sharke

Keni

bitflipper
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. 

Hi bit flipper...

You can create your own set of widgets... Where the option to select All/mix/I/o etc... There is one called custom and there is a screen that let's you see and adjust which widgets you want on which tab... I believe this has been there since long before the X release.... I'm not remembering how to get to that page but I'm sure someone here can chime in with that info...

Sorry...

As to the thread? I never use simple instrument tracks and wouldn't want to even if it contained all widgets... I prefer to think of my MIDI as a track feeding a gadget that has outputs which are separate tracks just as they would be when feeding external gear... It makes sense to me that they are separate...

BTW...I only use the ALL tab myself as I prefer to always have everything visible and available...

Keni

Aside from the obvious reservations about Sonar's inbuilt limitations and oddities with instrument tracks, I've never been able to understand what people have against the concept of instrument tracks in the case of a single synth output. They just seem so logical to me.

Just like a mixing desk, you have one track per instrument. Only because this is software, we have the added convenience of being able to incorporate MIDI into the track. To me, having separate tracks for the audio and MIDI just seems like a waste of space in the clips pane. The audio track is empty - no clips, no waveforms. What is the point of it? It makes perfect sense to use that empty space to show the MIDI notes that are driving the synth.

If you've got one MIDI track driving an instrument which is being routed to multiple audio outs (like drums) then of course separating them makes more sense. I'm sure there could be a tidier way of doing it without having to have all of those empty audio lanes in the clips pane, but for now that's all we have. For me, the clips pane is where you visualize the arrangement of the song, and empty lanes detract from this.

I think what we'd find is that the people who prefer spilt MIDI/audio tracks even for single track instruments are probably those who are just used to it from pre-instrument track days. But if you're just starting out with DAW's (or coming from something like Pro Tools where they're commonplace) then they seem perfectly natural.

Well, this is where your track automation envelopes reside.
 
It would be really confusing to have both Midi AND Audio automation all visible in the Midi clip pane, at least that's how I see it.
And you do have the ability to hide/show whatever tracks you want to be visible at the click of a screenset button

Why would anyone need a phase switch on an instrument track?  On audio tracks, you may have a DI'd guitar on one track and the same guitar mic'd on another.  If they are out of phase, you need to flip it on one track.
 
Or, you may have a top snare mic and a bottom snare mic, requiring you to flip the bottom mic.
 
But why on earth would you need to flip the phase on a simple instrument track?  Seems like a very rare scenario to me.

SIMPLE Instrument Track.
 
Nuff said..

Silicon Audio
Why would anyone need a phase switch on an instrument track?  On audio tracks, you may have a DI'd guitar on one track and the same guitar mic'd on another.  If they are out of phase, you need to flip it on one track.
 
Or, you may have a top snare mic and a bottom snare mic, requiring you to flip the bottom mic.
 
But why on earth would you need to flip the phase on a simple instrument track?  Seems like a very rare scenario to me.

Let's say you have a bass VSTi on an instrument track that's being sent to a bus with a bass amp on it, for a DI/amp blend. You may want to flip the phase on the instrument track if there's any phase cancellation causing a loss of low frequency energy. Buses don't have a phase switch. 

jb101
SIMPLE Instrument Track.
 
Nuff said..

I read the "simple" part to mean the simplicity of having audio and MIDI combined, without having to deal with two separate tracks. Not having basic functionality like mono/stereo switching disabled. 

Bristol_Jonesey

sharke
Aside from the obvious reservations about Sonar's inbuilt limitations and oddities with instrument tracks, I've never been able to understand what people have against the concept of instrument tracks in the case of a single synth output. They just seem so logical to me. 

Just like a mixing desk, you have one track per instrument. Only because this is software, we have the added convenience of being able to incorporate MIDI into the track. To me, having separate tracks for the audio and MIDI just seems like a waste of space in the clips pane. The audio track is empty - no clips, no waveforms. What is the point of it? It makes perfect sense to use that empty space to show the MIDI notes that are driving the synth.

If you've got one MIDI track driving an instrument which is being routed to multiple audio outs (like drums) then of course separating them makes more sense. I'm sure there could be a tidier way of doing it without having to have all of those empty audio lanes in the clips pane, but for now that's all we have. For me, the clips pane is where you visualize the arrangement of the song, and empty lanes detract from this.

I think what we'd find is that the people who prefer spilt MIDI/audio tracks even for single track instruments are probably those who are just used to it from pre-instrument track days. But if you're just starting out with DAW's (or coming from something like Pro Tools where they're commonplace) then they seem perfectly natural.

Well, this is where your track automation envelopes reside.
 
It would be really confusing to have both Midi AND Audio automation all visible in the Midi clip pane, at least that's how I see it.
And you do have the ability to hide/show whatever tracks you want to be visible at the click of a screenset button

 
Yeah I realize that audio tracks in a synth pair have automation lanes - I still think it's a waste of space to have the empty audio part of the lane cluttering up the clips pane. You don't always look at your arrangement with the automation lanes expanded, they're something which generally come out when you need them. 
 
I don't think it would be confusing to have both audio and MIDI automation visible - you'd just need to separate the two sets of parameters in the automation lane edit filter menu. And there's no reason why automation lanes couldn't have a small icon to identify them as audio or MIDI. 

sharke

Bristol_Jonesey

sharke
Aside from the obvious reservations about Sonar's inbuilt limitations and oddities with instrument tracks, I've never been able to understand what people have against the concept of instrument tracks in the case of a single synth output. They just seem so logical to me. 

Just like a mixing desk, you have one track per instrument. Only because this is software, we have the added convenience of being able to incorporate MIDI into the track. To me, having separate tracks for the audio and MIDI just seems like a waste of space in the clips pane. The audio track is empty - no clips, no waveforms. What is the point of it? It makes perfect sense to use that empty space to show the MIDI notes that are driving the synth.

If you've got one MIDI track driving an instrument which is being routed to multiple audio outs (like drums) then of course separating them makes more sense. I'm sure there could be a tidier way of doing it without having to have all of those empty audio lanes in the clips pane, but for now that's all we have. For me, the clips pane is where you visualize the arrangement of the song, and empty lanes detract from this.

I think what we'd find is that the people who prefer spilt MIDI/audio tracks even for single track instruments are probably those who are just used to it from pre-instrument track days. But if you're just starting out with DAW's (or coming from something like Pro Tools where they're commonplace) then they seem perfectly natural.

Well, this is where your track automation envelopes reside.
 
It would be really confusing to have both Midi AND Audio automation all visible in the Midi clip pane, at least that's how I see it.
And you do have the ability to hide/show whatever tracks you want to be visible at the click of a screenset button

 
Yeah I realize that audio tracks in a synth pair have automation lanes - I still think it's a waste of space to have the empty audio part of the lane cluttering up the clips pane. You don't always look at your arrangement with the automation lanes expanded, they're something which generally come out when you need them. 
 
I don't think it would be confusing to have both audio and MIDI automation visible - you'd just need to separate the two sets of parameters in the automation lane edit filter menu. And there's no reason why automation lanes couldn't have a small icon to identify them as audio or MIDI. 

I agree.
As far as automation lanes go - as long as you can selectively show or hide them and they are labeled appropriately what's the problem?