The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Sonar Users: Let's identify ourselves so we can nework. Audio Interfaces
Old 29th August 2007
  #61
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
Wow, I had to register to this forum just to ask you if you really understand the purposes of Input Quantize or AudioSnap?

First off Input Quantize has never been requested to fix any issue with where Sonar or any other program places notes. The request for and the use of IQ was/is to achieve a certain technique of recording used by most of today's Urban/Hip-Hop/R&B producers.

IQ lends toward working in a specific style of creating, that's it! The feature isn't there "suddenly" to fix accuracy problems with the program.

I've never had the program just play something back in some other way than what I've played into it and the only possible way it could even do that is under incredibly high (relative to the in use system's power/ability) latency settings.

As far as AudioSnap is concern, its use is toward combining (tempo-wise) totally unrelated audio/midi clips, allowing users to quickly match them up to one another or to altogether new tempos. It's other use could be toward correcting persons with not so great timing , but tell me where did you get that it was suppose to correct some inaccuracy of the program itself?

Not cool talking down features for which you yourself don't have a clear understanding of... It's no wonder users in the Sonar forums have become so defensive after being subjected so long to comments like these.
See what I mean ?

Ok, so you probably work for Cakewalk. And if you don't, humor me.

You had to register just reply to me ?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you don't know me from Adam. You have no idea whether I am an experienced user or even if I may have a good understanding these features. I can assure you that I do. If you don't understand that Sonar has issues and if you don't have the ability to discover them on your own, well that is really your problem. It is not at all my methodology to go hunt someone down and tell them they have no ,as you so explicitly stated, "clear understanding".

Since you mentioned it, it is kinda strange, - that everyone now needs these features.

Seeing as to how you went to so much trouble to come over to Gearslutz and enlighten me as to my ingnorance in using Sonar, go ahead, enlighten me.

But try to do it with the understanding that I also paid the price of admission for the application so - I too, should be able to offer a review.

I won't even bother to go find the most technical issues or posts that have been expressed. I am quite sure you will forcefully and augumentatively state that each can be explained simply by one of the following statements - which anyone of are a standard off the shelf, Cakewalk forum reply to querries. So to restate, It's

My fault
or my computers fault
or my sound cards fault
or my video cards fault
or my plugins fault
or you may perhaps accuse me of not having a valid copy
or (and this is always almost the last retort)- It's because I'm not a computer engineer. (Yep somebody really said that)

And the final last straw (as explained to me the other day there) "software that works is a relative term". OR as that one resident expert vehemently stated, "software that works means different things depending on the complexity of the application".

That last one pretty much covers any and every possibility. Someone must have stayed up all night dreaming up that nonsense.

___________________________________________________________________

Now that we got that out of the way, I would bet you that you will be hard pressed to find anyone that will go seek you out just to say that they don't like you because Sonar works fine for you or that you don't have a "clear undertanding of it's higher level technical issues". It's great if it meets your needs and you are indeed fortunate. More power to you.

Some folks may very well have complex setups. You may have a complex setup. But you are making some very bold assumptions and statements calculated to cause nothing but animosity and dissension and, you are showing unbridled arrogance if you automatically assume that anyone that has had trouble getting Sonar to perform as expected is a idiot.
Old 29th August 2007
  #62
Gear Head
 
Steved's Avatar
 

I've got PTMP, Nuendo, Reaper, and SONAR in my studio.

My DAW application of choice is SONAR.

Using a straight-wire loop back, I've calculated the offset in samples needed for sample accurate recording in SONAR. Only needs to be done once.

Same test recording 16 tracks simultaneously reveals perfect alignment... no drifting. Rock solid.

Lynx AES16 digital interface here in and out of the DAW through Apogee AD16/DA16 converters. Mackie Control Universal + 2 Extenders for 24 bankable faders on the desk.

I use SONAR's input monitoring. I can record 16 tracks simultaneously at 1.5ms (ASIO buffer=64). Even vocalists wearing headphones can't hear this latency. I track with just a touch of real time low latency verb in the headphone mix.

Like everyone else... I have my DAW app wishlists. For SONAR, my fingers are definitely crossed for external hardware inserts. Judging by this thread... seems like I'm not alone. It's long overdue. That feature alone would entice more commercial engineers to begin choosing SONAR.
Old 29th August 2007
  #63
Here for the gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by filthyrich View Post
Great to see you on here Scott. I didn't know you were a member here. Your books are great. I have sonar 4 power and sonar 6 power. Very helpful. I should use them more than I do. Maybe you can chime in on how to use outboard hardware in conjunction with Sonar. Really, I want to know what to possibly do about tracks not lining up after a L-R submix's round trip out and back in.
Hey Filthyrich,

Yep, I'm everywhere.

Actually, I spend most of my time over at DigiFreq, but I try to visit other places once in a while.

To use outboard hardware, you of course need to route a track out a sound card output and then back in through one of the inputs. There will usually be a delay. Sonar provides Record Latency Adjustment you can use to compensate. Go to Options > Audio > Advanced and at the bottom of the box you can enter a number of samples for compensation.

You can approximately figure out what to enter there by first recording a normal audio track in Sonar. Then route that track out and back in via the sound card. And then record that track on to a new track. This new track will be out of sync. Activate the samples reading for the time ruler and it should give you an approximation of how many samples you need to enter in the previously mentioned parameter. Once you do this, your tracks should line up. However, if you change your outboard routing, you'll probably have to recalibrate.

Also, this is mainly necessary when using WDM drivers. When using ASIO, you might not need to do this. Instead first try keeping the parameter set to zero and keeping the Reported Input Latency option (which only appears during ASIO usage) activated. If it's still not accurate, you can adjust the number of samples as before.

Scott

--
Scott R. Garrigus - Author of Cakewalk, Sound Forge 6, 7/8 and SONAR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Power books.
** Get Sonar 6 Power & Sound Forge 8 Power - Today! **
Scott R. Garrigus Web Sites - DigiFreq, Power Books, NewTechReview

Publisher of DigiFreq. Win a free Absynth 3 or Kontakt 2 DVD Tutorial and learn cool music technology tips and techniques by getting a FREE subscription to DigiFreq... over 20,000 readers can't be wrong! Go to:
Scott R. Garrigus' DigiFreq - Free music technology news, reviews, tips and techniques!
Old 29th August 2007
  #64
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
See what I mean ?

Ok, so you probably work for Cakewalk. And if you don't, humor me.

You had to register just reply to me ?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you don't know me from Adam. You have no idea whether I am an experienced user or even if I may have a good understanding these features. I can assure you that I do.
An expected response... I 'decided' to registered not because of you but because of your irresponsible comments... Claiming to be an experienced user just makes what you said previously all the more wrong.

See that's just it, I absolutely do not NEED to know you in order to know that what you've said about the appearance of AudioSnap and/or Input Quantize having an association with some Software timing inadequacy is just plain wrong!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
If you don't understand that Sonar has issues and if you don't have the ability to discover them on your own, well that is really your problem. It is not at all my methodology to go hunt someone down and tell them they have no ,as you so explicitly stated, "clear understanding".


I'm not even going to honor this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Since you mentioned it, it is kinda strange, - that everyone now needs these features.


No one ever said these Features were NEEDED, they are nothing more than tools used toward a specific 'WAY' of doing things. A well experienced user would not find this so strange... stike

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Seeing as to how you went to so much trouble to come over to Gearslutz and enlighten me as to my ingnorance in using Sonar, go ahead, enlighten me.
Come on now your attitude says clearly enough that you aren't even close to seeking any sort of enlightenment in this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
But try to do it with the understanding that I also paid the price of admission for the application so - I too, should be able to offer a review.
You can 'say' whatever you want to say, just be correct when saying it. You get as defensive here as you ever want to be, that doesn't put you in the right when you've said something that's just plain untrue. I will reiterate in case you're still trying not to hear me, AudioSnap and Input Quantize are not needed, they are nothing more than tools.

AudioSnap= Cakewalk's equivilent to Beat Detective (Well wouldn't you know, a longtime ProTools feature ...why lookie here Maw, that must be thur to fix those dawg on timin problems the prograym has )

Input Quantize: lets see now, let my try my best to think of where I can find another program in the world that has this, oh well can't do it so that must mean Sonar's broken since they implemented it only in there!$#?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
I won't even bother to go find the most technical issues or posts that have been expressed. I am quite sure you will forcefully and augumentatively state that each can be explained simply by one of the following statements - which anyone of are a standard off the shelf, Cakewalk forum reply to querries.
What, ya mean like the one where Sonar's Metronome seems to have a problem with Multiple Processors? Or maybe you're talking about the UAD CPU munchin issue... or the one where Sonar crashes when trying to insert the VST version of Hypersonic 2? I could name many more "Factual Issues" if that helps you get started.

All programs have bugs, the very OS you are using has them, both Minor and Major. Sonar has them, ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, Reason, Project5, Reaper, Acid, Ableton Live.... So if you're trying to prove somethin to me that I haven't already stated then go right ahead.

Point is, I haven't made unfounded accusations about the any of the software I mentioned, I stated facts...not loose statements that potentially cloud other's judgment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
So to restate, It's

My fault
or my computers fault
or my sound cards fault
or my video cards fault
or my plugins fault
or you may perhaps accuse me of not having a valid copy
or (and this is always almost the last retort)- It's because I'm not a computer engineer. (Yep somebody really said that)
This is childish, please stop it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Now that we got that out of the way, I would bet you that you will be hard pressed to find anyone that will go seek you out just to say that they don't like you because Sonar works fine for you or that you don't have a "clear understanding of it's higher level technical issues".
I can tell you this, I have no reason not to like you, as you so irrelevantly stated I don't even know you.

What I do not like is inaccurate statements like the ones you made earlier. Again, with you being this well versed Sonar user, you should have known the absolute reasons these additions were brought to the software instead of coming here or anywhere else for that matter and saying something like 'oh don't ya think it's strange they all of a sudden put that in there?'

Again you serve no good purpose in saying things like this; you only cloud the understanding of lookers on who are likely to take your statements as factual being that you're this well studied long time user. stike

If you were ready to understand you would by now.


Old 29th August 2007
  #65
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
It's

My fault
or my computers fault
or my sound cards fault
or my video cards fault
or my plugins fault
or you may perhaps accuse me of not having a valid copy
or (and this is always almost the last retort)- It's because I'm not a computer engineer. (Yep somebody really said that)

And the final last straw (as explained to me the other day there) "software that works is a relative term". OR as that one resident expert vehemently stated, "software that works means different things depending on the complexity of the application".

That last one pretty much covers any and every possibility. Someone must have stayed up all night dreaming up that nonsense.
If you've carefully paid attention you might notice something I never said a thing about in the first place....so what category was it again that you were trying so desperately to fit me into?
Old 29th August 2007
  #66
Lives for gear
 
filthyrich's Avatar
 

OK. Thanks Scott

Quote:
Hey Filthyrich,

Yep, I'm everywhere.

(You are like Visa or something)--(filthyrich comment)

Actually, I spend most of my time over at DigiFreq, but I try to visit other places once in a while.

To use outboard hardware, you of course need to route a track out a sound card output and then back in through one of the inputs. There will usually be a delay. Sonar provides Record Latency Adjustment you can use to compensate. Go to Options > Audio > Advanced and at the bottom of the box you can enter a number of samples for compensation.

You can approximately figure out what to enter there by first recording a normal audio track in Sonar. Then route that track out and back in via the sound card. And then record that track on to a new track. This new track will be out of sync. Activate the samples reading for the time ruler and it should give you an approximation of how many samples you need to enter in the previously mentioned parameter. Once you do this, your tracks should line up. However, if you change your outboard routing, you'll probably have to recalibrate.

Also, this is mainly necessary when using WDM drivers. When using ASIO, you might not need to do this. Instead first try keeping the parameter set to zero and keeping the Reported Input Latency option (which only appears during ASIO usage) activated. If it's still not accurate, you can adjust the number of samples as before.

Scott
Thanks again Scott. You've always been very helpful. So there you have it folks. This guy wrote a book on Sonar..he should know. So, it looks as if we have a psuedo-solution for latency compensation in Sonar.
Old 30th August 2007
  #67
Lives for gear
Infrablade,

I owe you a debt of gratitude for so perfectly illustrating with your reply, the present mo over at the Sonar forum.
Old 30th August 2007
  #68
Here for the gear
 

Nice imagination... you run with that When all is said and done, your previous attempt to make the reason for the existance of these features an explanation of proof positive for something you've experience in the software is still wrong no matter how you wish to twist it.


Edit: On top of everything, you still danced around answering the only question I asked you while trying to turn this conversation into your inner child's little personal battle.

No matter now, your around the hedge answers/avoidance responses have already told this story. Again, if you understood these features, you'd have never associated them with some software timing issue.
Old 30th August 2007
  #69
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
All programs have bugs, the very OS you are using has them, both Minor and Major. Sonar has them, ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, Reason, Project5, Reaper, Acid, Ableton Live.... So if you're trying to prove somethin to me that I haven't already stated then go right ahead.


Well I will if you insist, but only because you have demanded. That quote come pretty close to the last reason on the list you quoted.

IQ and Audio snap sure is a touchy subject with you. What is your vested interest in that anyway ?? All vendors here normally would be required state as much in their sig.
Old 30th August 2007
  #70
Here for the gear
 

Truthfully it has nothing to do with AudioSnap or IQ, my vested interest is in stating factual information, there are already too many users out there speading clouds of confusion without you or I adding to that.
Old 30th August 2007
  #71
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
Nice imagination... you run with that When all is said and done, your previous attempt to make the reason for the existance of these features an explanation of proof positive for something you've experience in the software is still wrong no matter how you wish to twist it.


Edit: On top of everything, you still danced around answering the only question I asked you while trying to turn this conversation into your inner child's little personal battle.

No matter now, your around the hedge answers/avoidance responses have already told this story. Again, if you understood these features, you'd have never associated them with some software timing issue.
Just wanted to lock your post before you editted anything else in it.
Old 30th August 2007
  #72
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
Truthfully it has nothing to do with AudioSnap or IQ, my vested interest is in stating factual information, there are already too many users out there speading clouds of confusion without you or I adding to that.
You've got the wrong idea. We all love Sonar. We all have a vested interest in it working properly. I, along with others I am sure, have simply run out of workaround ideas.
Old 30th August 2007
  #73
Here for the gear
 

How do I have the wrong idea? I never said a single thing about how you feel about the program, it doesn't matter whether you love it or that you want to see it become what it should be.

All I said was your statements were wrong, AudioSnap and Input Quantize have nothing to do with the program's issues. You should have never alluded to the possibility that they might.
Old 30th August 2007
  #74
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
How do I have the wrong idea? I never said a single thing about how you feel about the program, it doesn't matter whether you love it or that you want to see it become what it should be.

All I said was your statements were wrong, AudioSnap and Input Quantize have nothing to do with the program's issues. You should have never alluded to the possibility that they might.
I am sorry that I alluded to something you obviously are personally attached to. I shall try to elude your vengeance henceforth.

Note to self: Do not use audio snap to line up out of sync track data. But, it is ok to use it for lining up out of sync track data.

edit: What was I thinking ? Note to self should read:

Do not use audio snap to line up out of sync track data.
It is evidently intended to be used only for lining up out of time track data.
Old 30th August 2007
  #75
Here for the gear
 

Wow... Oh well, you go on and have your fun with your little notes....it's your own world you're livin in after all...

It's been ..well, it's been.
Old 30th August 2007
  #76
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by infrablade View Post
<snip>
I've never had the program just play something back in some other way than what I've played into it and the only possible way it could even do that is under incredibly high (relative to the in use system's power/ability) latency settings.
Others have

Serious problem with Sonar. Can any confirm? - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums
Ron: Overdubbing/Loopback Correction Parameter
Fix to nudgeing/aligning audio after recording?
Possible SONAR 3 Bug with PDC/recording compensation
Old 30th August 2007
  #77
Man... how about them Dodgers, huh?
Old 30th August 2007
  #78
Yeah, what a nice thread that's now soon going to be locked due to bickering...
Old 30th August 2007
  #79
Gear Head
 
mrfantastical's Avatar
 

Sonar is great

Keep on using ProTools if you can afford it, more power to Ya.

byebye
mrfantastical
Old 30th August 2007
  #80
Lives for gear
 
Oldone's Avatar
OK

All you Sonar users....

Big Hug, how about it?

This is America, we have a right to our paid-for experience and to communicate it. Don't tread on me..

From this thread however, you have to ask yourself, can Sonar users indeed network in a compatible fashion?
Old 30th August 2007
  #81
Hey I don't want to get into any big thing, here, but take a look at that first thread there (the Harmony Central one) and you'll see ME all over it (as username blue2blue but with the same avatar photo of my first tape recorder). I think, in all modesty, I did yeoman work at explaining (and explaining again) the problem and it was a problem. But it wasn't an issue with Sonar, exclusively. It can affect all DAWs.

It's appears to be a problem with interface drivers that, for whatever reason, misreport their conversion latency. It affects all DAWs on what appears to be the majority of hardware drivers, unless the DAW otherwise offers a way to calibrate and correct for the problem.

That's the thread where Ron Kuper promised to add a tracking latency adjustment to Sonar -- which happened with the very next release, Sonar 6.

The fix works fine (at least for me with my MOTU and Echo interfaces; I did have a USB mic that simply required different offsets each time, which required a loopback test each time.) Where have you been?

Do a straight wire ping loopback test, determine what your particular rig's tracking misalignment is in samples and enter that number in the Options / Audio / Avanced / Record Latency Adjustment (samples) Manual Offset field (if you have more than one audio device, you'll need to select it from the pulldown combo box).

That should fix tracking misalignment issues.

Here's the help screen for that:
Quote:
Record Latency Adjustment (samples)

If you loop an audio output back into an audio input, and re-record a track this way, the audio doesn't line up. For some sound cards, it is off quite significantly. This record latency adjustment is a compensation for that delay.


You can do an approximate measurement of the delay by turning on samples as the resolution unit in the Time Ruler, and comparing the original track with the re-recorded track. Then you can enter a value in the Manual Offset field to compensate.


If you use ASIO mode, enter 0 in the Manual Offset field and leave the Reported Input Latency checkbox checked (this check box only appears in ASIO mode). This will line up audio in most cases. If you think you can tweak it closer, use the Manual Offset field.


In ASIO mode, the current active ASIO device (remember ASIO can only have one active at a time) reports its "Input Latency." You can't edit this value. This supposedly accounts for buffer size, A/D Conversion latency, etc. The checkbox allows you to use this reported value. It is checked by default. In any case, the amount entered into the Manual Offset field will be combined (added to) the reported value if you have it checked.
Now... I'm less conversant with MIDI timing problems but on the same dialog box tab there is another field (above that one) marked Timing Offset (msec) and that is devoted to adjusting the timing of MIDI playback vis a vis audio:
Quote:
Timing Offset (msec)--With this option, used for making very fine adjustments to the audio/MIDI synchronization of your project, you can offset the audio in your project by a number of milliseconds. A positive value delays audio by that amount. A negative value delays MIDI by that amount.
BTW... I hope you read that HC thread -- because if you did you'll see that I am definitely not someone who wants happy talk about my DAW. I want answers and I want fixes. We got it that time and, I think, if we continue to make our issues known in a straightforward, calm fashion that, at least with Cakewalk, it tends to get results.



Old 30th August 2007
  #82
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaudio View Post
Don't be so childish.
I use the software as much as I can, because I really like it. It's natural to discuss the shortcomings
The childish one in here is you. In case you haven't noticed, the intention of this thread was to identify Sonar users not to start complaining about its shortcomings like a little girl. All that was requiered was a simple "Hi!". If you want to discuss shortcoming then open your own thread instead of hijacking this one.
Old 30th August 2007
  #83
Lives for gear
 
DontLetMeDrown's Avatar
 

Damn dude. This is exactly what bugs the crap outta me about the Sonar forums.

I thought this was a networking thread.
Old 30th August 2007
  #84
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DontLetMeDrown View Post
Damn dude. This is exactly what bugs the crap outta me about the Sonar forums.

I thought this was a networking thread.

I'm here to network too. I'm usually a nice guy but if you step on my feet (like he did) then you're gonna get it. That's all there is to it. Peace!
Old 30th August 2007
  #85
Lives for gear
Hello Theblue1,

Yes, I know who you are. I have had that thread stored as link for sometime along with many other threads describing the problem. You did a great job of driving home the problem that so many had tried to describe for ages. Thank you for that.

If you will please just take a moment to re-read my original post that blew up into this whole page, well, I had no intention of such a thing happening and I am very sorry for that.

I have a question for you if you will. Certainly correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that folks assume that only the start of the track is misaligned and once it's offset by the appropriate amount, everything is ok.

I for one, must to differ with that observation. Simply re-recording the track does not prove whether actual record placement timing inconsistancies are throughout the initially recorded track in varying miniscule amounts, at least it doesn't to me. The best analogy I can think of would be sort of like the record head moving around on a tape machine relative to the sync.

What does prove record timing inconsistancy (to me) is to lock everything togther with Sonar as master, look at the sync error on the microlynx and see there is nil, have the dtrs (or tape machine) locked to frame accuracy and record the same track at once on both devices and then hear the result. With the freshly recorded tracks panned hard left and right, and while starting out perfectly matched and remaining resolved, the recordings don't exactly match throughout. Any ideas ? It's not the DTRS recorders, they chase, resolve and lock perfectly with each other.

Thanks
Old 30th August 2007
  #86
Here for the gear
 
Majic's Avatar
 

I'm A SONAR User

And, um, let's see...

1. I'm quite happy with the product, though there's always room for improvement.

2. I don't think it's the end-all and be-all of music software, I'm sure there are many features the pros would like to see added or refined, and if it's not suitable for anyone for any reason whatsoever, I certainly won't hold that against them.

3. I record at home, but don't feel all that militant about it.

4. Haven't noticed any timing issues with recorded tracks, but maybe I'm not looking closely enough.

5. Use the software because it's useful for me, not out of a sense of religious conviction or anything like that.

6. Very much want to encourage thorough analysis and criticism of Sonar, because historically it has resulted in significant product improvements.

7. Whatever gets you through the night, it's alright, it's alright.

That pretty much sums it up for me.
Old 30th August 2007
  #87
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Hello Theblue1,

Yes, I know who you are. I have had that thread stored as link for sometime along with many other threads describing the problem. You did a great job of driving home the problem that so many had tried to describe for ages. Thank you for that.

If you will please just take a moment to re-read my original post that blew up into this whole page, well, I had no intention of such a thing happening and I am very sorry for that.

I have a question for you if you will. Certainly correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that folks assume that only the start of the track is misaligned and once it's offset by the appropriate amount, everything is ok.

I for one, must to differ with that observation. Simply re-recording the track does not prove whether actual record placement timing inconsistancies are throughout the initially recorded track in varying miniscule amounts, at least it doesn't to me. The best analogy I can think of would be sort of like the record head moving around on a tape machine relative to the sync.

What does prove record timing inconsistancy (to me) is to lock everything togther with Sonar as master, look at the sync error on the microlynx and see there is nil, have the dtrs (or tape machine) locked to frame accuracy and record the same track at once on both devices and then hear the result. With the freshly recorded tracks panned hard left and right, and while starting out perfectly matched and remaining resolved, the recordings don't exactly match throughout. Any ideas ? It's not the DTRS recorders, they chase, resolve and lock perfectly with each other.

Thanks
I went back and read the post I think you mean just now... what kind of misalignment time are we talking about here? And what mode of synching are we talking about? I used to synch my ADATs to sequencer using MTC and clearly, there's a lot of imprecision in MIDI as well as lots of variability even in even well optimized MIDI systems. I used to use three MIDI interfaces (though I could have gotten by on the better two of them) when I had a 6 module MIDI rig, a couple ADATS, synched via a BRC to my computer. And I also used a MIDI router. MIDI... it's the devil's work.

You said everything was working well with Sonar 5?
Old 30th August 2007
  #88
Lives for gear
It varies continually and seems to depend on CPU load. Can hit on timed pings 100ms at around 80 percent CPU load.

To clarify - track misalignment may be about 20 ms
Old 30th August 2007
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
It varies continually and seems to depend on CPU load. Can hit over 100ms at around 80 percent.
I believe the phrase I'm searching for is... holy crap.

And you say it worked OK in Sonar 5, huh?
Old 30th August 2007
  #90
Lives for gear
Well, better than in 6. I'm using a Microlynx to sync everything. Syncing audio - for the purpose of this example.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
filthyrich / Cakewalk Sonar
20
bionic brown / Cakewalk Sonar
15
lord_bunny / Cakewalk Sonar
2
tone4407 / Rap + Hip Hop Engineering and Production
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump