Anyone run into a timing offset issue when doing a lot of loop recording with a lot of takes?
 
When I loop a region, I do a lot of takes, maybe 20 or less, to see what I like when noodling for a lead pattern. When comping the takes, the later I go in the takes, it appears that the takes are off on the timing in which I recorded them. They sound fine as I record them, but playback is suffering a timing issue as I go com the latter tracks. The timing issue is that the takes get placed later in the take lanes that the actual meter it was recorded on. I can understand a few notes, but it seems to be the entire take. I stopped playback to make sure it was not a buffering issue and still got the offset issue for the take.
 
Anyone run into this?
 
X2 is not much better for me, but it has some possibilities. I am sorry I upgraded that version. Doesn't look like another patch is coming out for X2 either? I reported several bugs that need to be fixed in X2. I would like to see them fixed in X2.

I scooched the clip over from 42:03:218 to 42:03:878 and it sounded ok. I would rather NOT have to scooch clips over to make the clips go where they should have gone in the first place.

Have a look at this thread:
http://forum.cakewalk.com...20&mpage=1#2745922

Are you punching in and out in the loop, or recording the whole time?

Tom

I have it set to loop record where the punch out is the end of the loop, but punch in is after the loop begin.

Thanks for the link

It appears, on MY "office" system at least, that this is an issue if I set "punch" points.
I DO NOT see it (progressively farther offset clips) if I just "loop" a section and record multiple passes. (Typically I don't "punch", I just loop and record...)
I'm going to do a few more "tests" and verify on the "office" & "studio" systems.
Office specs:
Win 7 x86 FW-1884 i/o X2a Producer

I'll run the tests on 8.5.3, X1d Expanded and X2a

"Use reported ASIO latency" has ALWAYS worked flawlessly for me.

Tom

It appears, on MY "office" system at least, that this is an issue if I set "punch" points.  I DO NOT see it (progressively farther offset clips) if I just "loop" a section and record multiple passes. (Typically I don't "punch", I just loop and record...) 

Ditto.


Loop recording - no offset, Punch Loop recording - tracks are offset by a small but similar amount with each pass

Ran my tests.
Verdict:
X1 and X2 are "flaky" if you loop and punch in.

8.5.3 handles it flawlessly!

Even many cassette 4 tracks "punch in"; right?

T

I need to correct my update. I am not doing a punch in per se, but loop recording with the record loop inside the playback loop. I consider that a punch in if that makes sense.

Each iteration of recording is offset further and further as each take gets recorded. X1 and X2 have horrible loop recording placement of the takes. As mentioned earlier 8.5 has no noticible issue in this regards.

I guess all the testers are not doing any typ of loop recordings with default settings based on the interface profile.

C'mon Cakewalk, please try and use the product in test to perform basic functions and lay off of the bells and whistles til the basic functionality works like a basic DAW should. Get a stable base then improve.

"I am not doing a punch in per se"

You have "Yellow" loop points and "Red" record points; right?
That's a "punch".
IF you ONLY "punch" its all good (meaning make only 1 pass).
If you loop that section, and punch multiple times (I'm sure that's what you're doing),
"Take 1" is fine, each successive take is late, and it gets worse and worse with each take.
Like I said,  even 4 track cassette units "punch in".
Shouldn't a "Professional" DAW do this, endlessly???

T

Yes, I just wanted to make myself clear about not 'punching' manually. The points are defined as punch points.

Yes, a DAW should have that functionality perfected. I don't know many people who can record their part on the first take. Those friends are nice to have though.  :)

I use loop recording a lot followed by comping the takes. Cakewalk used to be focused on the basic functionality of the DAW, but it feels like they want to focus on the new items to sell their product to those who do not do much recording and more loop processing.
 
I personally know of people, some prior beta testers, who have been using Cakewalk for excess of 15 years and have recently bailed the Roland ship to other platforms due to DAW issues and sonic quality.