Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by norfolkmastering on March 28, 2022, 12:52:43 PM »
Hi Alexey

Mark McLeod has given me a test custom build of Cakewalk with some caching enabled in the main control surface handler.  The cache is reset whenever routing is changed, or tracks/buses are re-ordered.

The custom build solves the monitoring issue.  Here is a copy of my notes to Mark:

'Test set up:

38 Hardware outputs.

Track/bus to output monitoring of 24 tracks and 9 buses using AZ Controller.

48kHz project with 24 tracks of audio playing, peak CPU is under 4%

I then linked all 24 track faders and fader response remains very smooth.  CPU loading rises to a peak of around 11% when moving all 24 faders, however playback remains smooth with no stuttering.  The GUI interface remains responsive and the waveform display and time cursor update smoothly.

Then I added an instance of LP EQ to 12 of the tracks.  When playing and moving all 24 track faders, peak CPU loading rose to 15%, however playback remains smooth with no stuttering.  The GUI interface remains responsive and the waveform display and time cursor update smoothly.

Updating of track or bus to output is slow with the AZ controller active.  I did a test using the external controller to update all 24 track to output routing using 24 consecutive MIDI messages.  This took 58 seconds.  This is pretty well what I measured using the GUI to update a single track to output routing which took between 2 and 3 seconds between selecting the new output to seeing the new output label appear on the GUI.  Removing the AZ Controller app reduced the track/bus to output update time to around 0.7seconds on my test project.  I have included these timings for information only.  It does not really impact on a session.'

So hopefully this will get incorporated into the next Cakewalk release and I'll be able to greatly simplify my current Cakewalk to Hardware Mixer track to routing interface.

Thanks for your help in getting this done.

Regards

Robert
92
Sibiac / Re: Sibiac: Single Image Blob Interface Accessible Control
« Last post by azslow3 on March 28, 2022, 12:44:30 AM »
Behringer is famous for developing cheap staff. They produce X32, which is related to Midas M32, but cheaper. Since then they have made smaller versions of X32 and even cheaper stage box format mixers, X12 to X18. The sound quality is not at the level of top devices, but it is better then in cheapest Xenyx analog mixers. The price is also in-between. These devices have everything on-board, including effects. There was already text based controlling solution, but we have developed user friendly solution which also provide speaking feedback from device.
RWP primary target is REAPER, but all other accessibility solutions are discussed there as well.
Gerad is and always was in US. I have started develop SIBIAC for him, at the beginning for Sonar, we have switched to REAPER later.
93
Sibiac / Re: Sibiac: Single Image Blob Interface Accessible Control
« Last post by El Crack Loko on March 27, 2022, 11:43:30 PM »
Thank you for responding to my message with everything I mentioned. I think that the RWP community is also a good way to find out about everything that is being developed for us around accessible music production, right? or they only make requests about Reaper, I mean, because of the RWP thing.
Forgive my ignorance, but when you refer to Behringer digital mixers, I know the brand by the way, they have been improving their Audio Interfaces lately, what do you mean specifically? to Plugins of emulations like those of the analog console SCL 4000? I mean, I would consider that a digital mixer, and I know that Behringer has good consoles. Or maybe it is that Behringer has released a digital console as such where it has its effects incorporated as usual in consoles.
I am glad that this Russian stupidity is not affecting you and your family, I am very sorry for the citizens who have to pay the piper for a human being who came out privileged with such power. Oh well. Let's hope this happens soon, a big hug. By the way, did you say Gerad? Another Russian developer?
94
Sibiac / Re: Sibiac: Single Image Blob Interface Accessible Control
« Last post by azslow3 on March 27, 2022, 09:21:36 PM »
Hello. I will check the compatibility with NVDA next days and I will let you know when SIBIAC is ready for it. For RWP, there are many people which use automatic translation there. Yes, from time to time that produce misunderstanding. But all members understand that and so that is never a problem. RWP is international,
For SIBIAC, the development is just paused. The problem is not money but time. I with Gerad have created solution for Behringer digital mixers, so they can be controlled convenient accessible way and also provide voice feedback when you operate the unit itself. I mean the community was always preferring analog mixers since digial mixers was not accessible. And so we have decided to do something in that direction, Gerad plays live and digital mixers has many advantages like quick scene changing and build-in effects. Using computer with an audio interface and throw the DAW monitoring on stage is an extra peace of real-time equipment which can fail, analog mixer with hardware effects is expensive, heavy and a bit outdated way. By the way, we was successful. Some aspects of particular devices are still not covered, but almost everything  for Behringer X18 and X32 Producer is covered.
I am still Russian citizen, but I live in Germany for more then two decades. And fortunately current situation does not hit me nor my family. But sure, mentally all that is hard to perceive.
95
Sibiac / Re: Sibiac: Single Image Blob Interface Accessible Control
« Last post by El Crack Loko on March 27, 2022, 06:33:30 PM »
Hello Friend how are you? Thanks for the information provided, in the end I never joined the RWP list since I am a Spanish speaker and my English proficiency is nil jajaja, so it would be a pain (whatever haha) to be translating all the messages all the time. weather. I want to apologize for coming here to ask you for things because NVDA or rather NV-Access again broke compatibility with all plugins in its version 2022.1 so all plugins were unusable. Dude, tell me if you can get Sibiac to keep working on this NVDA version, it's still in the Beta phase by the way. And also ask what happened to the development of Sibiac, my greatest wish, is that this complement does not die, please. IF you need any financial incentive to go ahead with this, or if you have to pay, please let me know to raise some money with some friends and send you for some beers or whatever you need, if you drink alcohol jajajaja. By the way, I just remembered that you are Russian. I don't want to get into the situation in the country but I just want to say, if you need anything, we are here to help with whatever we can. A hug from Ecuador🇪🇨 South America
96
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by norfolkmastering on March 16, 2022, 04:32:48 PM »
Hi Alexey

I think I understand what you are saying.
I will contact Cakewalk again and encourage them to do some diagnostic work on this.
If you are able to give me any more specifics for your own investigations then of course I will send on to Cakewalk.
I'll let you know how progress goes from their side.
Regards
Robert
97
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by azslow3 on March 16, 2022, 12:23:44 PM »
Hi Robert,

So they want I profile there code. Well, it can take a while.

Which API commands are used is obvious (for me and for them...), which from these commands produce the effect (and why) is harder to find for me then for them.
I guess you are able to understand: there are calls to get output as a number, the number of possible outputs (I always normalize parameters) and
the name of the output. There is nothing else related to outputs. So one of these calls in not optimized in Cakewalk, causing severe performance penalty
when the number of hardware outputs increase (it seems like the number of buses is not influencing the performance). Monitoring in Cakewalk is not
event driven, so if you want check 24 outputs every 25ms I have to ask Cakewalk for current value (+ value range + value text in case of IO) every time,
for each output.

Theoretically I can find problematic calls and try to avoid them, f.e. by caching (output ranges and texts, at least within one cycle), probably that will help
with monitoring.  AZ Controller already has tons of workarounds for Cakewalk bugs and inefficiency of API... But since several years I ask myself the question
"why should I? there is better coded DAW"...

Cheers,
Alexey.
98
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by norfolkmastering on March 16, 2022, 10:20:41 AM »
Hi Alexey

I have contacted Cakewalk and sent them a short screen grab video of the issue.
They have asked if we can tell them 'the exact surface API Command ID that is causing the issue'.
Can you help with that information please.

If there are multiple API commands (e.g. for monitoring and for external control of track to output) could you detail whichever commands are relevant please.

Best regards
Robert
99
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by norfolkmastering on March 12, 2022, 02:42:26 PM »
Hi Alexey

Thanks for gaining an understanding of where the problem comes from.

Today I loaded the test CWP and the AZ preset 'AZwithFB'.
When I allow Cakewalk to see just one pair of hardware outputs, then system response is okay although the CPU load is still high at around 7.8%
As I add more hardware outputs, then system response quickly worsens until it becomes unusable.

I use a total of 40 hardware outputs:
24 hardware outputs to feed my 24T tape machine
16 outputs to feed loudspeakers and artist cue feeds

So I will contact Cakewalk to explain the problem and ask if they are willing to investigate.

For me the bigger issue is the impact which the feedback outputs have on the GUI response.
The slow updating of outputs (by external control) is less of an issue as I only update these outputs when I get ready to bounce tracks from Cakewalk to Tape.

I'll let you know what Cakewalk say and yes I will refer them to this thread.

Again thanks for your help on this.
regards
Robert
100
Discussions / Re: Accessing the Cakewalk Track Output router
« Last post by azslow3 on March 12, 2022, 01:09:25 PM »
Hi Robert,

I have understood from where it comes... Cakewalk is ridiculously slow in returning information about outputs once the number of available hardware outputs increase. So if I have
just 2 (my standard interface) everything is smooth with AZwithFB under 25ms. But once I enable all outputs of my another interface (10), I notice significant performance degradation.
I guess you have more and so in your case the situation is even worse.

That also explain why changing track outputs takes so long in your case.

I propose you report the observation to Cakewalk. I think they can improve the behavior. You can point to this thread (Cakewalk people know what AZ Controller is...).
I can't do much within AZ Controller, I mean I can try to cache names and see if that improve the performance, but that will yet another dirty workaround. And that will not
solve the problem of slow outputs changes.

Alexey.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]