Jon Con


I'd like to see:

more advanced grouping in mind for multi-track instruments (like the edit group in pro-tools) - basically being able to assign tracks to a certain group and then when tracks are recorded at the same time, they are automatically grouped together for any selection editing and audiosnap (if enabled) -

With a distinction between edit groups (In Sonar that would be arrange groups) and mix groups (In Sonar that would be console groups). In PT you can create edit or mix groups or a combination of both. With edit groups you can edit regions in grouped tracks as a group (clips in Sonar) but can still mix levels etc individually. With mix groups you can mix/automate levels of all tracks in a group but edit them separately (Something else than VCA groups which is yet another thing). Etc. By simply hitting "Disable groups" on any of the PT hardware controllers you can temporarily bypass the groups and edit/mix any region/track individually and then reenable groups.

And then of course there are region groups (Clip groups in Sonar).

routing buses to tracks and being able to record the inputs internally (as in nuendo) - whilst also disabling any outputs that could cause a feedback loop. This has been brought up a few times now and I'd really like to see it happen.

Amen. :) Even possible feedback loops should be allowed as long as there is a relevant warning given to the user.

I've sent a feature request in for these pretty recently and asked a few questions on this forum before about the first issue

I am not sending any feature requests. If Cakewalk wants my ideas, they are available for free on the forum. I have sent many feature requests to Cakewalk. Some with ideas that were only implemented years later by ANY DAW on the market. I couldn't be bothered any more. My ideas are here for anyone to read. Take them or leave them.

UnderTow

Yes. That's how I took my images. But floating is not the main issue here.
It's the way the mixer view is displayed on its first opening: it shows areas of blank space. What for ? It then requires unnecessary time spent resizing the individual panels that make up tracks, busses, and main outs, then having to resize the window itself. This is what kills the workflow. Why do I need to spend the time on resizing the mixer view ? The mixer view should know what I have in my track view and resize accordingly.

Marah


Sonar's mixer view wastes vertical space because of fixed channel height and fixed 'module' heights within each channel. I'm aware that you can choose to hide/show these modules, but it's too global and treats all channels the same. Inefficient use of space.  The per-channel width options are nice.

There are also sublte inconsistencies between how the mixer view and and the track view show the status of some of the controls on a given track. This can lead to visual confusion.

If the vertical space 'problem' you cite were on a per track basis instead of global you'd have a really ugly gui going on for the console. One track up, another down, etc. Now if you're talking about being able to only show the modules (eq, sends, whatever) in a track you want on a per track basis but keep the height of all tracks the same, that'd be a good thing.

Ah so this is a Reaper ability that Marah is talking about. Interesting.

Marah

John

Ah so this is a Reaper ability that Marah is talking about. Interesting.

No John. It's a Sonar deficiency. That Sonar's mixer window unnecessarily and inefficiently uses vertical space, and offers no real benefit for that, seems pretty close to an objective fact. Whether this waste of space matters to a given user is an open question, but it shouldn't be surprising that it DOES matter to some users.

You just need to buy and dedicate an entire monitor for the mixer window, like it was designed for Marah!   <g>

John

You just need to buy and dedicate an entire monitor for the mixer window, like it was designed for Marah!

I have had dual monitors for a very long time. You could say I was an early adopter.

And do you use one just for the mixer?  Pete Leoni was using 4 monitors with Sonar back in 2001.  I'm not a fan of multiple monitors, myself.  I think the GUI should be able to adapt to fit on whatever screen I have, whether it's 4 monitors like Pete Leoni, or one single widescreen like I use now, or even my little 10" netbook.  Not only the ability to squeeze and stretch things like the console view vertically, but also the ability to scale the *entire* GUI to a percentage that's less than or greater than 100%, making it adaptable to any display you might want to run it on.

I dunno but I'd guess that most Sonar users, and DAWists generally, have at least dual monitors. I've been using duals since 1024 x 768 was considered high high res.

But using duals doesn't really mitigate wasted application space. It emphasizes it, by spreading it out over available real estate.

As an aside: My right-side LCD recently stopped working. I haven't replaced it yet so I'm working on a single. It's interesting how quickly I (re)adapted to it. It's not nearly as bad as I was dreading, though I haven't done any hardcore DAWing in that time. Will be nice to replace it though. 

John


I use the second monitor for the mixer and plugins. I am a fan of dual monitors.

When one monitor finally goes South, and they don't make that model any more, you get to buy another matched pair, or live with dis-similar monitors.  That's just one reason I'm not a fan of duals.  When the 22" Viewsonic that I use now goes bye bye, I'll be buying another single widescreen, but more like a 28" or 30".


EDIT: Kewl!!  If you accidently double click the post button, you get two identical posts, from one message playground editor!!!  I wonder what you get if you intentionally double click the "Save Changes" button when you are editing the duplicate post.

Also (reading further back) once you have the console floated and save the file, the file will reopen with the console floated. When selecting which areas to show in the console (FX, bus etc) the console will automatically resize vertically as you add and remove sections. Again if you save the file and go back to it the state will be remembered along with the configuartion of the console.

Robin

Individual resizing would be cool, I agree.  Please add this to the feature request if you have not already.

http://www.cakewalk.com/s.port/FeatureRequest.aspx

Please do put the info in there an not just link to the forum. That way the right info gets into the database.

Robin

Hi yorolpal-

I don't mind using the FR form at all -- it's not nearly as complicated as you make it sound! For all I know, there are internal as well as external FRs and Bug Reports logged at Cakewalk (I know for sure there are in many companies), and the more such reports, the merrier, IMO.

I'm sure Robin and all the other Bakers have pretty full plates already, so I don't expect any of them to add logging User-reported FRs and bugs to their responsibilities.

For all I know he's already put in a good word for this FR and others -- I have no idea, but he certainly didn't "demand" anything, and it didn't come across as an "order" to me. I can't think of any software companies that don't provide some sort of official channel for reporting these things. If they didn't, it'd be chaos.

Just my $.02.

-Susan

Well how about this (as I would instruct my own employees to do):  Hey, great idea...insert suggestors name here...I'll pass it along to...1]Greg...2]Noel...3]Brandon...4]The Gang and see what they think.  Just to be sure you might want to follow up with a feature request.  Here's how you go about that...(detailed instructions).  We're always looking for new ideas on how to improve Sonar and all the Cake products.  Thanks for a great suggestion.  Or words to that effect. 

I bet Robin could've typed this in the same time it took him to type his previous response.  It's a matter of corporate attitude...which starts at the top. 

I'm honestly trying to offer constructive help here.  If I'm off-base sorry for any confusion.

Hi yorolpal-

If I'm off-base sorry for any confusion

I'm not suggesting you're off-base; I don't think you are. I think if a Baker sees something posted here that sounds like a really good idea, they probably do pass it up the food chain (why wouldn't they?), but they also encourage Users to go through official channels to record it.

I've never seen a script made public as you suggest naming who in the company will be directly informed, but what do I know? Maybe Robin could've phrased his response differently, but I didn't read it as an "order" -- just a reminder of the normal channels.

-Susan

Also to add to what Susan said I believe its good to run it through the forum to see what the forum thinks. It also helps countless times when a feature is asked for and it is already there. Beside who knows, the germ of an idea may be much better with the input of others.

I didn't take it as an 'order' either. And I appreciate the exchange with Robin. But I did take it as a somewhat futile suggestion, for a few reasons.

The first was that, last time I checked (admittedly some months ago) the FR form had a single, non-wrapping field with a woefully small max num of characters, which discouraged (if it didn't make impossible) any kind of detailed description. HOWEVER, I see that that has been changed, and there is now a proper field with an apparently unlimited number of characters (which is probably still not enuf for me...hahaha...). I'd like to think my ****ing about this might have had something to do with that, but my ego isn't THAT big.

The other reason, and I realize this is very subjective and not entirely fair, is that certain types of "feature requests" go beyond "features" and start getting into aspects of a program that (at least arguably) should be on the development agenda anyway, becasue of an internal recognition of the advantages -- whether purely operational or purely competitive or some sweet mix of the two -- of a newor enhanced implementation.

I don't know if my description of per-channel resizing of mixer sections falls neatly into that category. But for me it's the kind of "enhancement" that, fairly or not, I've more or less given up on expecting to see from CW. Which is why I've pretty much stopped making FRs and bug reports.

But I'll send in this one in celebration of the new FR form, and so it gets into the database (though how much nicer it would be to think that good new ideas exist somewhere other than in a database waiting to be crossreferenced and tallied.)  [EDIT: submitted!]

John, what you said about Robin not wanting to set precedent of course makes sense. Re: how Reaper does it, since you brought it up (), they have a FR sub forum as one of their main forums. This is where FRs can be discussed etc among the user base. There is also a separate forum, away from the main one, but openly accessible, where FRs can be formally entered, described, given a priority number, a "would I use this rating," and a current status. This is the official public channel (which obviously no one is against.) There's a similar separate forum for bugs, with similar fields (I might have goten some of the fields from the latter mixed up with the former, but you get the idea.) It's a nice system, that aggregates these issues away from the main traffic and, even if it's only an illusion, at least gives the impression that this stuff is being heard and considered. There's currently a FR in there for vertical track meters, which Reaper doesn't have, and to think some people are crazy enuf to call it a professional DAW! :))

(BTW, Cockos, like most other "pro" developers, uses vBulletin forum software, which runs the main forum as well as the specialized FR and bug sub-forums. It all works pretty transparently. To beat a horse that can never be too dead, This forum software casts CW in a as far from a "professional" light as it can get. It really DOES make a difference. I'm on the outside but the only reason I think of keeping the same sw is for backwards compat with the existing message base. Is conversion not possible? If not, it's just another mark against this forum sw developer, and against CW for choosing it. Interestingly, Toontracks also uses ASPPlayground. Dunno if the're having the same issues.)