Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9?

Author
RexRed
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 453
  • Joined: 2011/05/20 14:09:38
  • Location: Maine
  • Status: offline
2017/12/20 13:31:04 (permalink)

Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9?

How has it been running?
 
Is it stable, and do you also use Melodyne Studio?
 
What kind of audio interface are you using?
 
I am using Roland Quad Capture.
 
I use it mostly for either a phantom powered mic or a 1/4 inch instrument plugin.
 
I am wondering if the on-board sound card with a USB mic might do better?
 
Also a USB 1/4 inch dongle for instrument interface might be better. More stable.
 
Thoughts? 
#1

15 Replies Related Threads

    RexRed
    Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 453
    • Joined: 2011/05/20 14:09:38
    • Location: Maine
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 13:52:11 (permalink)
    I am planning on buying a 12 or 14 core I9 with a MSI X299 Tomahawk Mobo.
     
    I want the best stability and latency.
     
    I would think the onboard sound would out perform my Roland Quad capture.
    #2
    slyman
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 194
    • Joined: 2015/08/31 13:55:12
    • Location: Montreal, QC
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 14:09:02 (permalink)
    Upgrading your PC is good, no doubt,  but If you want best stability and latency, I would personally keep some money and invest in another interface. Nothing against Roland or onboard stuff, but you can get better round trip latency performance elsewhere. 

    Sonar Platinum, Gigabyte H87-HD3, Intel 4770k, 16Mb Ram, Win 10 Pro, RME Babyface Pro, Roland A-Pro 800, Presonus Studio Channel, Kemper Profiling Amp, Strat/Tele/LesPaul/Taylor 214ce/Dean Cadillac/P-Bass
    #3
    RexRed
    Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 453
    • Joined: 2011/05/20 14:09:38
    • Location: Maine
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 14:58:40 (permalink)
    Hey Slyman, I am just considering all of my options.
    The USB 30 interfaces run 250 and up.
     
    An integrated sound card I think would connect directly with the PCIe lane.
     
    I can't imagine there would be any latency in an I9 setup.
     
    I never record more than one instrument at a time. 
     
    Problem is most of these cables such as the one listed below are USB 2.0.
     
    The 3.0 ones are not out yet, at least I can't find them.
     
    Another problem, the two studio mics I own are both phantom powered. 
     
    Here is a converter XLR to USB 2.0
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B019GYKGRC/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I34UDAOX7DT5O4&colid=3NUNXI9X55IF5&psc=0
     
    Here is a converter for 1/4 inch to USB.
    http://www.musiciansfriend.com/accessories/roland-digital-converter-cable-1-4--usb/j51801000001000?skuId=site1skuJ51801000001000
     
    I find the drivers written for audio interfaces are terrible in general.
     
    I would really miss an external volume knob for sound and 1/4 inch outputs for my powered speakers..
     
    I will probably take your advice and buy a new audio interface.
     
    What do you think of the Zoom ones?
     
    After the I9 this will be my price range for an audio interface.
     
    Zoom UAC-2 Two-Channel USB 3.0 SuperSpeed Audio Interface for Mac and PC
    https://smile.amazon.com/Zoom-UAC-2-Two-Channel-SuperSpeed-Interface/dp/B00ZY33B40/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513781589&sr=8-1&keywords=THE+ZOOM+UAC-2
     
    The hardware landscape seems to be changing rapidly I have never heard of Zoom before...
     
     
     
    #4
    JonD
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3617
    • Joined: 2003/12/09 11:09:10
    • Location: East of Santa Monica
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 17:17:43 (permalink)
    slyman
    ... I would personally keep some money and invest in another interface. Nothing against Roland or onboard stuff, but you can get better round trip latency performance elsewhere.



    Huh?  OP isn't complaining about his interface.... There are hundreds (thousands?) of users here who are using interfaces with "okay" latency.  IOW, not everyone needs super low round-trip latency.  Basically, if you play on a midi keyboard and not detect any noticeable lag, that's probably good enough for many (if not most) users. 
     
    What's most important to us are low one-way latency and solid drivers.  Would I like to have an RME or Thunderbolt device?  Sure.  But it wouldn't significantly change my workflow or productivity (except for bragging rights). 
     
    BTW, Roland is hardly on the same level as "onboard stuff" even though you lumped them together.

    SonarPlat/CWbBL, Win 10 Pro, i7 2600K, Asus P8Z68 Deluxe, 16GB DDR3, Radeon HD5450, TC Electronic Impact Twin, Kawai MP11 Piano, Event ALP Monitors, Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro, Too Many Plugins, My lucky hat.
    #5
    RexRed
    Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 453
    • Joined: 2011/05/20 14:09:38
    • Location: Maine
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 18:59:57 (permalink)
    I am running Cakewalk Sonar platinum on a PC with 8 GB of DDR 2 ram that is 667 mhz. (really slow)
     
    The new PC the ram 32 GB will be DDR4 3000 mhz. Quite a jump!
     
    Plus the processor, my current machine is 
    Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz) (non multi threaded)
     
    The new processor will be 3.3 GHZ X 12 cores.
     
    My question is, wouldn't the integrated sound in this new PC coupled with the processors and ram speed at some point surpass the circuitry in the Roland Quad Capture? 
     
    I would think the latency and speed of this integrated sound "Realtek" would far surpass that of the Quad Capture' inner circuitry... This is a tomahawk MSI x299 motherboard.
     
    I love my quad capture but to me it seems obsolete?
     
    Is this correct reasoning? I should be able to hook up numerous mics and inputs directly through USB?
     
    Thoughts? 
    #6
    Muziekschuur at home
    Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1442
    • Joined: 2006/03/01 03:30:22
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 20:09:56 (permalink)
    A fast SSD will allso help. And help you get the most out of the Roland. You will be fine. 

    Cakewalk Sonar Platinum Windows 7 32bit & 64bit (dualboot) Gigabyte mobo Intel dual quad 9650 & 4GB Ram RME DIGI9636 & Tascam DM24.  M-audio Rbus & SI-24 Alesis Pro active 5.1 & Radford 90 transmissionline monitors. Roland RD-150 piano Edirol UM-880 & alesis fireport.
    Remote recording Alesis HD-24 & Phonic MRS 1-20.
    P.A. D&R Dayner 29-8-2 & behringer MX8000 (& racks)
    Rackpc Sonar Platinum with win10 AMD X6 1055T, 16GB Ram
     Dell inspiron 17R 6gb ram W10 two SSD's Sonar Plat.
    #7
    JonD
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3617
    • Joined: 2003/12/09 11:09:10
    • Location: East of Santa Monica
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 20:19:57 (permalink)
    RexRed
    My question is, wouldn't the integrated sound in this new PC coupled with the processors and ram speed at some point surpass the circuitry in the Roland Quad Capture? 
     
    I would think the latency and speed of this integrated sound "Realtek" would far surpass that of the Quad Capture' inner circuitry... This is a tomahawk MSI x299 motherboard.
     
    I love my quad capture but to me it seems obsolete?



    Short answer -- no.
     
    Having a powerful PC helps overall, but it doesn't make the integrated sound card any more attractive. Also, remember that your Quad Capture benefits from the powerful PC as well.
     
    Compared to any integrated sound card, your Quad Capture has better components, features, sound quality, and most importantly, custom drivers.  ASIO drivers are designed with low-latency multi-track recording in mind, where as integrated sound cards are designed for general sound duties at the cheapest cost.
     
    Unless you're having problems with the QC (and it doesn't sound like you are), there's no reason to replace it -- and even if you did, you certainly shouldn't with an integrated sound card. That would be a step backwards in every way.

    SonarPlat/CWbBL, Win 10 Pro, i7 2600K, Asus P8Z68 Deluxe, 16GB DDR3, Radeon HD5450, TC Electronic Impact Twin, Kawai MP11 Piano, Event ALP Monitors, Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro, Too Many Plugins, My lucky hat.
    #8
    slyman
    Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 194
    • Joined: 2015/08/31 13:55:12
    • Location: Montreal, QC
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 20:51:45 (permalink)
    JonD
    slyman
    ... I would personally keep some money and invest in another interface. Nothing against Roland or onboard stuff, but you can get better round trip latency performance elsewhere.



    Huh?  OP isn't complaining about his interface.... There are hundreds (thousands?) of users here who are using interfaces with "okay" latency.  IOW, not everyone needs super low round-trip latency.  Basically, if you play on a midi keyboard and not detect any noticeable lag, that's probably good enough for many (if not most) users. 

     
    Then you don't need an i9 for that either...i5 is plenty. 
    If you read his second post, OP says he wants the best stability and latency.
    To achieve that. a fast computer is only half the battle.
     

    Sonar Platinum, Gigabyte H87-HD3, Intel 4770k, 16Mb Ram, Win 10 Pro, RME Babyface Pro, Roland A-Pro 800, Presonus Studio Channel, Kemper Profiling Amp, Strat/Tele/LesPaul/Taylor 214ce/Dean Cadillac/P-Bass
    #9
    RexRed
    Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 453
    • Joined: 2011/05/20 14:09:38
    • Location: Maine
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 21:15:24 (permalink)
    I also render 3D graphics and work heavily with Adobe After Effects and Premiere I use tons of video layers and effects.
     
    I also am an avid gamer, so the I9 is an all in one solution.  
     
    My current PC processors bog down quick when I make a Cakewalk project even reasonably complex.
     
    I would like to use effects like perfect space but forget that.
     
    I would also like to maybe even develop VR environments and stream video gaming. Eventually maybe even edit 4k.
     
    My current processor won't even play 4k and I paid 500 for my graphics card way back when.
     
    Time to upgrade and beat the crowd to then next evolution in processors.
     
    18 Cores? That could cut some of my rendering times from days to minutes. :)
     
    I also like to mix and master simultaneously.  I have never been one to mix and render then master.
     
    I keep my projects slim so I can accomplish both. The time I save being able to tweak my mixes in realtime is worth being frugal with effects and layered tracks. 
    #10
    pharohoknaughty
    Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1226
    • Joined: 2004/07/08 17:29:16
    • Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 22:14:37 (permalink)
    I have a fast computer and an RME audio interface.
     
    One of the problems that is very difficult to avoid is that the plug ins (like Waves VSTs) have built in latency and will cause your DAW to have latency no matter how fast your hardware system is.  For instance if you have a Waves L3 in the signal chain the latency will increase by more than 3000 cycles.
     
    One solution is to turn off your plug ins while tracking.
     
    Another solution is to run your live synth in another VST shell with no plugs, so in essence you have a stand alone synth. Or load your synth in a separate computer.
     
    I find this issue very annoying.
     
    I would love to try an 18 core computer with fast everything, tell us how it works out.

    Cakewalk user since DOS3. Currently Platinum on a ASUS Z97 Sabertooth Mark 1 USB 3.1, i4790 3.6, 16 gigs memory, Windows 10 64, RME UCX using firewire.
    #11
    bz2838
    Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 366
    • Joined: 2010/10/16 14:44:50
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 22:52:35 (permalink)
    I never had latency problems after I went with an RME soundcard, I highly recommend their products!

    Purrrfect Audio:  Intel i7 7700k (Kabylake), 32Gig DDR4/2133, Windows 10x64 Pro, USB RME Babyface, Sonar Platinum Current
    #12
    JonD
    Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 3617
    • Joined: 2003/12/09 11:09:10
    • Location: East of Santa Monica
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/20 23:51:51 (permalink)
    slyman
    Then you don't need an i9 for that either...i5 is plenty. 
    If you read his second post, OP says he wants the best stability and latency.
    To achieve that. a fast computer is only half the battle.



    But you failed to address the last line of that post which shows his reasoning (That an onboard sound card of an i9 system would outperform his Quad-Capture). 
     
    He says he "loves his Quad Capture" so if he isn't having problems with it, telling him to go out and buy a $2-3000 interface only confuses the issue.

    SonarPlat/CWbBL, Win 10 Pro, i7 2600K, Asus P8Z68 Deluxe, 16GB DDR3, Radeon HD5450, TC Electronic Impact Twin, Kawai MP11 Piano, Event ALP Monitors, Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro, Too Many Plugins, My lucky hat.
    #13
    rsinger
    Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 387
    • Joined: 2007/08/25 14:34:57
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/21 18:18:23 (permalink)
    RexRed
    My question is, wouldn't the integrated sound in this new PC coupled with the processors and ram speed at some point surpass the circuitry in the Roland Quad Capture? 
     
    I would think the latency and speed of this integrated sound "Realtek" would far surpass that of the Quad Capture' inner circuitry... This is a tomahawk MSI x299 motherboard.
     
    Thoughts? 



    The drivers are an important consideration in terms of latency. Does Realtek provide ASIO drivers? If not, then the latency may be worse. Being integrated can also create noise problems - outboard gear is isolated from the electronics of the computer. I use a quad capture with my laptop and it's running at 64 samples. I play guitar so it's doing A/D as well as D/A conversion and the latency is acceptable to me. 

    Sonar Platinum, 64 bit, win 7 pro - 64 bit 
    Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz, 16 Gb Ram, 480Gb + 256Gb SSDs, 1 Tb Velociraptor, Echo AudioFire4

    #14
    Voda La Void
    Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 723
    • Joined: 2011/02/12 09:15:07
    • Location: Broken Arrow, OK
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/21 18:31:12 (permalink)
    Can I ask a stupid question?  Why the concern about latency when you can monitor at the interface for zero latency? I see so much about latency, trying to trim it down with this and that...but why bother when you can just monitor at the interface?  The latency could be a full second...and why would it matter?  
     
    Genuinely curious here.  If there's a good reason to worry about latency, I'd like to know.  So far, it just seems like a distraction for my wallet.  And maybe for the OP...

    Voda La Void...experiments in disturbing frequencies...
    #15
    pharohoknaughty
    Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1226
    • Joined: 2004/07/08 17:29:16
    • Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
    • Status: offline
    Re: Is anyone using Cakewalk Platinum on an Intel I9? 2017/12/25 05:32:13 (permalink)
    Voda La Void
    Can I ask a stupid question?  Why the concern about latency when you can monitor at the interface for zero latency? I see so much about latency, trying to trim it down with this and that...but why bother when you can just monitor at the interface?  The latency could be a full second...and why would it matter?  
     
    Genuinely curious here.  If there's a good reason to worry about latency, I'd like to know.  So far, it just seems like a distraction for my wallet.  And maybe for the OP...


    Its a good question.
     
    In the old days my reel to reel had a one second delay before the smpte locked. I didn't care.
     
    But now we use soft synths played live with midi controllers, or play guitar into the DAW with a software amp emulator.  If you don't  use live soft synths or guitar plugs live, set your latency for the longest possible time, for stability. Life might be better just treating the DAW as a recorder and not a live instrument.
     
     

    Cakewalk user since DOS3. Currently Platinum on a ASUS Z97 Sabertooth Mark 1 USB 3.1, i4790 3.6, 16 gigs memory, Windows 10 64, RME UCX using firewire.
    #16
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1