Always interesting to see different working methods.

Steve, do you understand the way the rebuild function worked? Whenever I used it it always seemed to jumble the layers into some sort of order usually not how I wanted it. I could never see a logic. If I could that may have helped - I think it might have been clip length based?

I got so I daren't use it. I'd love to see a user configurable rebuild function though. One that would sort them into order perhaps using a 'flagging' method where a user could flag a clip or layer's priority. Or based on recording order perhaps.

I can see how the rebuild function would work well for you in the method you've described but for me where I had full length takes it always just jumbled them up. When you need as many takes as I do that's a real pain.

While I appreciate your comments FBB, as someone who has made extensive use of layers and now lanes, I have to respectfully disagree with a few points:
 

• They have gained
  
  
  1. Improved Solo mute buttons  My workflow was much better when I could swipe over all (or any combination of) mute or solo buttons in layers and engage/disengage with one button press.  The one button press solo lane is nice, but it is limiting compared to the way layers behaved. Layers also allowed me to solo more than one track.  This functionality made it convenient to designate one layer as the "master comp" layer and listen to the comped sections while auditioning other layers with another solo button engaged.  Another advantage with multiple solos (or multiple mutes) was the ability to compare takes for sake of creating a second comp.  You could get a second "background vocal" take to use for some nice phase/chorus effects by comparing other takes that were similar in timing.  With lanes, I have to move the audio data to a new track (which becomes a workflow issue if there isn't much screen real estate left due to the fact that lanes don't rebuild).
  2. Ability to display different data types in each take ie. clips in one transients in another or inline PRV and clips If "Take Lanes" by definition is for capturing takes and comping, then displaying different data types using edit filters is not necessary.  Edit filters can be used on the final comped track.  Why would anyone need to display prv and clips in a take lane?  As a frequent user of layers/lanes, I've never once needed this feature.  Has anyone else?
  3. Ability to drag re-order This was easily done with layers by "Shift+dragging".  No advantage for lanes here.
  4. Ability to rename a take It was easy to rename the clip in the layer by going into the clip properties. Not a big advantage for lanes here either.
  5. Ability to include notes about a take. This is nice, but I had no problem using the track description space in X1 and previos to keep all my notes in one place.
  6. Ability to record into a chosen lane This is a taste factor.  I can see how someone might like this, but I preferred simply pressing record and rebuilding the layers.  It saved screen real estate, and by not "knowing" where the new take was, it required me to "listen" for the best take and not assume the new one was best.

FastBikerBoy


Always interesting to see different working methods.

Steve, do you understand the way the rebuild function worked? Whenever I used it it always seemed to jumble the layers into some sort of order usually not how I wanted it. I could never see a logic. If I could that may have helped - I think it might have been clip length based?

I got so I daren't use it. I'd love to see a user configurable rebuild function though. One that would sort them into order perhaps using a 'flagging' method where a user could flag a clip or layer's priority. Or based on recording order perhaps.

I can see how the rebuild function would work well for you in the method you've described but for me where I had full length takes it always just jumbled them up. When you need as many takes as I do that's a real pain.

One thing to note about the ordering when rebuilding was that the top layer would not move when rebuilt.  Knowing this, you could take advantage of it.  I sometimes used the top layer as my "master comp" layer, so any parts I wanted to keep always stayed where I expected them to be.

Ah yes, the mute/solo buttons in layers were very small.    Actually, with all the info you get just in Track View, everything is a bit "small".  I "upgraded" to a 37 in. LCD TV screen and now everything is fantastic! Lol

hth

:D

My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

kevo


My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

I'm optimistic.  I beleive the reason they stopped fixing Layers was they realized they built it wrong in the first place.  (why else would they have dropped it after only one version?)  Basically their "fix" to Layers was to rewrite it - and rename it to Lanes.  I think they've got a good platform now and I expect to see fixes and enhancements for years to come. 

SteveStrummerUK

FastBikerBoy


Always interesting to see different working methods.

Steve, do you understand the way the rebuild function worked? Whenever I used it it always seemed to jumble the layers into some sort of order usually not how I wanted it. I could never see a logic. If I could that may have helped - I think it might have been clip length based?

I got so I daren't use it. I'd love to see a user configurable rebuild function though. One that would sort them into order perhaps using a 'flagging' method where a user could flag a clip or layer's priority. Or based on recording order perhaps.

I can see how the rebuild function would work well for you in the method you've described but for me where I had full length takes it always just jumbled them up. When you need as many takes as I do that's a real pain.

 
Karl, I understand what you're saying, but all I want to be left with are the clips that are going into the final mixdown.
 
I'll generally make a copy of the project that's completely unedited and uncomped in case I do make a rick somewhere and delete off the wrong bit. But I like to have each track at mixdown in the 'live' version of a project only containing the audio I want - and as far as keeping the project tidy but still editable, that means the only step I don't perform is to bounce each track to one clip.
 
Using X1 Rebuild in my method, and even with overlapping clips, I am generally left with a maximum of just two Layers per track.
 
To do this in Lanes, I would need to do a lot of dragging - in fact, my workflow (apart from the initial set up) would probably be much quicker if I used completely separate tracks and bounced them all together at the end of the process.
 
 

At the risk of using the old "+1" response I feel that it just about sums up my feelings.
So..


+1

And to add...

I think the best of both worlds is to be able to see the layers on the track the way we used to, just as we can do with envelopes being on the same track.

Lanes have allowed us to see envelopes on separated out (which I welcome and prefer), but we still have the original way (which has its uses but I rarely use now)

Lanes should allow us to see the audio layers in a similar way as an alternative, rather than the only way.  I know some might not care too much, but imagine how you'd feel if you happen to prefer editing envelopes on a single track and were now forced to use automation lanes.  Fortunately you have a choice there.  I think we should have the same choice for audio clips -- it doesn't change the existing paradigm to do so.

kevo


My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

(applause)
 
That's it in a nutshell.
 
If take lanes work as they should they offer a much more clean approach, I use them currently in another app and they just make more sense than layers ever did.
 
I got to the point with layers in Sonar as Karl said that I couldn't depend on them and actually did what Steve is talking about and that is just using seperate tracks to manage takes.
I'm hoping at some point with X2 that I can return to using Sonar for the tracking phase but frankly I'm still finding it an easier, quicker and more bullet-proof task done elsewhere.

FastBikerBoy

mike_mccue


Anyone notice a trend?

It seems like the folks who state that they were confused by Layers seem to prefer having less versatility and functionality in Take Lanes.






It all makes sense.

Personally, I wasn't confused by layers (apart from the rebuild function). You'll find several videos on my YouTube page explaining how to use and comp with them but I do prefer take lanes.

I'm intrigued by this "less versatility and functionality" though, unless I'm missing something they have lost...........

1. Ability to fully resize/shrink them
2. The rebuild function
3. Er...... you'll have to help me out here......

They have gained

1. Improved Solo mute buttons
2. Ability to display different data types in each take ie. clips in one transients in another or inline PRV and clips
3. Ability to drag re-order
4. Ability to rename a take
5. Ability to include notes about a take.
6. Ability to record into a chosen lane

While I completely agree that there is room for improvement in exactly the same way there was room for improvement with layers I don't see the loss of function or versatility. They've gained more than they've lost. 

Perhaps I could refer you to one of the X2 tuition videos to help you get up to speed with the workflow changes?

Hi Karl...

Tho I agree with much of what you've said in this thread, there are always items that can be seen many ways...

I for one don't actually understand what there is to be confused about with either paradigm.... But for me it's all about efficient workflow. Yes, layers had a few problems, but they were far less imposing in my work. I would easily trade feature sets....

As to your pro/con listing.... A rose by any other name...

Some items you credit to Lanes were with us in Layers as well... I could re-order the layers... Yes with a few more clicks/keystrokes, but I need that far less than my constant demand for proper screen real estate use...

Buttons aren't improved... They're simply larger which forced another problem. To keep them visible, the track height could not be as small... Bad trade for me. I use clip mutes most of the time and hardly ever use/need the layer/lane buttons...

These are all matters of screen use and the loss of zoom abilities (far too limited a range of small/large in 2 dimensions) is far more of an issue....

As to some of the new toolset for lanes? I can see some reason(s) for recording directly to a specific lane, this doesn't really do much for me as it was simple enuf to move the clips. But now I can't see the clips I wish to edit as well as I could before... Again the zoom issues...

And the "wasted space" of the track while lanes are displayed? Sure I can think of a reason... So that the envelopes can be seen at the same time? But again I was better off with the envelopes drawn over the entire track including it's layers.... That worked fine for me as it allowed me to see a maximum in a minimum amount of space...

Naming? Yes, handy but not important enuf a trade... Notepad? Again. A nice extra tool, but not worth the workflow loss...

Displaying data types? I wouldn't need this if they'd get rid of the edit filter! ;-)

So... again I find myself in the position of "why can't we have both?" This has always been my stance. Come up with something new and add it don't replace something that others already like. Bloated software? Not really in a few ways.... As computer speeds, memory and storage have become abundant and inexpensive, do I really care if the software is a big file? ...and then it doesn't really have to be as features culd be built so that they are modular and a user could add/remove features by their personal needs/desire....

I'm keeping the faith that the Bakers will come up with fixes for many of these issues.... I hope soon. I feel badly because previous work already told me I wouldn't like lanes and it's been proven so very quickly.... I was hoping I was wrong....

If they sold the ProChannel modules as separate VST plugins, I would very likely go back to 8.5.3..............

Keni