Bristol_Jonesey

Heroics


Midi timing could be much better ,also the thang crashes 2 much .....and I do have the Pro audio PC -----fresh setup

But we are used to this at start of a new sonar , no biggy


but thanx anyways

What's wrong with Midi timing?

I was going to ask that same question, Jonesey. If there is a midi timing issue, it's usually a matter of experimenting with a few options in Sonar. Especially with X2 as this has been improved. The only time I've had issues with midi timing, they were things I needed to adjust on my end.
 
1. In Sonar x64, I get a little midi drift if I use an ASIO buffer size that is too high. I have to be at 256 or lower and the midi is perfect. This is only when using softsynths though. My midi hardware is spot on no matter what. In Sonar 32 bit, it doesn't matter where my ASIO buffer is. I can leave it at 2048 buffers and midi never drifts.
 
2. The midi playback buffers need to be adjusted. On some of my pc's, 500 works. On others, 800-1000 works better. My midi is spot on with my audio metronome at all times. Sonar X2 has been the most reliable so far for me midi wise.
 
-Danny

Bristol_Jonesey


Hi Danny.

If you're right about this (and I've zero reason to think otherwise) then this is a serious shortcoming and needs to be addressed.

I haven't got down to in depth Fx chains yet, I'm too busy enjoying all the other bits & bobs.
But I agree about needing visual feedback for certain parameter adjustments.

Anyone who wants to submit a feature request can do so here.

Well brother, it may be a wrong opinion to the majority or how others use this feature, but I'm right when it comes to how *I* use this particular feature, I promise. LOL! I remember bringing it up before and Noel sort of disagreed with me in a kind way and explained the deal. It still does not make sense to me though. I accepted his comments about it, but I have to confess, I didn't agree with them or feel they were the correct way to go for this particular situation. Like I say, try it for yourself and you'll see what I mean.
 
I'm sure I could probably get used to memorizing what these percentages mean...but even at that, sometimes you get some huge jumps in the actual values while the % will move one number. Just try what I said when you get a minute and you'll see what I mean. The frequency movements alone will stop you in your tracks. We just simply cannot accept a % value for a frequency value in my opinion. And, 1% of a move, makes the frequencies jump 100 or so numbers up or down. It's just useless even though we're on the right track with the theory. When I use this feature, I do not connect any of the knobs as they are useless to me. This may not be the case for other users...but it sure cripples my experience ten-fold.
 
-Danny

Loving it.... a tad less stable than X1 (audio loop browsing) but it just carries on with the workflow enhancements that X1 started. I should add that X1 was stable as a rock for me so it couldn't get more stable....

But anyway, when you create your own FX chains, the % values it gives us as opposed to the REAL value a knob may be putting out in a plug, definitely needs to change. When I drop a threshold on a compressor, I'd like to know where I'm dropping it without seeing a number with a %.

Here is the thing. Fxchains were designed to allow a single chain parameter to control many effect params within the chain (parameter grouping). As such we can't use the target parameter name in general since there may be many of them.
That said perhaps we could special case the one to one parameter case and display the single target param name. I'd have to check how feasible this is to actually do.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]

But anyway, when you create your own FX chains, the % values it gives us as opposed to the REAL value a knob may be putting out in a plug, definitely needs to change. When I drop a threshold on a compressor, I'd like to know where I'm dropping it without seeing a number with a %.

Here is the thing. Fxchains were designed to allow a single chain parameter to control many effect params within the chain (parameter grouping). As such we can't use the target parameter name in general since there may be many of them.
That said perhaps we could special case the one to one parameter case and display the single target param name. I'd have to check how feasible this is to actually do.

I'm totally with you, Noel. But I'm sure you can see my point too. Depending how one would use this....dictates how helpful or hurtful it can be.
 
Just in case you may be wondering my use....there are times where once I get all my effects settings in order, it may come down to just tweaking one thing in each effect. Say a Q on a high pass on a bass guitar, a frequency adjustment or a threshold on a compressor or maybe the values of one knob on another plug. In THAT situation, it's really hard to use this without physically looking at the plug to see the effects of the knob. Not to mention, it's near impossible to select a frequency that is mapped to a knob. That one is a nightmare. So I guess for how you intended this to work, it's as it should be. But for guys like me that may be using it a bit differently, the only benefit I get is the ability to create the chain of effects I'm using...which of course is a wonderful thing. But the custom abilities within the knobs (buttons for on/off are fine of course) are more of a hinderance than a help.
 
Yeah if you can look into this and see what can be done, I'd be extremely greatful as I feel this is an awesome capability. It just hurts when you can't put that % or how the knobs react, into the real scheme of things without plug visibility. At that point, it's better to just double click and edit normally, ya know? Who knows...maybe I'm the only one that uses it this way because I've never read anything where anyone else has complained or made a mention of it. I thank you for at least taking a look at it for those of us who may be in the situation I'm in with it. :)
 
-Danny

I had problems because of a graphic card hardware issue. After CW assistance I totally solved my problems. X2 works very easy and in the last week I had no more than 2crashes during some stressing sessions of mixdown.
X2 seems to me that prefers a clean installation. After the new installing session the whole program began to work very, very flawlessly. Better than when installed with previous X1 and 8.5 still present on my workstation.
This is anyway my personal experience.

I think X2 has some niggles, but no actual big issues. On the whole it's very impressive. I was skeptical about the smart tool changes at first, but I now think they're very good. And automation copy / past finally being fixed is great. My one big issue, which I've griped about elsewhere, is that v700 support is really broken (again).

BTW I agree with Danny about FX chain parameter labelling.

No issues so far, many hours of use.

Actually, I have remembered one other real annoyance. Waveform previews draw on top of automation envelopes for me. Anyone else have that?