Hi all,

first I think that everybody have their priorities set according to the way they are using Sonar.

In my case, gapless is what I need the most.

I understand that some "tasks" are more CPU intensive then others (inserting, adding things on the fly), but again, in MY case, I don't mind if it glitches or gap when inserting a DXi because I use a template that includes most of them and if I need to insert some I do it before starting playback.

But what I would like is to be able to tweak anything already inserted while it plays back. I just hate loosing tempo or get distracting glitches just by opening some windows or move some faders around.

Another part where I'd like to get gapless is in playlist mode. I get gaps mostly when a song starts before the next one have time to fully load. In some cases I could slide everything a few measures/sec. But in many cases I need the next song to start as soon as the actual playing song ends. You know when timing is everything!

Like I previously said, this is typical to my situation. We use Sonar for live (2 guys) gigs in playlist mode in one case. And we also use it with a 12+ musicians/singers/back vocals group showcase in live and numerous practice sessions. We have the same live playlist problem in both cases, but you can imagine that for the tweaking glitches/gaps in paractice sessions, it gets a lot more annoying when dealing with 12+ persons having to stop, complain about stopping, get everyone to shut up! #:o) and get ready and start over again...

Now I'm pretty sure you understand why I want gapless fixed first!

Until then I'll keep on hunting for tips on how to reduce any over all CPU usage within or beside Sonar (every little bit helps) as I realised every time those gaps/glitches occur is when the CPU meter (task manager) exceeds 85% or so.

One example is when I checked (enabled) "Use multi-processing engine" (I have HT enabled) I gained (read reduced) 3-5% CPU usage resulting in: I got rid of some glitches, in fact, any Sonar task that was causing a 85-88% CPU usage within a project song was brought down under my 85% limit and the glitches were gone. The same thing happens when I freeze synths on certain project song, the CPU usage is less so I get less glitches.

So this is my story about this for now, if you have any tips, let us all know, I'll be back to report any improvement and pick up on your valuable tips.

Thanks

Ben

Without knocking the above response.... becuase its good to see cakewalk getting involved in this thread does anyone know why when i upgraded my system from 3 to 4 i have even bigger gaps. Is there anything i can do to minimise this. Even when cropping wavs it stops for almost a second?

Should say i was ok with it in sonar 3 but sonar 4 seems far to long...

ORIGINAL: danhazer

Without knocking the above response.... becuase its good to see cakewalk getting involved in this thread does anyone know why when i upgraded my system from 3 to 4 i have even bigger gaps. Is there anything i can do to minimise this. Even when cropping wavs it stops for almost a second?

Should say i was ok with it in sonar 3 but sonar 4 seems far to long...

There is a line in the aud.ini that will reduce the gapping in SONAR 4.

EnableLiveADCRecalc=<0 or 1> (default = 1).

Change the value to 0 and gapping will decrease. But be aware that your audio may also become out of sync when preforming actions that usually cause gaps with this set @ 0.

Thanks,

thanks will see how i get on with this

ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]

Worse still, they don't even care that so many people complain about this, releasing fixes for minor bugs while ignoring this big problem.

If you compare SONAR 4 to SONAR 3, and SONAR 3 to earlier versions, you'll see that we do care and we have been working steadily on this issue.

The kinds of engine changes that are required to reduce gapping are too risky to include a maintenance update. The next major update of SONAR 5 will gap even less than SONAR 4 does.

So what your saying Ron is that Sonar 5 will gap. I guess it's time to check out some other software and see what they have to offer.

How about this for sonar5 - re-release sonar4 ! - but complete, gapless, smooth, - no new features, just a very streamlined/smooth engine with all the niggles which have hung around version after version sorted.

I'd certainly rather see that than audio warp etc.

so,- gapping fixed

Disappearing meters fixed

slow wave draws fixed

and anything else I can't think of right now ;)

It would be really appreciated to have an extremely solid featureset - ALL of which worked flawlessly. *that* would be more than worthy of a sonar5 label.

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

I think that if what Daverich just described were to happen, people wouldn't even look twice at another DAW app for the PC.

Nah, we'd still find reason to complain. It's just human nature...

I also wonder why those reviewers on the Net and in magazines never caught on this. How much did you pay them?

As Mose Allison used to sing, "Your mind is on vacation while your mouth is working overtime."

jb

I don't think that comment is that stupid.

It reflects what is happening more and more with many companies, a subtle false advertizing, just kept within the boundaries to prevent lawsuits. And as far as reviewers, whose work is purely subjective, I don't trust them and never will.

ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]

Worse still, they don't even care that so many people complain about this, releasing fixes for minor bugs while ignoring this big problem.

If you compare SONAR 4 to SONAR 3, and SONAR 3 to earlier versions, you'll see that we do care and we have been working steadily on this issue.

The kinds of engine changes that are required to reduce gapping are too risky to include a maintenance update. The next major update of SONAR 5 will gap even less than SONAR 4 does.

So the Product Hype should read :

Sonar 5 - Great New Sonar release , with the following features:
Gap Less (than previous versions) Audio Engine
....
....

Gap Less (than previous versions) Audio Engine

I used that already...

You have a good point there. But given the advance in techologie ( since your sony 2 tracks) stuttering playback is unacceptable, especially when editing midi notes, which is what cakewalk is good at, I thought.

Sonar is so much better than the Sony two track I started with in 1965 that I just can't imagine complaining about gap-glitch.

I can't help thinking about how angy and rude the Beatles and George Martin would have been about this. I mean, how could they have gotten any work done? They could never of maintained their creative flow with such huge impediments as, oh my god, gapping!
A tempest in a teapot.

ORIGINAL: NYSR

I would suggest a trip over to the Producers and Engineers Wing at www.Grammy.com to get in touch with guidelines, recommendations and industry standard procedures that when followed help develop recording habits professionals have worked out over the years to avoid this and several other problems that can become a part of the creative process when your method is something that just sort of evolved as you sat down in front of your PC.

I should be more understanding perhaps, but when people want to do things in a way that is contrary to well established industry standards and current constraints they should realize they will run into unexpected difficulties. Those difficulties will include not just equipment not responding as hoped but the fact that the industry itself will think in terms of solving unconventional problems last because the industry is already busy thinking in the way it has grown accustomed based on years of having avoided these sorts of difficulties in the first place.

I am trying hard not to blow my collar over this arrogant, patronizing comment. Why do you think some outdated industry standards would apply to making computer music? Music is an art form and people are inventing all kinds of new ways of making it, suiting their needs. I am pretty sure people like Aphex Twin or Squarepusher - just to name two established musicians - would simply toss those guidelines into the garbage bin, which doesn't make them the slightest bit less professional (perhaps even more so).

Editing notes on a computer while running has been a standard practice since the first sequencers hit the market. The only difference is that a lot of the action now takes place inside the computer instead of in a hardware based studio.

Times change. I hope you get your gapless ability someday ... I guess. I am glad that I simply do not need it. In the mean time it is so much wiser to develop a creative approach that fits with current constraints so that when advances are made your task only becomes easier.

Gapless editing does exist. All the other DAWs are doing it .. Sonar is the only one having problems with it. Even a lowly sequencer like EnergyXT manages to do it. As a matter of fact, I am right now in the process of making a track with it, since it's so inspirational Oh, let me guess: using a non-standards based application makes me less professional, right?

Sonar is so much better than the Sony two track I started with in 1965 that I just can't imagine complaining about gap-glitch.

Sure, it is always a great idea to compare a modern-day DAW to equipment of the sixties [sm=rolleyes.gif]

ORIGINAL: danhazer

Gap Less (than previous versions) Audio Engine

I used that already...

thats what i get for not reading the whole thread.

And no, hurling insults at the engineer won't help.

I'm glad you agree. I don't mean to downplay the problem, only put it into perspective. I mean, really, who's going to say no to gapless anything? The Gap finally closed in this college town and many are very happy about it.

best,
jb