It does include Boost 11. I'm not saying it is good, but it is a limiter.

 
I think the Sonitus multi-band can be used in this fashion too, and would probably sound a lot cleaner.  
 
But I get it - there is no dedicated master bus limiter for the PC.   As much as I like the CL and have used it many, many times, it's always on a per-track basis as was intended.  It works very well for that.
 
 

Can anyone explain the difference between these packs and what is already included in Sonar X2 Producer? Seem the same sorts of tools are already in it.

What are the REAL (not perceived) benefits of buying this pack? It gets so confusing having so many different things that all do essentially the same job...

Thanks

PS: not trying to be obtuse, or be argumentative I genuinely would like opinions before I jump in and buy...

stevec

It does include Boost 11. I'm not saying it is good, but it is a limiter.

 
I think the Sonitus multi-band can be used in this fashion too, and would probably sound a lot cleaner.  
 
But I get it - there is no dedicated master bus limiter for the PC.   As much as I like the CL and have used it many, many times, it's always on a per-track basis as was intended.  It works very well for that.
 
 

I was responding to Paul's complaint that there was no brickwall limiter included in X2, by pointing out that there was one - Boost 11.  I don't use it, but it's there.
 
I use the Concrete Limiter, on a per-track basis, and also on the master bus.
 
Are you saying the Concrete Limiter was not intended to be used on the master?

Are you saying the Concrete Limiter was not intended to be used on the master?

 
Correct.   I don't recall exactly who stated it or when, but I definitely remember reading that the CL was better suited to track-level limiting vs. the master bus.  That's one of the reasons it was designed with such low latency - multiple instances could be used.  
 
I just read the official blurb and it states "...is suitable for peak limiting of individual tracks and level maximization of mix buses".   So perhaps I'm a little off on this, but even here individual tracks are listed first, which isn't something you'd normally see when reading about a software limiter.

Again I post this question as the special will not last forever and I would like to get the info BEFORE I buy...thanks : 

Can anyone explain the difference between these packs and what is already included in Sonar X2 Producer? Seem the same sorts of tools are already in it.  What are the REAL (not perceived) benefits of buying this pack? It gets so confusing having so many different things that all do essentially the same job...  Thanks  PS: not trying to be obtuse, or be argumentative I genuinely would like opinions before I jump in and buy... 

stevec

Are you saying the Concrete Limiter was not intended to be used on the master?

 
Correct.   I don't recall exactly who stated it or when, but I definitely remember reading that the CL was better suited to track-level limiting vs. the master bus.  That's one of the reasons it was designed with such low latency - multiple instances could be used.  
 
I just read the official blurb and it states "...is suitable for peak limiting of individual tracks and level maximization of mix buses".   So perhaps I'm a little off on this, but even here individual tracks are listed first, which isn't something you'd normally see when reading about a software limiter.

I took it to mean they were pushing its USP first - that its low latency meant you could use it on tracks, as well as the mix bus.
 
What do I know, though - marketing..

TS


[We aren't ignoring you. We don't comment on or speculate on future product development for business reasons (most other companies do the same). I hope you understand.
[Andrew Rossa, CW]

Thanks you very much for your reply, Andrew.

In fact, i was not talking about product development, but about issues and bugs to fix (if any, of course).
This is a little strange for a company not to respond to this aspect, whatever its field of activity, and it can be a little discouraging for some customers (or they are wrong about the existence or the importance of the issues they evoke - but in this case you need to tell them, am i right ?).

Anyway, i'll remain faithful and confident (in Nice, summer is coming, and the sea warms )...

+1. Some of us don't care to know about new features just yet. My case, is exactly so. I'm strongly with TS here. We know that it's not good to divulge too much information regarding what Cakewalk is doing, but here's the way I see it:

If Cakewalk will address bugs/issues in the forum, then we can all at least see that CW has acknowledged, not that there is a problem, but so that the user reporting can stop reporting it. I run into bugs all the time, but I don't have much incentive to report them all. The bug-reporting tool is cumbersome, and I get the impression they aren't taken seriously unless there's uber-detail. Many of the bugs I would report are simply by clicking something. Very random. 

What would have been useful is if I could take a snapshot of my Sonar X2a condition at the moment I encounter a bug, record movements, and have those logged. Like a screencast with logging. CW could see what I'm actually attempting to do, and then view the timestamped logs to see what Sonar thinks I'm doing, or what is causing it to not correctly do what I'm doing. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a service or function, so the forum is all that's left.  

Call-in Support did not impress me. I'm sorry. 

 

wow thanks guys - you seem to be okay with sniping at each other but keep missing a genuine request for info from one who does not have it to people who are using it!!

Smooth!

While waiting for a reply, searching the forum (with Google or course) might provide you with the info you seek. There are plenty of posts about the PC modules, here are a couple of them:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?&m=2657981
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2660629