Keni
 
 
Are you saying that they do pin like that now and I didn't know or that they should? ;-)
 
Thanks...
Keni
 

They should :-)

@CW: Sell all ProChannel plugins separately as VSTs.

I know, it won't happen.

CakeAlexS
Well they've categorised bugs as features with problem reporter before, so their workflow can apparently handle it. As the facility is not available so I can't see why not, otherwise I would not encourage it either...
 
I agree Cake needs to comment here...
 
Cheers

Hi Alex...

Yes... I know they have done that and they also have asked us not to if we can avoid it... I'm guessing the feature request page is down because they're overwhelmed with things that they want to finish first as well as likely removing the need for many of the requests by accomplishing them already!

(I can be hopeful at times ;-))

Lots of god ideas for further refinement and development... I can't wait to be surprised by what appears next!


Keni

How about a separate "Quad" Quadcurve.
 
A flyout that has four real time spectrographs stacked on top of each other. Underneath each graph a straight row of EQ dials (to save space). Have a dropdown menu for a track picker so you can load specific tracks or busses into each of the four spectro/EQ's.
 
Then you can compare and tweak up to four track's PC EQ's at a time. That would be awesome for mixing Bass and kick.
 
Any larger than four though I think the graphs would be too short and the graphical resource consumption a little too high. Four seems like a good number and would keep with the "Quad" marketing.
 
Just a thought.
 
Cheers, Keni.

Beepster
How about a separate "Quad" Quadcurve.
 
A flyout that has four real time spectrographs stacked on top of each other. Underneath each graph a straight row of EQ dials (to save space). Have a dropdown menu for a track picker so you can load specific tracks or busses into each of the four spectro/EQ's.
 
Then you can compare and tweak up to four track's PC EQ's at a time. That would be awesome for mixing Bass and kick.
 
Any larger than four though I think the graphs would be too short and the graphical resource consumption a little too high. Four seems like a good number and would keep with the "Quad" marketing.
 
Just a thought.
 
Cheers, Keni.

Interesting idea Beepster...

Might work, but I think it might be more to the Sonar/Skylight thing to simply allow it to be detached from the EQ and opened as individual windows that either float or are dockable?

Though I don't imagine a big need for more than 4 and even that rarely... More like 2 at a time would be my regular usage (I use stereo tracks as opposed to two mono tracks)...

I don't use the multi dock myself, but it would be better to use that and allow two or more than to avoid the dock altogether...

My personal preference would be to have them floating so I can arrange them to suit my eye's need for easy comparison... Sometimes side by side and other times above and below....

Keni

Four is kind of a personal thing because I tend to have two double tracks a lot of times (for instance bass or a double sampled kick). That way I can tweak the doubled tracks directly while viewing them in relation to another double set of tracks instead of doing it at the buss stage.
 
So yeah... kind of specific to me but I think there are others who work this way. It's an unfortunate consequence of not always having a great signal due to gear or sample bank limitations. I'm also not the greatest engineer yet so it's easier to blend multiple sounds/tracks to get a full/superior tone than working with one source.
 
I'm hoping with X4 some of these more luxury features and final interface tweaks get some attention now it's not a game of fixing bugs and oddities.
 
We really need them to hammer down the last bit of the Take Lane stuff first though like the minimum height, more extensive parent track editing options and adding a Hide Lane type system (I think a Lanes Manager would be great) but that is all woefully off topic. Those are the types of things (as well as some of the suggestions you've been making lately) that would make me upgrade sooner than later because I'm more or less happy with X3e as is.
 
Cheers.

Oh and what I'm suggesting would probably be easier to implement as a separate tool from the flyout function. They could put a button on the strips to engage it but it could just as easily be hidden in a context menu to keep the clutter down.
 

Beepster
Four is kind of a personal thing because I tend to have two double tracks a lot of times (for instance bass or a double sampled kick). That way I can tweak the doubled tracks directly while viewing them in relation to another double set of tracks instead of doing it at the buss stage.
 
So yeah... kind of specific to me but I think there are others who work this way. It's an unfortunate consequence of not always having a great signal due to gear or sample bank limitations. I'm also not the greatest engineer yet so it's easier to blend multiple sounds/tracks to get a full/superior tone than working with one source.
 
I'm hoping with X4 some of these more luxury features and final interface tweaks get some attention now it's not a game of fixing bugs and oddities.
 
We really need them to hammer down the last bit of the Take Lane stuff first though like the minimum height, more extensive parent track editing options and adding a Hide Lane type system (I think a Lanes Manager would be great) but that is all woefully off topic. Those are the types of things (as well as some of the suggestions you've been making lately) that would make me upgrade sooner than later because I'm more or less happy with X3e as is.
 
Cheers.

I understand... We each work as we do... And find the solutions we can...

Minimum Lane height? Maximum too! I won't dig into this one here as it's already been hammered on by me and others since the inception of Lanes... It's my biggest issue... Zoom stuff! I spend far too long shuffling things around when I need to zoom a Lane or even a track when folders or hidden tracks exist in a project... I sorely hope The Bakers surprise me with some wonderful new way to deal with these issues... ;-)

Keni

The max height restriction doesn't bother me as much but it should go too and for goodness sakes they need to make it so you can drag out a lane without ALL of them expanding. I always disable Auto Track Zoom and dislike having it thrust on me in the lanes area.
 
I think I have the opposite concerns in a way. I want to see less of the lanes except for the one(s) I'm working with.
 
But yeah... totally different topic.

Beepster
The max height restriction doesn't bother me as much but it should go too and for goodness sakes they need to make it so you can drag out a lane without ALL of them expanding. I always disable Auto Track Zoom and dislike having it thrust on me in the lanes area.
 
I think I have the opposite concerns in a way. I want to see less of the lanes except for the one(s) I'm working with.
 
But yeah... totally different topic.

Hi Beepster...

No I think we're on a similar page here... I need to see more Lanes on screen at one time and I need to zoom a single Lane to a larger size than currently set by the Max limit... There are occassions when I want to zoom a couple of Lanes, but that should be made possible as well... I should be given the ability to select what I wish to zoom and how large/small I want to go. I don't see enough reason to set these limits at all...

Keni