IS Cakewalk still current and supported?

T

tsphillips

New member
I was told some time ago that Cakewalk was no longer supported and that you had to get Sonar.

But now I see the Aardvark 24 bit audio card/interface is being bundled with either Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.0 or Cakewalk Home Studio XL, and saw one other Cakewalk listed as being shipped with that (are all these the same software listed with differnt names?)

So if I buy that, IS the software still supported by the company or not??

Thanks.

PS

I am still hesitent about Cakewalk because of the submix stuff. I know that in Cubase you can hit "record a submix" and adjust slider levels for tracks while the song plays, and then you hit "record a submix" a seconed time and move other slider levels and those first ones automatically move, and so on - acting like several people running the mixing board. You literally adjust the levels of each track as you want, up and down, throughout the song and it is all recorded and automated. But I get the feeling that sort of easy to record adjustments is not possible in Cakewalk.
 
i don't know about pro audio 9 anymore as t is pretty old but i'm almost certain they support home studio. There was just a release of HS 2004 so i would definately think so. I think pro audio kindof just evolved into sonar (it was before my time so i am not certain). As for your submix concern, I am pretty sure you can do that in sonar as well. If it is the same thing as automating the recordings than it can be done.

HOme studio is pretty cool and sonar rules.
 
tsphillips said:
I was told some time ago that Cakewalk was no longer supported and that you had to get Sonar.
Click to expand...

Listen carefully, I will say this only once:
Cakewalk is the company. Sonar, Pro Audio9, HomeStudio 200X, etc, is software...

So yes: Cakewalk is still supporting. But PA9 is too old.


;)
 
You can use the copy PA9 to upgrade to Sonar 3 Studio Edition for $149.00. That is what I would do. Otherwise, Sonar Studio retails for $300+.

PA9 was the precursor to Sonar 1.0. The technology in Pro Audio 9 is several years old, and the software has made tremendous progress in the interim (slip editing, DXi's, input monitoring, use of WDM/ASIO drivers, compatability with WinXp, automatable FX, etc.).
 
well that clears up a lot, thanks.

So what about Home Studio? Does it look or work differently than PA9? Since the version of PA9 I saw had no manual I could not figure out how to fade songs out in play back, or even increase or decrease levels during the song, so you could lower a part and then raise it later in the song etc. (In Cubase you just hit the "record submix" button, move the sliders on the on-screen, mixing console, and it records that and does it automatically next time.)

And - Is Home Studio and Sonar very different?

Does Home Studio upgrade to Sonar?

Since I am looking at 2 to 4 mikes recording at the same time, and not much else ever, would I NEED Sonar?

In other words, when it comes to the basic "sit down in front of microphones, hit record, then stop and play back" type recording, is there any reason to go with Sonar over Home Studio? Or are the identical in this respect?

Thanks again.

And I did not realize Cakewalk was the company, not the product line.
 
Now Moskus, you know how I fear to disagree with you but....

I could have sworn that back in the day I bought a Cakewalk 3 from a company called Twelve Tones..... so, I believe people can accurately talk about Cakewalk... the product... just a very old (like me) :) product!
 
The way I remember it is, when they decided to change the name of their flagship product from Cakewalk Pro Audio to SONAR, they decided to change the company name from Twelve Tone Systems to Cakewalk, rather than lose the brand recognition inherent in the name Cakewalk.
 
Al, for those of us loyal to Cake, this may be a point of historical interest. I thought they changed the company name to cakewalk before that (back in the days when the product was just Cakewalk X) but for the same reason.

Well, my memory is kinda.... what were we talking about? Who are you again?
 
So I take it that Cakewalk are no longer supporting the copy of Cakewalk Home Studio by twelve tone systems that fits entirely on one 1.44mb floppy disk and works best in Windows 3.1 that I have? ....... ;)
 
rjt said:
Now Moskus, you know how I fear to disagree with you but....
Click to expand...
:mad:

I could have sworn that back in the day I bought a Cakewalk 3 from a company called Twelve Tones..... so, I believe people can accurately talk about Cakewalk... the product... just a very old (like me) :) product!
Click to expand...
Ya know, you got a point. But the name of the program is in fact "Cakewalk 3" (the number "3" is a part of the name). The name for version 1 is (as far as I remember) not just plain "Cakewalk". So no, there's no program named "Cakewalk". :cool:


:D :D :D
I'm just messing with ya! It just bothers me when people are talking about PA9 and says "Cakewalk". I don't know why.... :p
 
MichaelM said:
So I take it that Cakewalk are no longer supporting the copy of Cakewalk Home Studio by twelve tone systems that fits entirely on one 1.44mb floppy disk and works best in Windows 3.1 that I have? ....... ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, well my first copy was on punch cards, and the help manual was written on papyrus.

:D :D :D :D
 
...to the Sublime

So will they still support my copies of Cakewalk 1.0 and Cakewalk LIVE! for DOS (which I still use in live performance)?

:cool: :cool: :cool:
 
That was it... that box and picture bring back memories... how long ago was Cakewalk Pro 3 for Windows? None of this conflict stuff we had today. Got a simple midi interface and was making music (okay, dinking around being amazed at what it could do and how little I could) within a couple of minutes.

Seems like a lifetime!

Take Care
 
moskus said:
Do you see a program named just "Cakewalk"? :rolleyes: :p ;) :o :D
Click to expand...


This has to be the most stupid argument I've ever let myself into on this site. And just so we're clear - I don't really give a...

But as you ask- I see a box with Cakewalk(tm) as a singular word and texts where Cakewalk is mentioned as the sequencer. Btw, I phrased it carefully so I wouldn't imply that I'm sure you're wrong.

Anyway, your argument supports that there's no Sonar software either, doesn't it...
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top