so what DOES work in XP???

  • Thread starter Thread starter amonte
  • Start date Start date
amonte

amonte

New member
Before I start this post, I want to apologize in advance. I don't usually like to bitch and moan, but today I am totally frustrated. Up until about 6 months ago, I was using an old pc with Windows 98 and Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 to record music. I had a DMAN 2044 interface and a SoundBlaster AWE card as well. In the summer I stopped recording to work on other things, and fell a bit "out of touch" with what has been going on in the world of home computer recording. Yesterday, my new PC finally arrived. So far today, I've discovered that neither of my sound cards will work and so far, I'm pretty certain that Pro Audio 9 won't work either (if someone can confirm this, please do).

For the amount of money that Cakewalk charged for Pro Audio when I bought it, this seems like a ripoff. I can understand them not supporting their less expensive products, but Pro Audio was at one point their "marque" package. Same with the hardware - is it so much to ask that a piece of equipment purchased 2 years ago works today? Does this mean everytime Microsoft comes out with a new version of their garbage OS, I need to start from zero with software and hardware? I'm starting to think that the answer to this question is yes. If that's the case, then I think it might be time for me to pack it in on the pc and just buy a stand alone system.

Again, sorry to post such a lousy message, but my hope is that someone will read this and tell me I'm wrong.
 
i'm not familiar with the dman card, but the soundblaster awe card is a piece of garbage. No offense but even the new sound blaster audigy 2 is considered a piece of garbage for recording and i think its about 5 generations newer then the awe cards.
I'm sure the new versions of cakewalk are supported by xp, but a lot of older softwear has problems i think. I know with logic audio nothing before version 5.0 works with win xp. Have you checked the webpage for updateS? The softwear WAS made before winxp was released...
 
Yeah, the AWE card wasn't great, but it did the trick for the time being.

I checked Cakewalk's page and there's no updates or patches or anything for XP.

You're right - Pro Audio came before XP, and maybe it isn't possible for Cakewalk to offer a patch to let it run on XP...but I doubt it. They're probably just don't see the need to invest the time/money into it.
 
The Dman was a great little card, the precursor to the Audiophile 2496. However, M-Audio never finished the drivers to make it work in XP or 2000 and so you will need to upgrade to the 2496 to get things moving along.

Jumping from 98 to XP is a good thing however because of its sophistication and WDM drivers. The evolution to XP is a once every 5-7 year kind of thing in the computer business. Win NT was around 10 years before they made a major upgrade to the Win2000 engine and on the desktop they slapped a cool interface, with a few additions to make it XP. 98 and millenium were just expansions on the Win 3.1 engine over 8 years.

I went through the exact thing you are discovering and upgraded to Sonar and a 2496, also went to Livesynth Pro and eliminated the need for the SoundBlaster. Life is much better and so are my tracks. They sound like studio recordings now vs. demo tracks. Yeah it’s a financial pain but you will be glad once you make the transition
 
Forgive me for double-posting, but I just wrote this reply for another thread - I think it will answer your question. - RW


In detail, here is my problem with running Cakewalk under XP. There are two types of hardware device drivers in Windows. Starting about the time Windows ME came out, Microsoft switched to a type of driver called WDM (Windows Driver Model) which replaced an older type called MME. The new drivers are supposedly more robust, and easier to write. Since I don't write drivers I'll just take Microsoft's word for that.

In theroy, Windows XP offers some support for the older type of drivers. In practice, it needs newer WDM drivers that are written for XP or Win2000.

Cakewalk 9 was written for the Windows 9X family of operating systems. It does not support WDM drivers. So if you are running Windows XP and if your sound card does not have XP drivers that support the older MME standard it's a BIG SORRY. As far as I can tell this is the only problem with running it under Win XP. Sonar on the other hand will support either type of driver, and in general was written to work best under Windows 2000 and XP.

In my case, I run two audio systems. My primary one runs Win98SE, and uses Cakewalk 9 and a Gadget Labs sound card which has no XP drivers (the company is out of business and never wrote them). My other system uses an Audiophile 2496 card under Windows XP. I installed Cakewalk 9 on that system hoping I could do some work work on my Cakewalk projects there. But it turns out that the XP drivers for the Audiophile have an interesting trait - they will work in MME "mode" only as a 16 bit card. So if I set the card as a 16 bit card, it works fine in Cakewalk. If I set it up as a 24 bit card, it then disappears from Cakewalk's list of available audio devices.

In contrast, under Windows 98 the Audiophile works fine under Cakewalk as either a 16 or 24 bit card. And when using Sonar the Audiophile works fine too.

The general rule of thumb with XP is the newer the hardware & software, the better the chance that it will work perfectly.


Last edited by RWhite on 01-16-2003 at 10:53


I expect your problem with the DMAN is similar to my situation above.

The bottom line in this case is that "Cakewalk version 10" works fine under XP. It just so happens that they renamed Cakewalk 10 to "Sonar"! They figured they made enough major changes to it that the product deserved a new name. So their answer to any question regarding a "XP patch" for Cakewalk 9 is simply "buy Sonar". I really can't blame them for this -they have indeed made many major changes to the program. And as far as a I know they still offer a substancial discount on Sonar to all registered Cakewalk owners.
 
Middleman - You're right. Home recording has always been an expensive proposition. I guess I just didn't expect to be shelling out extra $ following the purchase of a new pc. Maybe it's best for me to partition my drive and use 98 for the time being - at least it will hold me over while I accumulate some cash...

Just out of curiosity - is there a large or noticeable improvement in sound quality with tracks made in Sonar on XP and tracks made in Cakewalk PA 9 on Win98, using the same hardware - like the Aardvark LX6 (I think it is compatible in both)?

As far as DMAN goes, I've had problems with it from day one. I don't think I will ever buy another one of their products again.
 
Dman had its issues but the 2496 card is rock solid and has won numerous awards. M-Audio is one of the top card companies out there so although the DMAN was not the best of experiences I would not dismiss their products.

Sound Quality, yes the differences are dramatic. Using the DMAN produced very little professional sounding tracks. The 2496 has more professional AD convertors and thus the sound is very clear and crisp. Probably not what you wanted to hear.

98 vs XP tracks - Sonar vs Pro Audio. Yeah the difference is really very big. Probably did not want to hear that either but the jump is like farming with a shovel and somebody pulls up in a John Deere. Why stand all day when you can sit and listen to tunes, let the machine do the work.
 
Thanks, I appreciate the honesty. I will look into the 2496. I'm surprised that Sonar vs. PA9 is that dramatic of a difference in sound quality. Using the same hardware, I figured they'd be close.

What's the general impression of the Aardvark products, specifically the LX6?

Thanks.
 
Having run both Sonar and Cakewalk 9 under both Win 98 and Win XP, and having done a number of "test" recordings at both 16 and 24 bit, I would say there is absolutely NO difference in sound quality if you are using the same hardware, at the same sampling rate. Sonar has many cool new features, but as far as just recording quality it is no different from Cakewalk.
 
Last edited:
So your saying your reverbs and sythns sound just as good under both? Bare audio tracks maybe but the effects make the difference.
 
I'm talking about bare, raw, audio tracks.

Obviously one of the advantages of Sonar is newer, better effects plug-ins. Both programs can use third party plug-ins. But Sonar, being newer code, has support for the features in the newer versions of Direct X, which is a big plus.
 
So then it does sound substantially better, that was my point.
 
actually, raw audio tracks were what I was reffering to. I thought you were saying that the plain audio sounds better in Sonar. I can understand how the effects would be better - and therefore, improve the overall sound...
 
sonar vs PA9

Sonar is better quality hands down.

The built in effects are more extensive and the controls are easier and more powerful. Raw audio sounds the exact same to me.

I had a bit of a time learning my way around sonar because I was so used to my "usual" places in PA9.

Bottom line is sonar IS better. It just takes some time to learn.
 
There is no question that Sonar is an improvement over PA9. However, having used both, I've not noticed any difference in audio quality of recorded tracks.

It should go without saying that plugins, effects, etc, are better... otherwise, how would they justify putting out a new product?

re: drivers, RWhite has now written (above) what I consider mandatory reading for anyone using Sonar and XP. There are far too many people who do not understand this, who need to. It would solve a lot of problems.

-mg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top