mike_mccue


"In case no one knows this I do not at present have X1. Nor do I have X1a. I don't even have the hot fix for X1a."

Start with the hot fix.

;-)

When I have the PRV maximized there is nothing in the gui that allows me to change the snap settings.

Maybe I can learn and remember some key bindings... but the GUI no longer offers any suggestion that you may change the snap to grid within the PRV view.

Which is a bummer for me because when I'm in PRV I change my snap settings all the time. I'm going to miss the immediacy and efficiency of having the power to choose a snap setting right inside the PRV.

For example last week in 8.5.2 I was running 16th triplets in PRV and whole measures in Track. Back and forth... pow... pow... pow. I like to work fast.

I'm still not sure how Screen Sets and PRV inter relate because I want to access different clips at different times in PRV and I don't wish to see any of the other clips in there.

If you set a screen set for a generic PRV view it just opens PRV indiscriminately... it does not focus on a particular clip in the track view.

I find that to be a waste of time... so I'm still double clicking MIDI clips in track and having to expand the view, drag out the left margin, drop the controller panes downwards etc... each time... I'm encountering the same old 18 year legacy of collapsing PRV and wondering how screen sets could possibly help.

I'll repeat, I only want the clip I want in PRV. I don't want all the clips and I don't want to have to save screen sets on the fly for each clip I want to work with either.






Why not consider that the manual may be as buggy as the application?

Merry Christmas.

best regards,
mike

Mike, I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you are trying to achieve so forgive me if this doesn't help

Try this to achieve your example....

1. Go to an unused screenset by pressing the corresponding number button, say 7
2. Maximise the track view but make sure that the control bar is visible and in a convenient place for you (press C to toggle it)
3. Make sure the snap to module is visible, and then set your preferred snap to resolution.
4. Go to another unused screenset say 6
5. Open the PRV on your chosen track and maximise it, again make sure the control bar is visible.
6. Again make sure the snap to module is visible, and then set the snap to resolution you want to work in.

Now all you have to do is toggle between the views using the number keys 6 & 7. Your views, stay maximised, with their own snap to settings. You can toggle the grid on & off with F12

You can also set up more screensets with different tracks in the PRV view and jump instantly between them with the appropriate screenset shortcut number. All independent snap to settings, tracks etc....

I personally think screensets are great and very, very powerful. The above is just one example.

BTW if this does help you perhaps you (or anyone else reading this) can test what I suspect is a bug for me. If you set up more than one PRV screenset when you jump from one to the other the notes "disappear" (You can still see the velocity tails in the controller pane) until you click on the scroll bar at the bottom when the missing notes reappear. Only tracks with 'notes' though, drum tracks are fine. Bizarre. Can anyone confirm this please?

Edit: It seems to be intermittent to me, happens in some projects but not others. Anyway reported CWBRN-3678

yorolpal


In my TV I generally keep my Snap on "Measure" as I'm mostly cutting and pasting Chrouses and Verses and such.  I switch to "Absolute Time", of course, when editing audio clips.  In my PRV however I'm almost always on eighths, sixteenths or their triplet siblings...because these are the most ubiquitous units I'm editing individual notes to.  When moving back and forth as much as I do between views it's good to know what my Snap is set to in both.  Many...many...many's the time in the new setup I've done some editing in PRV jumped back into TV and tried to some editing only to see I'm using the wrong Snap setting...this can be maddening especially if I'm unknowingly set at absolute time...cut and paste a chorus and verse or two and then realize they are all just a tick or two off.  In any case, for many of us, Having different Snap to Grids seems better. 

+1   Having different Snap grids when in different views makes perfect sense to me as well.  It is the same reasoning why we now have tools that change functionality in different views.

harikaram


+ EQ plots in the Console when being narrow strips are used...
+ Undo and A/B Toggle for track EQ (like in Sonitus)
+ Ability to read Insert FX names when strips are narrow

+1
 

pitch/time - stretch
(menu: audio processing - cakewalk - ...)

it's now still possible to time-stretch a clip directly in track-view.. but the pitch (plugin?) is gone..
it has been one of the better tools.. worked great on vocal tracks as also on complete mixes.

I think by rearranging a lot of tools and menu's in X1 a lot of people are discovering things that where present in 8.5 (and some that are not present), but they never knew. Also a lot people think items are removed, only to discover they are put elsewhere or have other key bindings. This leads to the impression a lot of things are missing or brand new when this is not the case.

This thread is very useful, but I must confess it is sometimes difficult to see what things are -really- missing and what things are thought to be missing but found in a different location and/or key binding. 

John


Thanks FBB. I understand that the way X1 does things is very different now and that is what prompted me to post this. Because I believe I have been misled by posters here that don't say that but instead maintain that a function or an ability is no longer in this X1 version. 

Workflow is function. Having to do two steps to achieve what used to take one step is removal of function. It is a dumbing down. Even removal of buttons or tools is a dumbing down. (To be clear, hiding of things should be user configurable. Not everyone needs the same tools/visual feedback. Everyone works differently. Removal of tools/visual feedback is a dumbing down).

I am not talking about work flow changes but that X1 was a dumbed down version lacking many things that Sonar had. This was worrisome to me.

I find your attempt to separate workflow from function peculiar to say the least.

Yet what I am seeing over all in posts is an unfamiliarity being mistaken for no longer able to accomplish goals.

You can record a band with an old 4 track recorder. If you bounce to tracks you effectively have an infinite number of tracks (if one disregards the sound aspect for one minute for argument's sake). Smart use of a razor blade let's you do some nice editing etc... yet no one in their right mind would ever try to pretend a 4 track is the same as a modern DAW if you just record bands and use the DAW as a glorified digital tape deck. Just looking at the goals one wants to accomplish is only a small part of the story and misses the whole point of modern DAWs.

What differentiates DAWs from each other more than anything else is HOW things are achieved.

To me this idea that we would be getting a less capable Sonar then we had before is the single most irresponsible kind of posting I have ever seen. It needs to be called out if it isn't true. I wonder why anyone would want a potential X1 buyer be given this kind of information.

If the workflow has indeed been dumbed down, it is more than legitimate to claim that the DAW is less capable. You can achieve everything in Sonar 6 (for example) that you can achieve in X1. The differences are all about workflow and how things are done. If people feel that they are getting a less capable DAW, it is their every right to communicate that even if they are ultimately wrong. Calling them irresponsible is just silly.

Even if every previous feature and function is available in X1 and even if it has been implemented in a much more efficient way, people still have the right to voice the difficulties they are having using it. If nothing else it will tell potential upgraders that there will be unfamiliarity in using the new version and thus a learning curve that they will have to deal with. The view at the top might be gorgeous but that hill still needs to be climbed.

That said, if X1 was indeed all that, the forum would have long settled down and there would be a mood of exuberance where the users that had had more time with the application, or whom are simply faster learners, would be sharing their new discoveries with the other users. There would be many more posts acclaiming the new way of doing things. I don't see that happening.

It is either a case of sheer ignorance or it is a deliberate tactic to undermine   the confidence with CW and its users base. Either way it needs to stop.

Or they are legitimate concerns. Dismissing legitimate complaints as "a deliberate tactic to undermine   the confidence with CW and its users base" is not only insulting but frankly, utterly bizarre if you ask me. You are demonstrating an acute lack of vision and understanding with this whole thread, John.

I suggest that people here assume that what was done in 8.5.3 is still doable in X1 but that more time is needed by them to find out how it is now done.

It is amazing how much faith you have in Cakewalk. You don't have the application and you are telling others who do to assume everything in X1 is hunky dory? I'm sorry to say but Cakewalk's track record does not in any way warranty that assumption and anyway, X1 owners don't need to assume anything, they have X1!

Here the RTFM mantra is more critical then it has ever been.

This doesn't tend to be a sign of great design...

Anyway, the idea behind this whole thread makes no sense to me. Either one acknowledges that workflow and the way things are implemented are a crucial aspect of a DAW or one dismisses that aspect entirely. If you acknowledge that it is crucial then you have to accept the complaints as legitimate. Changing the way things are done is a big deal. The other option is to dismiss that aspect but then  you might as well argue that X1 is 100% identical to Sonar 8.5.3 and thus is not worth paying for... Of course that makes no sense but it shows how absurd this whole line of thinking is.

UnderTow

Looking at the videos I have gotten the impression that the work flow in X1 should be faster for most users. It wont be faster for all but I think it will be for me.

I'm beginning to get a handle on the ideas behind X1's GUI. It does make a lot of sense to me.

I recommend the Brandon video where he introduces X1 in two parts. It sheds a lot of light on Skylight. 

Also judging by what he and other CW people have said X1 will be modified to include things that were removed that did help out work flow. Mistakes will also be corrected. Dark gray on darker gray will be banished for labels for example. Who thought that was a good idea?

John


 As far as I could see it was a blatant lie.

Blatant lies, deliberate tactics, sheer ignorance, most irresponsible...   As long as we stay balanced and reasonable in our assessments of other people's comments everything is OK.

UnderTow

As far as I could see it was a blatant lie.

Really? Of course, you are always fair and considerate, right John? This thread has become wrong on so many levels. Welcome to another person on my blocked list. I tried to respect you, I really did - but you always have to have the last word and you cannot be wrong.

John



...the track inspector for MIDI tracks is going to be a big work flow saver for me.

It was stated  more then once that X1 could not do the things that 8.5 could things had been removed. After reading the manual I could not see what had been removed thus the thread. If people are going to make statements about something and people are using that information to make a decision they ought to be true. As far as I could see it was a blatant lie.

The Inspector for MIDI tracks has been of great help to me in Sonar 8.5 and Sonar 8 before it. 

Those of us who actually have X1 know that there's an enormous difference between watching videos about the program and actually getting our hands on it. 

The initial shock of how X1 seemed to arrive from another dimension where everything is done differently is only now starting to wear off.  During that period of shock, many people had the impression that a lot of things were missing because they simply couldn't find where the controls were hidden.  If anyone ever deliberately lied about what's in or not in X1, they've been a tiny minority.  Most of the reports about things missing were written by people in the middle of New Program Shock.  They made honest mistakes in their reports.

Meanwhile, I know I'm not alone in saying that as cool as a lot of X1's features are, it's difficult to unravel the workings of the program simply because it's so different from what I'm used to.  Now a few weeks into the release, I can say that work won't be any faster in X1, as far as that goes.  But in its current state, working in the PRV is still clumsy for me, and that's a big reason I need to stick with 8.5 to get work done.

Randy B.

shawnbulen


Minor things missing or just don't feel right -

(1)  F5.  I posted this elsewhere, but one missing feature is the ability to press F5 to choose a marker as a start time in clip properties, that's how I usually line things up where I want them. 

(2)  F8.  Another thing that is missing is the old F8 - a quick go-to end of selection.   In theory ctl-g is supposed to do this, but I often get a warning "no events match your search criteria".   Sometimes I don't get the warning, instead it brings me to a seemingly random place in the project...    I just want to quickly go to the end of my selected clip...  I used to click on a clip & F7-F8 to rapidly go to the start or end.   Still haven't figured out how to do F8...
This doesn't seem like a bad release at all, it seems very stable, and there are many cool new features.   I'm just facing a much, much tougher than expected learning curve. 
 

I didn't see this answered, so...
 
G is now Go > Time, which is what F5 used to do by default, but it sounds like maybe you had it custom bound to open the Markers View...? 8.5 also had a function that allowed you to enter a time in any time field by hitting F5 and choosing a Marker, which still works. It was probably an oversight that F5 was remapped to select the Smart Tool, but still has this Markers-related function when the focus is in a time field.
 
Ctrl-G is mistakenly bound to Search Next. This is a bug that will probably get fixed in the next release. But I went ahead and re-bound F7, F8, F9, F10 and Ctrl-F9/F10 to work as they have for the last 20 years, because they were too ingrained for me to re-learn on top of all the other changes. you could do this, or just bind Ctrl-G to Now=Thru so it works as intended.
 
   

 

John

The Inspector for MIDI tracks has been of great help to me in Sonar 8.5 and Sonar 8 before it.

Not for me. I wanted all the controls that were in a track header to be in the track inspector. This would make it possible for me not to have to adjust the track header in order to access some widget. Then also putting the header back to where it was before. They have put everything in the inspector now. This is a big help to me.

I think you are right Randy in most of what you say.  But it really seems that those saying that X1 is a "dumbed down" version or that there were a lot of missing features needed to correct those statements if they were not intended to misinform. Its been awhile since X1 was released I have yet to see anyone retract the hyperbole that some engaged in.

Also I detected a hostility toward X1 that to me seemed irrational. I still see it.

I get the not so subtle dig of me not having X1 yet having the nerve of commenting on it. Actually it bothers me that I am unable to have it in my hands at present but I have not commented in anyway about X1 usage. All the things I discuss are from this forum from the manual and all other sources I can find on X1. The thing one should be asking really is why is it I know that nothing was taken from X1 yet others that say they have it don't? Why I am so far the only one that is asking those that say this to prove it?

Where are the forum members that want CW to succeed here? Do people really think that misinforming and constant finding fault is helpful to our cause? Our cause being a healthy company and one that will listen to us. If all we do is rant at or about CW they will either turn us off or stop listening to us.

This forum is a marketing tool. If it becomes nothing more that a bashing of CW then I don't see much future in it.



 

The hyperbole is coming from you, John.  I have listed a number of missing items from X1 and you didn't acknowledge any of them except to say that you only use save as and not save.  That means that every time you record a new track or edit something you create a new version of the song.  This must leave quite a number of versions of the same song on your hard drive which will then have to be deleted, or you must not worry about taking up real estate on your hard drives.  This doesn't exactly seem, to  me, to be a very efficient way of recording unless you like experimenting a lot.  I'll bet 90% of users use the save function most of the time, especially when making only minor changes to a song.  Anyway, just because you don't use a function that most everyone else uses doesn't mean it's not missing or displaced.

When  you ask why do you know that nothing is missing from X1 while other who have it don't - well, you don't know.  I have seen a number of posts on this thread telling you exactly what is missing and you refuse to comment on them, yet you persist in calling people blatant liars and of intentionally misleading others.  That is nothing but pure hostility on your part, as well as seeming arrogant and hypocritical.  Many of us have used CW for years and have invested our hard earned money into this company, so we have a right to opine.  I, too, have read the pdf manual several times because I've had to in order to look for missing or displaced functions that were not where they were before.  This slows me down quite a bit when I'm in the middle of a session.  BTW, much of the manual is exactly the same as all the other manuals I have sitting on my bookshelf, and I don't really need to reread the basics again.  Though the manual is well written, it is 1800 pages long, and it's not always easy wading through it to find one small bit of information that may not be where you expect to find it.  Anyway, just reading the manual and viewing the videos doesn't actually replace the experience of having and using X1.  Just as watching a video and reading a book doesn't teach you how to drive a car or perform surgery, unless you're a savant.

Last, but not least, it doesn't serve the interest of CW to blindly defend them.  Nor does it necessarily damage CW to offer critiques.  Those that are using X1 and and moaning about it are only asking CW to add an ingredient or two to the mix so as to make a better product.  Complaining about the complainers is an insult to all of us that have stock in this company.  Our support comes from the money we keep putting into this company and not the kudos we throw at them.  I doubt if CW is as thin skinned as you are.

My $.02 worth.

The best,
Lynn

it is 1800 pages long, and it's not always easy wading through it to find one small bit of information that may not be where you expect to find it.

One thing I rely on with the manual is the find function in Adobe reader. It does help in finding stuff. Its simply a search feature.

Last, but not least, it doesn't serve the interest of CW to blindly defend them.

I knew this would be said in one form or another. Its the same as calling me a fanboy. You are more polite but it is the same thing.

Think what you like.

The way I see this thread is John (who does NOT own X1) telling people who DO own X1 that the problems or issues that they are encountering with the redesigned interface are either A) all in their head, or B) features that they just don't understand.

whoa

Thanks Guitartrek for that.  One thing is I came back to the forum in late December and didn't post until I had brought myself up to date.   As I read I became more and more sure that something was amiss. At first I couldn't put my hand on it and then it became clear. People were after X1 had been a long enough time pontificating about either what they didn't understand or had never used it. The one forgiveable thing for the way the forum was acting is that CW didn't have a proper manual for those that  claimed having X1 and seemed not to know anything about it. Here CW screwed up badly. No manual with a very radical new program was insane.  Yet even given that I found out rather quickly that what was being said was untrue. I am not talking about bugs I expect them with any CW release. I am responding to the nature and quality of many posts and threads I think were meant to persuade people not to get X1 because those posts were telling people they wouldn't be able to do as much or the same things as they did in Sonar 8.5.  


I really thought it was important to counter that idea. Also this thread started some few days ago.  Things on this forum are not the same as they were then.