAIK it is 64 bit only so I've never bothered with it . I understand what you say about jumping between 32/64 as necessary, but I'm sure you can understand that faffing around like that if I just want to make a small tweak to a synth track mid project is not exactly conducive to the creative process.
( Especially if Bandlab Cakewalk opens with the same degree of lethargy as Platinum seems to, but no need to go there!)
 
Please understand that it is not my wish or expectation that you spend any further time considering or responding to this, but at the same time I think you should not really be making comments that there is " no good reason" why an existing user should not use the bandlab version because in some cases there is.

That was my solution too with Sonar Home Studio

Ya 

The problem I see with revamping Sonitus is that, it has already been done in many cases. I think the best thing would be to take the best of these devices and try and add all the various features to one device that does it all. A device that has real-time spectrum analysis, side chains, tons of presets, there are so many devices that only have a part of the whole picture. Make one mother of all l reverb units and incorporate the best features. One Reverb, One Eq and One Compressor, One stereo widener with several visualizations, One multi-band compressor, transient editor make them useable on both track and master bus. Rather than redundant products that each do different things, have one product for each that does everything and keep expanding on them with new iterations. I think of Wave brand plugins and they have so much redundancy and talk about old interfaces, most of the devices have no real-time spectrum analysis. Some multi-track visualizations with color taps for each track would be nice too.
 
The problems seems that just adding a giant reverb app would require adding a CPU and memory hog to each track.
 
Perhaps if there was a way to shut off main features so you only load the parts resident that you need might be a way of minimizing the load.
 
It is easy to get lost in a myriad of redundant plugins, we are better served by a focus on making certain plugins as full featured as possible while still keeping them modular. 
 
A prime example are the two compressors in prochannel. Why two? It would be easy to combine all the features of both into one. Make the one switchable for mastering or tracking.
 
Furthermore, the prochannel EQ, why even have that when there is the LP EQ that is much more full featured? Make the LP EQ modular where you can shut off certain features so it can be used for both tracking or mastering. Then there is only one global EQ to worry about developing. Make it smart so if you insert it into a track it switches to simple mode and if you insert it into a master bus it switches to full-featured mode.
My point is cut out the redundancy.
 
Waves plugins are a prime example, how many different EQs and compressors do they have (over a thousand)? Do they really each have a different signature and colorization? Or is that just a bunch of hype and bragging rights? In my experience an EQ is an EQ. I might be wrong about this but a cheap EQ in the right hands with the right pair of ears can go a long way. Generally I rely on the spectrum analysis and my ears they all seem to do basically the same thing. 
 
There are some plugins that have neat features so add them to the main plugin of this type. Stop making redundant plugins. Make a well focused and comprehensive suite to rule them all, build them into the prochannel.

Noooooooooooo!! don't get rid of the QuadQurve.... it's excellent.
 
 
:)

i have switched over to CbB & love it.  however, when i need to dither down to 16 bit audio, i go back to SPLAT so that i can use the Powr-3 dithering option.

I use quadcurve for every track but if it were to be switched out for the LP EQ and if the LP EQ had a convenient low bandwidth switch (which I think it already does), I think I would be better served. LP EQ is a better product and if any EQ plugin designed for Cakewalk should be further developed it should be there... Also, with the intel I9 that I have, I am not really worried about reaching the ceiling of my processor by adding CPU hog plugins. My most complex songs barely even move the indicator lights on all 12 cores. Load balancing works really fantastic! It is nice to see that plug-in load balancing made it into CbB... :)

RexRed
I use quadcurve for every track but if it were to be switched out for the LP EQ and if the LP EQ had a convenient low bandwidth switch (which I think it already does), I think I would be better served. LP EQ is a better product and if any EQ plugin designed for Cakewalk should be further developed it should be there... Also, with the intel I9 that I have, I am not really worried about reaching the ceiling of my processor by adding CPU hog plugins. My most complex songs barely even move the indicator lights on all 12 cores. Load balancing works really fantastic! It is nice to see that plug-in load balancing made it into CbB... :)

The LP EQ is a Linear Phase EQ, which are often used for Mastering.