Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Dorchester and zoom better?
Hi Gang...
Ok, I installed Dorchester last night and did some quick tests...
Z-drag zoom appears to be working with hidden folders at last... Or it seems so far...
As to zooming Lanes? I think it's better, but still trapped by the lane zoom height limit... I only had a two lane track to test with and though it was more realistic zooming the correct time range, it also appears to fit all lanes instead of the single lane chosen... Why don't the Bakers get it? We don't always need/want to see all the Lanes! Nice for vamping, but when editing clips individually, this is horrible!
Why is this such an issue for them to acknowledge and address?
Keni
|
Lord Tim
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 837
- Joined: 2003/11/10 10:33:43
- Location: Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 13:13:30
(permalink)
Yes, vertical zoom is indeed fixed with hidden folders (hooray!) but there's a slightly annoying bug where after it zooms correctly, a fraction of a second later it zooms in horizontally slightly more, so if you're going for a particular zoom factor to see something, it kind of messes that up. Can someone else confirm this before I fire off a bug report? I don't want it to be some kind of left over key binding of mine that's skewing the results. EDIT: Yeah, I see what you mean about the take lanes thing, Keni. Kind of annoying.
post edited by Lord Tim - 2015/05/01 13:19:33
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 13:35:59
(permalink)
Lord Tim
Yes, vertical zoom is indeed fixed with hidden folders (hooray!) but there's a slightly annoying bug where after it zooms correctly, a fraction of a second later it zooms in horizontally slightly more, so if you're going for a particular zoom factor to see something, it kind of messes that up.
Can someone else confirm this before I fire off a bug report? I don't want it to be some kind of left over key binding of mine that's skewing the results.
EDIT: Yeah, I see what you mean about the take lanes thing, Keni. Kind of annoying.
Hi Tim... I didn't notice such action but honestly I was quickly in and out with limited time last night... I'll look again today/tonight... Lanes have been a nasty issue for me since their implementation... Yes I know of the benefits they have brought but the fundamental needs for me are poor! Keni
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 13:46:15
(permalink)
I would desparately like some better options in regards to lane management. This means height control (of individual lanes... not all or nothing which has been the case since their inception), full minimization (instead on min lane height which is silly), an "Auto Lane Zoom" feature similar to the one for tracks (which I never use because... well it's annoying but would be AWESOME for Lanes... especially if it obeyed linked clips)... and most importantly... I want to be able to HIDE lanes!!!!
I do a massive amount of takes and I absolutely LOVE lanes but they could be soooooo much better with some of that type of uber control.
Anyhoo... I've brought this stuff up before but it's all worth mentioning again. Really though I just saw you post Keni and I wanted to thank you for your effeorts in my thread the other day. I've been meaning to reply but things have been batnuts around here. I'll update it soon. I've got some cool workarounds for the noise reduct stuff you may find interesting.
Cheers... and yeah, let's toss Lanes back in the oven for a bit hopefully sometime this year.
|
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5562
- Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
- Location: Baton Rouge Area
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 15:05:31
(permalink)
Keni, maybe this has been suggested before, but if Take Lanes are such a problem/bother, then don't use them. Record your takes to different tracks instead of lanes.
I just did a test and I got four trks recorded in loop recording and they were all on separate tracks.
Just trying to offer some help here.
I love take lanes and the speed comping. Track hight when you have a lot of takes does get, how would I say this, "less than desirable." But other than that I love em!
However, I do very little actual editing of take lanes. If I am using them (take lanes), I comp them, collapse them, freeze them, and that's it. If I need to edit that version, I just copy and paste the frozen track to a new track and do what I want. And after I do that I have even gone back and created a new version of the comp and see which I like better.
I just don't see us being saddled with Take Lanes if we don't want to use them.
Grem
Michael Music PC i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, Home PCAMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 Surface Pro 3Win 10 i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 17:47:17
(permalink)
Thanks Guys...
Beepster... Always glad to help if I can...
The way I edit, I need the clips on separate anythings so that I can design any needed crossfades and the likes. I also frequently need to do micro-editing to maintain clean fluidity when comping... Personally I don't like having the extra area where the track is to display what I select in the lanes... That's what closing the layers/lanes is for. It totally throws off my eye for identifying things with an extra useless display to confuse things. That was a feature of Layers that I preferred... Within the track instead of below...
With my own comping style, I still work as I did before comping was given to us except the occasions when I have to comp a drum track where it is very handy...
The minimum/maximum zooms for lanes reminds me of living in the suburbs... Never enough city or country... ;-) middle ground doesn't work for me as I need the two extremes more! I need more lanes on screen at one time or a single lane... The current limits completely miss both of these options... Usually when working I don't have the need to spend lots of time writing notes for each take/lane though occassionally it's handy. So I'd prefer they coukd get smaller as well as bigger...
But at least the zoom now works a little... I'm still wasting too much time fighting with zoom adjustments in between actual edits... It's very disconcerting...
Grem... Thanks for the suggestion, I've tried working with all separate tracks instead, but the duplicity of plugin's and the cpu load that added are unwieldy...
If the Bakers would simply address these issues, I could live with Lanes more comfortably... Right now the are a necessary evil for me... Better than when first implemented, but still a bad sore spot...
I'm about to post another related thread with Lanes and my other nemesis, the event filter...
Keni
|
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5562
- Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
- Location: Baton Rouge Area
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 18:10:56
(permalink)
When you started explaining about how you edit, I remembered and had a "Oh Yeah" moment! I think we have had this discussion before, at least once, maybe several times now!! LOL!!
Grem
Michael Music PC i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, Home PCAMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 Surface Pro 3Win 10 i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/01 20:07:55
(permalink)
Yeah... I would expect so as these have been major issues for me since Lanes we're introduced...
These issue are far more constant to my work than are all the benefits of Lanes over Layers...
We had Layers for so long and even with their shortcomings, improved my workflow tremendously. Losing so much of that for features not of much importance to me really put a crimp on things for me... I currently do spend far too much time fidgeting with and constantly readjusting zooms between edits...
Lanes and the event filter have slowed me down far too much... And along with the slower work, I often lose track of what I'm doing in the process of adjusting views... <sigh>
Well.. At least track zoom is back to working... That's a big step in the right direction. ...and though I'm still having too many issues with Lanes, they have improved little by little. I hope I live long enough to see them emerge as a fully comfortable scenario (for me)... ;-)
At least the Control Bar is now holding its settings... Along with the new Control Bar features I'm feeling a lot better!
Thanks for being helpful!
Keni
|
icontakt
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4266
- Joined: 2012/03/04 08:18:02
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/02 02:13:52
(permalink)
I've just checked zoom tool's improved behavior in Dorchester and actually think the issue is fixed (as far as what the tool is supposed to do, which is zooming correctly, is concerned). Dragging on just non-current tracks still zooms incorrectly when Auto Track Zoom is enabled, but the user just needs to make the desired track a current track before dragging. As for Take lanes not zooming fully (to fit the entire Clips pane), it's just because of the lane's max height limitation. I'm sure the Bakers are thinking of improving and fixing Take lanes heavily at some point in the near future. The top 2 issues for me regarding Take lanes are 1) they can't be as slim as tracks, and 2) there's no way to make muted clips disappear from the parent track when the lanes are collapsed. I've been asking for these to be addresed ever since the feature was implemented, but nothing's happened to them so far. So, I think we should really appreciate this zoom tool fix in Dorchester. Btw, I posted a FR to hide all muted lanes (when the lanes are expanded), but only 1 user voted, so I think not many are unhappy with the current Take lane implementation. http://forum.cakewalk.com/Ability-to-solo-multiple-Take-lanes-in-the-track-and-hide-all-muted-lanes-at-once-m3200146.aspx#3200146
Tak T. Primary Laptop: Core i7-4710MQ CPU, 16GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Secondary Laptop: Core2 Duo CPU, 8GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Professional OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Audio Interface: iD14 (ASIO)Keyboard Controller/MIDI Interface: A-800PRODAW: SONAR Platinum x64 (latest update installed)
|
sycle1
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 122
- Joined: 2003/11/05 21:03:14
- Location: Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/02 05:03:26
(permalink)
Yeah I am with you Keni, Layers were an improvement, however I hate take lanes! they are a time consuming pain.
And they seem to happen without my even knowing sometimes, causing all sorts of headaches.
If I want an extra track I will create one, its that simple, it always has been.
Why complicate it???
Cheers sycle1 There is no cure for stupidity, I should know!!!
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/02 10:12:56
(permalink)
icontakt
I've just checked zoom tool's improved behavior in Dorchester and actually think the issue is fixed (as far as what the tool is supposed to do, which is zooming correctly, is concerned). Dragging on just non-current tracks still zooms incorrectly when Auto Track Zoom is enabled, but the user just needs to make the desired track a current track before dragging. As for Take lanes not zooming fully (to fit the entire Clips pane), it's just because of the lane's max height limitation. I'm sure the Bakers are thinking of improving and fixing Take lanes heavily at some point in the near future. The top 2 issues for me regarding Take lanes are 1) they can't be as slim as tracks, and 2) there's no way to make muted clips disappear from the parent track when the lanes are collapsed. I've been asking for these to be addresed ever since the feature was implemented, but nothing's happened to them so far. So, I think we should really appreciate this zoom tool fix in Dorchester.
Btw, I posted a FR to hide all muted lanes (when the lanes are expanded), but only 1 user voted, so I think not many are unhappy with the current Take lane implementation.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Ability-to-solo-multiple-Take-lanes-in-the-track-and-hide-all-muted-lanes-at-once-m3200146.aspx#3200146
That vote would be mine... I encourage others to vote though, because it's a great thread for Lane enhancements.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/02 12:15:47
(permalink)
Interesting...
I would love to support the feature request, but honestly I almost never use the lane mute. I tend to use clip mutes once I'm working at that level...
Keni
|
icontakt
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4266
- Joined: 2012/03/04 08:18:02
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/19 22:23:49
(permalink)
I just Z-dragged these 2 takes (3 lanes) for a larger view and...  Look!! The lanes are now slimmer than the minimized tracks!! My dream has finally come true!!!  
Tak T. Primary Laptop: Core i7-4710MQ CPU, 16GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Secondary Laptop: Core2 Duo CPU, 8GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Professional OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Audio Interface: iD14 (ASIO)Keyboard Controller/MIDI Interface: A-800PRODAW: SONAR Platinum x64 (latest update installed)
|
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5562
- Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
- Location: Baton Rouge Area
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/19 23:45:58
(permalink)
Not what you wanted is it? Well yes it is but not that way!!
Grem
Michael Music PC i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, Home PCAMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 Surface Pro 3Win 10 i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
|
icontakt
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4266
- Joined: 2012/03/04 08:18:02
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 00:01:48
(permalink)
Grem
Not what you wanted is it? Well yes it is but not that way!!
True. But I really don't want this bug fixed. I LOVE these very thin lanes. Although you can't move the clips with the Smart Tool (you have to switch to the Move tool, which is easy), you can audition many takes that are in non-adjacent lanes without having to largely scroll the view up/down or change the lane order. This really made me realize how much the default double-row minimized lanes have been slowing down my workflow. I'm going to use this technique every time I need to deal with tens of lanes. Great.
Tak T. Primary Laptop: Core i7-4710MQ CPU, 16GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Secondary Laptop: Core2 Duo CPU, 8GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Professional OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Audio Interface: iD14 (ASIO)Keyboard Controller/MIDI Interface: A-800PRODAW: SONAR Platinum x64 (latest update installed)
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 01:50:08
(permalink)
That would be a step in the right direction... One of the two size limitations that desperately need to be changed.
I haven't seen this here though... I wish it would bug out here too! Maybe in the large zoom too... So a single lane cold have the full screen width! <sigh>
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 11:19:00
(permalink)
HA! That's freaking hilarious. I'll have to try it. Probably begging for a crash but maybe it's an Easter Egg. lol
Exact recipe? It could be a "Problem" report AND feature request all in one.
lulzity1eleven
|
icontakt
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4266
- Joined: 2012/03/04 08:18:02
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 11:56:19
(permalink)
Basically, you just need to add extra lanes depending on how thin you want the lanes to be. On my laptop screen, I can only see 13 lanes at a time by default (with the MultiDock collapsed and the Control Bar not collapsed). Here's how the lanes look when I have a total of 24 lanes and hold down the Z key and drag one (or more) of the lanes horizontally.  Here's how they look when I have 50 lanes in total and do the zoom. 
Tak T. Primary Laptop: Core i7-4710MQ CPU, 16GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Secondary Laptop: Core2 Duo CPU, 8GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Professional OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Audio Interface: iD14 (ASIO)Keyboard Controller/MIDI Interface: A-800PRODAW: SONAR Platinum x64 (latest update installed)
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 12:30:48
(permalink)
Very interesting...
Maybe it is an Easter egg? A halfway measure? I'm not as interested in having them thin as I am fitting them on screen... Meaning I have no real desire for them to be thin until I need them to be thin... This might help, but it still won't alliw such while the full song is displayed?
I'll try this later today when I have electricity... Here's hoping it's a first step towards cleaning up this issue and maybe this month's update will move it farther towards completion?
Thanks again for noting and posting this...
|
Doktor Avalanche 
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4294
- Joined: 2015/03/26 18:02:02
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 12:33:47
(permalink)
Check the ezine PDF for bug fixes. If the issue is apparently fixed it might need logging again as a regression bug.
|
icontakt
Max Output Level: -32.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4266
- Joined: 2012/03/04 08:18:02
- Location: Tokyo
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 12:52:38
(permalink)
Keni
I'm not as interested in having them thin as I am fitting them on screen... Meaning I have no real desire for them to be thin until I need them to be thin...
Well, that's probably because you or the people you hire perform very well and you don't need tens of lanes. When I have my friend sing or when I have to sing myself, I end up creating tens of lanes (due to both the poor singing performance and the Comping recording mode's inability to use existing lanes). When I have 40-50 lanes, it's such a pain to audition takes with mouse scrolls or rearrange the lane order. Both were so easy to do with these thin lanes! For me, this bug is the best thing that happened since the introduction of the feature in X2 (maybe it has always worked this way and I just didn't try it in a track that has tens of lanes). 
Tak T. Primary Laptop: Core i7-4710MQ CPU, 16GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Home Premium OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Secondary Laptop: Core2 Duo CPU, 8GB RAM, 7200RPM HDD, Windows 7 Professional OS (Japanese) x64 SP1Audio Interface: iD14 (ASIO)Keyboard Controller/MIDI Interface: A-800PRODAW: SONAR Platinum x64 (latest update installed)
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: Dorchester and zoom better?
2015/05/20 13:19:33
(permalink)
Reminds me of how layers used to get smaller and smaller as you added them which I actually hated because they wouldn't go off screen. They would just get infinitely smaller making them unuseable after a certain point.
With this though, if the mini lanes can be scrolled afterward, then it could be useful and just a matter of adding just enough to get the res you want.
SInce it's a "bug" though I doubt it's that easy. It really does seem like old layers code getting activated somehow based on those larger pics. Meh. Breaking stuff in interesting ways is cool in itself.
|