I agree with Keni.  I have frequently made mistakes by confusing lanes with tracks. On complex projects it is far to easy to make a mistake.  I'd like to see a method, or methods, to better distinguish lanes from tracks.  Both hiding the view of the promoted track and different colors are good ideas. Perhaps we could have both.

Keni
In the days before lanes, we had layers to handle the same situation. The layers could be displayed much smaller and larger than lanes allow... And specific to this thread, there was no "promoted" clip image in the track lane as that was where the layers themselves were displayed. A far more economical usage of the screen space for me. I find no value in duplicating the selected image into the "wasted" space. More I find it creates extra difficulties for me.

Well as I've said before, I feel that what I've given up with layers is compensated for by what's gained with lanes. I was reminded of this last night when applying "speed comping" to vocals. It was just so smooth and simple. But part of the reason for that is the way clip isolation occurs, which although it was more flexible pre-X3, was also more complicated. However, the composite track brings back the flexibility by allowing for easy crossfades for conventional edits. So the composite track isn't just about visuals, it's a different functionality. That's why I use the Expand/Collapse command so much...expand to comp, collapse to crossfade, move, etc.
 
Not saying you're wrong not to like the way it works, but I comp more than I layer, so of course I'd like a feature that prioritizes comping over layering. I generally used separate tracks and a folder for layers anyway, so that's what I still do.

Anderton

Keni
In the days before lanes, we had layers to handle the same situation. The layers could be displayed much smaller and larger than lanes allow... And specific to this thread, there was no "promoted" clip image in the track lane as that was where the layers themselves were displayed. A far more economical usage of the screen space for me. I find no value in duplicating the selected image into the "wasted" space. More I find it creates extra difficulties for me.

Well as I've said before, I feel that what I've given up with layers is compensated for by what's gained with lanes. I was reminded of this last night when applying "speed comping" to vocals. It was just so smooth and simple. But part of the reason for that is the way clip isolation occurs, which although it was more flexible pre-X3, was also more complicated. However, the composite track brings back the flexibility by allowing for easy crossfades for conventional edits. So the composite track isn't just about visuals, it's a different functionality. That's why I use the Expand/Collapse command so much...expand to comp, collapse to crossfade, move, etc.
 
Not saying you're wrong not to like the way it works, but I comp more than I layer, so of course I'd like a feature that prioritizes comping over layering. I generally used separate tracks and a folder for layers anyway, so that's what I still do.

I totally understand. I too enjoy some (not all) of the speed comping tools. As I mentioned there are too many good points to the new system for me to be willing to go per-x...

But let's face it, visuals are a big part of the way we work in computer land... And with a few adjustments, I could quickly forget this issue and move on. But currently these issues are a constant discomfort.

If I was mainly doing live band recording I believe this would not be quite as difficult, but when using Sonar for writing/composition I find it annoying...

I wish I knew why the Bakers seem so reluctant to removing the lane zoom limitations. I'm sure they must have good reasons, but...

As to the promoted images? I don't use auto crossfades so I do my crossfades in the lanes... But even if I did use them, I don't need the promoted image whike editing clips/lanes. I feel as though they simply added this to use the "wasted" space that lanes incurred. I know they have found good use as such, but still at the cost of these other issues which are far more common to my needs.

There are typically work a rounds, but they all cost workflow time and the frequent redundancy of re-sizing, hiding, re-imaging, and re-doing my work.

With layers, zoom did zoom and one track cost one track of screen real estate...

Not a good tradeoff for me. I rarely use the lane notes space nor the solo/mute for lanes and prefer clip based muting...

Do you really find seeing the promoted images in the track space helpful while editing clips? For me it is extremely misleading and disorienting...

Here's a weird one for you, Keni that you probably already know about/may not be useful/is kind of annoying... BUT using the Auto Track Zoom feature enable if you resize the in focus track to be as small as it can be and all the other tracks to a larger height (which will all adjust in height simultaneously due to the Auto Track Zoom) then as soon as you click on a track it will minimize it but NOT the lanes. So if you have the lanes open on the track you are working on you could avoid the constant resizing of the parent track just by using this Auto Track Zoom technique.
 
Not sure if that makes sense. I've actually mucked with that idea a bit for similar reasons but abandoned it because I simply dislike ATZ in general... but it might be an option for certain situations until something better comes along.
 
Cheers.

It would be nice if takelanes were a different colour or made to look different.

I'd also like to see different methods of getting them into view (perhaps an optional setting in preferences) away from expand and collapse method. How about a flyout window much like with quadcurve? Or perhaps if you expand them they go into a seperate tab in the multidock? (Or a splitscreen tab that can be expanded).

Ultimately I'd like to see everything to behave and look more like the Melodyne UI but that's another thing...

Beepster
Here's a weird one for you, Keni that you probably already know about/may not be useful/is kind of annoying... BUT using the Auto Track Zoom feature enable if you resize the in focus track to be as small as it can be and all the other tracks to a larger height (which will all adjust in height simultaneously due to the Auto Track Zoom) then as soon as you click on a track it will minimize it but NOT the lanes. So if you have the lanes open on the track you are working on you could avoid the constant resizing of the parent track just by using this Auto Track Zoom technique.
 
Not sure if that makes sense. I've actually mucked with that idea a bit for similar reasons but abandoned it because I simply dislike ATZ in general... but it might be an option for certain situations until something better comes along.
 
Cheers.

Thanks Beepster...

Sure it makes sense... I'll keep it in mind. Currently I have ATZ disabled in all my templates and rarely even remember that it exists...

I find my work and needs far too unpredictable for current tech to have any idea of my moment's need... ;-)

N

Doktor Avalanche
It would be nice if takelanes were a different colour or made to look different.

I'd also like to see different methods of getting them into view (perhaps an optional setting in preferences) away from expand and collapse method. How about a flyout window much like with quadcurve? Or perhaps if you expand them they go into a seperate tab in the multidock? (Or a splitscreen tab that can be expanded).

Ultimately I'd like to see everything to behave and look more like the Melodyne UI but that's another thing...

Hi Dok...

I don't think color differences will help me that much though it would be a little better...

What I'd really like to see is a user setting to place lanes within the track instead of below it... And of course remove the min/max lane zoom limitations... This with displaying the promoted clips when lanes are not visible.

That would be the best scenario for me...

Not just colour Keni, make them look different.

I like the idea of hiding takelanes by default for me. And getting them away fron trackview into multidock would be great as an option, or a flyout even.

I can't see how you would place takelanes "within" the track? Surely they would be either above or below. How would you comp easily?

Btw I still don't use takelanes but I would like to one day. They are a great concept but Cakewalk really need to improve on them big time. Until they turn their attention to making the UI excellent and have all the bugs fixed, I will stick with track templates.

Doktor Avalanche
Not just colour Keni, make them look different.

I like the idea of hiding takelanes by default for me. And getting them away fron trackview into multidock would be great as an option, or a flyout even.

I can't see how you would place takelanes "within" the track? Surely they would be either above or below. How would you comp easily?

Thanks Dok...

But there would still be duplicated images which will keep me confused. I'm often working very fast...

Fitting lanes into the track? Do you remember layers? It would just be layers with the controls shifted into the divider... I was fine with the mini solo/mute that layers had. I don't need the text area at all so 4 buttons stacked twoXtwo is all that I personally would need (solo/mute/new lane/delete lane)