People who step up and point out how they think things could be improved, especially in comparison to other DAW's, should be encouraged. But now that Cakewalk Sonar is going to be trying to compete in the payware world with such competitors as Studio One Artist at $99, REAPER at $60, Mixcraft at $79, they're going to have to up their game. I've been giving CbB a lot of slack over the past 5 years because it was freeware. A profiler would be the next better choice, with the best being the adaptive thing that need to learn how to use a DAW or go buy a different interface" helps nothing and comes off as condescending. So, I'd like to see better default settings out of the box that take into account systems that people are likely to have in 2023. If as I said earlier it just uses more memory, I have way more of that than my projects usually need. The docs don't say what the drawbacks might be, so I don't know how high I can crank them. Does that mean that I should be using model 3? If so, could there be a system profiler utility like many games have that surveys the users' system hardware and makes performance suggestions? Playback and recording I/O buffer size? I have no idea. Nobody who's using Cakewalk doesn't have at least 2 cores and probably 4 virtual cores to play with. The documentation refers to having a multiple core system or not. So if the disadvantage of adding extra plug-in buffers or whatever is that it eats up more memory, I don't care. My system has 16GB and rarely gets to the point of using over half of it. I suspect that a lot of them were created when having two cores and 8GB of RAM was a top end system. The documentation usually describes what the benefits might be and just says to back off if it causes "trouble." What I would like to see, at least in the documentation, are descriptions of what the advantages and possible disadvantages of changing those settings might be. Over the years, I've found Cakewalk's optimization options to be needlessly obtuse. It could handle about 2 relocations, then it would fall on its *****. I used to be able to get it to stop just by adjusting the location of the loop markers while playback was running. If I had been evaluating SONAR Professional against other software in that price range, it would have been eliminated straightaway.įortunately that paid off, as Noel apparently started working on engine efficiency like it was a cure for cancer and even by the second update it had improved a great deal. And this happened a lot, so I stuck with Mixcraft and took a wait-and-see approach. I'd never used a piece of software that had an "engine" that would abruptly stop, announce that it had stopped, and then needed to be restarted like a lawnmower or outboard. I will say that when I first started using Cakewalk, 5 years ago, the engine did a lot of stopping. Coming from Mixcraft, which would just gradually start to have pops and crackles when I overloaded it, this was weird. None of them challenge my system in its current state. And the payware race is much less forgiving than the freeware race.Ĭakewalk does what I want it to, but I don't use other DAW's enough to make a comparison in regard to engine performance. I guess in the mean time plug-ins developers are aware.Ī DAW that requires fiddly tuning, a specially built and optimized computer system, and a "tiptoeing around" workflow, when similar projects don't need any of that in competing DAW's is a DAW that's losing the race. I mean such plug-ins will appear "buggy" in many DAWs and particular conditions. Also most DAWs support some kind of ahead rendering. Till the effect is using some hardware, inability to work with anticipative processing will probably influence offline rendering as well (from plug-in perspective, except for GUI, that is the same). I don't have UAD), anticipative processing can be switched off per track. But we don't know that.Įven so I had no problems with render-ahead (f.e. It can be OP experience the bottleneck from completely different part of the system(s), I don't think he is using Studiocat hardware nor similarly optimized system. Since OP has observed the effect (or at least claims he had it.), I assume anticipative processing was on. As I have mentioned, in my tests some years ago the result was opposite. I don't think without this option REAPER is able significantly beat Cakewalk in number of working plug-ins. It is off by default because some plugins don't play well with it. REAPER only has anticipative processing if you set it to do it in the settings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |