CAKEWALK BY BANDLAB - FREE TO EVERYONE

[Tod]

Okay, today I got a little further without a problem with my email or password, but still I haven't found
anything to download. The only install application I have is this one, is it right?

bandlab-assistant-windows-latest

Wow, wait a minute, this is getting weirder by the second, while I was typing this out, a little box showed up and
it showed something was being downloaded that looked like instruments or samples. It didn't ask me anything and I
saw no way to stop it.

Then 5 to 10 minutes later another box showed up to install. I went ahead and clicked OK and a few seconds later
Cakewalk showed up on my C-drive. However, I see nothing that looks like application to open Cakewalk.

First of all, I'm a little disconcerted the way all this went down. No instructions or anything. And to download
the way it did is weird, especially in this day and age, with all the crap that's going on on the net.

So what do you guys think, is there a file there somewhere that I can load Cakewalk?

[fetidus]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I hear it was installing crap that carries on internet communications with the mother ship the moment that Windows starts up. They say that will be fixed soon, but it does expose the data harvesting nature of this free software.

Not to defend Cakewalk, but I've been following over in the Cakewalk forum too, and I don't get the impression that they are harvesting data at this point. Seems just initial growing pains of their initial app, which is being worked on right now apparently. Doesn't mean that they WON'T want to harvest info in the future. Seems like that would be a bad mistake though. I think they'll monetize a different way.

[fetidus]

Originally Posted by LCipher

Well said - there's a whole book on the Silicon Valley etc in regards to the way that initially the boom is all about hype of (un-measurable) growth and projections (smoke and mirrors).

The worst thing the company can do is actually have to start DELIVERING on expectations where they are then actually measured. Usually they play hot-potato and dump them to some sucker before the bust. Or they get stuck.

Well,see...


http://www.rushkoff.com/books/throwi...he-google-bus/

This will be very interesting to watch. Seems like their CEO has a very different point of view about how to run his business. If it works, it could be groundbreaking for the DAW market. Gotta give him credit for trying something new. In fact, he reminds me of Justin, in a different way. Justin is a renegade IMO, definitely marching to the beat of a different drummer. That's one of the reasons why Reaper is unique. Cakewalk, now under the leadership of a young, potentially visionary CEO, is also marching to the beat of a different drummer. Where it goes, who knows? Only time will tell.

[hwhalen]

Originally Posted by Tod

Okay, today I got a little further without a problem with my email or password, but still I haven't found
anything to download. The only install application I have is this one, is it right?

bandlab-assistant-windows-latest

Wow, wait a minute, this is getting weirder by the second, while I was typing this out, a little box showed up and
it showed something was being downloaded that looked like instruments or samples. It didn't ask me anything and I
saw no way to stop it.

Then 5 to 10 minutes later another box showed up to install. I went ahead and clicked OK and a few seconds later
Cakewalk showed up on my C-drive. However, I see nothing that looks like application to open Cakewalk.

First of all, I'm a little disconcerted the way all this went down. No instructions or anything. And to download
the way it did is weird, especially in this day and age, with all the crap that's going on on the net.

So what do you guys think, is there a file there somewhere that I can load Cakewalk?

Yes...in the download directory of your browser you will find two downloaded files cakewalk.exe and instruments.exe.
That where I found them anyway.
I use Firefox.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by hwhalen

Yes...in the download directory of your browser you will find two downloaded files cakewalk.exe and instruments.exe.
That where I found them anyway.
I use Firefox.

Okay thanks hwhalen, I found it in the "Program Files". I looked there earlier but didn't see it.

[hwhalen]

Originally Posted by Tod

Okay thanks hwhalen, I found it in the "Program Files". I looked there earlier but didn't see it.

Tod, the files in the Program Files directory are the installed programs.
In your download directory is the 'install programs'.

Also you might want to look in the startup folder of the Windows task manager to disable the 'Update.exe' program from GitHub.

I also renamed the Bandlab assistant and update programs in the

C:\users\UID\appdata\local\bandlab-assistant directory.

I don't like programs that start without my knowledge.

Cheers!

[kodebode]

Some background - I've been a 100% Reaper user (well with a failed attempt to use Mixbus 2, which was the epitome of unreliability) and love its speed, unbelievable reliability, how it manages plugins, and efficiency - low CPU utilisation. Great user interface - too many other things too long to list here.

Please note my comment here is NOT about differences in the rendering engine(audio summing) between Reaper and the CbB which I have installed. I accept that under ideal conditions, digital mixing should be identical and accept that. No argument there.

My observation is about the difference in the sound of the playback.

However, from my 1st listen, using playback of the same 96Khz upsample WAV file of a commercial track, in both DAWs', with lots of further testing on all manner of other audio, I get this impression that the playback sound of Cakewalk is different from Reaper. Note I am not rendering anything, no plugins, just listening and it sounds different. Volume exactly the same.

It was not something I was expecting, so when I heard a difference. I spent a few hours listening and comparing to ensure I was not "hearing things". Woke up today to listen and my impressions have not changed.

In comparison to Reaper the Cakewalk sounds drier, crisper, more transient - guitars, bass, drums, vocals - diction. Just that bit more upfront.

My suspicion based on differences in the observed bit depth of audio inputs presented to the 1st plugin (64 bit in CbB and 24 bit in Reaper), is due to a difference in how each DAW deals with the realtime conversion of its 64 bit audio stream to the 24 (or 32 bit) format of the ASIO audio path.

It almost sounds like a change of shade - kinda like a change of key/pitch like a detuning. Reaper being darker in the bass and woolier with more shrilly highs. Like some kind of mini reverb was added. While the lack of these emphasis allows me to hear the Cakewalk playback with less fatigue and really hear details more.

It does sound strange - digital should be absolutely identical, but my ears tell me different, and I have no explanation for this.

The Reaper audio in comparison, sounds more smooth and with an ever so slight smiley eq. With CbB I can hear the start and end of notes, drum hits, voices - better and voices sound more like real life, while with Reaper it takes on a slightly more recessed - larger than real life vintage/harmonically enhanced smoothness - richer.

I feel Reaper is adding something while Cakewalk spits the audio out as is.

I love Reaper but really enjoy the more dynamic punchier more lifelike playback of Cakewalk - like I got a speaker upgrade in software!

Please no flames, these are my honest personal opinions, but I have no way of measuring what I hear, can only describe. Its like tasting food, or identifying beauty. impossible to measure.

And this impression is same on all the audio I have listened to in comparison. So pretty sure I am not imagining this.

As strange as it sounds (please note as a computing professional in my day profession for over 25 years), I concur that I should not be hearing any difference - digital should playback identically. bit it does not - I am somewhat shocked enough to reach out to others who may be able to provide an explanation. for my subjective opinion.

I do have a custom, but really accurate listening environment(room. speakers and audio interface) in a place I am very familiar with, listening for hours each day to music in my spare time.

[Bri1]

Heh-the old 'good ship freedom' sails by and the crew wanna jump ship> ---until they find ship got ghosts,holes,rust spots and the nets need repairs... sail on..sail on...sail on by bye.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by hwhalen

Tod, the files in the Program Files directory are the installed programs.
In your download directory is the 'install programs'.

Also you might want to look in the startup folder of the Windows task manager to disable the 'Update.exe' program from GitHub.

I also renamed the Bandlab assistant and update programs in the

C:\users\UID\appdata\local\bandlab-assistant directory.

I don't like programs that start without my knowledge.

Cheers!

Thanks again hwhalen, this is all real good stuff to know.

[martifingers]

Originally Posted by kodebode

Please no flames, these are my honest personal opinions, but I have no way of measuring what I hear, can only describe. Its like tasting food, or identifying beauty. impossible to measure.

And this impression is same on all the audio I have listened to in comparison. So pretty sure I am not imagining this.

Very intriguing indeed. But isn't there something you could do to check if the effect is "real" even if it doesn't measure your subjective impressions.
Do a blind test ie get someone to press play on the different DAWs? Ideally it should be doubleblind but probably not essential here? Repeat about 20 times with different source material and see if the results are more than chance? Or let someone else do it and see if they can discern a difference.

Not a flame in sight here by the way!

[Bri1]

isn't there something you could do to check if the effect is "real" even if it doesn't measure your subjective impressions.!

Yep-you only need 2 renders-1 from each daw---if they do not match 1:1 samples,then there's a case to argue...
maybe they forget 'most' consumers do not have reaper,or any other daw to use it to playback in anyway... radio,vinyl,cd,dvd,blu ray,interwebz,crappy mp3 players etc etc.. are how people stream audios theze dayze said these handz.

[azslow3]

Originally Posted by kodebode

I do have a custom, but really accurate listening environment(room. speakers and audio interface) in a place I am very familiar with, listening for hours each day to music in my spare time.

There are many aspects in audio processing which have no "absolutely right" solution. That can be compared f.e. with the temperament or 12 notes octave in music. Both are not "correct" mathematically, both are just compromises.

But if you want to find the reason of your observation, you can find it. Everything digital is digitally precise, so there is no "magic". You just need to test systematically.

I will list the beginning of the list, deeper investigation is worse a separate thread.

1. Use the same settings for audio output in both DAWs. F.e. ASIO, 24bit, 96kHz, 512 samples in buffer.

2. Start with one WAV file, rendered in 64bit (so NOT yet 24bit) and the same sample rate as the hardware output, so in my example 96kHz. Create projects with exactly one track, put the file at the beginning of each track (important! not at let say "measure 2"), all levels is DAWs at 0db. That ensure that both DAWs will do as little as possible.
If you observe no difference (most probably), that is a good starting point.

If you observe the difference (while you have followed all my recommendations), something is different in bit depth conversion (64fp to 24). Render 24/96 WAV in both DAWs. Use any OTHER player to listen both, the program should be sample accurate, so just output file to the hardware "as is" (normally in ASIO mode).

If you do not observe the different in exports, but observe the different listening in DAWs, both DAWs have equivalent export conversion but not equivalent real-time conversion.

If you also observe the different in rendered file using external player, one of these DAWs has a bug in 64->24 converter. Worse a bug report.

3. 4. 5. ... as I wrote, I can continue if you want (in case (2) has no difference for you). For more complex projects/input files there are many things to check one by one (pan law, up/down sampling, stretching, etc.).

PS. Some time ago I have done some tests myself. With 24/44.1 source files as multiple tracks, mixed just by faders (no plug-ins). I could match exports (Sonar and Reaper), so NULL at the level of -96dB. I could not judge produced sound (I do not have sufficient experience nor equipment for that... I only have experience in analytical data comparison )

[Tod]

Originally Posted by hwhalen

I also renamed the Bandlab assistant and update programs in the

C:\users\UID\appdata\local\bandlab-assistant directory.

I don't like programs that start without my knowledge.

Cheers!

Okay, I did manage to rename Bandlab assistant and update programs, but I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Also you might want to look in the startup folder of the Windows task manager to disable the 'Update.exe' program from GitHub.

I used the Task Manager to end the awful Cakewalk pop up, but I'm not sure what you mean by disable it in the "startup folder of the Windows task manager"?

[ReaMike]

Click the windows orb and type msconfig in the search field. Select the startup tab in the window that appears.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by ReaMike

Click the windows orb and type msconfig in the search field. Select the startup tab in the window that appears.

Thanks ReaMike, got it.

[BenK-msx]

Whoever has playback (not render) difference check your playback resampling quality in reaper project settings.

[europa_man]

Originally Posted by hwhalen

Tod, the files in the Program Files directory are the installed programs.
In your download directory is the 'install programs'.

Also you might want to look in the startup folder of the Windows task manager to disable the 'Update.exe' program from GitHub.

I also renamed the Bandlab assistant and update programs in the

C:\users\UID\appdata\local\bandlab-assistant directory.

I don't like programs that start without my knowledge.

Cheers!

This excellent computer knowledge too.
Disabled Bandlab assistant and few other little programs that didn't need to be running.

Thanks for the advice!

[WolfJames]

Originally Posted by kodebode

...

My observation is about the difference in the sound of the playback.

And this impression is same on all the audio I have listened to in comparison. So pretty sure I am not imagining this.

As strange as it sounds (please note as a computing professional in my day profession for over 25 years), I concur that I should not be hearing any difference - digital should playback identically. bit it does not - I am somewhat shocked enough to reach out to others who may be able to provide an explanation. for my subjective opinion.

You are absolutely correct. You will have people argue to the death, and offer all sorts of evidence, that there is no difference in sound with audio recorded under identical conditions (no plugins, etc.) in different DAW's, but then there are those of us who test and can hear the difference. Reaper sounds different than both Studio One and Cakewalk (Sonar), which both sound very close to each other. I'm not saying one is better or worse, but they most definitely sound different.

FWIW, I've also been a computer professional (including programming) for over 25 years.

[hwhalen]

Originally Posted by Tod

Thanks ReaMike, got it.

Also you can right-click the task bar and select taskmgr



the choose the startup tab

[azslow3]

Meng has reacted quick, there is 3.0.6 version of the Assistant with an option to disable run on startup

Originally Posted by WolfJames

FWIW, I've also been a computer professional (including programming) for over 25 years.

By searching/reading about "the sound of DAW", I have found that people which "know that DAWs sound different" rarely provide any examples... they just want to believe in that

With good community no one is forced to spend time: upload CWP and SPP projects which sound differently, and someone will match them or explain why that is not possible. That simple.

DAWs have so many settings... too easy to overseen important one.

[bladerunner]

For those talking about a difference in sound.. I would suggest this has something to do with the interface, the perceived 'tactile' experience therein. I've experienced something similar myself - it's an illusion imo. If an interface feels slick, smooth, polished etc. this WILL have an effect on the overall experience of using that DAW speaking personally - it may make you think something sounds 'better'. I was convinced Podium sounded different to Reaper about 10 years back when I used both (Podium has a very polished UI). After multiple bounces (and then playing the bounce back in the other respective DAW) I came to the conclusion it was all psychological. I went through exactly the same with Harrison Mixbus.

[ReaMike]

Originally Posted by bladerunner

For those talking about a difference in sound.. I would suggest this has something to do with the interface, the perceived 'tactile' experience therein. I've experienced something similar myself - it's an illusion imo. If an interface feels slick, smooth, polished etc. this WILL have an effect on the overall experience of using that DAW speaking personally - it may make you think something sounds 'better'. I was convinced Podium sounded different to Reaper about 10 years back when I used both (Podium has a very polished UI). After multiple bounces (and then playing the bounce back in the other respective DAW) I came to the conclusion it was all psychological. I went through exactly the same with Harrison Mixbus.

After seeing how the McGurk effect can change our speech perception I have no doubt a slick GUI could influence our perception of sound quality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

[dug dog]

Never heard of the McGurk effect. Fascinating.

[Zargon the Destroyer]

Originally Posted by dug dog

Never heard of the McGurk effect. Fascinating.

It should be regarded as 'Hitlering' a thread in DAW forum terms!

[WolfJames]

Originally Posted by azslow3

Meng has reacted quick, there is 3.0.6 version of the Assistant with an option to disable run on startup



By searching/reading about "the sound of DAW", I have found that people which "know that DAWs sound different" rarely provide any examples... they just want to believe in that

With good community no one is forced to spend time: upload CWP and SPP projects which sound differently, and someone will match them or explain why that is not possible. That simple.

DAWs have so many settings... too easy to overseen important one.

Do your own test. You either hear it or you don't.

When samples are provided, people will either say they sound the same, or argue that settings are different, etc. Pointless.

[Serenitynow]

Are the vsts worth getting? How do they compare to other freebies out there? How about the drums and strings, what would they compare to? Thanks!

Besides possibly getting some of these, I'll stick with REAPER. I could be wrong but the uncertainty of what may happen in the future with it has me staying put.

Is it true that you can edit sections of songs via a notation screen. That does seem like a cool feature that I never thought of before; seeing the notes would enable me to see what's going on more than squiggly waveforms.can REAPER do this?

What else does this have over reaper?

[azslow3]

Originally Posted by WolfJames

Do your own test. You either hear it or you don't.

When samples are provided, people will either say they sound the same, or argue that settings are different, etc. Pointless.

We are not talking about "rumor" nor about "golden ear". We are talking about binary files. They are equivalent or not equivalent by some amount. That amount can be measured. If they are different by less then -120dB, people can hear what they want to hear (but best audio DACs simply discard that difference, before "people can hear" it from super analog amps).


PS. the best guess from where the problem comes for kodebode is far from perfect (but fast) default Reaper algo for sample rate conversion (f.e. default off-line algo works quite different for 44.1->48 vs 44.1->96). But there can be other reasons.

PSPS. If rendered files are the same but there is an evidence playback is different, there are loopback ASIO (also comes with Reaper) or RME drivers which can bit precise record what DAWs send to the interface during playback.

[martifingers]

Originally Posted by WolfJames

Do your own test. You either hear it or you don't.

When samples are provided, people will either say they sound the same, or argue that settings are different, etc. Pointless.

That indeed can happen which is why blind testing, null testing etc. is so important.

[azslow3]

What else does this have over reaper?

I have mentioned major points to check on the first page of this thread
In general:
* easy MIDI files editing (I mean import/export to use with separate MIDI hardware)
* combined INStrument files (patch names automatically change key names in MIDI editor for external hardware) and SoftSynth exposed key names support.
* way better audio loops support: project groove pitch, "automatic" stretch points, recognition of slices in commercial loops / loop editor / saving acidized WAVs, iZotope stretching (vs. Elastique in Reaper... questionable advantage in general, but for sure works much better with drum loops).
* it already has ARA integration, so you can test how it works (in case you have Molodyne or install it for evaluation). I mean drag&drop based tempo detection and audio to MIDI conversion, etc..
* "ProChannel" concept (some people like it, other not)
* if you think that Reaper has bugs or you think your computer is powerful... you have to try CbB

In most directions CbB is way behind Reaper, but not in all.

[Gazebo]

I downloaded Cakewalk out of curiosity.

CPU use kills it on my meagre laptop that runs Reaper OK (though I do have to "manage" usage using Freeze if I have lots of VST's running).

To be honest, not sure why I even bothered, as Reaper has never let me down, but the grass is always greener.....

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by WolfJames

Do your own test. You either hear it or you don't.

When samples are provided, people will either say they sound the same, or argue that settings are different, etc. Pointless.

I busted this myth many times, including in embarrassing ways (by using an iPod to record signal back and forth to include degeneration of the signal that no one could hear, lol).

If you hear a difference from one DAW to the next (not counting anything that you include in the signal path or plugins), it's differences your settings/driver/whatever. The "debate" only exists in the minds of people who refuse to test objectively.

Originally Posted by Serenitynow

Are the vsts worth getting?

In my opinion, no. They look neat but I don't miss them. When I switched to Reaper from Sonar X1, I had tested those plugins (the ones posted about on this thread) compared to similar ones in Reaper (and/or some freeware). I could've kept using them but I chose not to.

The included drum instrument is fine if you don't expect much from it. It doesn't do round robin functionality, so you'll get "machine gun" sounds from the kit pieces if you do fast rolls/fills. Its output/mixing is limited. I mean it sounds good but it's eclipsed easily by software that costs $50 or in some cases, free. For instance there's this:

http://www.tchackpoum.fr/ (check the audio demos at the bottom of the page).

The Reaper version of that uses Reasamplomatic5000, so the setup is complex and takes a fair amount of CPU. I'm currently making versions of the kits for DrumGizmo (freeware cross-platform drum instrument); they'll have a much simpler setup and have far lower CPU use. They'll be posted on that site above when they're ready (soon).

I can't say anything about the other instruments because I don't remember those, but I suspect they're nothing special either. Included instruments with these bundles usually are watered-down versions of things they try to make you buy "full" versions of. This is why I generally don't care about included instruments in any DAW package.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by WolfJames

You are absolutely correct. You will have people argue to the death, and offer all sorts of evidence, that there is no difference in sound with audio recorded under identical conditions (no plugins, etc.) in different DAW's, but then there are those of us who test and can hear the difference. Reaper sounds different than both Studio One and Cakewalk (Sonar), which both sound very close to each other. I'm not saying one is better or worse, but they most definitely sound different.

FWIW, I've also been a computer professional (including programming) for over 25 years.

That's awesome, could you post the results of your null tests so that we can hear and see where these audio engines differ, please?

[Judders]

Originally Posted by Zargon the Destroyer

It should be regarded as 'Hitlering' a thread in DAW forum terms!

We could call it Zargon's Law:

"As discussion on an online digital audio forum grows longer, the probability of the McGurk effect being mentioned approaches 1"

[Patrice Brousseau]

Installed on my Windows 10 partition (Hackintosh) hoping that I could open some old cwp projects. I'll also try with the program mentioned here. Cool to see a free DAW like this BTW...

[ReaMike]

Originally Posted by Zargon the Destroyer

It should be regarded as 'Hitlering' a thread in DAW forum terms!

Apologies to all. No scienter.

[joelsampson]

I'll stick with REAPER. I switched a long time ago. Cakewalk for DOS was great for it's time and Greg is a true MIDI pioneer. Today, I'm not convinced.

[Goldreap]

The reason I downloaded this (apart from general curiosity) is that I have a sort of nostalgic interest in GM soundfonts/soundbanks and had heard in my travels that TTS-1 was something worth having....but now that I've finally got to play with it, err, nothing special here I think?

[mabian]

Originally Posted by Goldreap

The reason I downloaded this (apart from general curiosity) is that I have a sort of nostalgic interest in GM soundfonts/soundbanks and had heard in my travels that TTS-1 was something worth having....but now that I've finally got to play with it, err, nothing special here I think?

TTS is great for GM parts sketching.
But today, with something like Air XPand2 that was literally given away, there's a very little point in sticking with it...

- Mario

[martifingers]

Originally Posted by Judders

We could call it Zargon's Law:

"As discussion on an online digital audio forum grows longer, the probability of the McGurk effect being mentioned approaches 1"

OTOH if the discussion was about The Third Reich you would expect to mention Hitler, would you not?

[Goldreap]

Originally Posted by mabian

TTS is great for GM parts sketching.
But today, with something like Air XPand2 that was literally given away, there's a very little point in sticking with it...

- Mario

Yes, I like Air Xpand!2 a lot.
Re GM soundfonts, I have all the usual 'good' ones. The trouble is that soundfont A will have a pretty good cello but horrible nylon guitar and soundfont B will have a horrible cello but pretty good nylon guitar! I've settled on FluidR3 GM2-2 as a pretty good all-rounder, and was just wondering really whether TTS-1 might be better in that way?