brian brock
For example, with the new clip envelope behavior (which I assume is unchanged in X3), clip envelopes are activated for every clip in a lane.  Perhaps you want to do something with those envelopes - independently of an already well crafted track envelope.  Collapsing the clips to one lane would enable that more easily.
 
I'm just thinking of random use scenarios here - the real benefit is in "unforeseen synergies".
 
I can't see any way that something like "consolidate lanes" would be a negative as an option.
 

 
One way it's negative: It takes dev time away from the implementation of other features and fixes :).  The real question is not "Is it harmful?," but "is it worth prioritizing?"
 
Keep the use case scenarios coming.  Definitely helps us establish priorities.
 
Thanks!

Bill Jackson [Cakewalk]
 
One way it's negative: It takes dev time away from the implementation of other features and fixes :).  The real question is not "Is it harmful?," but "is it worth prioritizing?"
 
Keep the use case scenarios coming.  Definitely helps us establish priorities.
 
Thanks!

Audiosnap 3.0
 
That is all.
 
;-)

After watching the video, the new lanes implementation looks quite intuitive, actually. What could be easier than seeing both the clip take lanes and the comped master track together with coloration of the selected clips? Naturally, some will be put off because they're used to a certain manner of working, but I'll bet the rest will welcome the faster workflow. Tape and razor blades are still available for those who need them.

Beepster
 
 
Audiosnap 3.0
 
That is all.
 
;-)

That's a good idea ;) ...thinking...

well, another thing I have done is add clip effects to manage certain things.  For example, sometimes a particular vocal phoneme has a problem, such as "wh" being overly aspirated.  I might split out syllable, and add a low pass filter just to tame that aspiration.  This kind of adjustment of clips was very easily done in the old "layers" implementation.  Rebuilding track layers was a part of that toolkit, and it allowed one in this type of case to easily see the clips all at once, and then perhaps to modify the crossfade.  I have for example made the fade-out of the effected clip overlap more than just the fade-in of the following clip.  That behavior is best enabled by expanding the layers or lanes, and without rebuilding or consolidating the clips may be far apart and need to be moved close to each other.
 
I'm not familiar with software development, but I would think that something like this wouldn't be terribly complicated to implement.  It's not new functionality, really, just a sort of "macro", isn't it?  As a former feature which was lost, it seems that at least the basic concepts of the programming for implementing rebuilding must be floating around at Cakewalk, right?

Maybe it is question, if someone works with takes like CW video showing. Personally I dont record four or five takes of same thing for later consideration which is better, or which part is better. I try to do it instantly with interpret. I dont believe in "we will fix it later, give me some takes". But maybe it is me. I am using lanes for better clip handling of same sound source, somehow I stick to this method since X1 instead of creating bunch of separate tracks. Here the only important thing is fast rebuild/consolidate of lanes, the order of lanes is not important in this scenario, because it is mostly linear scenario. Sometimes I am using it to pan, for example two identical sound sources when one is slided for some thicks to create chorus like effect - mostly on vocals, but this scenario is not as important as previous one.

Bill Jackson [Cakewalk]

Beepster
 
 
Audiosnap 3.0
 
That is all.
 
;-)

That's a good idea ;) ...thinking...

That would be spectacular. Cheers.

BluerecordingStudios

bapu

Bill Jackson [Cakewalk]
So you're basically looking for a "consolidate lanes" command. Where, for each clip not on the top-most lane, if enough empty space is available in the lane above to accommodate that clip, it moves into that space. Correct?

Wouldn't that (in the background of the cleanup pahse) be a bounce to clip like function?

NO. But as I said nevermind. Now I understand new CW concept...

well now that you " understand the concept " maybe you might want to change the name of this thread because its an eye sore.
The first post I see when I opened the site. and why? because you didn't understand the way the new feature works, is that what im gathering?
 
not a disaster at all.
looks as if a lot of time was spent on take lanes this time around.
you should think before you post and not jump to conclusion's.

The poster did change the thread title almost immediately after support jumped in. The title over each posts does not change but the current title of the thread

Take lanes + VST3 functionality request

 
does not seem to bad.

scook
The poster did change the thread title almost immediately after support jumped in. The title over each posts does not change but the current title of the thread

Take lanes + VST3 functionality request

 
does not seem to bad.

I wouldn't have bothered replying to this thread if that's what it said scott.
it surely wasn't "almost immediately" it still said "Take lanes disaster continues" (im guessing you didn't read my post ?)
 

chuckebaby
The first post I see when I opened the site.

 
that's why I clicked on it.
 
check the edit time. my post was 2 hours ago. his was 4 hours ago, the math just doesn't add up.
 
I think my post was justified. sorry if you don't.
confusion shouldn't be a reason to post a detrimental comment.
one needs to think a little before they post.