So close, so far... only 2 audio ins?

Yes, there are only 2 inputs. The program was originally designed as an all in one electronic music workstation (a little like Reason).

I'm not sure I understand why you would need multiple inputs for live play. Can you clarify?

A bit off topic: I'm wondering why people often describe P5 as "Cakewalk's answer to Reason" or "open host version of Reason." Reason seems extremely different from P5 to me. P5, to me, seems to more of a competitor to FLStudio and now Abelton Live than it is to Reason.

"if you focus on P5's core strength, intuitive softsynth fun, there's a lot you can do."

Yes, I can definitely see that. But I'm always looking for one single app that can get as much done as possible, and having found it I will tend to shelf the others. I can't see getting 90% of the way there and then having to jump through hoops exporting/importing/converting because of one achille's heel. Two inputs is really a bit of a tragedy. All you have to do is stereo mic one source and you're done.

Hey Marc, I understand your points,
P5 was never intended to be used as a "Live" host inititaly, It was to be a "virtual studio" so if someone had no gear to make music they could go out and buy this piece of software and if they had a decent sound card they could make music, or A person with his/her own studio could use it as an alternative . It was Reason's comepetition because Reason basically does the same thing, it gives you a "virtual studio", and because of Reason's popularity at the time people made the 1:1 connection. P5 was given the "Open host" name because you could use all the cool synths/effects that were available on the web and in retail, where as Reason you could only use the instruments/effects it came with.

Now with P5 2.0 we are now seeing its "live" features in infancy, and I can expect that it will grow and mature into something more robust and flexible as time comes. Hell look at Ableton Live its at version 5 and its still not the perfect studio/live enviroment, I know others will beg to differ, but thats just what I think.

I know having only a single stereo input to record at a time is a bit of a limit, but i know recording audio wasn't P5's original intention when I purchased the software which is why I had Sonar or Pro Audio, I cant remember what i was using, so that aspect doesn't bug me. It still does what I wanted it to do from version 1 only way better now. And I know things will get better with future releases.

just my 2

keep the easily distracted drummer inspired

loose the mommy heartbeat and turn him loose like animal on the muppets distraction problem solved. :-)

It makes a certain amount of sense in light of the evolution from a softsynth environment to an audio environment, but as soon as audio comes to the table, a limit of two channels is really arbitrary. Extensibility is one of the first benefits in all things virtual. Like many of this forum's members I'm a software developer, and I'm willing to bet that enumerating all available inputs on a selected ASIO (etc) device and dropping them in the menu where "Left/Right/Stereo" presently live would take the right programmer a couple of hours at most. These additional options could sit in a submenu if Cakewalk is inclined to keep the interface tidy for non-power-users.

this really sound more like the utterance of a software manager than a software developer
all things virtual start using up resources, cpu cycles and memory
dropping the menu would probably take a few hours, opening the channels, recording -- I'm thinking multi-threaded low-level work
There may be a reason that P5 is more 'gapless' than Sonar and now Sonar is trying to play catch up on that front.

I don't need or want audio recording. This isn't Sonar Lite.
otoh, I'm fairly sure this is a likely development path, for better or worse.

and if Cakewalk isn't rushing to release a patch it's because marketing is playing product differentiation games against Sonar. If that's the case, that's just tragic.

we've been informed a few times that product differentiation is not as much a concern to CW management than it seems to be to users

I can assure you I'm no optimistic manager. I've been a straight code-monkey for about 20 years now.

maybe you could use the quote button then. :-) no offence but your post are very difficult to read. algorithms algorithms everybody and nobody but cake knows why they only have the number of audio ins that they do. the first precept of modern (this timeline we currently reside in) software development is to be able to sell it. the second how can i develop it in a way to sell more. just saw i robot yesterday for the first time. i like the part about ghost. lol. dsp algorithms are far more complicated than a lot of people realize and not designed to optimally run on your standard cpu you will typically find in a pc. and quite frankly were developed to solve analog problems in the digital world. they have been adapted for use in this industry (audio consumer).

i'm not arguing with you. i use sonar so it's not an issue with me but if it is one with you by all means make yourself heard. not saying it is or is not a marketing issue cake has stead fast said otherwise on many occasions. not saying it is a complicated dsp problem just in my contrarian serendipitous synchronicitized way saying i don't know and it probably has something to do with nothing we have mentioned. there now i've added at least one new form of a word to the english lexicon. :-) bring peace to this world eat a dinosaur.

I would like more audio inputs, Aux Busses, and goshdernit, *Video Inputs*.






Project 5 Version 5!!!! Now with smell-o-vision!!!


i gots a code ind my nose

ORIGINAL: darc

Thanks for the reply, Grey. Yes, I'd love to clarify and I hope Cakewalk has their ears on!

Imagine you've been working on a song for couple of days and in the course of that time you've tracked several harmonies of your own vocals, a guitar track w/ corresponding audio plugins, a bass track with same, and a couple of softsynths. All of the effects, the panning, the mix, are just perfect. Now imagine if, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel (and almost certainly comprimising) by reworking everything at a mixing board when you play live, you could just have your band jack into your audio/MIDI interface and play through that project, out in stereo, direct to a PA. Imagine your live mix sounding just like you intended, without any redundant effort.

This is critical not only for performance, but for those quick rehearsals after work, where you're trying to keep the easily distracted drummer inspired. Problem is, while you may have used one input to track all those harmonies in the studio, you'll need more inputs for your backup vocalists' mics etc.

darc,

Even if you were using a DAW program like Sonar or Live that had multiple audio inputs, the main problem I see with the band "playing through" your project is that you would have to be playing the project at extreme low latency to keep your band from not getting disoriented from the time lag. Even if all your tracks were frozen or rendered to audio, I am presuming that the point of playing through the project is to gain the benefit of VST/DX plug ins for EQ, track effects and send effects on your live input sources, which will take CPU cycles.

Unfortunately, all of those effects will be consuming significantly higher CPU at low latencies needed for live use. And of course, enabling 8 inputs takes more CPU than enabling one or two.

Don't get me wrong. Theoretically, you can do what you propose today using Sonar or Live. But, you may need a massive amount of computing power to make it all happen depending on the nature of your performance.

That is why most folks playing live along with a DAW host will set the host for a higher latency (to lower cpu), and use a separate output from the DAW to feed timing information to the players (such as a click track or discrete monitor mix). Then, outputs from the DAW host can feed into the main mixing console along with your live players.

Again, for the above scenario you would need a host like Sonar or Live that can address multiple outputs in order to provide the monitor mix. Also, live players needing effects enhancement would need to use outboard effects on the way to the console, or as a send effect in the console, since hi latency settings on the DAW makes live monitoring through the DAW impossible due to the audio delay. A high tech alternative to outboard effects could be separate computer laptops / audio interfaces dedicated to running a given player's individual low latency audio effects feeding into the console.

Hope this helps...

ORIGINAL: darc
Imagine you've been working on a song for couple of days and in the course of that time you've tracked several harmonies of your own vocals, a guitar track w/ corresponding audio plugins, a bass track with same, and a couple of softsynths. All of the effects, the panning, the mix, are just perfect. Now imagine if, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel (and almost certainly comprimising) by reworking everything at a mixing board when you play live, you could just have your band jack into your audio/MIDI interface and play through that project, out in stereo, direct to a PA. Imagine your live mix sounding just like you intended, without any redundant effort.

This is critical not only for performance, but for those quick rehearsals after work, where you're trying to keep the easily distracted drummer inspired. Problem is, while you may have used one input to track all those harmonies in the studio, you'll need more inputs for your backup vocalists' mics etc.

Cakewalk has an excellent add-on product for Project5 that will accomplish exactly this multi-input live mixing type of task. The product is called SONAR. Usually when there is a SONAR product upgrade cycle (like the forthcoming version 5) they have a special offer for Project5 users to pick up SONAR at a much lower price.

Using the SONAR add-on product you can get surround-sound mixing (PE edition), a lot of excellent plugins, multiple audio busses, and a lot of cool mixer-type features. It takes Project5's recording to a whole new level. You can either export your Project5 audio and inport it into SONAR or you can use SONAR as a rewire host to control Project5's playback. SONAR is a very cool Project5 add-on product!

Hoo-boy, where to begin... Well first off, maybe I used the word "argument" too many times in my last couple of posts. I appreciate wrench's allowing that I made some valid points. I know nothing is as simple as throwing a switch, but I think anyone in software recognizes that Cakewalk doesn't reinvent the wheel everytime they add an instance of a feature. (eg. Rabeach, programming in binary is not always the best approach.)

S. Saint, I don't have any interest in recording and producing a rock band w/ Project 5, and techead, I already own Sonar (and have used it exclusively since the non-audio Cakewalk days.) And wz, I totally understand that trying to keep a band live through one PC at live latencies is a bit of a juggling act. I've been doing it on souped-up Sonar rigs for years now. I'm not necessarily talking about a grand project here - today's PC's are more than capable of monitoring a virtual guitar rig or two, a soft-drum kit for the drummers pads, and an aux bus with 'verb etc for a couple of vocals in real time. And consumer-level PCs aren't getting any slower.

I just see P5 as a more efficient environment for tracking/ monitoring/ performing select tracks of a band. Obviously, Sonar is an audio production environment where P5 simply is not. But I can't see why our hands should be tied with regards to enabling and selecting audio inputs.

(The problem with using Sonar, Live, etc. as "add-ons" to P5 is that the additional footprint (ie. resource consumption) exacerbates the problem you cite - the difficulty of keeping a PC running smoothly for any given number/type of tracks. I'm just eternally frustrated with products (both hardware and software) that come so close to getting the job done... but don't quite.. until you are installing/ loading/ just plain lugging technology, most of which is redundant. Here's an opportunity to avoid that.)

ORIGINAL: darc

...wz, I totally understand that trying to keep a band live through one PC at live latencies is a bit of a juggling act. I've been doing it on souped-up Sonar rigs for years now. I'm not necessarily talking about a grand project here - today's PC's are more than capable of monitoring a virtual guitar rig or two, a soft-drum kit for the drummers pads, and an aux bus with 'verb etc for a couple of vocals in real time. And consumer-level PCs aren't getting any slower.
...

(The problem with using Sonar, Live, etc. as "add-ons" to P5 is that the additional footprint (ie. resource consumption) exacerbates the problem you cite - the difficulty of keeping a PC running smoothly for any given number/type of tracks. I'm just eternally frustrated with products (both hardware and software) that come so close to getting the job done... but don't quite.. until you are installing/ loading/ just plain lugging technology, most of which is redundant. Here's an opportunity to avoid that.)

Darc,

Is your souped up Sonar rig desktop or laptop based? You've got me thinking about the possibilities...

My live rig is 1.4 Ghz Centrino laptop with 1.5 GB of RAM, a MOTU 828 MKii, and some USB controllers. Definitely not enough horsepower for what you are describing.

darc,

Your have provided a lot of good information - thanks for posting. My studio PC is a LiquidDAW Athlon 64 3700+ with 2GB, twin 300GB drives, etc., and I am sure it will do what you describe. AMD rocks. But my baby is not leaving the house - no way.

I'm still not sure that a newer Pentium M laptop (essentially P3 technology), would be able to handle your scenario. Still, a year from now there should be SOMETHING in a smaller/rugged form factor that would work!

A shuttle makes a great performance rig - the hardware is much more predictable than the highly proprietary stuff they wedge into laptops. But the downside is the need to bring along and setup an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor. I think it's feasible if you're playing long sets exclusively, but I do a lot of open mics and multi-band shows where you've gotta be setup in literally a couple of minutes, and then break down just as fast to get your valuable gear out of the way. That's where a laptop is much preferred.

wz, I'm not really sure how your Centrino will fare. I have been meaning to do some tests on my wife's 1.5GHz Vaio - when I get around to it I'll let you know how it keeps up. Yours might do better than you expect, given all that RAM, the biggest achilles heel in those systems is typically the 5200RPM HDD.