problems with cakewalk (by j)
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest
Subject: Re: problems with cakewalk
Increase the I/O buffer size until the problems stop.
This size is a variable related with bit depth, sample rate and the amount of audio tracks that you pretend playback in sync, so you will need to proof different values for get the optimum for each project.
The value range is arround 16 to 1536 kb, for the great values you will get a more effective latency time but also a more safe and undistorted playback.
Also is very important the number of buffers, probably you will need to increase this number until to reach the correct value: range 2 ~ 15.
The latency control is set by default to 93ms for 44.1 khz for higher sample rates you will need to reduce it's value: ie. for 96khz 53ms or less could be more apropiate values.
Recording/playback at 24 bit 96khz in a multitrack enviroment, you will need to increase greatly the default values (64kb I/O buffer size and 4 buffers) for get a stable performance.
The maximum I could get was 14 stereo tracks at 96khz 24 bit using 15 buffers and 1532kb of I/O buffer size.
I use a relative slow CPU Pentium II 350 mhz and a UDMA 33 HD, I supose that with UDMA 66 disks the performance could be increased much more.
ALLWAYS ENABLE THE DMA MODE in the device manager for the recording HD.!!!!!!!!!
The use of DirecrtX plugins affect the performance according the amout of CPU usage they do, at faster CPUs > more DX plugins.
Forget the use of virtual realtime synths, this software is NOT designed for this purpose.
Increase the I/O buffer size until the problems stop.
This size is a variable related with bit depth, sample rate and the amount of audio tracks that you pretend playback in sync, so you will need to proof different values for get the optimum for each project.
The value range is arround 16 to 1536 kb, for the great values you will get a more effective latency time but also a more safe and undistorted playback.
Also is very important the number of buffers, probably you will need to increase this number until to reach the correct value: range 2 ~ 15.
The latency control is set by default to 93ms for 44.1 khz for higher sample rates you will need to reduce it's value: ie. for 96khz 53ms or less could be more apropiate values.
Recording/playback at 24 bit 96khz in a multitrack enviroment, you will need to increase greatly the default values (64kb I/O buffer size and 4 buffers) for get a stable performance.
The maximum I could get was 14 stereo tracks at 96khz 24 bit using 15 buffers and 1532kb of I/O buffer size.
I use a relative slow CPU Pentium II 350 mhz and a UDMA 33 HD, I supose that with UDMA 66 disks the performance could be increased much more.
ALLWAYS ENABLE THE DMA MODE in the device manager for the recording HD.!!!!!!!!!
The use of DirecrtX plugins affect the performance according the amout of CPU usage they do, at faster CPUs > more DX plugins.
Forget the use of virtual realtime synths, this software is NOT designed for this purpose.
-
Guest
-
Guest
Subject: Re: dropped cakewalk...
Really working with Cubase requires also a fine tunning of the software for get good (?)results.
In my opinion Cakewalk brings a better audio quality than Cubase but paying the cost of to have long latency times.
Mainly it is designed for linear recording.
Sorry for not give you detailed tips of Cubase due I use in this moment very few Cubase, (now I'm learning to use Nuendo, that has it's own problems, but's better for my work).
I have abandoned the use of Cubase tired of it's chronic unstability.
My personal conclusion is that I prefer simple programs that ALLWAYS work, than to lose most of my time in research about why a program don't do what's expected.
As I say is a personal opinion, but think a moment if all this time that you (we)lose trying to work with a bad designed program, does not represent the effort needed for to buy an (or many)excellent hardware synthesizer that allways will work fine.
Really working with Cubase requires also a fine tunning of the software for get good (?)results.
In my opinion Cakewalk brings a better audio quality than Cubase but paying the cost of to have long latency times.
Mainly it is designed for linear recording.
Sorry for not give you detailed tips of Cubase due I use in this moment very few Cubase, (now I'm learning to use Nuendo, that has it's own problems, but's better for my work).
I have abandoned the use of Cubase tired of it's chronic unstability.
My personal conclusion is that I prefer simple programs that ALLWAYS work, than to lose most of my time in research about why a program don't do what's expected.
As I say is a personal opinion, but think a moment if all this time that you (we)lose trying to work with a bad designed program, does not represent the effort needed for to buy an (or many)excellent hardware synthesizer that allways will work fine.
-
Guest
Subject: re:
i always was satisfied with cakewalk´s audio quality, you say the one of cubase isn´t so good? hm... i have read once that cubases algorithms are more due to electronic music while rock musicians (like me
will be more pleased by those of cakewalk - what about logic by that?
well, i wanted to have a look on both, logic and cubase, but i could test only cubase untill now. the wellknown monty prefers logic, because it´s more professional, if i can take his words for serios in that case.
especially the latency makes cakewalk not suitable for me any longer, and i had also bad sync between midi & audio while running _many_ tracks, the midi was like dumbling around the audio, which crackled sometimes...
gruß,
Mo (fearing months of adjusting the quartett pc/win/pulsar/cubase...)
p.s. nuendo is more like protools software than like cubase, right? what about the midi-functionality of nuendo?
i always was satisfied with cakewalk´s audio quality, you say the one of cubase isn´t so good? hm... i have read once that cubases algorithms are more due to electronic music while rock musicians (like me
will be more pleased by those of cakewalk - what about logic by that?well, i wanted to have a look on both, logic and cubase, but i could test only cubase untill now. the wellknown monty prefers logic, because it´s more professional, if i can take his words for serios in that case.
especially the latency makes cakewalk not suitable for me any longer, and i had also bad sync between midi & audio while running _many_ tracks, the midi was like dumbling around the audio, which crackled sometimes...
gruß,
Mo (fearing months of adjusting the quartett pc/win/pulsar/cubase...)
p.s. nuendo is more like protools software than like cubase, right? what about the midi-functionality of nuendo?
-
Guest