charlyg
On another tangent all together, I found the Block User function in the forum!

ROFLMAO :)

I have only been here for 2 days, and I found myself looking for that as well, I wonder if it is the same ? I thought medical practitioners were supposed to make you feel better ?

Orphaned at Birth

charlyg
On another tangent all together, I found the Block User function in the forum!

ROFLMAO :)

I have only been here for 2 days, and I found myself looking for that as well, I wonder if it is the same ? I thought medical practitioners were supposed to make you feel better ?

 
Welcome to the forum.
 
Please don't be put off.  In the words of Noel Coward - "Is their an apple in the house?"
 
On the whole, this forum is fantastic.
 
Many very knowledgeable people seem to spare their limited free time on here, helping others out and sharing their experience.
 
 

Bristol_Jonesey
Somewhat on topic, I can happily report that the fix for the drum maps works!

Are you talking about the special release Noël discussed?

BobF

Morvejones

BobF

Morvejones
Im still waiting for loop recording to be fixed

What doesn't work about loop recording?

http://forum.cakewalk.com...-Problem-m3156480.aspx

So in a nutshell, it's the count in ability you want back.  I agree, it's a pain.
 
I have an FR on something similar at http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3185610
This one shows up as a clip that gets split wherever you happen to stop recording.
 
 
 
 

Totally agree mate, i had that problem also. i use the count in for 99% of my recording kind of stuck without it

mudgel

Bristol_Jonesey
Somewhat on topic, I can happily report that the fix for the drum maps works!

Are you talking about the special release Noël discussed?

That's the one Mike.

Morvejones

BobF

Morvejones

BobF

Morvejones
Im still waiting for loop recording to be fixed

What doesn't work about loop recording?

http://forum.cakewalk.com...-Problem-m3156480.aspx

So in a nutshell, it's the count in ability you want back.  I agree, it's a pain.
 
I have an FR on something similar at http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3185610
This one shows up as a clip that gets split wherever you happen to stop recording.
 
 
 
 

Totally agree mate, i had that problem also. i use the count in for 99% of my recording kind of stuck without it

I know this isn't ideal, but since I have an EZD track in most projects I just grab an minimal intro clip and throw it up front for count in.  I'm even gradually setting up clips for various metronome styles for use with TTS to get what I need without using the metronome at all.  It's not 'right' on principle, but it's a whole lot more flexible for sound choice and how the accents are done - which is a big help for rhythmically challenged folks like me :)
 
Let's see if we can run down an official PR on the metronome that we can percolate back to the top.
 

BobF

Morvejones

BobF

Morvejones

BobF

Morvejones
Im still waiting for loop recording to be fixed

What doesn't work about loop recording?

http://forum.cakewalk.com...-Problem-m3156480.aspx

So in a nutshell, it's the count in ability you want back.  I agree, it's a pain.
 
I have an FR on something similar at http://forum.cakewalk.com/FindPost/3185610
This one shows up as a clip that gets split wherever you happen to stop recording.
 
 
 
 

Totally agree mate, i had that problem also. i use the count in for 99% of my recording kind of stuck without it

I know this isn't ideal, but since I have an EZD track in most projects I just grab an minimal intro clip and throw it up front for count in.  I'm even gradually setting up clips for various metronome styles for use with TTS to get what I need without using the metronome at all.  It's not 'right' on principle, but it's a whole lot more flexible for sound choice and how the accents are done - which is a big help for rhythmically challenged folks like me :)
 
Let's see if we can run down an official PR on the metronome that we can percolate back to the top.
 

Using a intro clip is fine for the start, but most of the time im layering guitars right through, adding solos,fills etc. i guess its all down to how you are used to working. lets hope we can get a fix soon ;)

I use multiple DAWs (Cubase, Sonar, REAPER, Pro Tools, Studio One), and NONE of them is bugfree. Each of them introduces new bugs with every update, and that's simply something you cannot avoid, no matter how good the QA, unless you stop enhancing the software completely. No evolution, no (more) bugs.
 
I personally would prefer a focus on bugfixing instead of new features for a while, but it's a difficult situation. If the next monthly update was a bugfix-only release that did not have anything new to offer, some people would start complaining that Cakewalk does not do anything for their money. You can't please everybody.
 
 
 

I'm done with this thread for now - the bug is fixed, and I made my point (as did a bunch of others), but I wanted to respond to this:
 

stac
Each of them introduces new bugs with every update, and that's simply something you cannot avoid, no matter how good the QA, unless you stop enhancing the software completely. No evolution, no (more) bugs.

This isn't true. It may not always be cost-effective to ship bug-free software, and obviously when it comes to interacting with external software it is impossible to ensure everybody else's software is bug-free, but it is not impossible to add a feature without adding bugs. Even if we assume that it's impossible to write perfect code (it's not, but it's hard), there can be internal unit testing for code that can catch errors in the program, plus there are sophisticated ways of doing automated testing that can check to make sure you've not broken features that were seen to be working in previous releases. For example, an AutoHotKey script that opened Sonar with a test file, ran the Export>Audio command, and compared the exported audio against a previous version, would probably have caught the latest Drum Map bug, and without a human having to manually check it.
 
Everybody makes mistakes, but there are tools to catch them. Speaking as a software engineer, I don't think we should be accepting that all code is necessarily faulty. The only way we'll get better software quality from developers is if we demand it.

Yes it is true. We'll have to agree to disagree. Speaking from an idealistic perspective that rarely exists in the real world has little constructive value. All developers think they write perfect code - until something breaks it :) I'm assuming you are a software engineer in a different field other than real time music software. What might work in a more linear environment doesn't quite fit here. 
 
We've been doing this a long time and as I said before we have a solid process - well as solid as it can be given the size of our company and our available resources. The latter is by far the most important metric that gates any commercial software development. Ask any software manager on the planet. The vast majority of the kinds of bugs we have in realtime software cannot be found by classic automated testing. Its hardly "sophisticated" to run scripts. You can write automated tests ad nauseam to the point where the tests take longer to write and maintain than the software itself. We'd need an army of people writing and maintaining tests that would become obsolete shortly after they were written. We've been there and done that. Automated tests do work well for more well defined environments where there aren't a million inter dependencies with other features. For example DSP code - we do have automated tests in Vocalsync and other areas that run comparative analysis on inputs and outputs. And we did months of exhaustive research on our onset detection with iterative analysis using Max msp scripts.
Bottom line is we already do this stuff and we do the best we can with our available resources. Its easy to point fingers from an idealistic perspective but it has little value in helping to improve the situation. Alerting cakewalk to problems that exist through the channels we already have in place is the best way for end users to improve the software.