Something positive for the loyal N-Track users

An xcerpt from a frustrated Sonar user regarding audio gaps when disabling a send:

RE: S4 PROB: Disable a track send, … (in reply to jacktheexcynic)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This occurred in S3 also. It’s worse now in S4, by twice as much. Additionally, it happens both for a disable and a enable of a send to a reverb bus.

All settings are the same in S4 and S3. My PC is 2.6 P4, 1 gig ram, Aardvark Q10 interface with ASIO @ 8.7 msecs, XP running under a “audio only” hardware profile.

I called Cakewalk TS about this early in the year (with S3). I even sent them a project to illustrate it. Never heard back from them, even called again and was promised again “they’d get back to me” but never did.

So I pretty much gave up and learned to live with it. But this issue is much worse with S4. I’m hoping that someone from Cakewalk will jump in on this.

What makes this extra aggravating is that using little 'ol N-Track software never exhibits any such behavior. When you disable a send, you do not get any kind of audio gapping (other than the expected latency between when you click to disable and when you hear the effect of disabling/enabling the send).

I’m certainly not comparing N-Track to S4. But you would think that this would fall under the category of “basic, proper behavior” for DAW software and that S4 (or S3 for that matter) should NOT act like this.

I suspect this is related to “latency compensation”, but I don’t understand why this can’t be (ans wasn’t) rectified in S4.

____

Bill Andersen (wandersen)

I am unclear as to how this impacts N-track users even one iota??

What makes this extra aggravating is that using little 'ol N-Track software never exhibits any such behavior. When you disable a send, you do not get any kind of audio gapping (other than the expected latency between when you click to disable and when you hear the effect of disabling/enabling the send).

meaning that N-Track is better than Sonar!

Oh, well, it’s strikes me taht it is probably a small problem really, and I am sure Sonar folks will fix it. :)

Quote (Ben Birdsey @ Nov. 07 2004,11:23)
What makes this extra aggravating is that using little 'ol N-Track software never exhibits any such behavior. When you disable a send, you do not get any kind of audio gapping (other than the expected latency between when you click to disable and when you hear the effect of disabling/enabling the send).


meaning that N-Track is better than Sonar!
ok Ben

thanks for clearing that up

TomS

I dunno about that. That excerpt came from their website as I was ascertaining to get Sonar…since I do a lot of overdubs and Im not running a studio…it wouldnt bother ME to much…but that particular subject has been a sore one for a lot of those users…there were at least 2 whole threads on that issue alone so apparently its a big deal to them and it still hasnt been resolved in several updates. 4 is a big upgrade and their pissed that the gap is still there.
I never really knew what they were talking about so I tried it on N…placed a vst or changed vsti during playback and no gaps…and mind you I run the LOW END possible of gear. I posted it to remind that Flavio has really done his homework when it came to the audio engine design.
Kudos to him

The “gap” comes from the bussing architecture of the audio engine. Rather simply stated, if one wants the gaps fixed, than the flexibility in the bussing structure will be compromised. In n-Track, grouping and aux sends are treated differently. In Sonar, they are melded together for flexibility. A bus can act as either a sub-group or an aux send, so the fact that it processes the audio again can cause a gap, especially if using effects. If you mess with the effects on the tracks, the audio engine doesn’t skip, unless there are a ton of effects or the buffer doesn’t have time to catch up.

Great explanation Drummer…it does make sense.
It explains why Sonar was advertising flexible unlimited bussing. I undersrand groups but I never really understood the point of aux sends except recently dealing with a hardware mixer trying to get a headphone monitor mix going with an external reverb unit while recording a dry signal from a channel. Its fascinating.

Great explanation Drummer...it does make sense.
I'm glad that you found it useful :) . It all comes down to whether you can live with the gaps (a simple fix is to just stop and start the engine) and take advantage of the flexibility and ease of bussing/sending, or if you would rather not have the gaps.
I undersrand groups but I never really understood the point of aux sends except recently dealing with a hardware mixer trying to get a headphone monitor mix going with an external reverb unit while recording a dry signal from a channel.

How do you apply effects to tracks? 10 instances of a reverb plugin loaded? You would want to use auxes so you only have one plugin processing many tracks thus saving CPU power. Not using auxes for effects is going to severly limit you in your available CPU resources.

Bubba

I create a group…insert the fx in there and send the channels to the group to share the fx.