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. 

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 use SITs all the time!  But rarely would I need to change Stereo > Mono and I've never had an occasion to flip phase.   So yeah, I don't see it as critical for this particular purpose. 
 

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. 

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. 
 

I think it was because too many non-Sonar users complained about the cluttered GUI.  I only wish we had some of the clutter back.

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.
 

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. 
 

I don't think they've been removed... Only removed from the TV... Now they are only available in the Inspector or CV... A decision I'm not very happy about... My own belief is that the Inspector, CV and TV should all have all controls available...
 
Anyone else still bugged that we can't move track order in the CV? I know it's not earth shattering as it's a reasonable work around, but it would be nice to have this back as well! <sigh>...
 
Keni
 

Keni
Anyone else still bugged that we can't move track order in the CV? I know it's not earth shattering as it's a reasonable work around, but it would be nice to have this back as well! <sigh>...
 
Keni
 

As in moving tracks?   If so, just Alt+drag.
 

stevec

Keni
Anyone else still bugged that we can't move track order in the CV? I know it's not earth shattering as it's a reasonable work around, but it would be nice to have this back as well! <sigh>...
 
Keni
 

As in moving tracks?   If so, just Alt+drag.
 

Hi steve...
 
Ahhh... Yes!
 
Thanks for alerting me of this... when was it added?
 
Keni
 

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.