ntrack flawed

[bdemenil]

I'm sorry to have to say this, because i'm a long time ntrack user and love the intuitiveness and ease of use of the interface, but Ntrack has serious problems dealing with plugin latency. Since the arrival of latency plugins, ntrack has been plagued with latency mismatching issues. The current version of ntrack is not useable unless:

A: you don't use groups
B: you don't intend to put plugins on aux channels

Other issues with ntrack:
1. Doesn't work well with low latency buffering
2. Lots of small bugs
3. The program's underlying architecture is not resource efficient
4. Flavio can't seem to be able to keep up with the fast pace of DAW development. Other DAW applications have teams of developers while ntrack has one person.

Perhaps it is still possible for ntrack to revitalize. I think what would be needed is an intense focus on basic functionality rather than on new features.

I love the spirit which Flavio has put into developing this software, and hope that new revisions will address many of these problems, but at this point I advise anyone considering this software to look elsewhere.

[David Katauskas]

I can only assume that you are running on a crappy antiquated pc. I've never had an issue with "A" or "B" on your list.

I've also never had a problem with "1". I can't completely argue with "2", but using the word "lots" may be an exaggeration.

With regards to "3", I do not know how you can be qualified AND knowledgeable to critique the application architecture. Only Flavio really knows.

And finally "4", 'yes', he is only a single developer. But I've seen teams of 20+ developers put out crappier software than a 2 developer team. For this single application, it actually seems that a smaller team will flourish.

Now to your frustration...I highly doubt any other sequencing software is going to give you leaps and bounds of performance that you seek over nTrack. However, I have been wrong before. You may be looking in the wrong area.

[Boomersrec]

I am a avid N-Track user and have never had any problems using this DAW. I use 4 programs for my studio including Acid Pro 5 & 6 and Protools and I get the best sound out of N-Track. Acoustic's sounds the best in N-Track and Iv'e been doing this for 10 years and have had many, manr programs. With Digital recording you can't beat it. and with plugins it uses more than I will ever need, and no problems with any of it.

Daniel
BOOMERS

[bdemenil]

These are copied from an email exchange with Flavio - so sorry for the first person perspective....


Bug #1 - flavio sent me a patch to fix this, but the current version of ntrack available for download still has the problem.

I think I have pretty well isolated the problem. It only occurs when
there are group channels and it only occurs when there is a plugin in
the group channel. It doesn't matter which plugin (tried waves Q10 and
UAD PEQ), and it doesn't matter if the group channel plugin is
disabled.

If I watch the peak files being generated while I record, I see that
during recording the two channels are in sync, then when I stop
recording, I see the top channel jump back (latency compensation), but
the bottom channel does not jump back. Seems like the bug is that
latency compensation is not being executed on the second channel (when
there are group channels with at least 1plugin on them).

I also tested to see what would happen if I recorded more than two
channels. When I recorded 4 channels, the first channel was latency
compensated, and the subsequent 3 channels were not. If I switch to
stereo mode, the first stereo pair is latency compensated and the
subsequent ones are not. So basically it's the same problem.

-------------------
Bug #2

I've done some additional latency testing of ntrack and found another bug. When a track is sent to a group channel, the aux sends for that track are not compensated for latency occurring in group tracks - and so becomes out of sync with the rest of the song. Because the rest of the song is actually being delayed to match latency of group plugins, the aux send of the track actually plays before the track's main output. The problem is only if a track is being sent to a group - if the track is not sent to a group channel, the aux send of that track are delayed, and so are in sync.

Suppose a setup with an audio track 'Z' and couple of group tracks using a number of latency inducing plugins. If track Z's main out is routed to a group channel, but track Z's aux outs are also used, the output of track Z's aux outs will be temporally early. If I record the output of track 'Z', it will actually show as shifted to the left of the original track. It doesn't matter whether the latency inducing plugins are on the actual group channel that Z's main outs are routed to or not - track Z's aux outs are bypassing any latency occurring at the group level (not just the individual group channel). So as more latency is added by plugins at the group level, track Z's aux outs get more and more out of sync. Of course this only occurs if track Z is routed to a group channel. If track Z goes straight to an output instead, its aux channels will be in sync - even if other tracks are still going to groups.
-----------------------------------------
Bug #3

If I have latency plugins on a group channel, the
volume envelopes on my original tracks will get out of sync.

Let's say I put a big volume boost on a single drum hit on an original
audio track. Then I create a group channel with a latency plugin on
it, and route some other audio channels to it (but not the drum track
in question). The volume boost will now be out of sync with the drum
track. A short boost on a single drum hit may not be heard at all. I
would have to put the boost forward on the time-line, ie later than
the actual hit occurs, to successfully boost the drum hit now. The
volume envelope is synced to whatever group channel a track is being
sent to - it is just not synced to the total group bus.

I discovered this after going crazy trying to create envelopes for
lead guitar and drum tracks and getting them to sound right when the
track is soloed (therefore bypassing other groups) - but not when
playing in the mix.
-----------------------------

Bug #4

This one is pretty straight forward. Try putting a latency plugin on an aux channel. The output of the aux channel will lose sync with the track channel. It appears the timing of the master mix is not being compensated for latency created by plugins on the aux channels.

[David Katauskas]

Sounds like most of the issues you've described are latency issues, as you've already mentioned (restating the obvious). There is a 1% chance they'll get cleaned up with version 4. Hope he gets these cleared up with version 5 that is due in September.

The few issues I've experienced have had work-arounds. The issues you've described probably do not, unless you're willing to compromise...which in my mind typically is not acceptable.

As you also said in your first post, he should concentrate on revitalizing his current customer base, which includes you. His best sales force right now is 'word of mouth'.

All of that being said, for the price, this is a great tool. But with more competition coming into this arena and price point gaps closing, something needs to be done...but for now, I'll stand by nTrack. And if something seriously compromises my work because of a serious defect, then I'll hopefully have enough patience as yourself.

[bdemenil]

I moving over to Cubase I'm afraid. The time lost - discovering there is a bug, testing to isolate exactly what's wrong, going back and fixing mistakes made as a result of the bug (when it's even possible), and then working around it - is far more valuable than what is saved using a cheaper DAW software like ntrack. Most of us here are spending a decent amount on hardware anyway, so why scrimp on the software - which is so central to the process.

Even if you're just starting out, it makes no sense to learn on one software platform only to have to learn a new one when you get more serious.

I stayed with ntrack not because of the price, but because i love the interface. Also, when I started with ntrack, about 6 years ago, the other DAW software was pretty buggy too. Now Cubase, Cakewalk, and Protools have all improved tremendously. I don't think ntrack can keep up. Maybe the best thing would be for Flavio to take it open source.

[travelin travis]

Originally Posted by bdemenil

I moving over to Cubase I'm afraid. The time lost - discovering there is a bug, testing to isolate exactly what's wrong, going back and fixing mistakes made as a result of the bug (when it's even possible), and then working around it - is far more valuable than what is saved using a cheaper DAW software like ntrack. Most of us here are spending a decent amount on hardware anyway, so why scrimp on the software - which is so central to the process.

Even if you're just starting out, it makes no sense to learn on one software platform only to have to learn a new one when you get more serious.

I stayed with ntrack not because of the price, but because i love the interface. Also, when I started with ntrack, about 6 years ago, the other DAW software was pretty buggy too. Now Cubase, Cakewalk, and Protools have all improved tremendously. I don't think ntrack can keep up. Maybe the best thing would be for Flavio to take it open source.

I think you should check out Reaper. I've been on Cubase SX for quite a while now and Reaper has really surprised me.

[sonnylarsen]

Actually, Nuendo/Cubase, SONAR, and Pro Tools are all buggy in different areas. Just go check out the forums for each one and you'll find them. This is why Pro Tools has their "cs" releases. These are releases to fix specific bugs and they come with a disclaimer that they may in fact CAUSE other bugs.

If N-tracks current batch of bugs is hindering you, then yes, move on to something else. DAW's are prolific now and I have yet to use one that I want to marry. Just make sure when you go out an buy Cubase or whatever that you are not just trading one bug for another.

By the way, I agree with Travis about Reaper. Cool software with a very simple Sonic Foundry/Sony style interface. Of course it is beta, so you will definitely encounter some bugs. Someone should bust out with a serious can of RAID on the DAW's.

[bdemenil]

I've been using Cubase for a few days now, and so far it's very stable and has none of the latency issues of ntrack. I'm sure it has bugs, but apparantly none as drastic as ntrack's. Ntrack's latency bugs seriously undermine its basic functionality. I don't think that at this point Cubase, Cakewalk, or PT have flaws that are on this order.

What's particularly unerving about latency problems is that they can often go unnoticed for a long time - inflicting unknown havock on your mixes before you realize what the problem is. Imagine you have a reverb plugin on an aux channel that's creating 50ms of latency. That latency isn't getting compensated, and so the reverb is kicking in 50ms late (kind of like a 50ms pre-delay). This can easily go unnoticed - especially if you're not familiar with what the reverb would sound like under normal circumstances. My guess is that alot of ntrack users out there are being affected without knowing it.

[bdemenil]

have to say though, i am missing some things about ntrack. Zooming in on waveforms and plotting envelopes seems faster and easier on ntrack than cubase.

[beezelbubba]

I'm sure you'll adapt to Cubase in no time.
Sounds like you own both,so you can choose and change your mind,and back again.I'm really happy w/3.3 and though I've upgraded to 4,I've only once tried it on my DAW,and got scared by the bugs.I've frigged around w/various builds on my non-daw computer and they seemed to be ok,but I'm too spooked to put it on my main machine.

[sonnylarsen]

I agree. I only visit the n-track forum for nostalgia purposes because I haven't actually used it as a primary DAW in a few years. I think its good to remeber that your DAW is just a tool for capturing and manipulating sound and music. It is good to keep multiple tools in the toolbox, especially if they are inexpensive like n-track.

[sloom]

Originally Posted by bdemenil

have to say though, i am missing some things about ntrack. Zooming in on waveforms and plotting envelopes seems faster and easier on ntrack than cubase.

Agree! The click-and-drag envelopes on n-Track is so far an unbeatable feature. With a wireless mouse it's pretty danged breezy. But- same story with time lost on working around bugs, from UI to ones like you mention.

I'm getting my PC upgraded, and when it comes back I'm moving back to v3.3.

[bdemenil]

Someone gave me a negative rep vote on my original post. I've put in many many hours researching these bugs. I urge you to do the research yourself. If you find that i'm wrong, go ahead and give more more negaive votes. Also, please tell me because I'd like to know. Otherwise, please award yourself several negative votes for jumping to conclusions and assuming I don't know what i'm talking about.

[8th_note]

I've been an n-Track user for over 3 years now and I'm currently running 4.0.5 with very few problems. The latency issue that bdemenil describes is something that I've run across, however. I've found a very simple workaround for this. I turn off the fx while I'm recording and I don't have any latency problems at all. I never have a latency problem when mixing.

[bdemenil]

from what i can tell so far, the latest build of version 5 fixes the latency bugs. I haven't done thorough testing yet though.

[bubbagump]

Heh, I have had problems with the latency bugs too. I pested Flavio a few days before he came out with that fix. Persoanlly I am looking to move to Samplitude... maybe. But if N can get its sh** together on the VSTi front... I might just stick around.

[bdemenil]

Bro - I switched to Cubase and haven't looked back. Performs WAY better than ntrack.

[sloom]

I'm back into 3.3, but am using Sonar HS4 for anything much beyond tracking. Thinking about Audition... It's so much pricier than n- though. Damn shame... I too hope n-Track can pull it together.

Bubba, have you tried Samplitude SE yet?

[Treeline]

Originally Posted by sloom

I'm back into 3.3, but am using Sonar HS4 for anything much beyond tracking. Thinking about Audition... It's so much pricier than n- though. Damn shame... I too hope n-Track can pull it together.

Bubba, have you tried Samplitude SE yet?

Audition is kinda weird for tracking; n-track seems more intuitive to me. But Audition rocks for fooling with the waveforms...

[lumbago]

I don't have any problems with n-track (circa version 3.7)

The idea of one person developing software delivers a far more consistent result than the bugs generated by teams of programmers with different approaches.

Cubase went through all sorts of unusable versions - I used Cubase Lite in 1993/4 and it was really really bad.

The CPU usage in n-track is surprisingly good.

Using the Waves plugins (reverb and multiband compression) with n-track delivers very good results.

Don't underestimate the resources needed for a PC running DAW software - you have to tune Windows to operate successfully with *any* DAW program.

[bdemenil]

I just tried the latest build - 2163 - it's no good at all. serious latency correction problems - my tracks get all out of sync when I engage plugins. Latency compensation is one of those basic features that MUST work for daw software to be usable - can't believe ntrack is being offered in it's current dysfunctional state.

[bardo]

DON'T FEAR THE REAPER!!!!!!
Reaper has the answers your looking for.
Do it
NOW!

[bdemenil]

At first glance, Build 2171 - posted today - fixes all the remaining latency bugs -as far as I can tell.

Right now it's only available in complete download format - the update still downloads build 2170.

If the latency bugs are indeed fixed, I retract my ntrack flawed allegation.

[bdemenil]

I take it back. There are still latency problems. Will post more when I to the bottom of what's going on.