[Consolidated] Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1

Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 11
Author
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 00:49:15 (permalink)
Rus W


While I have to yet to own Sonar XI, I'd like to ask a question while making an observation:

First thing's first: Breathe

Seriously ...

Why not use the Track View? Isn't there for a reason?

I realize it's not the same as The Console/Mixer view - in terms of detail and refining, but it does have it's purpose. It's purpose is for what many are griping about: The CV's lack of a readable view - especially in narrow orientation, but I've read that using the wide view doesn't make it any better.

If I am mistaken, I believe the Track Pane can be narrowed or widened, letting the user see the entire track name. Having said this, I wouldn't advise putting a 100 letter name and doing massive expansion even just for fun, but if it proves my hypothesis and you want a laugh, go ahead. Heck, make it as narrow as possible to see nothing but the "data view"

Or you could give the track a "friendly name" (ie: Tambourine->Tamb; if it's a "Human" Percussive Loop-> Beat Box, etc ...) If anything, the abbreiations, if you so choose, may looks cleaner in the track view.

Or when all else fails: write it down.

This is quite possibly the most ignored piece of aid because "who does that anymore"? No, really that seems to be the attitude here, but it does keep alot of cool heads. You don't have to do it the archaic way; yet, that would help in case something happens having done it electronically (don't forget to SAVE)

This helps heaps when you are dealing with large scale projects, but works just dandy with the small scale ones. If you write down every single parameter - especially since those parameters will more than likely change as you progress from start to finish also documenting those changes.


From tracks' names and their seetings, to EQ settings, FX and their settings, envelopes of every kind with their set of parameters, to where a track start and ends and anything else that makes up the song from the beginning bassline, guitar/piano riff drum solo to the first and last lyric of the song! Come to think of it, setting up the parameters is like writing the song itself because you do the exact same thing!

Now, that that is out of the way: I've said all that to say this:

While CW didn't catch everything - and they possibly can't or a release would never occur - users should realize that despite the errors they made, we should be smart enough figure out how to get around them (case in point as written above) Yes, we realize that making such dedicate software is difficult and they know this, too; however, we don't need to have the "square peg, round hole" (or vice versa) mentality. If you had picked up the right peg, there'd be no need to redesign the entire box. (No pun intended Bakers)

I hope my solutions work, but if they don't, stay cool!
 
I wonder why it is only the people who don't work much in the Console View the ones trying to "justify" (for lack of a better term) what's going on with this.  There are things the TV is good for and others the TV is good for.  That's why many of us use both.  I know you're just trying to help, but you really are not.  You're just making it more frustrating than it already is.  If I start writing down all the settings I'm using on each project, then I'll NEVER finish any time soon.  It's one thing to do that with hardware, but that's not necessary with software as long as you have a good back-up system and versioning methodology.  I want my Console View back to the way it was, minimum!  I don't think any of us is being unreasonable here.
 
Sorry if I sound mean dude.  I don't mean to.
 
Take care!

Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 14061
  • Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
  • Location: NYC
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 00:58:31 (permalink)
Jose7822


Rus W


While I have to yet to own Sonar XI, I'd like to ask a question while making an observation:

First thing's first: Breathe

Seriously ...

Why not use the Track View? Isn't there for a reason?

I realize it's not the same as The Console/Mixer view - in terms of detail and refining, but it does have it's purpose. It's purpose is for what many are griping about: The CV's lack of a readable view - especially in narrow orientation, but I've read that using the wide view doesn't make it any better.

If I am mistaken, I believe the Track Pane can be narrowed or widened, letting the user see the entire track name. Having said this, I wouldn't advise putting a 100 letter name and doing massive expansion even just for fun, but if it proves my hypothesis and you want a laugh, go ahead. Heck, make it as narrow as possible to see nothing but the "data view"

Or you could give the track a "friendly name" (ie: Tambourine->Tamb; if it's a "Human" Percussive Loop-> Beat Box, etc ...) If anything, the abbreiations, if you so choose, may looks cleaner in the track view.

Or when all else fails: write it down.

This is quite possibly the most ignored piece of aid because "who does that anymore"? No, really that seems to be the attitude here, but it does keep alot of cool heads. You don't have to do it the archaic way; yet, that would help in case something happens having done it electronically (don't forget to SAVE)

This helps heaps when you are dealing with large scale projects, but works just dandy with the small scale ones. If you write down every single parameter - especially since those parameters will more than likely change as you progress from start to finish also documenting those changes.


From tracks' names and their seetings, to EQ settings, FX and their settings, envelopes of every kind with their set of parameters, to where a track start and ends and anything else that makes up the song from the beginning bassline, guitar/piano riff drum solo to the first and last lyric of the song! Come to think of it, setting up the parameters is like writing the song itself because you do the exact same thing!

Now, that that is out of the way: I've said all that to say this:

While CW didn't catch everything - and they possibly can't or a release would never occur - users should realize that despite the errors they made, we should be smart enough figure out how to get around them (case in point as written above) Yes, we realize that making such dedicate software is difficult and they know this, too; however, we don't need to have the "square peg, round hole" (or vice versa) mentality. If you had picked up the right peg, there'd be no need to redesign the entire box. (No pun intended Bakers)

I hope my solutions work, but if they don't, stay cool!
 
I wonder why it is only the people who don't work much in the Console View the ones trying to "justify" (for lack of a better term) what's going on with this.  There are things the TV is good for and others the TV is good for.  That's why many of us use both.  I know you're just trying to help, but you really are not.  You're just making it more frustrating than it already is.  If I start writing down all the settings I'm using on each project, then I'll NEVER finish any time soon.  It's one thing to do that with hardware, but that's not necessary with software as long as you have a good back-up system and versioning methodology.  I want my Console View back to the way it was, minimum!  I don't think any of us is being unreasonable here.
 
Sorry if I sound mean dude.  I don't mean to.
 
Take care!
Agreed.

And I don't want to be rude either, but saying that we can expand the track to expose the whole name misses the point.

First off, expanding anything means giving up something else -- some other area (like the clips pane).  So that's not a solution but a trade-off.

Same thing for the Console View.   It's obvious there's many who are not pleased with its currrent approach.  And if the customers are not happy, there's got to be some give on it.

But your point is well taken, Jose - about those who don't use the CV or don't use it much.  There should be a functional approach for all the tools, not just some.





Billy Arnell (ba-midi)

http://www.ba-midi.com/music/files
Music gives me life, so I give life Music.
Thanks for listening - Let's Dance to the rhythm of life! :)
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 6518
  • Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 01:03:02 (permalink)
In the narrow view there is definitely no EQ plot visible

You've found out that this was wrong now, right?  EQ is still completely visible in narrow view.

RB

Sonar X3e Studio
Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller
Alesis i|O2 interface
Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz
8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64
with dual monitors
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 01:14:43 (permalink)
Randy,

How did you do it?  It's not visible for me either.


Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
Rus W
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 541
  • Joined: 2010/11/04 00:09:34
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 01:56:58 (permalink)

 
I wonder why it is only the people who don't work much in the Console View the ones trying to "justify" (for lack of a better term) what's going on with this.  There are things the TV is good for and others the TV is good for.  That's why many of us use both.  I know you're just trying to help, but you really are not.  You're just making it more frustrating than it already is.  If I start writing down all the settings I'm using on each project, then I'll NEVER finish any time soon.  It's one thing to do that with hardware, but that's not necessary with software as long as you have a good back-up system and versioning methodology.  I want my Console View back to the way it was, minimum!  I don't think any of us is being unreasonable here.
 
Sorry if I sound mean dude.  I don't mean to.
 
Take care!
I never said I didn't use the console view. In fact, I use that view like most. I wasn't trying to say "totally nix the Console View", but from what I asked about using the track view, it does not seem like many use it or want it nixed. Likw I've heard when it comes to the SV and PRV. Staff View is not any less or more important than the PRV just because you (as example) might rarely use or if you ever use it. It has its purpose and you MIGHT need it for something that PRV doesn't give you - standard notation, not to mention all the things that come with it. I'm not knocking the PRV, but all that is is midi notes and controllers when you get to the nuts and bolts of it. Neither view is better or worse than the other, it just depends on what your purpose is - that why both views are there to use


I think you misinterpreted writing down settings. I've got two tracks (songs) which neither I've finished, but with the lamenting of the Console View in X1, being crunched, I only suggested that maybe the track view is better and why it is probably better since the CV upsets most visually. I didn't say the track view is better visually, but you can adapt it to be visually better for you (what you're able to see), then the console view. I only offered the writing down settings/parameters as another option if no one referred to take the other suggestions. Yet, how is taking the time to plan ahead or "plan as you go" though it'll take forever to finish, any different than complaining (not saying you are - at least you're doing so constructively) about something that is preventing you to finish? At least with the first part of that, you can control it as you can finish a song quicker the Bakers can come up with the patch to fix the problems.

Some things aren't that complicated to figure out. I'm sure something will frustrate me with X1 as well, but when you get to the point where you're breaking things just as easily as they are to fix because you don't realize how easy they are to "fix ..." 

Gamers can relate to this as we've broken many a hardware and possibly software cause we (the user) did something wrong frustrating ourselves not thinking of how to get through our particular dilemma. Who knows, it may have been he software, but 99% of the time, it's its operator. You ought not get mad if you got 5 when wanting 4, but who put in 2 + 3 opposed to what should have been put it\n?

I was just suggesting how to remedy if you can't see all you want/need to see. Write down everything that you can see or of that you can remember. Furthermore, if you stop every now and then to jot down anything you've done (like auto or manually saving every few minutes or tweaks), then the lack of visibility should not be an issue - or at least one would have turned an issue into a non-issue. This is why I said to "write (save) as you go along", but be sure to jot down everything you did - preferably before you save it

It's not hard to go: "Track 1 has this many parameters with this many settings" writing each down rinse + repeat. Not hard, just tedious if you have alot of stuff going on. I suggest using a spreadsheet compiling all your data and using that to guide you as you write your songs - to be really be on the safe side, make a backup copy. One with your initial settings and another with your revised settings. If you really focus on what you're doing though, you may not need to backup copy. A backup of your project would reduce frustration greatly as well. Song I (original) Song Ia or Song (Edit), for example. However, make sure something is done to distinguish the two and call it that even (All tracks open - original; All tracks soloed - edit) Yes, I strayed a little, but it still is attached to the idea of writing things down.

There's nothng wrong with point things out, but as the saying goes: when there's a will, there's a way. The user will just have to find it.

Happy music making (or not)

And no, you didn't sound mean at all
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 6518
  • Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 02:05:39 (permalink)
Jose7822


Randy,

How did you do it?  It's not visible for me either.


Maybe we're not talking about the same thing?  I'm saying that when the strip is either wide or narrow, the EQ is still visible - Here's a screen shot:



RB

Sonar X3e Studio
Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller
Alesis i|O2 interface
Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz
8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64
with dual monitors
Rus W
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 541
  • Joined: 2010/11/04 00:09:34
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 02:18:04 (permalink)
ba_midi


Jose7822


Rus W


While I have to yet to own Sonar XI, I'd like to ask a question while making an observation:

First thing's first: Breathe

Seriously ...

Why not use the Track View? Isn't there for a reason?

I realize it's not the same as The Console/Mixer view - in terms of detail and refining, but it does have it's purpose. It's purpose is for what many are griping about: The CV's lack of a readable view - especially in narrow orientation, but I've read that using the wide view doesn't make it any better.

If I am mistaken, I believe the Track Pane can be narrowed or widened, letting the user see the entire track name. Having said this, I wouldn't advise putting a 100 letter name and doing massive expansion even just for fun, but if it proves my hypothesis and you want a laugh, go ahead. Heck, make it as narrow as possible to see nothing but the "data view"

Or you could give the track a "friendly name" (ie: Tambourine->Tamb; if it's a "Human" Percussive Loop-> Beat Box, etc ...) If anything, the abbreiations, if you so choose, may looks cleaner in the track view.

Or when all else fails: write it down.

This is quite possibly the most ignored piece of aid because "who does that anymore"? No, really that seems to be the attitude here, but it does keep alot of cool heads. You don't have to do it the archaic way; yet, that would help in case something happens having done it electronically (don't forget to SAVE)

This helps heaps when you are dealing with large scale projects, but works just dandy with the small scale ones. If you write down every single parameter - especially since those parameters will more than likely change as you progress from start to finish also documenting those changes.


From tracks' names and their seetings, to EQ settings, FX and their settings, envelopes of every kind with their set of parameters, to where a track start and ends and anything else that makes up the song from the beginning bassline, guitar/piano riff drum solo to the first and last lyric of the song! Come to think of it, setting up the parameters is like writing the song itself because you do the exact same thing!

Now, that that is out of the way: I've said all that to say this:

While CW didn't catch everything - and they possibly can't or a release would never occur - users should realize that despite the errors they made, we should be smart enough figure out how to get around them (case in point as written above) Yes, we realize that making such dedicate software is difficult and they know this, too; however, we don't need to have the "square peg, round hole" (or vice versa) mentality. If you had picked up the right peg, there'd be no need to redesign the entire box. (No pun intended Bakers)

I hope my solutions work, but if they don't, stay cool!
 
I wonder why it is only the people who don't work much in the Console View the ones trying to "justify" (for lack of a better term) what's going on with this.  There are things the TV is good for and others the TV is good for.  That's why many of us use both.  I know you're just trying to help, but you really are not.  You're just making it more frustrating than it already is.  If I start writing down all the settings I'm using on each project, then I'll NEVER finish any time soon.  It's one thing to do that with hardware, but that's not necessary with software as long as you have a good back-up system and versioning methodology.  I want my Console View back to the way it was, minimum!  I don't think any of us is being unreasonable here.

Sorry if I sound mean dude.  I don't mean to.

Take care!
Agreed.

And I don't want to be rude either, but saying that we can expand the track to expose the whole name misses the point.

First off, expanding anything means giving up something else -- some other area (like the clips pane).  So that's not a solution but a trade-off.

Same thing for the Console View.   It's obvious there's many who are not pleased with its currrent approach.  And if the customers are not happy, there's got to be some give on it.

But your point is well taken, Jose - about those who don't use the CV or don't use it much.  There should be a functional approach for all the tools, not just some.

I know what is given up, but with every gain there's a loss. Is this not true? I understand the "they missed this little detail", and yeah some clean up needs to be done, but ...


Look at it like this:


When playing a game, some wanna go from beginning to end in legit fashion while complaining every time there's a hurdle to get over - or they don't and play through it; yet, there are others who find "cheats" to make the game easier for them. I'm doing just that. Telling folks how to "cheat" the software. (bakers don't take that the wrong way, please) I know that sounds bad given what that is associated with, but with cheating like you said, you lose the satisfaction of having "gone through the trenches" to beat the game. I'm saying you can still play regardless of the obstacles you come across whether you "cheat" or not


I can't see in the CV. Trying looking in the track view. Everything won't be there obviously, but if things can be made visible in the track view that can't be in the console view ... (Okay, I see my track names, so I'll use this view to reference when tweaking in the CV. Yes, switching would be a pane, but writing everything down would certainly alleviate it)

I don't disagree with either of you; however, there's nothng wrong with taking a different approach. Just think if they didn't keep the old key commands or made them customizable, therefore, just sticking with the key clusters. Things could be worse!!
lorneyb2
Max Output Level: -58.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1667
  • Joined: 2007/04/26 04:02:10
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 02:42:44 (permalink)
rbowser


Jose7822


Randy,

How did you do it?  It's not visible for me either.


Maybe we're not talking about the same thing?  I'm saying that when the strip is either wide or narrow, the EQ is still visible - Here's a screen shot:



RB
Do you have pro channel active on any tracks?  I remember seeing it look that way but now that I have used the pro channel the view is totally different.  It shows PC, then symbols for Comp, EQ, Sat.  If you click on the PC it opens up the wide track and pro channel.

I also can not find any way to move tracks in Console view.  Has anyone found a method of doing that?

Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 02:46:10 (permalink)
Rus,

You're REALLY not helping us here :-)  Why would I go through all the stuff you're suggesting when I can just go back to SONAR 8.5.3 (which is working fine)?  I already have a good workflow and a good backup and versioning scheme.  What I need is for Cakewalk to fix the current issues with the Console View in SONAR X1.  I like everything else Cakewalk did (at least what I've been able to play with so far), except for the Console View, which is almost a deal breaker for me.  Not sure why they went backwards on this, but I do hope they fix it soon.  Otherwise, I won't trust Cakewalk with my money as easily as I have in the past.  I blindly upgrade SONAR every year because I expect things to be better, NOT worse.  They've always delivered, so I know they'll do the right thing.

In the mean time, back to SONAR 8.5.3.


P.S. Speaking of video games, I despise cheaters/glitchers/lagswitchers/loosers (they're all synonyms).  They make playing video games a drag.

Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
ba_midi
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 14061
  • Joined: 2003/11/05 16:58:18
  • Location: NYC
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 02:48:55 (permalink)
I don't disagree with either of you; however, there's nothng wrong with taking a different approach. Just think if they didn't keep the old key commands or made them customizable, therefore, just sticking with the key clusters. Things could be worse!!


I honestly have no problem in general with "new" or "different".

I do have a problem when those are not as functional.

I'm not saying any one thing is or isn't in X1, I'm just saying some things are problematic in a contextual way (ie, not being able to see names, track outs, etc).  Function is foremost, not fashion to me.



Billy Arnell (ba-midi)

http://www.ba-midi.com/music/files
Music gives me life, so I give life Music.
Thanks for listening - Let's Dance to the rhythm of life! :)
Rus W
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 541
  • Joined: 2010/11/04 00:09:34
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 03:31:12 (permalink)
Jose7822


Rus,

You're REALLY not helping us here :-)  Why would I go through all the stuff you're suggesting when I can just go back to SONAR 8.5.3 (which is working fine)?  I already have a good workflow and a good backup and versioning scheme.  What I need is for Cakewalk to fix the current issues with the Console View in SONAR X1.  I like everything else Cakewalk did (at least what I've been able to play with so far), except for the Console View, which is almost a deal breaker for me.  Not sure why they went backwards on this, but I do hope they fix it soon.  Otherwise, I won't trust Cakewalk with my money as easily as I have in the past.  I blindly upgrade SONAR every year because I expect things to be better, NOT worse.  They've always delivered, so I know they'll do the right thing.

In the mean time, back to SONAR 8.5.3.


P.S. Speaking of video games, I despise cheaters/glitchers/lagswitchers/loosers (they're all synonyms).  They make playing video games a drag.

I'm sorry, I thought I was. But yeah, go back to 8.5.3. TBH, I am not as "experienced" because I haven't used anything CW since Music Creator 20003/3/Kinetic 2. (You can heckle me if you like. I don't mind) However, I do understand the complaints and wanting things to a tee. Yet, you can workaround it (I can use 8.5.3) if you don't wanna do what I suggested for X1, but my suggestions would work the same even for 8.5.3. I never said anyone had to do them. I probably won't do things you suggest to make things easier for me  even if there's a dissertation on it, but if I do try them and they works, thanks.


I do agree that XI needs some more tweaking, but I believe if users would help them as well as themselves by working around the problems while pointing them out. This is no different than taking a detour from the usual route traveled to get somewhere as there many many ways to get from point A to point B; even without an obstacle (traffic jam, accident) some like to take the scenic route. It's your choice what you want to do though.


P.S. I take it you just loathe Xbox Live!! I haven't used it, but from what I've heard, it's less than undesirable!!
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3617
  • Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 04:03:27 (permalink)
Keyword= Screensets

One Screenset = AUDIO and Instruments
One Screenset = Only Busses
And so on....


I would like to open the PRO Channel in POP UP windows instead! Also make a keycommand to open it...
Have the option to open only the Gloss EQ windows would be nice too...
A new extra feature. I would like an extra floating "Transport control bar" with JogWheel function!


Best Regards
Freddie


post edited by Freddie H - 2010/12/10 04:06:22


-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 12010
  • Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
  • Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 04:52:40 (permalink)
Rus W


Jose7822


Rus,

You're REALLY not helping us here :-)  Why would I go through all the stuff you're suggesting when I can just go back to SONAR 8.5.3 (which is working fine)?  I already have a good workflow and a good backup and versioning scheme.  What I need is for Cakewalk to fix the current issues with the Console View in SONAR X1.  I like everything else Cakewalk did (at least what I've been able to play with so far), except for the Console View, which is almost a deal breaker for me.  Not sure why they went backwards on this, but I do hope they fix it soon.  Otherwise, I won't trust Cakewalk with my money as easily as I have in the past.  I blindly upgrade SONAR every year because I expect things to be better, NOT worse.  They've always delivered, so I know they'll do the right thing.

In the mean time, back to SONAR 8.5.3.


P.S. Speaking of video games, I despise cheaters/glitchers/lagswitchers/loosers (they're all synonyms).  They make playing video games a drag.

I'm sorry, I thought I was. But yeah, go back to 8.5.3. TBH, I am not as "experienced" because I haven't used anything CW since Music Creator 20003/3/Kinetic 2. (You can heckle me if you like. I don't mind) However, I do understand the complaints and wanting things to a tee. Yet, you can workaround it (I can use 8.5.3) if you don't wanna do what I suggested for X1, but my suggestions would work the same even for 8.5.3. I never said anyone had to do them. I probably won't do things you suggest to make things easier for me  even if there's a dissertation on it, but if I do try them and they works, thanks.


I do agree that XI needs some more tweaking, but I believe if users would help them as well as themselves by working around the problems while pointing them out. This is no different than taking a detour from the usual route traveled to get somewhere as there many many ways to get from point A to point B; even without an obstacle (traffic jam, accident) some like to take the scenic route. It's your choice what you want to do though.


P.S. I take it you just loathe Xbox Live!! I haven't used it, but from what I've heard, it's less than undesirable!!

Are you serious - 100+ tracks and you want us to start writing down settings as a work around. if Track view and Console view were functionally interchangeable we could do without one or the other. But they are not.
 
I'll stay on 8.5.3 too thanks.
 

Mike V. (MUDGEL)

STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64,
PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz.
Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2.
Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub.
Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX.
Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor.
Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
Y@ri
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 19
  • Joined: 2010/02/06 16:11:46
  • Location: Finland
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 05:50:51 (permalink)
+1



Asus P5Q Deluxe / Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 / 8 GB RAM 
Windows 7 x64, Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64, Sonar X1 Producer Expanded, Guitar Rig 5 Pro, EZDrummer etc.
Edirol FA-66, Edirol PCR-800
Various guitars

Rus W
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 541
  • Joined: 2010/11/04 00:09:34
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 05:54:39 (permalink)
mudgel


Rus W


Jose7822


Rus,

You're REALLY not helping us here :-)  Why would I go through all the stuff you're suggesting when I can just go back to SONAR 8.5.3 (which is working fine)?  I already have a good workflow and a good backup and versioning scheme.  What I need is for Cakewalk to fix the current issues with the Console View in SONAR X1.  I like everything else Cakewalk did (at least what I've been able to play with so far), except for the Console View, which is almost a deal breaker for me.  Not sure why they went backwards on this, but I do hope they fix it soon.  Otherwise, I won't trust Cakewalk with my money as easily as I have in the past.  I blindly upgrade SONAR every year because I expect things to be better, NOT worse.  They've always delivered, so I know they'll do the right thing.

In the mean time, back to SONAR 8.5.3.


P.S. Speaking of video games, I despise cheaters/glitchers/lagswitchers/loosers (they're all synonyms).  They make playing video games a drag.

I'm sorry, I thought I was. But yeah, go back to 8.5.3. TBH, I am not as "experienced" because I haven't used anything CW since Music Creator 20003/3/Kinetic 2. (You can heckle me if you like. I don't mind) However, I do understand the complaints and wanting things to a tee. Yet, you can workaround it (I can use 8.5.3) if you don't wanna do what I suggested for X1, but my suggestions would work the same even for 8.5.3. I never said anyone had to do them. I probably won't do things you suggest to make things easier for me  even if there's a dissertation on it, but if I do try them and they works, thanks.


I do agree that XI needs some more tweaking, but I believe if users would help them as well as themselves by working around the problems while pointing them out. This is no different than taking a detour from the usual route traveled to get somewhere as there many many ways to get from point A to point B; even without an obstacle (traffic jam, accident) some like to take the scenic route. It's your choice what you want to do though.


P.S. I take it you just loathe Xbox Live!! I haven't used it, but from what I've heard, it's less than undesirable!!

Are you serious - 100+ tracks and you want us to start writing down settings as a work around. if Track view and Console view were functionally interchangeable we could do without one or the other. But they are not.
 
I'll stay on 8.5.3 too thanks.
 

You make it sounds as though I mean at once, but t's up to you if you want to not "document as you go." Like I said, it's not hard, just tedious. I was only speaking in the 15-25 track range, but do yourself a favor and split them up. I'm just saying: Writing things down never hurt nor will it hurt anybody. 


I also never said Track or Console were interchangeable. What I said was since the CV in cramps in X1, don't use it (for seeing track names or other things you can't see) whereas don't use the track view for mixing purposes. It shouldn't matter if you have 5, 50 or 500 tracks (this where track folders come into play)

One might view time by looking on his wrist, but occasionally, he'll also look on the wall - even if he's wearing the watch, too. (He may not, but it doesn't mean he doesn't have that option) There's nothing wrong with that. The wall clock doesn't function like his watch does, but neither does the watch like the wall clock. However, both tell you the time, no?

Yes, CV is different from the track view, but how difficult is it to expand the track view if you don't wanna do either with the console view? Why are there even two views at all since most find it easier and more applicable to use just one? Sometmes I get the feeling instead of enjoying what was put together, more joy comes out it picking it apart.


But yeah, you can use whatever you wish.






n0rd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 237
  • Joined: 2010/11/02 02:18:00
  • Location: Down Under (Australia)
  • Status: offline
X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 06:25:57 (permalink)

Is it perfect? - No
I'm just dreaming out aloud - nothing more, nothing less.



rainmaker1011
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 652
  • Joined: 2008/06/06 13:34:53
  • Location: Slovakia, EU
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 06:33:26 (permalink)
Great work. Like it.

Maybe, instead of using right click or CTRL+click to turn off/on the FXs, middle mouse button could be used to do this. Right click could be then used to pop up any additional menu...

Do you have a use for track numbers?? I would not mind if they would be completely gone (optionally) in the console view and instead, the track names could be two or three lines long.
post edited by rainmaker1011 - 2010/12/10 06:38:36

Best Regards,  
Marek

------------------------
  DAW: Sonar Platinum 64bit PE//C2D@3,0GHz//6GB 800MHz RAM//LCD 24'' Samsung //Focusrite Scarlett 8i6//Windows 10 Professional 64bit//Toontrack SD 2.4 x64//NI Scarbee Vintage Keys//NI Alicia's Keys//112db Redline Reverb//Voxengo plugins//EWQL Composer Cloud
n0rd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 237
  • Joined: 2010/11/02 02:18:00
  • Location: Down Under (Australia)
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 08:48:52 (permalink)
rainmaker1011

Right click could be then used to pop up any additional menu...
That's what I meant for Right-Click. That is, Right-Click - menu pops up and select ON / OFF from there.

rainmaker1011
Do you have a use for track numbers?? I would not mind if they would be completely gone (optionally) in the console view and instead, the track names could be two or three lines long.
I originally removed track numbers but figured someone would say "where's the track numbers???".
Yea, more text would be nice. I guess track numbers are handy when you have several tracks all displaying the same name - Eg "SomeTra" (truncated from "SomeTrack001", "SomeTrack002" etc). You can then use Track view to see what number you actually want to edit in the console.
I guess track numbers also saves you having to count - if you ever wanted to know how many tracks you have :S

guitartrek
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2842
  • Joined: 2006/02/26 12:37:57
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 09:00:27 (permalink)
Rus W


Jose7822


Rus,

You're REALLY not helping us here :-)  Why would I go through all the stuff you're suggesting when I can just go back to SONAR 8.5.3 (which is working fine)?  I already have a good workflow and a good backup and versioning scheme.  What I need is for Cakewalk to fix the current issues with the Console View in SONAR X1.  I like everything else Cakewalk did (at least what I've been able to play with so far), except for the Console View, which is almost a deal breaker for me.  Not sure why they went backwards on this, but I do hope they fix it soon.  Otherwise, I won't trust Cakewalk with my money as easily as I have in the past.  I blindly upgrade SONAR every year because I expect things to be better, NOT worse.  They've always delivered, so I know they'll do the right thing.

In the mean time, back to SONAR 8.5.3.


P.S. Speaking of video games, I despise cheaters/glitchers/lagswitchers/loosers (they're all synonyms).  They make playing video games a drag.

I'm sorry, I thought I was. But yeah, go back to 8.5.3. TBH, I am not as "experienced" because I haven't used anything CW since Music Creator 20003/3/Kinetic 2. (You can heckle me if you like. I don't mind) However, I do understand the complaints and wanting things to a tee. Yet, you can workaround it (I can use 8.5.3) if you don't wanna do what I suggested for X1, but my suggestions would work the same even for 8.5.3. I never said anyone had to do them. I probably won't do things you suggest to make things easier for me  even if there's a dissertation on it, but if I do try them and they works, thanks.


I do agree that XI needs some more tweaking, but I believe if users would help them as well as themselves by working around the problems while pointing them out. This is no different than taking a detour from the usual route traveled to get somewhere as there many many ways to get from point A to point B; even without an obstacle (traffic jam, accident) some like to take the scenic route. It's your choice what you want to do though.


P.S. I take it you just loathe Xbox Live!! I haven't used it, but from what I've heard, it's less than undesirable!!
Rus - I understand your point, and I know you are trying to be helpful. I would guess there would be very few to no users who would want to start writing down settings, even if you only had 10 tracks.  That used to be the way things were done way before DAW's.  Back then there was no automation and Studios that would switch from project to project had no way to save settings except for writing them down.  DAW's make that method obsolete - which is a MAJOR gain in efficiency.
In this case Jose is right - he is also among the most helpful contributors on the forum, not just helping other users, but Cakewalk too.  We don't want Jose to abandon X1 and go back to 8.5.3 - we need people like him on the cutting edge helping Cakewalk make the product better.
 
Cakewalk will fix these console issues - I'm sure of it.  We just have to keep the "heat" on.
Jon Con
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 275
  • Joined: 2006/04/17 06:37:07
  • Location: South Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 09:13:04 (permalink)
rbowser


Jose7822


Randy,

How did you do it?  It's not visible for me either.


Maybe we're not talking about the same thing?  I'm saying that when the strip is either wide or narrow, the EQ is still visible - Here's a screen shot:



RB


RB did you upgrade to Producer or studio? I've tried starting new projects on narrow strips but the pro channel comes up with the EQ, dynamics and saturation logos and no graph.

 The concept of the pro channel is a cool one and when its working I like the sound I'm getting on the bass and the drum bus and being able to blend the 2 levels. However I've found that when you expand the channel, the narrow strip widens and does not revert back when its closed, I'd really like to be able to have a keybinding option to narrow the selected track and close the pro channel completely once I've finished working on it (or have the close button revert to the previous state). I've setup a key binding to narrow all strips in the console however I usually have the master fader widened as the meters are set different to the rest of the project (-24) and have the db scale visible.  Using the ky binding it would minimize this and would then have to manually adjust this single channel (if we could lock channel states, that would help)




Jon Con
scottfa
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 453
  • Joined: 2005/04/23 06:25:47
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 09:15:23 (permalink)
Track numbers are nice when you are in track mode and want to find a track in the Console, I switch back and forth all the time

Intel I7 2600K (OCed to 4.0)
Gigabyte Ga-Z68X-UD3H-B3
16G Corsair 1600  Memory 4 sticks
1 SSD, 1WD 650 SATA and 1 Samsung 1G SATA    
Steinberg MR816X 
Mackie R800 Adat to the Steinberg
Windows 10 64 bit     
Sonar Platinum Lifetime
UAD-2  Solo
rainmaker1011
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 652
  • Joined: 2008/06/06 13:34:53
  • Location: Slovakia, EU
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 09:37:11 (permalink)
I see :) Either way, the layout you have created, "sketched", looks great as it is. I would upgrade in a heartbeat if the console view looked like this in Sonar X1.1.

I think Sonar is not using the advantage of multiple mouse buttons enough. We have left, right, middle button, some mouses have middle wheel with three different buttons in one... There are so many possibilities how to use them. But Sonar relies basically only on left and right clicks. It is a pity I think.

I would like your proposed layout also for full-width channel strips, of course they would be wider.

I hope someone from CW saw this thread and your picture and will implement it in the NEAR future (not in X2). It should not be so hard and complicated to do.

I also noticed you wrote "R 100" for the original "PAN 100%". Well that makes sense :) and it looks tidier and clearer.

Best Regards,  
Marek

------------------------
  DAW: Sonar Platinum 64bit PE//C2D@3,0GHz//6GB 800MHz RAM//LCD 24'' Samsung //Focusrite Scarlett 8i6//Windows 10 Professional 64bit//Toontrack SD 2.4 x64//NI Scarbee Vintage Keys//NI Alicia's Keys//112db Redline Reverb//Voxengo plugins//EWQL Composer Cloud
Skyline_UK
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2133
  • Joined: 2004/04/15 17:55:09
  • Location: Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 09:45:51 (permalink)
n0rd


Is it perfect? - No
I'm just dreaming out aloud - nothing more, nothing less


Love it.  Can I be in your dream? 
Seriously, excellent work.  Let's hope it's an inspiration to CW.  I'm not upgrading to X1 a whilst the farago of new strips continues.  If the new GUI is aimed at making more use of the console view (and there's nothng wrong with that) then that pre-supposes the view has been made more ergonomically useful and attractive, a la your drafts.
 
John


My stuff
 
Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600 @ 3.4GHz, 4 cores, 8 threads, 16GB RAM.
OS & Programs drive: 240GB SSD
Data drives: 1 x 1TB drive RAID mirrored, plus extra 1TB data drive 
Windows 10 Home 64 bit
Cakewalk by BandLab 64 bit, Studio One 3, 
Band In A Box 2016, Ozone 8
+ too many other plugins
BandLab page
Jon Con
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 275
  • Joined: 2006/04/17 06:37:07
  • Location: South Wales
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 10:44:11 (permalink)
love it

Jon Con
ashtangakasha
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 81
  • Joined: 2004/05/17 15:58:00
  • Location: between the ponds
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 10:44:42 (permalink)
Well, X1 does use the middle button to bring up the HUD for tool selection.

HumbleNoise
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2946
  • Joined: 2004/01/04 12:53:50
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 11:05:29 (permalink)
+1

Really like your dream as well.

Mouse wheel in this section scrolls Left/Right - Brilliant!
post edited by HumbleNoise - 2010/12/10 11:09:05

Humbly Yours

Larry

Sonar X2 x64
MAudio 2496
Yamaha MG 12/4
Roland XV-88
Intel MB with Q6600 and 4 GB Ram
NVidia 9800 GTX
Windows 7 x64 Home Premium
rbowser
Max Output Level: -10 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 6518
  • Joined: 2005/07/31 14:32:34
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 11:44:21 (permalink)
Jose and Jon - I didn't mean to cause confusion.  I've been staying with the Studio versions of Sonar for some time now.  So I don't have the Pro Channel, and that's what's causing the difference in my narrow strip view.

Randy B.

Sonar X3e Studio
Roland A-800 MIDI keyboard controller
Alesis i|O2 interface
Gigabyte Technology-AMD Phenom II @ 3 GHz
8 Gb RAM 6 Core Windows 7 Home Premium x64
with dual monitors
n0rd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 237
  • Joined: 2010/11/02 02:18:00
  • Location: Down Under (Australia)
  • Status: offline
Re:X1 Narrow Console - My Dream 2010/12/10 12:31:31 (permalink)
Thought of a use for the blank button (in between automation 'read' and 'write'):

"Toggle track view to wide"
CareyK
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4
  • Joined: 2010/12/08 12:59:38
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 12:31:38 (permalink)
try using PRO CHANNEL......its a small pc on strip
cake2010
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 83
  • Joined: 2010/06/18 11:55:00
  • Status: offline
Re:Console view narrow strips Sonar 8.5.3 vs. X1 2010/12/10 12:37:46 (permalink)
Seeing the narrow strips on X1 I sincerely recommend Cakewalk to hire professional graphics designer. The layout is now amateurish and even average user here can come up with better ideas.

Sorry to say  but some of the decisions are plain stupid (track names?!).  And for instance ´Pan 100% L´ should be just ´L 100%´ and why there have to be on/off button for effects? For narrow strip it could be done with simple color change dark grey/light blue. 
Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 11
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1