shawnbulen


Minor things missing or just don't feel right -

(1)  F5.  I posted this elsewhere, but one missing feature is the ability to press F5 to choose a marker as a start time in clip properties, that's how I usually line things up where I want them. 

(2)  F8.  Another thing that is missing is the old F8 - a quick go-to end of selection.   In theory ctl-g is supposed to do this, but I often get a warning "no events match your search criteria".   Sometimes I don't get the warning, instead it brings me to a seemingly random place in the project...    I just want to quickly go to the end of my selected clip...  I used to click on a clip & F7-F8 to rapidly go to the start or end.   Still haven't figured out how to do F8...
This doesn't seem like a bad release at all, it seems very stable, and there are many cool new features.   I'm just facing a much, much tougher than expected learning curve. 
 

I didn't see this answered, so...
 
G is now Go > Time, which is what F5 used to do by default, but it sounds like maybe you had it custom bound to open the Markers View...? 8.5 also had a function that allowed you to enter a time in any time field by hitting F5 and choosing a Marker, which still works. It was probably an oversight that F5 was remapped to select the Smart Tool, but still has this Markers-related function when the focus is in a time field.
 
Ctrl-G is mistakenly bound to Search Next. This is a bug that will probably get fixed in the next release. But I went ahead and re-bound F7, F8, F9, F10 and Ctrl-F9/F10 to work as they have for the last 20 years, because they were too ingrained for me to re-learn on top of all the other changes. you could do this, or just bind Ctrl-G to Now=Thru so it works as intended.
 
   

 

@Jon - completely OT but something I've meant to comment on for ages. You use "save as" all the time don't you?

Did you know that M1+Save on the MCU = save as. Might be useful if to you didn't........

John

The Inspector for MIDI tracks has been of great help to me in Sonar 8.5 and Sonar 8 before it.

Not for me. I wanted all the controls that were in a track header to be in the track inspector. This would make it possible for me not to have to adjust the track header in order to access some widget. Then also putting the header back to where it was before. They have put everything in the inspector now. This is a big help to me.

I think you are right Randy in most of what you say.  But it really seems that those saying that X1 is a "dumbed down" version or that there were a lot of missing features needed to correct those statements if they were not intended to misinform. Its been awhile since X1 was released I have yet to see anyone retract the hyperbole that some engaged in.

Also I detected a hostility toward X1 that to me seemed irrational. I still see it.

I get the not so subtle dig of me not having X1 yet having the nerve of commenting on it. Actually it bothers me that I am unable to have it in my hands at present but I have not commented in anyway about X1 usage. All the things I discuss are from this forum from the manual and all other sources I can find on X1. The thing one should be asking really is why is it I know that nothing was taken from X1 yet others that say they have it don't? Why I am so far the only one that is asking those that say this to prove it?

Where are the forum members that want CW to succeed here? Do people really think that misinforming and constant finding fault is helpful to our cause? Our cause being a healthy company and one that will listen to us. If all we do is rant at or about CW they will either turn us off or stop listening to us.

This forum is a marketing tool. If it becomes nothing more that a bashing of CW then I don't see much future in it.



 

The hyperbole is coming from you, John.  I have listed a number of missing items from X1 and you didn't acknowledge any of them except to say that you only use save as and not save.  That means that every time you record a new track or edit something you create a new version of the song.  This must leave quite a number of versions of the same song on your hard drive which will then have to be deleted, or you must not worry about taking up real estate on your hard drives.  This doesn't exactly seem, to  me, to be a very efficient way of recording unless you like experimenting a lot.  I'll bet 90% of users use the save function most of the time, especially when making only minor changes to a song.  Anyway, just because you don't use a function that most everyone else uses doesn't mean it's not missing or displaced.

When  you ask why do you know that nothing is missing from X1 while other who have it don't - well, you don't know.  I have seen a number of posts on this thread telling you exactly what is missing and you refuse to comment on them, yet you persist in calling people blatant liars and of intentionally misleading others.  That is nothing but pure hostility on your part, as well as seeming arrogant and hypocritical.  Many of us have used CW for years and have invested our hard earned money into this company, so we have a right to opine.  I, too, have read the pdf manual several times because I've had to in order to look for missing or displaced functions that were not where they were before.  This slows me down quite a bit when I'm in the middle of a session.  BTW, much of the manual is exactly the same as all the other manuals I have sitting on my bookshelf, and I don't really need to reread the basics again.  Though the manual is well written, it is 1800 pages long, and it's not always easy wading through it to find one small bit of information that may not be where you expect to find it.  Anyway, just reading the manual and viewing the videos doesn't actually replace the experience of having and using X1.  Just as watching a video and reading a book doesn't teach you how to drive a car or perform surgery, unless you're a savant.

Last, but not least, it doesn't serve the interest of CW to blindly defend them.  Nor does it necessarily damage CW to offer critiques.  Those that are using X1 and and moaning about it are only asking CW to add an ingredient or two to the mix so as to make a better product.  Complaining about the complainers is an insult to all of us that have stock in this company.  Our support comes from the money we keep putting into this company and not the kudos we throw at them.  I doubt if CW is as thin skinned as you are.

My $.02 worth.

The best,
Lynn

I don't know how often I need to make it clear a button missing form the interface is not a missing feature. A feature is an ability to do something to audio or MIDI that without it one can't do that thing. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. Cubase has a very different GUI then Sonar yet its feature list is much the same. You do it differently but you can still do it Cubase.  Likewise X1 is different from past Sonars but being different does not mean it can't do what was done in other Sonars..  This is what is being purposed. I don't believe it is any lees capable. That is what this thread is about.

it is 1800 pages long, and it's not always easy wading through it to find one small bit of information that may not be where you expect to find it.

One thing I rely on with the manual is the find function in Adobe reader. It does help in finding stuff. Its simply a search feature.

Last, but not least, it doesn't serve the interest of CW to blindly defend them.

I knew this would be said in one form or another. Its the same as calling me a fanboy. You are more polite but it is the same thing.

Think what you like.

John - I understand the point of your thread and found it interesting to read.  Randy was right - a lot of people were reporting things missing when they were still in "shock" and just didn't know how the old command is now represented.  And I can understand why you'd want to research these things before you invest the money.

The way I see this thread is John (who does NOT own X1) telling people who DO own X1 that the problems or issues that they are encountering with the redesigned interface are either A) all in their head, or B) features that they just don't understand.

whoa

John


I don't know how often I need to make it clear a button missing form the interface is not a missing feature. A feature is an ability to do something to audio or MIDI that without it one can't do that thing. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. Cubase has a very different GUI then Sonar yet its feature list is much the same. You do it differently but you can still do it Cubase.  Likewise X1 is different from past Sonars but being different does not mean it can't do what was done in other Sonars..  This is what is being purposed. I don't believe it is any lees capable. That is what this thread is about.

Some have suggested that X1 is "dumbed down", but I disagree.  It has been slowed down, IMO.  I consider a slower work flow to be a loss of function, as do others.  As you pointed out, X1 hasn't lost functionality, it just takes longer to function.  When CW went from Pro Audio 9 to Sonar 1, it was advertised as a major change, so users were expecting things to be different.  Actually, most of the same workflow wasn't all that different, and one could still intuitively work with the new Sonar without consulting the manual or help menu.  Just a few minutes ago, I had to consult the help menu, yet again, to find that the track manager, which used to be accessed by hitting the letter M, but now has changed to the letter H.  It is a multitude of small changes like this that we're talking about.  Again, please give us your thoughts after using X1 for 3 or 4 weeks, which, by then, I may have learned the new key bindings and X1 will behave like a Maserati again.


BTW, many people have chosen CW over Cubase because of the faster and  easier workflow in CW.  It always has been one of CW's main selling points.  I'd hate to see the gap narrow.

Thanks Guitartrek for that.  One thing is I came back to the forum in late December and didn't post until I had brought myself up to date.   As I read I became more and more sure that something was amiss. At first I couldn't put my hand on it and then it became clear. People were after X1 had been a long enough time pontificating about either what they didn't understand or had never used it. The one forgiveable thing for the way the forum was acting is that CW didn't have a proper manual for those that  claimed having X1 and seemed not to know anything about it. Here CW screwed up badly. No manual with a very radical new program was insane.  Yet even given that I found out rather quickly that what was being said was untrue. I am not talking about bugs I expect them with any CW release. I am responding to the nature and quality of many posts and threads I think were meant to persuade people not to get X1 because those posts were telling people they wouldn't be able to do as much or the same things as they did in Sonar 8.5.  


I really thought it was important to counter that idea. Also this thread started some few days ago.  Things on this forum are not the same as they were then.

John


I don't know how often I need to make it clear a button missing form the interface is not a missing feature. A feature is an ability to do something to audio or MIDI that without it one can't do that thing. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. Cubase has a very different GUI then Sonar yet its feature list is much the same. You do it differently but you can still do it Cubase.  Likewise X1 is different from past Sonars but being different does not mean it can't do what was done in other Sonars..  This is what is being purposed. I don't believe it is any lees capable. That is what this thread is about.

John,
 
With all due respect my friend ... I still don't understand some of your statements without you actually having and using the program.   Reading about this or that function is fine;  commenting, fine.  But you aren't actually in the cockpit driving the rocket ship yet.
 
As I said elsewhere:  Reading a cook book does not always make a good cook.
 
There really are things missing or displaced and even those things that have simply been 'moved' can cause a great variation in workflow that is not always for the better.  Some are, some are not.
 
But without you actually having the program, using it, encountering many of the things many of us do -- and then taking certain positions without an "honest" foundation on which to do so, just seems a bit over the top to me.
 
As was once said by someone somewhere:   "There's no wall until you bump into it."