Cakewalk to Pro Tools

[DavidK]

I need to transfer Cakewalk songs to Pro Tools. I'm frightened, hold me.

I am taking a GUESS that I will have to export one track at a time from Cakewalk and load one track (.wav) at a time into pro tools. I will also reset/clear any automation I have. Is that about it?? Is there a better way??

 

[dachay2tnr]

You should be able to do it by simply exporting an OMF file. You probably need to check with the recipient to confirm if they can accept OMF, and which version they want. You should choose to imbed the audio (by selecting the appropriate checkbox), and then determine what format they want the audio in (WAV or AIFF) and select that as well.

Of course, it will ignore any effects you have in your project that are not "applied."

AFAIK, this will only work for audio. I don't believe you can export midi this way - nor do I even know if Pro Tools can handle midi.

This approach should allow you to do it in a single step, and should have the audio aligned for you in Pro Tools when the file is reopened.

 

[DavidK]

You should be able to do it by simply exporting an OMF file. You probably need to check with the recipient to confirm if they can accept OMF, and which version they want. You should choose to imbed the audio (by selecting the appropriate checkbox), and then determine what format they want the audio in (WAV or AIFF) and select that as well.

Of course, it will ignore any effects you have in your project that are not "applied."

AFAIK, this will only work for audio. I don't believe you can export midi this way - nor do I even know if Pro Tools can handle midi.

This approach should allow you to do it in a single step, and should have the audio aligned for you in Pro Tools when the file is reopened.

You just earned yourself 180 rep points. Its that easy?? Wowzers!

I was thinking of buying PT LE, but I dont really wanna. Do I have to get rid of the automation?? I have never messed with OMF, I see there are two versions. VERY helpful post Mike, thats going to be a real time-saver. I had no idea what that was.

 

[dachay2tnr]

Do I have to get rid of the automation??

My guess (I have never done it myself) is that you don't have to get rid of anything. The automation and effects won't export with the file; but they shouldn't hurt anything being there.

I believe OMF simply exports the underlying audio files (waves), and their placement in the project - so you don't need to resync the individual tracks when imported into Pro Tools.

If you WANT the automation to remain, you are probably going to have to "apply" it by bouncing the track. Obviously, however, if you do that, the wave file itself will be changed and the automation will no longer be adjustable.

If it were me, I would just export the raw tracks, and then recreate the effects and automation in Pro Tools.

Let us know how you make out for future reference.

P.S. thanks for the rep points. Can they be exchanged somewhere for cash and prizes.

 

[Alexrkstr]

I own PTLE, I think you will have to buy the toolkit that includes the OMF importing capability. You will probably need to import each wav at a time and save MIDI to a separate file then import.

 

[DavidK]

If it were me, I would just export the raw tracks, and then recreate the effects and automation in Pro Tools.

Indeed. My goal is to do Keyboard tracks at home and take them to a $$ studio to work with real players and have a true engineer mix this stuff.

I own PTLE, I think you will have to buy the toolkit that includes the OMF importing capability. You will probably need to import each wav at a time

Hmmmmmm. I dont like the sound of that.

Originally my plan was to get PTLE. However, money is money and that toolkit is pricey. Importing one track at a time? That sounds a lot different than Dachays version. I can import one track at a time into any DAW software. If I could just export an OMF file, that would save me weeks of work, I am talking about doing an entire CD with a zillion tracks.

 

[Alexrkstr]

If I could just export an OMF file, that would save me weeks of work, I am talking about doing an entire CD with a zillion tracks.

That's why its pricey...

 

[dachay2tnr]

...take them to a $$ studio to work with real players and have a true engineer mix this stuff.

Yeah, that's exactly what I would envision using OMF for. Certainly worth checking with the studio you plan to use first, to insure there are no complications.

I own PTLE, I think you will have to buy the toolkit that includes the OMF importing capability.

This is certainly worth looking into. I am not that familiar with PTLE.

However, it is not clear to me WHY you need PTLE. You should be able to continue to work in Sonar for simply recording raw tracks. Particularly if you plan to use a pro to mix.

 

[dachay2tnr]

That's why its pricey...

If true, it is also why Pro Tools sucks.

Cakewalk can build OMF capabilities into a $369.00 (RETAIL) piece of software, but PT wants to charge extra for it.

 

[DavidK]

Yeah, that's exactly what I would envision using OMF for. Certainly worth checking with the studio you plan to use first, to insure there are no complications.

.

I certainly will check it out thoroughly, which is why I am starting now. This will come down in June, I want to make sure way in advance. If I have to learn PTLE I want some serious time to get familiar with it.

However, it is not clear to me WHY you need PTLE.

Yup, me too. Originally I just assumed I did. After reading a bit, I am not sure I need it. My needs should be fairly simple: I will have all the songs done, no eq or effects etc. I will have the "real" keyboard parts (as audio tracks) and fake mockup parts, I probably can drop the midi at that point. I will have 20+25 seperate audio tracks for each song. Hopefully, I can just hand them the discs with the OMF files, they load it up and we are ready to roll. I hope...

 

[Alexrkstr]

If true, it is also why Pro Tools sucks.

Cakewalk can build OMF capabilities into a $369.00 (RETAIL) piece of software, but PT wants to charge extra for it.

Actually... If they used Cakewalk in most professional studios it wouldn't be a problem... but they use ProTools, so if you start right you save this headache

I learned the hard way, I was a Cubase user for the longest time and then switched to PTLE - no going back. I don't need the toolkit for now. If I want to take my mix to a Pro studio i just burn it and Voila, Mr. engineer only has to mix, and I only had to burn the file.

So if you will be using Cakewalk and Cubase (or any other great affordable DAW) you should have made the decision when you purchase it if you will later be going to a pro Studio to mix.

 

[DavidK]

So if you will be using Cakewalk and Cubase (or any other great affordable DAW) you should have made the decision when you purchase it if you will later be going to a pro Studio to mix.

1. I dont have a time machine

2. Not if what Dachay is saying is true. I've known him for many years via this forum, he hasnt steered me wrong yet.

Bottom line: if it is as simple as exporting an OMF file from Cakewalk and burning it to disc, there is no reason for PTLE for me. As I said, I originally was going to buy it AND the toolkit ($500 for the toolkit alone), but unless I am missing something I cant see why I need it. This is an important project with a real budget, I would be happy to shell out the cash for PTLE if I need to. Is there anything I am missing??

 

[heroics321]

Any pro studio worth their salt won't be using LE and will have OMF support. So I'm not quite sure I understand how this equates to Cakewake, Cubase, or any other equally performing software being inferior. In my mind PT LE works great for small to medium sized projects and will always be held back by limited hardware options. The only benefit being that you'll be somewhat familiar with the software if you go work with some of the "big guys". I'm not trying to knock PT, I plan on buying an 002r for mobile stuff, I just hate when Pro Tools guys try to make people feel like they're not serious because they purchased a different DAW.

 

[Alexrkstr]

1. I dont have a time machine

Ha... well, I didn't have one either when I got Cubase... and I learned the hard way.

"DigiTranslator 2.0 — Supports AAF and OMF import and export"
"Toolkit enables you to import AAF (Advanced Authoring Format) and OMF (Open Media Format) project files from applications such as Avid’s Xpress DV on either your Windows XP- or Mac OS X-based Pro Tools LE system"

With that being said, and me owning PTLE I can guarantee you that you need the toolkit if you want to do it.

Your comment made me think of the option of bringing your OMF to the engineer and having him Import it (hopefully he has that capability with HD - my guess is it must be included).

Sonar is pretty cool man, stick to it. When you switch to PTLE you start 'needing' more things. Just to convert your mix into MP3 it's $20 for the MP3 Option... I don't think it sucks though, and I am more than happy with mine.

 

[Alexrkstr]

Any pro studio worth their salt won't be using LE and will have OMF support. So I'm not quite sure I understand how this equates to Cakewake, Cubase, or any other equally performing software being inferior. In my mind PT LE works great for small to medium sized projects and will always be held back by limited hardware options. The only benefit being that you'll be somewhat familiar with the software if you go work with some of the "big guys". I'm not trying to knock PT, I plan on buying an 002r for mobile stuff, I just hate when Pro Tools guys try to make people feel like they're not serious because they purchased a different DAW.

And that is not what I am saying, I am not naming any of those softwares 'inferior', in fact I am a former Cubase user and I was more than happy with it, I upgraded to the Mbox 2 to get the 24 bit quality. I also used Sonar a long time go (Sonar 3).

And I do find PTLE more limiting on both hardware and software, plugins, you have to cash out money every time you need something new (i.e. the MP3 option, the VST to RTAS Wrapper, etc). Not to mention that their RTAS format is not interesting to any free developer so they only release VST free plug-ins... I could go on, but my point is that I think that if you will be creating these projects that you will later take to the Pro studio, then having PT will be of a greater benefit and you will save yourself all this hassle.

 

[DavidK]

The only benefit being that you'll be somewhat familiar with the software if you go work with some of the "big guys".

Yeah. Ultimately it may be worth it just to get familiar with it and not waste time in the $$ studio.

Your comment made me think of the option of bringing your OMF to the engineer and having him Import it (hopefully he has that capability with HD - my guess is it must be included).

This is what Dachay was suggesting I think. Yes, just bring the disc. This is a very serious studio, they will have the latest and greatest. This project is a big deal, the brass ring. If there is ANY advantage to having PTLE with any toolkit options, I would/will do it. If anyone thinks of any I am all ears.

 

[bennychico11]

This is what Dachay was suggesting I think. Yes, just bring the disc. This is a very serious studio, they will have the latest and greatest. This project is a big deal, the brass ring. If there is ANY advantage to having PTLE with any toolkit options, I would/will do it. If anyone thinks of any I am all ears.

I never post in here, but thought I'd throw in my $.02
Yes, I can confirm you need the DigiTranslator or DV Toolkit option (Translator is cheaper). For both LE and HD systems. Any pro studio working with engineers from other studios should have the option.

If you're fine with what you have at home now, then keep using it. The only big reason I'd want to have PT for in you case, is the ability to transfer PTS files to the other studio. That way all the features NOT transferable in OMF/AAF can follow your session.

HTH

 

[heroics321]

And that is not what I am saying, I am not naming any of those softwares 'inferior', in fact I am a former Cubase user and I was more than happy with it, I upgraded to the Mbox 2 to get the 24 bit quality. I also used Sonar a long time go (Sonar 3).

And I do find PTLE more limiting on both hardware and software, plugins, you have to cash out money every time you need something new (i.e. the MP3 option, the VST to RTAS Wrapper, etc). Not to mention that their RTAS format is not interesting to any free developer so they only release VST free plug-ins... I could go on, but my point is that I think that if you will be creating these projects that you will later take to the Pro studio, then having PT will be of a greater benefit and you will save yourself all this hassle.

Fair enough, you've ventured into the wolves' den and conducted yourself very well . I just have to wonder how long it will be the industry standard now that we're looking at 8 core processors and gigabites on top of gigabites of memory. Damn the man, I'm waiting for Linux to catch up in the audio world.

 

[DavidK]

Thanks Benny.

That way all the features NOT transferable in OMF/AAF can follow your session.

HTH

What features would those be?? I would do all eq and effects at the studio. The only thing I could think of would be getting a jump on the automation since I am the producer of the album and it is a very specific and involved type of music.

Heroics:

Beautiful day in Cleveland I am down in Aurora, its about 60

 

[Alexrkstr]

If your hope with the OMF is just capture the Tracking then that is perfect, but if you are using any plug-ins I would default to PT - when mixing you will want to tweek those.