This conversation is becoming more like people comparing different brands of toilet paper or Kleenex. Certainly, these differences of opinion all depend on the person's individual workflow, level of patience, and expectations. Not everyone likes and buys the same brand of toilet paper, nor does everyone appreciate "the gap", because its like wiping with sandpaper.


But all complaints aside, X1 is an amazing product that does amazing things. Nevertheless, like most all things in life, X1 has unique advantages and disadvantages of varying degrees, none of which prevent it from being a usable and very functional professional DAW. We can all find its shortcomings if we search long and hard enough, as with ALL DAWS, yet it has so many more advantages than disadvantages that we shouldn't lose sight of the total aggregate of it's overall benefits and potential, because it is something that continues to evolve over time, having a great promise of better things to come.

I agree that this is all largely subjective. The only thing that bothers me is people over-stating the claim. This stuff about how "people who have to work to deadlines value this" or "long term registered users value this". First, it's plainly not true, second, it's seldom wise to presume speak for anyone other than yourself. 

Obviously, some people would really like this to be a feature. That's fair enough. But the case should be made on its real merits, not these kind of claims. 

SONAR - when two worlds collide.

I believe there is more than one way to compose or create music. One is a planned and measured approach and the other is a much more improvised approach. There is a very fine line between composing and improvising. And it is a delicate operation. It does not take much to distract you from improvising or composing. You could also combine the two approaches, measured and improvised as well. All I am saying is some DAW's favour both as opposed to one method.

In regards to saving time under pressure I was not referring to audio engine gapless performance either, I was referring to the track switching on the fly midi thing. I don't (thankfully) create music under pressure all the time either. But when I have to, this is a real time saver and it does promote creative flow. So in that regard I am taking things off topic and I am sorry for that. But it is sort of related in some ways. We are talking about interrupting creative flow. The workflow of any DAW must also impact on creative flow as well. That is one aspect of a DAW that interests me and it is also an aspect that many don't bother to explore in other DAW's enough. If they did they might be surprised.

I also agree that a program like X1 is of course grand in the overall scheme of things and these are only small aspects. And according to the marketing and many here on the forum X1 has improved that area of workflow and that is great then. But any small roadblocks to creative flow none the less should not be put down. If it's enough to make you switch to another DAW then it is important isn't it.

Also I am only speaking for myself in this regard not others. But there must be others out there who also feel the same way just as there are others who also agree they can still get the job done on one DAW that I for example might not.

Freddie H

Scott Lee

Freddie H 

Scott Lee 


Oh come now, not another go 64 bit and everything will be perfect thread. That was snuffed out countless times, lets not start that up please. 

64-bit shares the same gapless problems as the 32-bit family.   

Yes, but overall it is huge difference 32bit VS 64bit in how the computer and programs perform.  
That's how the way it is without going deeper technically. 

32 bit has no benefits, its slow, outdated, RAM limit and useless comparing to 64bit calculation. 

Useless? Thats a bold statement Freddie. Can you share with us any evidence that what you call "outdated" 32-bit ram limits sonar calculations, introducing gaping audio? I have both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that say otherwise.

Very intrigued, please post your data and findings. Thanks!

Once moving to the PC I found an interest (well forced interest lol) diving into tech, becoming A+ certified and grabbing my Microsoft certification. Worked as apart of the technical research group at Packard Bell, then moving on to engineering at a few other known pc tech companies.
 
 
Hi my friend!

 
If you are so technically competent educated as you say you are you should know exactly what I'm talking about.
Any 64 bit calculation are more than 2x times faster for the computer to calculate the x32bit string.
 
www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/.../chap1.pdf
 
All general-purpose registers (GPRs) are expanded from 32 bits to 64 bits, and all arithmetic and logical operations, memory-to-register and register-to-memory operations, etc., can now operate directly on 64-bit integers. Pushes and pops on the stack are always in 8-byte strides, and pointers are 8 bytes wide.
Also all memories and cpus are general design to work in x64bit, has been for years. 
 
Larger physical address space: The original implementation of the AMD64 architecture implemented 40-bit physical addresses and so could address up to 1 TB (2⁴⁰ bytes) of RAM.[1](p24) Current implementations of the AMD64 architecture (starting from AMD 10h microarchitecture) extend this to 48-bit physical addresses[9] and therefore can address up to 256 TB of RAM. The architecture permits extending this to 52 bits in the future[1](p24)[10] (limited by the page table entry format);[1](p131) this would allow addressing of up to 4 PB of RAM. For comparison, 32-bit x86 processors are limited to 64 GB of RAM in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode,[11] or 4 GB of RAM without PAE mode.[1](p4)
 
 
 
The architecture's intended primary mode of operation; it is a combination of the processor's native 64-bit mode and a combined 32-bit and 16-bit compatibility mode. It is used by 64-bit operating systems. Under a 64-bit operating system, 64-bit programs run under 64-bit mode, and 32-bit and 16-bit protected mode applications (that do not need to use either real mode or virtual 8086 mode in order to execute at any time) run under compatibility mode. Real-mode programs and programs that use virtual 8086 mode at any time cannot be run in long mode unless they are emulated in software.
Since the basic instruction set is the same, there is almost no performance penalty for executing protected mode x86 code. This is unlike Intel's IA-64, where differences in the underlying ISA means that running 32-bit code must be done either in emulation of x86 (making the process slower) or with a dedicated x86 core. However, on the x86-64 platform, many x86 applications could benefit from a 64-bit recompile, due to the additional registers in 64-bit code and guaranteed SSE2-based FPU support, which a compiler can use for optimization. However, applications that regularly handle integers wider than 32 bits, such as cryptographic algorithms, will need a rewrite of the code handling the huge integers in order to take advantage of the 64-bit registers.
 
 
 
Example: Take two identical computer setup, one with Windows 7 x32 OS (or XP32 even slower) and another with Windows 7 x64.
BOOT the both in the same time. Lets see that boot fastes? Answer= Yes the x64 system.
Now start a program in the same time on both SYSTEMs. What program start fastes? Answer= Yes the x64bit program.
Now try to calculate anything, render, open extract zip-library, Search and find DATA- in Library.Who does it fastes and has completed everything more then 100 % faster! Answer= Yes the x64bit system and programs. 
  
Just talk about the RAM benefits. You can also use more RAM that improve my overall stability and usage in my computer! The WINNER = x64bit technology alone...

 
There are even more benefits that prove my statements. Yes x32bit technology is "Gameover"-today but was very useful in the past.  
  
  
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 
 

Hi Freddie,


Thanks for the full wiki cut and paste! We both have always agreed more ram was a benefit of 64-bit, which has been said all along. This thread though was about gapless audio, which Sonar suffers in both forms - 32-bit and 64-bit. Lets not drift off topic and make this into a 32-bit vs 64-bit thread again which I stated in my very first post.  

If you do have any evidence that isn't a wiki printout correcting the gapless problem in 64-bit for cakewalk, please share your findings.


Thank you,




 

Please rename the title....

How to improve performance with SOME systems.

Gapless - nope - toothless - yes

Cheers :).

I would like gapless a audio engine. Just would flow nicer, that's all. It is important to me.

Some one pointed out that gapless is the way forward and we would be right in assuming that many individuals would buy a new DAW based on the principle that it is gapless.

Therefore gapless is a selling point that should be considered if competitors are to remain ahead of the pack.

If all the other DAWs have noticed it's worth why haven't The Cake?

We can sit on the fence sometimes but for developments sake my suggestion for Cake and their business protocol. Is not to take this issue lightly.

Once you have experienced gapless or less glitch audio going to a DAW that is glitchy and gappy is similar to taking twelve steps back into the past and recording back into the early 80's

This is 2012 lets stop playing catch up and get the priorities straight.

Campaign for gapless why?

Because it is an issue that needs a hole lot of attention!

So Flywheel, we can assume you've put in a feature request then ?

Cheers,
Jerry

Flywheel


I would ask all who are interested in Cakewalk having the best DAW to do so.

Lets keep it the best hey!

 
Agree!

I have been using using Sonar since Version 7 when I had Reason 4 running at the the same time (rewire) for all of over 30 projects. Back then things worked really well. No talk of gapless and everything looked good too. System was Xp 32 with 2 gig ram and a 2.66 pentium 4 cpu.

I now have a dual core 3.2 gig cpu with 8 gig of ram and win 7 x64. I know I could do better but I must admit its a better system than my p4.

To the point. All I have to do is import one stereo or mono track open the pro channel and tweak an eq  freq knob and presto! Audio has stopped. 

How are you supposed to play a track and eq it?

I have Studio One and it works without ever stopping-on the same machine as X1.

Maybe I need to get real about whether I need to upgrade my machine so that I meet the recommended Cakewalk minimum specs. The only problem then will be that I can't afford too so best stick with what works.

Kreative

John T

Flywheel


Campaign for gapless why?

Because it is an issue that needs a hole lot of attention!

Pretty circular argument that, isn't it? "It matters because it matters" essentially.

You don't seem to think that gapless audio is important to your individual needs, obviously, and have expressed your opinion numerous times. That's fine. 

So why put yourself [and others] through the pains of continuously criticizing all of those individuals that do think its important to their individual workflow and performance?

I'm not doing that. I'm simply saying that this particular argument is, to be generous, a pretty thin one.

John T

Kreative


It is one thing to be smart, but another thing to be wise.

Hmm. It's one thing to have a point to make, it's another to regurgitate dull figures of speech. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Etc. Dull.

I decided it was better to be dull than to poke a sharp stick in your eye.  Besides, you are smart, just sometimes a little overly critical, perhaps. Nevertheless, a lot of people here respect you for your frequent good sense and helpfulness- and rightfully so. You're a valuable member of this community of fine musicians.

Kreative

John T

Kreative


It is one thing to be smart, but another thing to be wise.

Hmm. It's one thing to have a point to make, it's another to regurgitate dull figures of speech. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Etc. Dull.

I decided it was better to be dull than to poke a sharp stick in your eye.  Besides, you are smart, just sometimes a little overly critical, perhaps. Nevertheless, a lot of people here respect you for your frequent good sense and helpfulness- and rightfully so. You're a valuable member of this community of fine musicians.

I say go with the stick in the eye :)

Scott Lee

Kreative

John T

Kreative


It is one thing to be smart, but another thing to be wise.

Hmm. It's one thing to have a point to make, it's another to regurgitate dull figures of speech. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. Etc. Dull.

I decided it was better to be dull than to poke a sharp stick in your eye.  Besides, you are smart, just sometimes a little overly critical, perhaps. Nevertheless, a lot of people here respect you for your frequent good sense and helpfulness- and rightfully so. You're a valuable member of this community of fine musicians.

I say go with the stick in the eye :)

Ah, but its such a bloody mess to clean up afterwards.