yevster

Notecrusher
OK great, now Cakewalk can plow head-first into the long-awaited Arranger View and Chord Track features!

Yes, what better way for a DAW to stand out than to copy features from other DAWs?

go back to your "other daw" then???

John

yevster

Notecrusher
OK great, now Cakewalk can plow head-first into the long-awaited Arranger View and Chord Track features!

Yes, what better way for a DAW to stand out than to copy features from other DAWs?

For me it is very simple. I really like Sonar however I also like some features that other DAWs have. If CW can incorporate those features I get everything I want. I don't want to use the other DAWs thus I win. Where is the downside to that? Don't forget other DAWs copy features from Sonar. They just aren't Sonar!   

John, that was a Gentleman's and high road response, which I commend you for.Otherwise the op was trolling and being a bit snarky. IF there is an issue with a DAW make a CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, that helps us and the vendor.
Otherwise a statement to the effect,  "duh, they stole xyz ideas and features" is, well, a noisy gong or clattering cymbal..

can we get some tips and tricks on the new update

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.
 

Mwah

Anderton
Okay, Cakewalk wins...I re-enabled the Start Screen. It really is a whole lot faster, it goes away the second you click on the file menu, and it doesn't re-appear when you close the project.

Also, it seems to handle non-English characters much better than before.

Yes, that was another one of the fixes.

Anderton

thornton
can we get some tips and tricks on the new update

I just finished an article on 5 techniques for Patch Points. It even includes a Led Zeppelin story just to keep it interesting  Cakewalk will probably post it in the blog in the next day or two.

I will read that cause I d/l the new update tried a patch point based on my old analog days and couldnt get it to "do"IOW i couldnt patch to a buss

Must resist updating... must resist..

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! 

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)?

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.

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!".

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.   

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.

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.