Adq

John

Adq
No feedback loops, really? It's nonsense.
It is a half of functionality that new routing should give.
And it was announced that it would be possible ( in pre-release description of track-to-track routing there was something about cool feedback effects).

You do not want feedback loops! 

???
So when you use delay you always switch feedback off, just to avoid problems?

I think you are talking about something very different from a feedback loop. 

John

Adq

John

Adq
No feedback loops, really? It's nonsense.
It is a half of functionality that new routing should give.
And it was announced that it would be possible ( in pre-release description of track-to-track routing there was something about cool feedback effects).

You do not want feedback loops! 

???
So when you use delay you always switch feedback off, just to avoid problems?

I think you are talking about something very different from a feedback loop. 

It is exactly the same.

I'd like feedback loops.
 
Imagine this use case: a vocal, going to a delay with a single repeat. But then I'd like to send that single repeat through, let's say a phaser, and then send the output of that phaser back to the delay. So you get a multi-repeat delay that has more going on than the delay effect alone might do.
 
That's just a for-instance. It's not something you'd generally use in most of your mixing, but hey. Flexibility allows for interesting fringe cases.

John T
I'd like feedback loops.
 
Imagine this use case: a vocal, going to a delay with a single repeat. But then I'd like to send that single repeat through, let's say a phaser, and then send the output of that phaser back to the delay. So you get a multi-repeat delay that has more going on than the delay effect alone might do.
 
That's just a for-instance. It's not something you'd generally use in most of your mixing, but hey. Flexibility allows for interesting fringe cases.

Yeah, agree.
If everybody would follow Cakewalk's logic that feedback is evil, we would not have any delay plug-ins with feedback, and everybody would say: "Delay with feedback? No way! It is too dangerous!".

irvin

Anderton

irvin
Very good upgrade. Makes 'printing' the metronome much easier. Next upgrade should include an 'Insert Click Track' that automatically creates an audio track with the metronome audio.

Or make a loop with your favorite metronome sound, and include it in your standard project template. Then you won't need to "insert click track," it will already be there.
 

I prefer a feature, not a workaround - take a look at how beautifully simple the implementation is in Reaper and other DAWs. Why mess with different templates (one for 4/4, another for 2/4, etc.) when we could just have it with one click (pun intended)?

Well, I'm not trying to be combative but help me out here, because I don't understand the problem...SONAR already has a click track that's always available for record and playback with one click, offers a choice of multiple waves, and for which you can add your own sounds if you want something like a TR-808 kick or whatever.
 

 
If you need an audio loop, wouldn't it make more sense to add a drum loop that's relevant to the style of music that you're making? Fill me in on what I'm missing...I'm just not understanding how having an always-available click track with a choice of sounds, and the option to bring in loops of any musical style from the browser, are problematic.

I'm talking about plugging an output into and input with the same signal. That is a feedback loop. It will cause uncontrolled oscillations that can damage hardware.   

I wouldn't mind having the option to create feedback loops. That said, when I need feedback, I use the external insert plug-in and patch an output back into an input. That's how I did it before computers existed, and was the basis of my looper application for SONAR.
 
Then again, we ARE in the United States. The first time someone blew their speakers, they'd probably sue Cakewalk for a million dollars saying their hearing had been damaged permanently, and Cakewalk was negligent in not preventing feedback 

Adq
And it was announced that it would be possible ( in pre-release description of track-to-track routing there was something about cool feedback effects).

I highly doubt there was ever any announcement that it would be possible to create feedback loops. Not creating feedback loops was part of the design spec that was baked months ago.
 
But, that's why external inserts exist - so those who want to pursue unusual "corner cases" that few others pursue have the ability to do so. As John correctly (IMHO) states, "It's not something you'd generally use in most of your mixing, but hey. Flexibility allows for interesting fringe cases." That flexibility is available for those who want it. I've taken advantage of it, but maybe only one or two times in the past five years. Still, when I needed it, I could do it.

Maybe some people here might want to buy a copy of Reaktor?
Whilst "feedback loops" sounds an interesting proposition (not sure exactly how that could be handled) I hope the bakers move onto other meat and potatoes stuff as a priority now...There's still a load of basic functionality to sort out, fix and improve. Latest update is nice feature to have I think it would be wise for the code to mature before we get all Jimi Hendrix about it.

Anderton
I wouldn't mind having the option to create feedback loops. That said, when I need feedback, I use the external insert plug-in and patch an output back into an input. That's how I did it before computers existed, and was the basis of my looper application for SONAR.
 
Then again, we ARE in the United States. The first time someone blew their speakers, they'd probably sue Cakewalk for a million dollars saying their hearing had been damaged permanently, and Cakewalk was negligent in not preventing feedback 

They have many ways to damage something, including your external scheme. And there is easiest way to prevent it: auto-mute if sound's level exceeds some threshold. And other DAWs do it, and nobody sue them. And nobody sue delay plug-ins developers, and some of them have crazy settings that could self-oscillate pretty easy. So your arguments don't work, in real life there is no problem with feedback loops, it is imaginary problems.
And you always say that if some missing feature has a workaround, it should not be implemented primarily. I think quite opposite. If there is workaround, it should be implemented in first of all. And there are the reasons:
1. If there is workaround, it means that there are people who use it, so new feature would be used too.
2. If there is workaround, it means that it is easier to implement, because developers would exactly know what to do.