Here's the scoop!
Mike
talked with one of the sale's people and here's what he said:
Version 8 will be announced next week sometime and it will ship in about
a month. The reason as to why the upgrade is only 19 bucks (that is, if
your upgrade is from pro audio 7 to pro audio 8) is because version 7
came out only a few months ago. Hmmmm. My personal thoughts on this is
that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
mean.....console view, scrolling, etc.....And rather than release
another patch, they're releasing version 8, which probably addresses
most of the bugs that version 7 has. So, version 8 is basically a patch
that they can get some bucks from. Any thoughts on this?
Mike Lee
Garry Simmons
Mike wrote in message <35EEE6F7...@mediaone.net>...
I think all you guys are shooting your mouths, er, keyboard off without any
facts to back it up. The only facts we know are that an upgrade is pending
and it will only cost $19! Cakewalk has always had a very fair and
reasonable upgrade policy. I suggest that you all cool off until details of
the upgrade are posted. If they're charging $19 for bug fixes, then bitch.
I'll be right beside you bitching if that's what they have planned. I've
been a Cakewalk customer since version 1 for Windows and they've never let
me down. I have no reason to expect anything less than a great value from
them.
Garry
Darren Stewart
but, in the absence of any hard information, I have to agree with you that
this smacks of a bug fix.
This reminds me of my first job on a big project when somebody hauled an
Italian programmer over the coals because his code was full of bugs. "They
are not bugs", he replied "they are features!".
Cakewalk 7 seems to have rather too many (undocumented) features.
Thomas Bresnahan
is more than bug fixes.
He was reluctant to go into too much
detail, but he did mention (for lack of a better term) "improved"
midi and audio features. I also got the impression they have implemented
greater bit depth.
BTW, I am running 7.01 with Win 98 and Layla with no problems.
Some of the (shall we say "glitches") that have been reported here,
I find to be minor inconveniences at most. I use it just about everyday
and am writing a ton of music and having a ball.
Anyway,
I ordered mine !
Garry Simmons wrote in message <6smpn9$6...@hope.harvard.net>...
>
>Mike wrote in message <35EEE6F7...@mediaone.net>...
GOREMAN
>that they can get some bucks from. Any thoughts on this?
>
IMHO, I believe that all-too-often people simply upgrade for the sake of
having the "latest and greatest". They then find out that the latest
version wasn't what they expected and then blame the software company. The
best thing to do is to get as much info as you can on the lastest version,
download the demo, and monitor the newsgroups to see how other users like
it. This way you don't end up as a Cakewalk beta tester and have to pay for
it.
In defense of Cakewalk, I have to appreciate the fact that they're quick to
respond to the user's wants and needs.
GOREMAN
Larry Wiezycki
> I think all you guys are shooting your mouths, er, keyboard off without
any
> facts to back it up. The only facts we know are that an upgrade is
pending
Granted. Speculation is a killer! Don't forget that alot of us have wasted
an exorbitant amount of time because of bugs or lack of advertised
usability features in 7.0/7.01. Is that time worth some extra features and
an $80 discount? We'll have to wait and see. I think I personally owe an
incredible amount of slack to Cakewalk for all the years of great products.
I have never been burned by them before, and trust that I never will be.
However, just as their user base has grown like crazy over the years, my
reliance on their quality products has significantly increased. I am no
longer a weekender or hobbyist user. I now make a nice little percentage of
my income using their product. It is touted as a professional product and
used by many of us in that regard.
I hope that I'm not alone here in stating that our level of tolerance for
problems like those in 7.0 is becoming increasingly slim. How we weigh new
features to actual usability is a personal preference but the more that
leans toward new features that don't work will relate to many users
dropping by the wayside. I know I'm not alone in hoping that never happens.
True, there are many shooting their mouths, but Cakewalk has always
listened to their users and responded well. As long as we keep them aware
of whats at stake here, I don't think that the bulk of us will be
disappointed. I am worried, but at the same time confident they will do the
right thing. Apparently there is still some time before the formal release
announcement. No doubt that there are beta-testers among us. IMO this could
be a crucial turning-point as version 8.0 may be the most important release
yet. If it is a repeat of the current scenario, then the book is closed.
But if it shines, all will be forgiven. Its up to them now...
Good Luck to Cakewalk
Larry Wiezycki
Bob Beals
Mike wrote in message <35EEE6F7...@mediaone.net>...
My personal thoughts on this is
>that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
>mean.....console view, scrolling, etc
Damned if I can figure how you can say that when so many of us are producing
great things with 7.01 and loving it.
Bob
Phat Bass
>that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
>another patch, they're releasing version 8, which probably addresses
I wouldn't exactly say that, but it is an ultra short product life cycle,
which is enough to raise doubts.
P. Bass
Steve Leigh
Mike wrote:
> Version 8 will be announced next week sometime and it will ship in about
> a month. The reason as to why the upgrade is only 19 bucks (that is, if
> your upgrade is from pro audio 7 to pro audio 8) is because version 7
> came out only a few months ago.
I'm really disappointed. I think Cakewalk's "decision makers" ought to just
face what they marketed in 7.0, and get that as straight as it needs to be
...... FIRST. BEFORE and major (8.0) marketing begins. From what I read
here, and my own experience, it's not as if the problems are all that
massive .... the entire basic engine is running, but there are areas that
need attention. Like many of you, it's not the $19 .... it's the idea that
I went into 7.0 in good faith, expecting I could believe in the marketing
descriptions. As early as 5/29/98 (one day after I received the 7.0
code), I was in touch with CW regarding minor issues like key bindings,
patches that don't appear in console view, etc. While I received a reply,
those problems still exist, and no fix has been forthcoming.
I might see this situation differently, but at one time, I was a beta tester
for a company that wrote bulletin board
software. New code (repaired code, by the way) was posted constantly. And
the response to the input was immediate. I believe it was a universal
feeling that the programmers were on the same team as the users, and the
entire process of THEM (the company) getting their product sharpened up, and
US (the buyers and users) getting OUR systems sharpened up, worked liked
magic. I don't feel it would have been so magical if the updates didn't
flow.
While I am only one end user of CW, maybe some of the rest of you (whose
current version of CW is *not* running perfectly) feel the same way. I'd
like to see a much more active repair policy from CW - beginning
immediately.
Just my $19.00 worth ...... :)
--
Steve Leigh
Canine Training - Lutz, Florida USA
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
Morten Saether
>My personal thoughts on this is
>that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
>mean.....console view, scrolling, etc.....And rather than release
>another patch, they're releasing version 8, which probably addresses
>most of the bugs that version 7 has. So, version 8 is basically a patch
>that they can get some bucks from. Any thoughts on this?
Mike,
Version 7 has been a huge success for Cakewalk, and we will continue to
support it. In fact, we plan to release a 7.02 patch before version 8 is
shipping. Our intention is not for customers to pay for bug fixes. We have
always released free maintenance updates when necessary, and we will continue
to do so. As far as the lasso/scrolling bug goes, that was unfortunately
introduced in the 7.01 patch, as a result of "fixing" a problem that wasn't a
bug in the first place. We goofed, and we will address this ASAP.
Version 8 includes many new exciting technologies that you have been
requesting, and we want to make these available to you as soon as possible. We
realize that many of you have just recently bought version 7, and we do not
expect or intend to make any profit from customers who upgrade from version 7
to version 8. Since we sincerely appreciate our valued customers, we are
making this major new upgrade available to current version 7 users for only
$19.
I think you will be surprised when you see all the stuff you get for $19,
which basically only covers our manufacturing costs (CD's and new User's
Guide, etc.). Version 8 is full of cool new features, as well as enhancements
to current features. Of course, it also includes all the 7.0x fixes.
We realize many of you are surprised at how soon on the heels of version 7 we
plan to release version 8, but I think you will be even more surprised when
you see all the new features you get for only $19. This will be a solid
upgrade. We have worked long and hard on this version (long before version 7
was released), and we think you will be pleased with the result. More
information will be available next Wednesday (September 9).
Sincerely,
Morten Saether
http://www.cakewalk.com
Dan O'Rourke
???????? (Mine works so well I have been chicken to go to 7.0) buck
buck buck!
Dan
David A. Fenton
Scott Vita
Right on Morten!!! You guys really do listen!!!
Scott Vita
sv...@att.net
Joel Braverman
FREE FREE FREE:
----------------------
As a registered Cakewalk customer, you can place your advance order for Pro
Audio 8 now, for the same low price as the Pro Audio 7 upgrade.
Click here to order your advance Pro Audio 8 upgrade now!
If you absolutely cannot wait for your Pro Audio 8 upgrade to arrive later
this month, then you can still purchase a Pro Audio 7 upgrade now. We'll
even ship you a free Pro Audio 8 upgrade automatically when it's available.
---------------------
Joel
Joel Braverman
which would lead to the conclusion: even if they DO listen, they give the
impression to the customers that they DON'T, so:
Attn: Morten and Michael: now that you have brushed up the underlying
technology, it is time to start brushing up your customer service image a
bit. You want your customers to *feel* that you have a responsive customer
service department.
That's all.
Joel
Miller McClure
I for one can't wait! Not being as demanding as some of you guys, I have
been blown away/ pleased/excited/moved/invigorated/yadayada by version 7
(bugs not withstanding)! Version 8 for $19 is gonna be great!!! (It costs
me more than $19. to take the 6 nose-miners to Mickey D's!) It's my
birthday! It's Christmas! It's vacation time, tax refund, family reunion,
and a heapin' helpin' of our hospitalitee! Yee-haw!
Ahem. I'm composed now.
Miller
George J. Foster
engineers are never really satisfied with their product, and marketing
and sales folks (or Captains and Admirals in my case) usually have to
pull it out of their hands for release.
But, they usually don't just stop work just because it's gone out the
door. We often have two or three consecutive versions in some phase of
production at once. By the time the reports come back from the customers
(the US Navy for me), the next version is past unit test and into system
integration. So, it's very conceivable that it would take us less time
to get the fixes into the new version. So getting the 7.02 patch and 8.0
in the same month isn't unreasonable at all.
If I were a Cakewalk programmer, the moment 24 bits or advanced MIDI
features were brought up, my mind would be racing toward architectures
and solutions. So. no wonder 8.0 is here so fast.
George
Gary Edelman
> According to the blurb someone dug up from cakes website, 6.01--->8.0
> is
> FREE FREE FREE:
> ----------------------
But it costs $ 99.00 & that sounds like a pretty fair deal to me.
gary
Andrew Collins
anywho , i knew none of this when i made my "update,shupdate post"...
I think 19.00 is very fair and I appreciate the gesture.
I'm just worn out, I think, on software bugs. Not enough to go back to
cave-drawing perhaps, but a bit fatigued. I must say that a post by Bob
Beals leaves me a little ticked, tho. He implies that people who have
problems with Cakewalk are incapable of doing "great work" with it. It
doesn't matter if I have a gold record recorded on Cakewalk; If I had to
go through effects crashes, bundle files that refuse to open,
alternatives in mixing to a console that is supposed to work, or wasted
ANY thing for then 5 seconds trying to lasso or scroll the track view,
then I think I have a right to be a bit bummed and express it. All that
extra time is money, so they say.....
Andrew Collins
Jake Snake Studios
Bob Beals
Andrew Collins wrote in message <35EF59A0...@ameritech.net>...
>He implies that people who have
>problems with Cakewalk are incapable of doing "great work" with it.
Not true. I meant to imply that people who have problems with Cakewalk
usually use the workarounds/alternatives rather than continually bitch about
something which is already being handled AFAP by the Cakewalk team.
Your anger is much more appropriately directed toward me and my opinions
than toward CW.
At least I may deserve it. :)
Cheers,
Bob
Dan Kenney
my assessment. Upon reviewing CW 7.0 after its initial release I posted
here that in my judgment CW7 was a in baseball lingo a "towering pop-up."
My assessment still stands. I think it was brought to market too early
without the features that would really justify a major release from CW6.
In CW's defense, I think they had to do something to counter Cubase VST and
LogicAudio new program's graphical interface and plug-in features....hence
the "console view." Hopefully CW's strategy has worked to buy them enough
time to make the changes the program really needs, namely...1)a much more
efficient audio engine to combat latency, 2) 24 bit audio
record/storage/playback 3) A real-world workable console-mixing view and
4)most importantly...a two beat count-off.
Sek'd 24/96 is already out there. VST24 for the PC is scheduled for early
Oct. Waves 8/24 is scheduled in that time frame. If CW misses the Fall's
24 bit window of new offerings, I think they could take a big hit as the
24bit hardware comes down in price. Therefore, I am betting that 8.0 is
the move to 24 bit.
Who knows..but that's my guess -- I've ordered the upgrade from 6.0 to 8.0
(with my fingers crossed)...but you can keep 7.0.
Dan
Mike <mu...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<35EEE6F7...@mediaone.net>...
> Here's the story. I just called the toll free number(1-888-CAKEWALK) and
> talked with one of the sale's people and here's what he said:
> Version 8 will be announced next week sometime and it will ship in about
> a month. The reason as to why the upgrade is only 19 bucks (that is, if
> your upgrade is from pro audio 7 to pro audio 8) is because version 7
> came out only a few months ago. Hmmmm. My personal thoughts on this is
> that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
> mean.....console view, scrolling, etc.....And rather than release
> another patch, they're releasing version 8, which probably addresses
> most of the bugs that version 7 has. So, version 8 is basically a patch
> that they can get some bucks from. Any thoughts on this?
> Mike Lee
>
>
>
Dave Hallock
Ever try Logic Audio Platinum? I have and its directX implementation
sucks. thier response to that is that the directx plugins are not to the
standard. Hmm I have plugs from 6 or 8 different companies and they all
act the same under LA so who is right some Mac centric company or all those
directx plugin makers.
Cubase looks great yet it has some real performance issues. Yell and
scream for 24 bit all ya want just remember that your trackcount will go
down by a1/3 at least. Yep 24 bit is the cats meow just recognize that
your hardware will need to be stronger and most all of your other equipment
will need to be replaced. Just wait till consumers realize that there
will be a new cd standard and that even thier speakers will not be able to
get the job done properly or even close.
So lets just wait a dang week and see what the Cake gods have for us.
Dan Kenney
Thanks for the reply
Dave Hallock <daveh...@foothill.net> wrote in article
<01bdd7a3$32ffade0$6d75...@foothill.net.foothill.net>...
> Dan
>
> Ever try Logic Audio Platinum? I have and its directX implementation
> sucks.
Never used Logic Platinum personally so I can't speak to it. My point was
however, in the marketing arena CW had to quickly react to the "new wave"
of audio apps -- hence CW 7 which I still say was premature.
>
> Cubase looks great yet it has some real performance issues.
Couldn't disagree with you more here. I use Cubase VST as well as CW and
it has a much more efficient audio engine than CW
> Yell and scream for 24 bit all ya want just remember that your
trackcount will go
> down by a1/3 at least.
With cheap fast hard drives, cheap fast processors and an efficient audio
engine, this is irrelevant
>Yep 24 bit is the cats meow just recognize that
> your hardware will need to be stronger and most all of your other
equipment
> will need to be replaced.
I am currently feeding my hardware steriods so it will be prepared. As for
the little outboard equipment I use - most of it is already at the 20 or 24
bit level in its signal paths. Cards like the Wave 8/24 will be arrivng
soon.
> Just wait till consumers realize that there
> will be a new cd standard and that even thier speakers will not be able
to
> get the job done properly or even close.
I not sure of your point here. In any event I want, need, desire, covet,
require, lust after and most of all deserve 24 bit recording storage and
playback. If you have to ask why you either haven't had the opportunity to
use it or you will have to accept my reasoning which is...cause I said so.
>
> So lets just wait a dang week and see what the Cake gods have for us.
We have no choice but to do this. But I reiterate if 8.0 is not 24bit, 1)
I will be pisssed and 2) I think CW will miss a big opportunity.
Regards,
Dan
Marc Klaassen
Morten Saether heeft geschreven in bericht
<35f41c6e...@news.cakewalk.com>...
>On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:59:03 -0400, Mike <mu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Version 8 includes many new exciting technologies that you have been
>requesting, and we want to make these available to you as soon as possible.
We
>realize that many of you have just recently bought version 7, and we do not
>expect or intend to make any profit from customers who upgrade from version
7
>to version 8. Since we sincerely appreciate our valued customers, we are
>making this major new upgrade available to current version 7 users for only
>$19.
>
>I think you will be surprised when you see all the stuff you get for $19,
>which basically only covers our manufacturing costs (CD's and new User's
>Guide, etc.). Version 8 is full of cool new features, as well as
enhancements
>to current features. Of course, it also includes all the 7.0x fixes.
1. upgrade from 6 -7 = 119 dollar
2. shipment to holland = 35 dollar !!
3. total = 154 dollar for an update with a life cycle of
4 months. (that's 38,5 dollars a month)
1. Upgrade form 7 to 8 = 19 dollar
2. shipment to holland = 35 dollar i presume
3. total = 54 dollar
My point:
Could Cakewalk send me the code of cake8 for 19 dollars without all the
bullshit (books, toolbox II i have two copies now) maybe this could save
something on the shipment charges.
I haven't finished reading the manual yet <g>
Marc Klaassen
Dave Hallock
> > Cubase looks great yet it has some real performance issues.
>
> Couldn't disagree with you more here. I use Cubase VST as well as CW and
> it has a much more efficient audio engine than CW
I have used cubase vst and found it to crash a lot more than cakewalk and
requires more horsepower to run. on the upside for Cubase is that thier
effects are less processor intense than the directx stuff.
> > Yell and scream for 24 bit all ya want just remember that your
> trackcount will go
> > down by a1/3 at least.
>
> With cheap fast hard drives, cheap fast processors and an efficient audio
> engine, this is irrelevant
Dan ok you have lots of money I don't. Another $1000 is money I don;t
have to spend. I agree these things have gotten cheaper but last time I
checked they did not give away money. Do you know something i don;t know?
If so please enlighten me so I too can have more money and live in more
than 100 Sq ft of space.
> > Just wait till consumers realize that there
> > will be a new cd standard and that even thier speakers will not be able
> to
> > get the job done properly or even close.
>
> I not sure of your point here. In any event I want, need, desire, covet,
> require, lust after and most of all deserve 24 bit recording storage and
> playback. If you have to ask why you either haven't had the opportunity
to
> use it or you will have to accept my reasoning which is...cause I said
so.
Well Dan I have heard 24 bit and yep it sounds better. I even agree that
recording 24 bit and keeping it 24 bit as long as possible results in a
slightly better 16 bit final product. Now for the truth which is not
nearly as pretty: Most peoples stereos won't reproduce that difference.
Even those setups that will are owned by people who can't/won;t hear the
difference. Now you are certainly allowed to want what ever you wish to.
My point is that your customer (that is if you have something they want to
buy) could care less about any of that 24 bit stuff. they want lots of
bass and about 10db of dynamic space. So want 24 bit all you want the
bottom line is that for most practical purposes currently 24 bit is a lot
of hype and marketing blitz and not much else. You can yell and scream it
sounds better but sorry 10 db of dynamic range and dithering it down to 16
bits won't leave much room for improvement.
The real hot thing is the higher sampling rates which can mean much more
accurate recordings.
> > So lets just wait a dang week and see what the Cake gods have for us.
>
> We have no choice but to do this. But I reiterate if 8.0 is not 24bit,
1)
> I will be pisssed and 2) I think CW will miss a big opportunity.
I agree completely. And I bet that Cakewalk hits a big home run with 8!
Dan whatever you do please don;t take what I have said as anti something or
being disrespectful to you and your opinions. My reply is an attempt to
bring some light to this subject. I have had the pleasure of speaking with
some of the brightest folks in this field. people who have been making
digital audio equipment for over a decade. these people were kind enough
to explain things clearly and candid enough to be honest about what was
hype and what was real.
Take care man. Good luck and email me next week when Cakewalk officially
announces thier Home Run AKA Version #8.
Dave Hallock
David A. Fenton
month for V7 <g>
Marc Klaassen
David A. Fenton heeft geschreven in bericht <6soh96$c...@hope.harvard.net>...
>Simple, don't upgrade to CWPA8 until next year, that will lower you cost
per
>month for V7 <g>
haha, didn't think of that !
anyway, i'll have to writeoff my software in 4 months. I am curious how the
dutch IRS will take that.
Marc Klaassen
Catena
>of hype and marketing blitz and not much else
Dave,
More bits has other advantages that you overlooked:
- Since you don't know in advance the largest peak you'll encounter during a
recording (unless you're using a good analog compressor/limiter), more bits
in the ADC and recording gives you the necessary headroom to record with
good resolution without clipping and without HAVING to compress in this
early pass. I hate having to compress or limit before mixing/editing. Note
that with a 16 bit ADC, if you don't want to compress, you usually will get
only about 12-13 significant bits because you can't record near the 0 dB
level without high risk of clipping.
- Having 32 bit float format in the internal processing path ables you to
forget the gain management during editing and mixing, an important issue if
you want to keep quality. You don't need to undo after a processing that
clipped because clip never occurs. Also, the signal won't be degraded if the
level is very low. And the quantization noise will be much lower, what is
improtant because it accumulates with each processing you do.
>The real hot thing is the higher sampling rates which can mean much more
>accurate recordings.
That's absolutely wrong. Higher samling rates ONLY serves to waste storage
space and processing power. Math is an exact science, and there is a math
theorem that demonstrates it: Nyquist. Anyway, I explained this before here,
and there was many people that didn't understand it. I'll write a serie of
articles about Digital Signal Processing technology basics, oriented
specifically to music production. The first one will be in the october issue
of www.prorec.com. This knowledge has helped me a lot to understand and get
the most of digital audio processing, and I hope it will be very useful for
musicians / sound engineers that don't want to study hard DSP theory, but
only want to know just what affects to their activity.
Best regards,
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Mitch Brink
--
______________________________________________________________________
Mitch Brink, Keyboardist/ Composer
E-mail: mit...@ix.netcom.com
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/~mitchb2/
George J. Foster
>
>
>
> That's absolutely wrong. Higher samling rates ONLY serves to waste storage
> space and processing power. Math is an exact science, and there is a math
> theorem that demonstrates it: Nyquist.
Jose,
While the Nyquist theorem does apply, the practical application of it
assumes that the signal is already bandlimited before conversion.
Obviously that requires filtering to limit the frequency content. The
early ADCs in audio devices (especially the first ADAT) had horrendous
phase problems caused by these filters.
OK, I realize you were trying to simplify your explanation (your past
posts would imply knowledge of the paragraph above), but it is a little
misleading. I guess a more accurate explanation would say that sampling
at a higher rate does improve the signal quality, but for most broadcast
media (and listeners) it is wasted. We can still get higher quality by
sampling at the higher rate, processing the samples, and storing at the
lower rate (oversampling).
George
Catena
>posts would imply knowledge of the paragraph above), but it is a little
>misleading. I guess a more accurate explanation would say that sampling
>at a higher rate does improve the signal quality, but for most broadcast
>media (and listeners) it is wasted. We can still get higher quality by
>sampling at the higher rate, processing the samples, and storing at the
>lower rate (oversampling).
Not exact again. Higher bit rates help to do good antialiasing filters with
old ADCs. But all ADCs are now oversampling sigma-delta with digital
antialiasing, and these don't exhibit this problem, as I explained with more
detail before, you know.
Higher bit rates will only improve quality if you could hear beyond the
nyquist freq. That is, if you could hear beyond 20-22 KHz, then more than
44.1 KHz would be valuable. But you should know you can't.
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Keith Cowgill
Like a lot of really-long-time Cakewalk users, I didn't hesistate to
order the Version 8 upgrade, since experience has taught me that it will be
easily worth the investment and continue to be one of the finest software
packages available.
I feel embarrassed to bring up this one minor bitch. $8.95 for domstic
S&H? That user manual better be a double volume, hard bound edition!
We're all used to companies making a little back-end money on shipping,
but it would have looked better if you'd done the upgrade for $24 and come
up with a believable S&H cost. Currently, one-third of the domestic
upgrade cost is simply for shipping. If it really costs you that much
internally, you might want to outsource fulfillment...
Morten Saether (u...@available.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:59:03 -0400, Mike <mu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
: >My personal thoughts on this is
: >that I think that version 7 was basically a failure. You know what I
: >mean.....console view, scrolling, etc.....And rather than release
: >another patch, they're releasing version 8, which probably addresses
: >most of the bugs that version 7 has. So, version 8 is basically a patch
: >that they can get some bucks from. Any thoughts on this?
: Mike,
: Version 7 has been a huge success for Cakewalk, and we will continue to
: support it. In fact, we plan to release a 7.02 patch before version 8 is
: shipping. Our intention is not for customers to pay for bug fixes. We have
: always released free maintenance updates when necessary, and we will continue
: to do so. As far as the lasso/scrolling bug goes, that was unfortunately
: introduced in the 7.01 patch, as a result of "fixing" a problem that wasn't a
: bug in the first place. We goofed, and we will address this ASAP.
: Version 8 includes many new exciting technologies that you have been
: requesting, and we want to make these available to you as soon as possible. We
: realize that many of you have just recently bought version 7, and we do not
: expect or intend to make any profit from customers who upgrade from version 7
: to version 8. Since we sincerely appreciate our valued customers, we are
: making this major new upgrade available to current version 7 users for only
: $19.
: I think you will be surprised when you see all the stuff you get for $19,
: which basically only covers our manufacturing costs (CD's and new User's
: Guide, etc.). Version 8 is full of cool new features, as well as enhancements
: to current features. Of course, it also includes all the 7.0x fixes.
: We realize many of you are surprised at how soon on the heels of version 7 we
: plan to release version 8, but I think you will be even more surprised when
: you see all the new features you get for only $19. This will be a solid
: upgrade. We have worked long and hard on this version (long before version 7
: was released), and we think you will be pleased with the result. More
: information will be available next Wednesday (September 9).
: Sincerely,
: Morten Saether
: http://www.cakewalk.com
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: Keith Cowgill kcow...@infinet.com http://www.infinet.com/~kcowgill :
: Advertising, Creative Director, Marketing Communications :
: [Author: WaveBlaster Tamer, Type-1 Tools, FixSit] :
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Morten Saether
wrote:
>How much will the 8.0 cost for us paranoids who never got past 6.01
>?
Dan,
I believe the upgrade price is $99 from 6.0x to version 8.
Regards,
Morten Saether
http://www.cakewalk.com
Morten Saether
>> More information will be available next Wednesday (September 9).
>>
>
>What time? :-)
Oh, I don't know...sometime between midnight and 11:59 PM.<g>
Morten Saether
wrote:
>Could Cakewalk send me the code of cake8 for 19 dollars without all the
>bullshit (books, toolbox II i have two copies now) maybe this could save
>something on the shipment charges.
Marc,
Version 8 will include a brand new updated User's Guide, and the Deluxe
edition will also include a brand new Musician's Toolbox. I think you'll be
pleased with what you get.
Best Wishes,
Morten Saether
http://www.cakewalk.com
Morten Saether
<jbr...@mirrormagazine.com> wrote:
>They always say they listen, but that comment has been made several times,
>which would lead to the conclusion: even if they DO listen, they give the
>impression to the customers that they DON'T, so:
Joel,
I hope my temporary absence from the newsgroups will be positively reflected
in CWPA 8. Now that version 8 is almost ready, I look forward to spending more
time here.
Morten Saether
>I feel embarrassed to bring up this one minor bitch. $8.95 for domstic
>S&H? That user manual better be a double volume, hard bound edition!
We could change the upgrade price to $29, and throw in shipping for free.<g>
Seriously, though, I think $8.95 is a reasonable shipping charge; I know I've
paid more in shipping charges for smaller products. FYI, the new User's Guide
is around 600 pages.
Best Regards,
Morten Saether
http://www.cakewalk.com
Cliff Benoit
Hi...
Actually, I DID find that te User's guide for 7 was a lot more palatable
than 6. Definitely lightened up the slope on that learning curve.
Cliff
Joel Braverman
you missed were some very amusing flame wars, which you can catch up on if
you care to... Thanks for all the hard work you guys have been putting in
for us, I hope you get the kudos you deserve for your hard work.
Joel
Mark Whippey
> I'll write a serie of
> articles about Digital Signal Processing technology basics, oriented
> specifically to music production. The first one will be in the october
> issue of www.prorec.com.
That would be wonderful.
If I might make a suggestion for one of the areas you might like to
cover, I've never yet found a good semi-technical explanation of how
samplers, etc, play notes at pitches other than they were sampled at -
e.g. where a note sampled at middle C is also used for, say, the Bb and B
below and the C# and D above, to reduce the number of samples that must
be stored by a factor of 5. I'm presuming that some kind of on-the-fly
sample rate conversion is done to shift the pitch appropriately but I
don't really know.
Mark
Joel Braverman
>engineers are never really satisfied with their product, and marketing
>and sales folks (or Captains and Admirals in my case) usually have to
>pull it out of their hands for release.
That is why there are bugs in products - programmers want to put out a
product that actually works, and the marketeers and sales folks want
commisions. Guess who wins?
This is the strategy that has pissed me off at most high tech companies I've
worked at.
Joel
Joel Braverman
I'm actually somewhat confused by the blurb - who actually pays the $19?
Only early upgraders to v7? Cause if you upgrade to 7 now you get 8 free, or
if you upgrade to 8 (and wait) you get 8 free as well. So that sort of (not
to start another grip session here, cause this conversation happens every
upgrade) disses the folks who upgrade to 7 in the first place. Not that I'm
complaining. Good things come to those who wait!
Joel
Catena
I'll consider your suggestion, it's an interesting point to cover.
Obviously, it will be considered for a future issue after more basic things
are explained, so it would be understood better.
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Mark Whippey escribió en mensaje ...
Dave Hallock
So do you have any hard knowledge about how much difference recording at 24
bits will make at the end of the process once things are put down to 16
bits?
You are obviously correct in what you say about headroom etc with 24 bits
and I certainly bow to you and your expertise. I also despise compression
as it is currently used.
So if you take a modern mix (something with a highly limited dynamic range)
and apply all the 24 bit voodoo to it and then dither it down to 16 bit and
play it thru the average consumers system and ears how much difference will
be made. As I said I agree with all that you said but when taking it from
the theoretical and applying it to the real world end user/consumer is
there much gain to be had?
I certainly agree that someday there will be an updating of the 16 bit
standard and the sooner that we as musicians go to higher bit rates the
sooner our archive material will be at that higher rate.
My whole point is that from a practical standpoint the ned result will be a
bit (pun intended) cleaner but the average listner will not hear or care.
Sad but true.
Respectfully
Dave Hallock
Gary Edelman
the 7.0 UG. Those who waited long enough could get the UG to 6.0 & then
get 7.0 for free. I guess they figure its worth it for the amount of
time of use we get out of the UG. But since 7 to 8 is only $19.00 it
really sounds like a bargain assuming it is a true UG.
gary
David A. Fenton
Hey!... you weren't supposed to give us any details until September 9th!
<g>
dave
George J. Foster
If nothing else, extra bits should make life easier for the engineer,
agreed. But, I think the average quality of both performance and sound
recording will increase given that we won't have the "talent" singing or
playing so long while we tweak to get the really hot levels we all want.
Less time wasted on that also means that we can keep those truly
inspired performances and then compress and dump back to 16 bits as
feasible going into the mixdown.
George
Dan O'Rourke
>
> On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 19:29:51 -0400, Dan O'Rourke <orou...@villagenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >How much will the 8.0 cost for us paranoids who never got past 6.01
> >?
>
> Dan,
>
> I believe the upgrade price is $99 from 6.0x to version 8.
>
I ordered it today and am really looking forward to it. In case anyome
is interested, I tried to order on line but ran into problems, I called
sales & they gave me the online price ($94).
Dan
Catena
I understand your point, but I don't agree.
1) I like to do things as well as I can, even in the case that some people
don't appreciate the difference. I enjoy producing music a lot.
2) I like to hear music from others as well as possible. I can appreciate
good music even if the sound quality is bad, but if sounds great, much much
better.
3) More bits during ADC conversion and editing improves definitively the end
product quality, but not only that, it makes easier, faster, more
productive, the recording and editing, because you can relax early
compromises and decissions. You can relax significantly the level control
during recording and in each editing process. You don't need to go back
because the process clipped. There's no clip with float samples. You don't
need to beging again from the start so often because you degraded too much
some important clips after too much processes. ETC.
4) As I said, 16 bits in the ADC becomes about 12 bits of usable dynamic
range if you don't want to compress at all, what occurs when you aren't
doing highly compressed pop/rock. Have you tried recording a classical music
group, choral, or similar with important dynamic variations? When I did, I
needed to use noise reductors after the recording to remove the very
noticeable hiss. And the terror I felt each time I read -2 dB in a meter
during the recording of a good take! And that to get a recording that is
below -25 dB most of the time... 16 bit recording = headaches. 24 bits =
enjoy doing what you like, focus in the music.
I consider 16/44.1 enough for final music distribution. Most people won't
appreciate any improvement beyond that. But when recording and processing
multitrack... it's a very different story.
Best regards,
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Dave Hallock escribió en mensaje
<01bdd84c$2aaae980$6a75...@foothill.net.foothill.net>...
Dave Hallock
I have to agree with what you said there.
Thanks for helping to enlighten me,
Dave Hallock
Dave Hallock
> 1) I like to do things as well as I can, even in the case that some
people don't appreciate the difference. I enjoy producing music a lot.
I agree
> 2) I like to hear music from others as well as possible. I can appreciate
> good music even if the sound quality is bad, but if sounds great, much
much
> better.
Again I agree
> 3) More bits during ADC conversion and editing improves definitively the
end
> product quality, but not only that, it makes easier, faster, more
> productive, the recording and editing, because you can relax early
> compromises and decissions. You can relax significantly the level control
> during recording and in each editing process. You don't need to go back
> because the process clipped. There's no clip with float samples. You
don't
> need to beging again from the start so often because you degraded too
much
> some important clips after too much processes. ETC.
Ok I understand that one clearly. As I have said I am not anti 24 bit bit
it appears that everyone thinks it wil be some sort of special magic that I
don;t see.
> 4) As I said, 16 bits in the ADC becomes about 12 bits of usable dynamic
> range if you don't want to compress at all, what occurs when you aren't
> doing highly compressed pop/rock. Have you tried recording a classical
music
> group, choral, or similar with important dynamic variations? When I did,
I
> needed to use noise reductors after the recording to remove the very
> noticeable hiss. And the terror I felt each time I read -2 dB in a meter
> during the recording of a good take! And that to get a recording that is
> below -25 dB most of the time... 16 bit recording = headaches. 24 bits =
> enjoy doing what you like, focus in the music.
I have not done classical in quite some time but I certainly understand
what you are saying.
I would really like to say thank you for the additional education. I plan
on using 24 bit in the future and now I understand more about the benefits
that perhaps don;t pass thru to the end result but certainly now i see more
of the reasons why from the recording engineers stand point this is really
a big thing.
Thanks so much for your time
Dave Hallock
Rip Rowan
> >accurate recordings.
>
> space and processing power. Math is an exact science, and there is a math
> theorem that demonstrates it: Nyquist.
Jose,
I used to argue with you about this, and now I've changed my mind.
Regardless of anyone's opinion about the audibility differences between 16/20/24
bits and 44.1/88.2/96 KHz sampling rate, one fact is FOR SURE...
24 bits over 16 bits allows 256X more information about your audio to be
recorded, at the cost of only 1.5 times the required processing capacity (disk,
CPU).
96 KHz over 44.1 KHz allows only 2.17X more information to be recorded, at the
cost of 2.17X the processing capacity.
That's a simple cost/benefit equation we should all be able to wrap our minds
around.
--
Rip Rowan
ProRec Editor
visit the ProRec WebZine @
http://www.prorec.com
Catena
>recorded, at the cost of only 1.5 times the required processing capacity
(disk,
>CPU).
24 bits vs 16 requires more disk space and troughput (x1.5), but NOT more
CPU processing.
Higher sampler rates do affect CPU processing, as you wrote.
Hope that helps,
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Dan Kenney
Thanks for the reply. I certainly didn't take anything you said personally
or as an attack on what I was saying. In fact I enjoyed your response as i
do all the folks around here. Seems some have become a little thin skinned
as of late and so I apreciate you concern as to how I took your response.
Anyway, I think your point is valid - that as you go down the music chain
from 24 bit recording to 16 bit for CD --> to play back on the home stereo
system or Johnny's Acura with the 12X12 bass speaker system set at volume
11, there may be little perceived sound difference to the casual listner.
As others have pointed out, however, the recording mastering part will have
some real advantages. Let's see what CW offers up next week.
As for the additional bucks and living accomodation....hmmmm...how about
getting a rider with deep pockets, a mansion of the hill, and, most
important large breasts.<g>
regards,
Dan
Dave Hallock <daveh...@foothill.net> wrote in article
<01bdd7dc$ac67c260$4475...@foothill.net.foothill.net>...
>
> Dan whatever you do please don;t take what I have said as anti something
or
> being disrespectful to you and your opinions. My reply is an attempt to
> bring some light to this subject. I have had the pleasure of speaking
with
> some of the brightest folks in this field. people who have been making
> digital audio equipment for over a decade. these people were kind enough
> to explain things clearly and candid enough to be honest about what was
> hype and what was real.
>
> Dan ok you have lots of money I don't. Another $1000 is money I don;t
> have to spend. I agree these things have gotten cheaper but last time I
> checked they did not give away money. Do you know something i don;t
know?
> If so please enlighten me so I too can have more money and live in more
> than 100 Sq ft of space.
Phat Bass
Marc Klaassen wrote in message <6srn9n$m...@hope.harvard.net>...
>
>Morten Saether heeft geschreven in bericht
><35f1191f...@news.cakewalk.com>...
>>Marc,
>>
>>Version 8 will include a brand new updated User's Guide, and the Deluxe
>>edition will also include a brand new Musician's Toolbox. I think you'll
be
>>pleased with what you get.
>>
>>Best Wishes,
>>
>
>of always paying those 35 dollars for shipment charges.
>Isn't there a way those charges can be reduced ?
Marc,
If you foot my bill to Amsterdam, I'll carry your upgrade over for free. :)
P. Bass
Marc Klaassen
Morten Saether heeft geschreven in bericht
<35f1191f...@news.cakewalk.com>...
>Marc,
>
>Version 8 will include a brand new updated User's Guide, and the Deluxe
>edition will also include a brand new Musician's Toolbox. I think you'll be
>pleased with what you get.
>
>Best Wishes,
>
Ok sounds interesting, but can you imagine that i am getting a little tired
of always paying those 35 dollars for shipment charges.
Isn't there a way those charges can be reduced ?
I mean, i never read the manual, the help file is sufficient to get started.
( You can make the manual available for dowwnload in adobe-format or
something)
Please, i appreciate the low upgradeprice, but think globally and respect
your international customers.
Regards,
Marc Klaassen
(alpha tester !)
George J. Foster
> 24 bits vs 16 requires more disk space and troughput (x1.5), but NOT more
> CPU processing.
> Higher sampler rates do affect CPU processing, as you wrote.
Jose,
That brings up an interesting architecture issue. I would have been with
Rip in assuming that there is at least some additional CPU overhead (not
1.5 times for total, though) with transferring/mixing/processing 24 bit
words instead of 16. Two 16 bit words fit nicely in a 32 bit register
(or 1 word in a 16 bit register), but 24 bit words don't quite fit that
way.
Does this have to do with the new mix engine running floating point? I
still think there would be just a little extra processing unloading 24
bit words from integer to float than 16 bits to float, unless they've
done something really cute. The extra may be so far down in the noise
that it doesn't matter.
George
Catena
The mix engine works with 32 bit floats. So, the file sample format doesn't
matter here.
The conversion from any integer size to 32 bit float and viceversa is
roughly the same and trivial in any case. The CPU processing required in the
conversion is negligible.
Although not aplicable here, if processing would be done in integer
arithmetic, what's slower in the pentium because it doesn't have a hardware
integer multiplier, a 16 bit operand instruction takes the same time than a
32 bit operand instruction. The only difference would be in memory
allocation, and indirectly and only a bit in execution times becasue
caching.
MMX might make a difference in this because it can do an operation on
multiple integers at a time, but it's another story. It would be very hardly
to code to get a bit significant improvement. I'll never understand why
Intel invented that ?*&%! instead of speeding up the multiplication
instruction, extremely important and decisive in any kind of DSP processing
(it would make Cake to fly). Also, the optimization of the multiplier would
be compatible with existent software, not as MMX. I would like to know the
reason if anyone have a clue, but realyy, I can't figure out it.
Hey friends, you're learning too much here... ;-)
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
George J. Foster escribió en mensaje <35F17146...@ieee.org>...
Marc Klaassen
Phat Bass heeft geschreven in bericht <6srng3$m...@hope.harvard.net>...
>>Marc,
>If you foot my bill to Amsterdam, I'll carry your upgrade over for free. :)
>
>P. Bass
Marc Klaassen
Phil Clapis
Please clarify. I understood that storage requirements for 24 bit was
3x that of 16 bit. Meaning, for example, that you would need 3x the
storage space for audio files and also could expect 1/3 fewer tracks
from your hard drive. I believe I got this information from Layla's
echo reporter.
I'd rather believe you though! :-)
Phil
Catena wrote:
>
> >24 bits over 16 bits allows 256X more information about your audio to be
> >recorded, at the cost of only 1.5 times the required processing capacity
> (disk,
> >CPU).
>
> 24 bits vs 16 requires more disk space and troughput (x1.5), but NOT more
> CPU processing.
> Higher sampler rates do affect CPU processing, as you wrote.
>
George J. Foster
Catena
>3x that of 16 bit. Meaning, for example, that you would need 3x the
>storage space for audio files and also could expect 1/3 fewer tracks
>from your hard drive. I believe I got this information from Layla's
>echo reporter.
24/16 = 1.5
24 bits are 3 bytes (24/8=3), 16 bits are 2 bytes (16/8)=2, 3/2 is obviously
1.5 also.
That is 24 bits requires 1.5 times the disk storage and thoughput than 16
bits. Cheap enough for a 50 dB increased dynamic range (x256 times the
resolution).
--
J.M.Catena
ad...@sesa.es
Catena
Glad to know it.
>96 KHz over 44.1 KHz allows only 2.17X more information to be recorded, at
the
>cost of 2.17X the processing capacity.
And that 2.17x information is the band from 22.05 KHz to 48 KHz. If you
can't hear it, it is nothing.
Dave Hallock
I apreciate you concern as to how I took your response.
Thanks man I feel like we have communicated and connected!
> Anyway, I think your point is valid - that as you go down the music chain
Let's see what CW offers up next week.
I agree. I am positive you will not be disappointed!
> As for the additional bucks and living accomodation....hmmmm...how about
> getting a rider with deep pockets, a mansion of the hill, and, most
> important large breasts.<g>
Lets see No rider yet. no mansion but the new girlfriend covers the last
one quite well!! I am working on the others. I pray every night that it
rains diamonds in the bed of my Pickup. Hey who knows it might happen some
day but probably the day it rains diamonds everyplace and ya have to pay to
get rid of em. Dan I was not complaining. Just thought hey if you had
some secrets maybe you would share.
Take care all my best,
Dave Hallock
And thanks to the rest of you for filling in some blanks and making sense
of the last bits (pun) that had previously not made any sense.
D