Subjacent


I will bounce myself back to Presonus studio one next version they release, i should never have left for false Promise in X1, They have managed to get a clean clutter free Gui and it works, and I know It will always be this way no matter what they add, as their Programmers are Boss and they listen to their users and implement things that work 99.9% as suppose to a hit and miss 50/50.
I  only left becuase of a few lacking things at pesent, but from day one it was clear they have the winning formula and once you have used what the Programme does have, you will laugh at Sonar and find all this mental, i made the biggest mistake by going Trusting cakewalk, should of trusted what my inner mind kept telling me, oh well! i give cakewalk sonar one Thumbs up, they do do the talk when it comes to their hyped adds.

Personally i think this will other DAW's  be as clutterd all comes down to The developers etc, Reason is Fine ableton is fine if not a little ugly but it works,  Reaper has promise, But have to be careful as they may just be on the verge of a buggy daw like sonar, but at lesat they have Developers that care!

It really is hard to be Contructive about sonar I siad it once before, if Cakewalk sonar developers Got some logic like Spock, and Beta tested more , This is where Reaper holds it own, they make beta testing open, Again great logic!
I think i had beter leave it with that, before i get in trouble, wish their would be a miracle cure for x1, But we all know that aint going to happen, i think X1 should be recalled and refunded, Becuase i dont want to wait months and months to no resolve, quite frankley i got ripped off,

Yours Sincearally a thorn in the side, suppose i aint even worth the price of tweezers to cakewalk,Better spent on their nice lifestyles, if only they cared that many of us are in pain now, more so than ever, i want  a refund for a Fualty Product!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. their aint no Reasoning anymore.

You left Presonus because it was lacking something, you're going to leave Sonar because it's lacking something. I'm sure you'll leave Presonus again because... it's lacking something. What's lacking with most of the people who constantly complain and ghet things to work is that they stuck with anything long enough to figure out the "logic" of what they are using. Everybody expects these programs to respond to their interpretation of that logic. They miss steps in the process, forget where they are in the process, expect the the software to be adaptive to the point that it reorders the process on command, when in fact it is necessary- to complete some steps before doing others,to seperate some steps and functions, and most of all to take the time to learn the step by step logic that is changed by the many different things that can be in progression at any given time. None of this software is ever going to depart from the fact that you just can't do certain steps while other process's are in action.
While this scenario can get so complex that there is no general menu of cures for every problem, the only way to confront these problems is with one on one attention, feedback, and finding ways that do work. While you might call these solutions work arounds, you have to take into account that your own actions may not have been correct in the proper initiation of commands in the proper order. That even gave me a headache, time for a beer.

Uhm, that's a no-no talking about and posting screen shots. HTH HAND

 
Since it's public... I was thinking it was OK.
I've gone back and edited my post to remove specifics.

Rain

Keni



Thanks for that...

This is an issue for me as well... I understand the idea (and feeling) for an uncluttered look, but that's not at the cost of "practical usability"... In 8.5 All things are much more scaled to the needs of monitors (remember all the 96 and 102 input consoles? Try keeping an eye on that many tracks in the analog world! ;-))

The goal of X1 is admirable, but the implementation is in need of more thought and work...  Some meeting of the two mindsets that allows for a user to stretch in either direction based on personal need(s)...

We've been talking here about how many tracks can be visible... when at least as important is how many tools and settings can be seen at one time! I don't know about you or the other users, but gazing at settings (spread across many tracks) while working is a big part of my work as I identify issues...

I see less of this info on screen now even with a single track maximized let (alone 40 tracks on screen) than ever before... Unless I start breaking the screen up into little pieces to reveal each of these new "popups" (let's face it - a divided screen is sharing space no matter what you call the method of displaying both)...

So along with needing/desiring toolbars as an alternate or additional part of Sonar, I would like to see the wasted space within these areas considered as well!

Too many issues of tools not even duplicated across views where we must go from view to view to see these things... Such as buttons in TV that aren't in Inspector/CV etc....)

If there were complaints that Sonar seemed cobbled together as it had been modified for so long and how the new gui was giving a fresh start...? things are now far more disorganized, and fragmented forcing far more time/work waste to accomplish the equivalent jobs previously... Here has been the focus of everything I've complained about (other than bugs)... Work is much slower in far too many ways... Fragmented, changing/changing/changing.... the whole idea of the single-window interface that so long ago became the direction of ALL DAW softwares demands much more attention to these issues...

Keni

Absolutely agreed. I'm positive that X1 is a step in the right direction. The basic layout is there, but it seems a bit sketchy. Now, I can only hope that the fine-tune it, refine it and take advantage of all the possibilities.

In an earlier post, a member of the forum questioned the credibility of my assessment when I mentioned how fast I was at editing and navigating in Logic, which I hadn't used in year, in comparison to Sonar, my main app for the last 10 years - and I was on PA before that. 

I think that w/ X1, many user are already seeing a difference (see Jim's posts) and many other get a feel of how this could be once refined. 

I understand and honestly, under the hood it's all still really the same old Sonar (thankfully)... the new wrappings and knobs are what have changed that we're all clamoring about (other than bugs of course)...

Over the years I've run many session using other DAWs with either PT, Logic, DP, Cubase and a few others that no longer exist such as my Soundscape SSHDR system... the editor this was light years ahead of most even back in the mid-90's when I was using it in sync with Cakewalk For Windows (not yet pro audio)... The current version available of the Soundscape products under the SSL unbrella are astounding....

There are many things we in the "project studio" domain don't typically see or real with... How many here have ever worked a Fairlight system? Maybe seen them at the shows, but actually work a session on one? that system makes protools even with the new hardware mixiers (Dcontrol/Icon/etc.) ssem 2nd rate (and that's not a put down to Digi... it's a tout for Fairlight!)

Both systems are far more common in movie production environmensts... Probably due to their' cost being so much more... and their abilites as well...

Keni

JonD


 

...So, to answer the original question... No, the GUI doesn't have to be cluttered... 

...but if flexibility is desired (and of course it is for most users), then all those options will need to be kept unobtrusive to the casual eye -- but there for the folks who need them. 

ACTUALLY...best summary of it ALL....

I liked having all the buttons that I wanted on display.

Having said that I routinely asked that the buttons be illustrated with a tasteful lack of fake 3d shadowing and more effective iconographic symbols.

best regards,
mike

Positively Charged

The old button icons were not self-explanatory, the buttons themselves were WAY TOO SMALL and too close together.  It was too easy to accidentally click on some unintended function.

With due respect, AGAIN, it seems the real point is missing here....




...Sure, the old toolbars needed revising and correction, but NOT complete dropping.....!!!


Features should have been corrected/improved, NOT cancelled as they have been.................


Again, the new Control Bar is nice and comfortable for SOME aspects, ONLY not adaptable/customizable as it SHOULD have been...


In the "new" way, TOO MANY features are HIDDEN......  and this CAN'T be an "improvement", NO WAY....!



No matter how much People here (legitimately) twist it inside out, a FACT is that a lot of POWER (CONTROL...) has been LOST...!


Immediate control over MANY features has been lost and/or slowed  down... and that SIMPLY can't be ANY good... NO WAY........... 



Edit:
Spelling




 

mike_mccue


I liked having all the buttons that I wanted on display.

Having said that I routinely asked that the buttons be illustrated with a tasteful lack of fake 3d shadowing and more effective iconographic symbols.

best regards,
mike

Yeah....  that's the MAIN point....................... 


We are turning around such a simple matter....

I really don't see how such a basic and simple fact can't be seen as the REAL solution IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.....

...really hoping SO IT SHALL be..............

regards.

Here is a very good example of buttonitus.

I am working on a project right now, and tried to add a ruler to the Track View.  Naturally, I right-click and look for "Add Ruler" or something similar.

Took me ten minutes to figure out that I need to press that insanely small litlle "+" button to the far right of the ruler.  Ugh, please! 

Everything else about the control bar is right there in the right-click context menu, which is EASY to read, and EASY to click.  Yet this function requires the user to do something DIFFERENT than the normal thing to do (right-click).

This little plus-sign "add" button is clutter to me.  But if it is truly needed, then please ALSO include an "add ruler" selection to the right-click context menu.

Even the FX Bin doesn't force you to click the little plus sign; you can just right click and select an FX to add.  True, there's no "add" item, but there is a whole slew of things you can add.  So it's self-explanatory.

JonD


I haven't read the earlier posts so I might be echoing someone else's comments...

Reaper is a good case and point.  Fairly "clean' GUI... but right-click anywhere and you're reading a novel.  I personally don't have a problem with that approach, because you can generally ignore most of the options.

And frankly, when a DAW gets as full-featured as the best of them, I don't see how you can get away from having pages of options hidden somewhere.

So, to answer the original question... No, the GUI doesn't have to be cluttered... but if flexibility is desired (and of course it is for most users), then all those options will need to be kept unobtrusive to the casual eye -- but there for the folks who need them.

John D, I don't think the diversity in logic-work habits is apparent to many, mainly because of cultural differences that noone understands. These differences are reflected in computer design and implementation of code. 

HumbleNoise


PC, It seems like this is one of those familiarity with the new interface things. It took 10 minutes to learn but now a simple click to add a ruler? I'm not sure I'd call that buttonitus but you're free to. 

Hiya, Larry!
 
After this post I'm not going to argue anymore about the "Add Track" button, except to say that it is just the first example that I thought of regarding the designers' over-reliance on buttons reducing easy and smooth usage.
 
There are other UI design issues that I have with X1, so after this post I don't want to get too hung up on just this one example.  And oh yes, I have used X1 as an example because I am not a Sonar 8 user...I installed it, got scared by it, and went back to Cubase.   
 
The best reason for putting it on the context menu is because this would be consistent with other Windows applications.  It is easy and natural to look for something with right-click.  I would not have had to "re-learn" how to perform the function of "add ruler" if customary Windows conventions were followed.  Or if Add Ruler were at least included in the right-click context menu.
 
This would have allowed me to completely bypass the problem of "familiarity with the new interface," because I would already know how to use it without having to learn or look up the function.
 
 
[Deceased Equine-Beating Mode]
 
I only go into detail here because this is such a great example of a missed opportunity in ergonomic design.
 
The "add ruler" botton is a "plus sign" button that can be found at the top of the farmost right side of the Track View and it is very small even on a large screen.  My vision and my focus is rarely way over there by the scroll bar unless I am scrolling...in which case I am mentally in "navigation mode" and not in "Project customization" mode.  This is a very good example of a button that is misplaced and not easy to use.  I would also like to move the scroll bar nearer to the header of the TV, but that is a topic for another day.
 
Back to this little "+" button:  Once I have already right-clicked and realized that "Add Ruler" doesn't exist there (another small waste of time and added annoyance), I now have to go press the "+" button.  And it's very tiny.  When I click on small buttons, I often "miss", resulting in an incorrect function being chosen (in this example, I might accidentally move the "now" marker to an unintended location on the ruler).  This in turn can result in another slowdown in productivity and an added annoyance.
 
Conversely, when I "right click" on something as big as a ruler, I almost never "miss".  And selecting an item from that context menu is also much easier than pressing a tiny "plus sign", seemingly with a sewing needle.
 
So yes, I suppose I have just made the case for two clicks rather than one.
 
One last thing:  If the case is to be made that this function is not needed very often in the course of using the application, then why must I have it taking up space at all in the Track View?  And why must I learn it more than once?  I have already had to relearn it once and will again if it really is not needed very often.  This is all the very definition of clutter.  And clutter is very annoying, especially when it is not my own clutter...
 
[/Deceased Equine-Beating Mode]

John T


Bold text again, he must be right.

He is.

Twigman

John T


Bold text again, he must be right.

He is.

....Thank You, Twigman.... We do need support here...... 

I'm "pro" on many things but I don't get this one?
Don't want to type, don't use keyboard?
 
 
 
What about Cubase and Logic, that are build on keycommands?
I wonder why SONAR before X1 had all this cluttered icons in the top? WHY when there are keycommands set for all...?