No phase/interleave buttons on instrument tracks....WHY?

Has this been resolved in X3?

You don't see a interleave button in the CV/TI?   I could have sworn I've changed SITs from stereo to mono before.   I've never needed to change phase, however...

Those controls are rather advanced and would be used very rarely if at all. Putting them on a Simple Instrument track would defeat the purpose of a Simple Instrument track. Simple is the key word here. If you really need the control offered by separate audio and MIDI tracks use them instead. However if a change is needed by the user using those controls just uncombined the Simple Instrument track and one can have all the controls one could need.  Once accomplished you have the option of recombining them. 
 
 
 
 

John
Those controls are rather advanced and would be used very rarely if at all. Putting them on a Simple Instrument track would defeat the purpose of a Simple Instrument track. 
 

Agreed 100%. If SI tracks are too limiting, don't use them. I don't, ever.
 
But I'm still trying to figure out the logic of removing those controls from audio tracks, where they're actually pretty important. 
 

John
Those controls are rather advanced and would be used very rarely if at all. Putting them on a Simple Instrument track would defeat the purpose of a Simple Instrument track. Simple is the key word here. If you really need the control offered by separate audio and MIDI tracks use them instead. However if a change is needed by the user using those controls just uncombined the Simple Instrument track and one can have all the controls one could need.  Once accomplished you have the option of recombining them.     

A mono/stereo switch is "advanced"?

You see it as a problem and I don't with using MIDI and audio tracks. Heck the MIDI will be hidden and muted when all the audio is complete.  Really all I work with for mixing is audio. The MIDI has long been muted and hidden. 
 
Like Dave I don't use simple instrument tracks. I don't have anything against them just I prefer multi out synths like Kontakt.  Though even if I'm using a single out synth I still wouldn't use an SI. 

I think it pretty much depends on your working style, and a DAW should cover every way of working. For instance, using split tracks is not a problem if you're the kind of person who gets their MIDI down and then goes onto mixing without touching it again (you can just hide the MIDI track once you're done). But let's say your working style is different. Your music creation process constantly switches between composing, performing, arranging and mixing. Some people like to get rough mixes happening as they're composing, because what they write is very much influenced by the sound of the track as it progresses. You might experiment with different synth sounds & reverbs (atmosphere). Arranging can quite easily involve elements of mixing. Should a pad be stereo or mono? If I make it mono and pan it to the left, I've made room for another part I had in mind on the right. Or just keep it stereo and stick to a simpler arrangement. 
 
All I'm saying is that not everyone composes, tracks and then mixes in that strict order. There's a lot of to and fro, and the stereo/mono button might get used a lot in the process. Instrument tracks keep everything tidy and they're an excellent idea. I just don't see why they should be "crippled" in any way, because there is clearly enough room in the inspector to provide us with the full controls. They're separated into different tabs, while preserving screen estate in the console and track view. I work quite haphazardly and having 2 tracks per part doesn't help at all. 

I keep waiting for a user-definable track header, like the main toolbar. I'd like to be able to hide some of the parameters I rarely use, but have the option of displaying those that are important to me (the track interleave switch being topmost on that list).
 
This should have been the approach going into X1, IMO. It's very dangerous to change UI elements based on assumptions about what constitutes "normal" usage (how I wish Microsoft realized this!). Whenever I implement such changes in my own software, I try to offer users the option of retaining the previous behavior if they want.
 

It's always been there although I believe there was a bug in X1 that could stop it working or perhaps it never worked, I can't remember but it def worked in X2, and 8.5 and earlier.

Funkybot

bitflipper

John
Those controls are rather advanced and would be used very rarely if at all. Putting them on a Simple Instrument track would defeat the purpose of a Simple Instrument track. 
 

Agreed 100%. If SI tracks are too limiting, don't use them. I don't, ever.
 
But I'm still trying to figure out the logic of removing those controls from audio tracks, where they're actually pretty important. 
 

The problem with non-simple instrument tracks is they eat up two console channels and two track view channels. Sure, you can hide them, but then you loose access to some of the features. The solution to this is "Advanced Instrument Tracks" or something of the like that allow for all the audio features/options of an audio track, and have all the MIDI features of a MIDI track (including supporting MIDI plugins, arps, etc.). There are other DAWs that already do a good job at this type of thing. 

Another solution is to make use of your screensets.
 
I have all of my Midi tracks in their own screenset which makes it a breeze to switch to & from showing the midi.
 
Also, your idea if an Advanced Instrument Track is great in theory, but just think about how much screen real estate would be needed for so many controls? You'd be back in split midi/audio land before you knew it.
 
In my humble opinion.

bitflipper
I keep waiting for a user-definable track header, like the main toolbar. I'd like to be able to hide some of the parameters I rarely use, but have the option of displaying those that are important to me (the track interleave switch being topmost on that list). This should have been the approach going into X1, IMO. It's very dangerous to change UI elements based on assumptions about what constitutes "normal" usage (how I wish Microsoft realized this!). Whenever I implement such changes in my own software, I try to offer users the option of retaining the previous behavior if they want. 

Hi bit flipper...

You can create your own set of widgets... Where the option to select All/mix/I/o etc... There is one called custom and there is a screen that let's you see and adjust which widgets you want on which tab... I believe this has been there since long before the X release.... I'm not remembering how to get to that page but I'm sure someone here can chime in with that info...

Sorry...

As to the thread? I never use simple instrument tracks and wouldn't want to even if it contained all widgets... I prefer to think of my MIDI as a track feeding a gadget that has outputs which are separate tracks just as they would be when feeding external gear... It makes sense to me that they are separate...

BTW...I only use the ALL tab myself as I prefer to always have everything visible and available...

Keni

FastBikerBoy
It's always been there although I believe there was a bug in X1 that could stop it working or perhaps it never worked, I can't remember but it def worked in X2, and 8.5 and earlier.

Ha! Knowing that would have saved me some things... ;-)

I mistakenly thought someone would make a loud noise thanking the Bakers for fixing this...

I us the alt-drag to move my widget order but didn't think to try that on moving tracks! ;-)

Thanks Big Time!

Keni

Keni

bitflipper
I keep waiting for a user-definable track header, like the main toolbar. I'd like to be able to hide some of the parameters I rarely use, but have the option of displaying those that are important to me (the track interleave switch being topmost on that list). This should have been the approach going into X1, IMO. It's very dangerous to change UI elements based on assumptions about what constitutes "normal" usage (how I wish Microsoft realized this!). Whenever I implement such changes in my own software, I try to offer users the option of retaining the previous behavior if they want. 

Hi bit flipper...

You can create your own set of widgets... Where the option to select All/mix/I/o etc... There is one called custom and there is a screen that let's you see and adjust which widgets you want on which tab... I believe this has been there since long before the X release.... I'm not remembering how to get to that page but I'm sure someone here can chime in with that info...

Sorry...

As to the thread? I never use simple instrument tracks and wouldn't want to even if it contained all widgets... I prefer to think of my MIDI as a track feeding a gadget that has outputs which are separate tracks just as they would be when feeding external gear... It makes sense to me that they are separate...

BTW...I only use the ALL tab myself as I prefer to always have everything visible and available...

Keni

Aside from the obvious reservations about Sonar's inbuilt limitations and oddities with instrument tracks, I've never been able to understand what people have against the concept of instrument tracks in the case of a single synth output. They just seem so logical to me.

Just like a mixing desk, you have one track per instrument. Only because this is software, we have the added convenience of being able to incorporate MIDI into the track. To me, having separate tracks for the audio and MIDI just seems like a waste of space in the clips pane. The audio track is empty - no clips, no waveforms. What is the point of it? It makes perfect sense to use that empty space to show the MIDI notes that are driving the synth.

If you've got one MIDI track driving an instrument which is being routed to multiple audio outs (like drums) then of course separating them makes more sense. I'm sure there could be a tidier way of doing it without having to have all of those empty audio lanes in the clips pane, but for now that's all we have. For me, the clips pane is where you visualize the arrangement of the song, and empty lanes detract from this.

I think what we'd find is that the people who prefer spilt MIDI/audio tracks even for single track instruments are probably those who are just used to it from pre-instrument track days. But if you're just starting out with DAW's (or coming from something like Pro Tools where they're commonplace) then they seem perfectly natural.

sharke
Can someone please explain to me, the logic behind removing the phase and interleave buttons from simple instrument tracks? 

 
I had a phase problem recently and was scratching my head as to where the buttons went.
Ended up using the Cakewalk Channel Tool plug-in to fix it.