Yet I can't see how a better track inspector is a bad thing. BTW you do not have to have it showing and a simple "I" press brings it into view or not even on a laptop. An objection to it seems very odd to me no matter how one tries to put it.

 
Where did I object to having a better track inspector? That's a straw man. I'm objecting to having worse track headers, and being thereby forced to use the Inspector. Yes the Track Inspector is improved, especially for MIDI tracks, and I like the extra routing pane. But the fact (not just a "notion") remains that you can't get as much information in the same amount of space in X1's headers.
 
You mentioned using dual monitors. I don't, yet, but clearly SONAR is moving in the direction of requiring dual monitors and larger monitors to take full advantage of it. I've written previously that I think this is probably a good thing in the long run, but there's no question it's somewhat of a pain if you haven't gone there yet.
 
Anyway. I've also said that I'm sticking with 8.5.3 until X1b or c irons out enough of the issues to make me migrate permanently. I'll keep experimenting with it, but there just isn't anything in it that I can't live without that justifies putting up with all the little niggles right now.

Very few have said that a track inspector is a bad thing, but many have said taking stuff from the track view and hiding in the track inspector is very inefficient.

Hiding? How is it hidden?

This thread documents statements of many people who have voiced their opinion and annoyance that the track view now wastes space and has eliminated things we previously enjoyed viewing the the tracks.

I see it very differently. I look at 8.5.3 and I see a very inefficient UI in comparison with X1.  Although I am a strong supporter of democracy in this case they are wrong. It doesn't matter how many say they don't like it they are still wrong. Plus for everyone that is opposed there are many that are for the new UI. Shall we take a poll? 

In the examples of phase switch and stereo interleave there is absolutely no way for anyone to claim that X1 has enhanced efficiency. Furthermore, as has been suggested, one must use the inspector to view those settings and so this clearly amounts to a further waste of screen display space... even if only temporarily... and even if is doing so on a second monitor.

Not something I need to tweak all the time. I think most users will be in agreement with that point. Plus as I said with a dual monitor setup I have lost nothing in accessing those widgets.
This fits in with CW's streamlining of the UI and I applaud it.  Besides I gain so much more for what I need to do. 

With regards to second monitors: I personally retired my second monitor precisely because I don't like to have all that surface area acting as both a barrier and a reflection surface for the sound coming from my monitors.

The same concerns speaker manufacturers have about frontal area on their cabinets and edge effects at the corners can be applied to monitor displays.

I'm over it. The less the better.

I have a single monitor... and it's simply a necessary obstruction for working with a modern DAW. A desk isn't all that great either... just another necessary obstruction.

In my opinion dual monitors may please many people, but they are not a panacea and using two monitors comes with all kinds of baggage that many people seem willing to not consider.

OK, if that is your story. LOL You do know that X1 supports multiple monitor better then any previous version? Your loss.

You mentioned using dual monitors. I don't, yet, but clearly SONAR is moving in the direction of requiring dual monitors and larger monitors to take full advantage of it. I've written previously that I think this is probably a good thing in the long run, but there's no question it's somewhat of a pain if you haven't gone there yet.

I have used dual monitors for a very long time. I am on my third set. I don't just use Sonar this way but all sorts of programs that may not even support dual monitors. Cutting and pasting from one app to another or just copying and pasting from the explorer is so much easier with dual monitors. But I also do video and photography. I have always needed dual monitors for those jobs. I think you understand the need.

With Sonar of any version the world opens up nicely when one has the room to let it show stuff all at once. Dual monitors give one a vast improvement on how well one is able to work. Its multitasking at its best. LOL I know of no DAWs that don't support dual monitors. But then I don't know them all. Even S1 does. So does Reaper. There is a reason why they all do.

.

I guess I know for the most part what phase and interleave my tracks have. I never had a need to constantly check them. Each to his own.

.

I am personally less concerned about phase switching, but it is clear that it is now much less efficient to view and ascertain the phase switch status of each of your tracks. Previously you could make an assessment simultaneously while viewing a dozen or more tracks. Now you can not.

Here's a tip. Press Alt+2... then hit 'D'. With the inspector and browser closed, you can see the phase and interleave if 12 tracks.

mike_mccue


Facts is facts



click view image to see as 100% scale

Here's my take on this: There's some good points and some much ado about nothing IMO.

1) You wouldn't cover every square inch of your wall space or floor space in your home with objects would you? Every inch of the counter tops and tables packed with objects ready to be used at a mere whim? If you did it would probably look a lot like those hoarder's homes you see on TV.

Not all empty space is "wasted". SONAR has been widely criticized over the years for putting too many controls and buttons and text in a given space contributing to a somewhat overwhelming and claustrophobic feel at times. Many don't find this conducive to learning nor creating. Lots of design theory places great value on empty (some might say "wasted" space). So I don't buy that every empty area is "wasted". It's there for breathing room and delineation. Empty space vs wasted space is in the eye of the beholder.

2) The stylized icons for expand collapse are simply that - stylized - and they suggest the behavior just fine. I think this is pretty nit-picky and is an "argument" leaning toward total utilitarianism.

3) The abbreviated text in X1: Now here's something I agree with. To me the text could be scaled down in size and hopefully the garbled names could return to something more intelligible.

4) The fact that the FX bin goes away too soon when reducing the track control area horizontally: I also agree with this and it's no doubt a bit frustrating. It should allow you to collapse more of that empty/wasted space before it disappears. I can't see any reason for it to be the way it is and it's got my vote as something to tweak/fix. But it is just a tweak and I don't think it could be characterized as something that contributes to an entire UI design failure (I'd say the same for the font tweaks as well...)

5) The interleave and phase buttons: I'd say we should give these back as an option, on the track controls if people really really want them. Having said that I find it just a bit odd that one would really miss these buttons all that much. You could look at the console if you needed to see a lot of them at one time. I guess I can understand the interleave more than the phase button. But I understand choice is generally a good thing and everyone has different expectations from their DAW, so I say make them available if feasible. The problem is that the more controls you make available in that area, the more track control configurations you have to account for visually and it makes keeping clutter under control and a tidy look that much more difficult to achieve.

One final point I'll make that is personal and subjective: Regardless of the arguable problems with the picture on the right, I personally find it quite a bit more attractive to look at.

So I'd say there are a few viable tweaks that could be made (allow more collapsing before FX bin disappears, make font smaller and longer text entries more intelligible, give option to show phase and interleave buttons), but let's not make it out to be more than it is. We're all different as users but it personally hasn't stopped me working with it and I still feel like the benefits of the UI (Browser, MultiDock, Inspector, far better aesthetics, etc) outweigh these negatives.

My personal interest in interleave is due to the fact that I frequently overdub on mono tracks with stereo effects. If I listen to playback in stereo and hit record the interleave swaps back to mono and then I have to see that and be reminded to return it to stereo. I am personally less concerned about phase switching, but it is clear that it is now much less efficient to view and ascertain the phase switch status of each of your tracks. Previously you could make an assessment simultaneously while viewing a dozen or more tracks. Now you can not.

Even in the case you use as an example you don't need all the tracks in your project to show this information. You are working on a single track. With the inspector all the information you need to work on that track is there. It is not hidden to you. Now if you want to glance around to other tracks that are not showing their inspector then you have a case. Beyond that I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

mike_mccue




I do feel it was foolish on Cakewalk's part to hide things in it and leave all the wasted space on the track view where those buttons could have been useful.

Not to pick at you Mike (with sincere honesty - so forgive me for appearing to single you out) but I thought this was a good example of something I've been meaning to point out lately to the whole community.

Is "foolish" really the best way to describe the decision to remove Interleave and Phase from the track controls? Isn't there a more realistic and less inflammatory way to get the point across considering the scope of the "problem" (which let's be honest - is small). It was a fairly minor design decision that you don't agree with  - and perhaps you have fully valid concerns about it. But to call it "foolish on Cakewalk's part" I just think takes it to place where its doesn't really need to go. Granted this is not as extreme an example as I've see elsewhere as of late.

If there was less of this, I think it would improve the overall tone of the forum while still keeping the productive ideas and complaints rolling.

Now perhaps "foolish" is the most accurate way to describe your feelings on the subject and if so, then of course I respect your decision to use that particular verbiage.