S
Sterling30
New member
Can it really produce work on par with Logic, Pro-Tools, Cubebase, ect???
Seems hard to believe for $35..
Gregg
Seems hard to believe for $35..
Gregg
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
32 bit internal pathways,supports 16 bit and 24 bit soundcards w/multiple inputs to the limit of your processor's ability.
The program is very high quality.Is the rest of your gear up to snuff?Nice large diaphragm condensor mike,quality mike pre,compressor,mixer,etc?
Don't be fooled by the price.The demo isn't crippled so can check it out with your gear and see what you think.
I used Cakewalk Pro Audio for years and spent many hundreds of dollars on software and upgrades.All it took was a 15 minute session with the N-track demo for me to switch.
Try it,you'll like it...
Tom
The program is very high quality.Is the rest of your gear up to snuff?Nice large diaphragm condensor mike,quality mike pre,compressor,mixer,etc?
Don't be fooled by the price.The demo isn't crippled so can check it out with your gear and see what you think.
I used Cakewalk Pro Audio for years and spent many hundreds of dollars on software and upgrades.All it took was a 15 minute session with the N-track demo for me to switch.
Try it,you'll like it...
Tom
L
LessPaul
New member
Tom...
As a longtime Cake Pro user, what did you like about n-tracks in comparison. Ease of use? Features? (VST support etc?)
Thanks.. Paul
As a longtime Cake Pro user, what did you like about n-tracks in comparison. Ease of use? Features? (VST support etc?)
Thanks.. Paul
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
LessPaul
Cakewalk made all these multitracking promises (and I started with about ver.4 and keep doing the upgrades through ver.8 last year)but my experience was that my modest (then under 200 mhz)processor could never get more than 4 tracks to play.
The first time I loaded up the n-track demo,my 166 pentium gave me 12 tracks with effects.I have a PIII 600 now and get about 30 tracks with effects.By the way,the Cakewalk direct X effects work just fine in n-track.And yes,the vst support is great.There are loads of free decent plugins that cubase guys have put out there on the web.
This little program does just about all the "big boys" can do for a fraction of their price.I know I sound like I'm preaching,but most guys who use n-track are pretty enthusiastic about it.
regards
Tom
Cakewalk made all these multitracking promises (and I started with about ver.4 and keep doing the upgrades through ver.8 last year)but my experience was that my modest (then under 200 mhz)processor could never get more than 4 tracks to play.
The first time I loaded up the n-track demo,my 166 pentium gave me 12 tracks with effects.I have a PIII 600 now and get about 30 tracks with effects.By the way,the Cakewalk direct X effects work just fine in n-track.And yes,the vst support is great.There are loads of free decent plugins that cubase guys have put out there on the web.
This little program does just about all the "big boys" can do for a fraction of their price.I know I sound like I'm preaching,but most guys who use n-track are pretty enthusiastic about it.
regards
Tom
LI Slim
New member
Since the software doesn't actually affect the sound quality (like Tom said), it all comes down to a question of whether the program can manipulate the wav files the way you want it to. I'm an inexperienced user, but N-track seems to be able to do everything I can think of wanting it to do and a lot more. It's certainly user-friendly, probably more so than the premium stuff. And the support (from Flavio himself) is fantastic.
[Edited by LI Slim on 12-01-2000 at 13:40]
[Edited by LI Slim on 12-01-2000 at 13:40]
L
LessPaul
New member
Thanks guys.. just the sort of feedback I'm looking for! Paul
B
bdemenil
New member
efficiancy
Tom,
How do n-track and cakewalk compare in terms of efficiant use of system resources (like disk access)? Also, how would you compare stability? Have you tried cakewalk on your new machine?
Tom,
How do n-track and cakewalk compare in terms of efficiant use of system resources (like disk access)? Also, how would you compare stability? Have you tried cakewalk on your new machine?
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
I will try to answer you as best I can.I'm not a "tech" but rather just have practical experience using this stuff.N-track keeps all the .wav files resident on the hard drive so you don't (unlike Cakewalk) need to keep increasing your RAM to load up those tracks into.About 64 meg will do in n-track.Your processor speed controlls the number of track and effects,like cakewalk does.
In terms of use of system resources,there is a little meter at the bottom of the screen that purports to tell you that,but I don't trust it to be an absolute accounting.I've noticed its not the tracks # but the effects # and type that really eats up the cpu usage.
As to stability,both would crash under W98 SE.I've had no problems with the "blue screen of death" since I switched to W2K pro.N-track loves 2000,more tracks,faster processing of functions.I recommend it strongly to all users with DAWs.
Tom
In terms of use of system resources,there is a little meter at the bottom of the screen that purports to tell you that,but I don't trust it to be an absolute accounting.I've noticed its not the tracks # but the effects # and type that really eats up the cpu usage.
As to stability,both would crash under W98 SE.I've had no problems with the "blue screen of death" since I switched to W2K pro.N-track loves 2000,more tracks,faster processing of functions.I recommend it strongly to all users with DAWs.
Tom
LI Slim
New member
I think that Tom is right.
Although with respect to Windows 98, I've had no problems crashing as long as I close all running programs except for Explorer and System. I have a Pentium III 667, and I think having that much helps.
Although with respect to Windows 98, I've had no problems crashing as long as I close all running programs except for Explorer and System. I have a Pentium III 667, and I think having that much helps.
B
bdemenil
New member
hard disk limitations
I believe the number of tracks you can have is mostly determined by the speed of your hard-drive. If your hard drive is unable to read the tracks fast enough to keep up with play speed, you'll get skipping- the music stops playing while the program waits for data from the hard drive. Windows 2000 uses the hard drive more efficiantly than win98 - so you'd be able to record more tracks on it. Effects use CPU. n-track has a cpu monitor. I believe the new version of cakewalk has a disk-use monitor as well as a cpu monitor. In terms of increasing your hard disk access speed, I've heard that if you stripe 2 identical drives using RAID, you'll increase access speed substantialy.
I've found that I reach my system limits somewhere around 20 tracks of 48K 24bit audio. I wonder if getting more RAM would improve this at all.
Both cakewalk and n-track read the recorded tracks from your hard drive into RAM, and then play them from RAM. What I would like to compare is their efficiancy in this process.
I believe the number of tracks you can have is mostly determined by the speed of your hard-drive. If your hard drive is unable to read the tracks fast enough to keep up with play speed, you'll get skipping- the music stops playing while the program waits for data from the hard drive. Windows 2000 uses the hard drive more efficiantly than win98 - so you'd be able to record more tracks on it. Effects use CPU. n-track has a cpu monitor. I believe the new version of cakewalk has a disk-use monitor as well as a cpu monitor. In terms of increasing your hard disk access speed, I've heard that if you stripe 2 identical drives using RAID, you'll increase access speed substantialy.
I've found that I reach my system limits somewhere around 20 tracks of 48K 24bit audio. I wonder if getting more RAM would improve this at all.
Both cakewalk and n-track read the recorded tracks from your hard drive into RAM, and then play them from RAM. What I would like to compare is their efficiancy in this process.