Thanks Swiller...

I don't expect to see/hear from The Bakers on this issue.... I can only hope that it's important enuf to be some kind of priority... Regardless of how long I've been with them they have to do what they think best for the company... even at the expense of long-time users... sadly...

But somehow I can't imagine so many people complaining about the small solo/mute buttons in previous releases to warrant discarding the entire system to resolve... I'm here in the forum every day and tho I do remember hjearing some complaints about that, the more common complaints were simply to fix the bugs... Features not working as planned/advertised...

Thanks Peter too...

You're right that Steve's posting was very complete in quickly showing the many of the issues...

Thanks Steve...

Very eloquent and visually self-explanatory post!

You guys manage to get this things said and shown so much better than I... I get too emotionally wrapped up! ;-)

Keni

Uhm.... I really hope that Cakewalk will fix the various lane issues .... this is an important tool for us!!!

Let's keep fing crossed ...

It would be a good idea if someone at Cakewalk could give us some answer about that.

Bye bye to everyone.

Giorgio

VariousArtist

SteveStrummerUK :

I much preferred Layers, and for most of the reasons others have mentioned above.  But for the way I work, the big deal-breaker for me is the lack of a 'Rebuild Layers' type function.   

Here's a copy of a post I made in another thread, detailing my reasons:     

For me, the most important factor is the 'why' I use Lanes or Layers, as opposed to using separate tracks. And sadly, for the way I work, the single most important feature for me is no longer in Lanes, but I used it a lot in Layers, and that is the Rebuild function. Let me explain why.   Lets assume I'm recording a 32 bar guitar solo. Unless it's a passage I know off by heart, there's a good chance that it's not going to get laid down successfully in one take. Therefore I'm going to have to do some comping at some stage. My approach may be dissimilar to how some of you might accomplish this. I know some like to record the whole solo a number of times and then use comping to piece together the best parts, and I know some like to punch record to correct the parts they might have misplayed.   

My modus operandi is slightly different. If I know I'm going to struggle to play the whole passage, I'll break it up into comfortable phrases and record them separately. Comping then allows me to trim and edit each clip as I assemble the jigsaw that is the complete solo. The most convenient method of doing this for me is to use Lanes or Layers (especially as in most of my templates, I have my tracks already set up with pre-assigned Pro Channel and VST effects, as well as panning, levels etc).   In the interest of keeping the project 'tidy' and easier to manage, the Rebuild feature is ideal for my purposes. As I delete bits and pieces off the individual clips I've recorded, rebuilding the track does this for me.

Steve


This is brilliantly explained, along with images that make your point very well**.  
This clearly shows the workflow difference and impact, which pretty much makes one of the cases for layers and why it was so important to many of us.  I understand that not everyone is impacted by the loss of layers, but for me the analogy would be getting touch screen functionality at the expense of mouse/keyboard access.  Yes, the impact is that much for some of us...

**note:  I didn't copy your images in my response to avoid too much duplication of them, but they can be seen back here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2749131

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer here...but I disagree. The above example, doesn't illustrate why lanes don't work as well as layers IMO, it illustrates why knowing when to "Auto-Punch" (or punch in) is so important. 


Look at the takes, there's no overlapping parts. Steve's recording one section at a time until right, then building a comp that way. That's exactly how auto-punching the different parts of the solo would work, meanwhile it would lead to the same result on a single track, without having to do additonal slip editing or muting. He's essentially auto-punching the hardest possible way.


Even using his X1 example above (the one with Layers), he would have got the same result on a single track without having to mute/edit the clip start end times by auto-punching until nailing the take, then moving to the next part of the solo.


Lanes/Layers aren't best suited as an auto-punch replacement, they're best used for recording the same passage, and identifying the best take. Example, the best of the singer singing "she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah." The singer would sings it five times at the start of the song, and you sift through the fave takes to identify the best of those passages. If you were going to have the singer do it one word at a time, then move on to the next word, that's where you'd want to punch in.

I'm not trying to discredit the idea that there's no room for improvement in lanes, but I just want Steve and others who might be using lanes for something like the above workflow, that auto-punch is the right tool for that particular job. 

If you're recording consecutive sections of a song: use auto punch. 

If you're recording overlapping sections of a song: use layers.

We all/each have our reasons and methods to our work...


I for one never use auto punch anymore as I've found more ease and accuracy using separate takes and editing/compositing afterwards...

Of course we can find work arounds and other methods to accomplish our work but Cakewalk/Sonar has always made one of it's strong points that it allowed us each to work how best suited us...

So I don't try to tell people how they "should" work... I only look to the programmers to supply us with the tools we each need to suite our work methods.... Not only a single work method... ...and Cakewalk has been wonderful about that until X1.... Now many methods have been trashed and replaced with things that (for some) make work easier and for others, not so...

Keni

Funkybot

VariousArtist

SteveStrummerUK :

I much preferred Layers, and for most of the reasons others have mentioned above.  But for the way I work, the big deal-breaker for me is the lack of a 'Rebuild Layers' type function.   

Here's a copy of a post I made in another thread, detailing my reasons:     

For me, the most important factor is the 'why' I use Lanes or Layers, as opposed to using separate tracks. And sadly, for the way I work, the single most important feature for me is no longer in Lanes, but I used it a lot in Layers, and that is the Rebuild function. Let me explain why.   Lets assume I'm recording a 32 bar guitar solo. Unless it's a passage I know off by heart, there's a good chance that it's not going to get laid down successfully in one take. Therefore I'm going to have to do some comping at some stage. My approach may be dissimilar to how some of you might accomplish this. I know some like to record the whole solo a number of times and then use comping to piece together the best parts, and I know some like to punch record to correct the parts they might have misplayed.   

My modus operandi is slightly different. If I know I'm going to struggle to play the whole passage, I'll break it up into comfortable phrases and record them separately. Comping then allows me to trim and edit each clip as I assemble the jigsaw that is the complete solo. The most convenient method of doing this for me is to use Lanes or Layers (especially as in most of my templates, I have my tracks already set up with pre-assigned Pro Channel and VST effects, as well as panning, levels etc).   In the interest of keeping the project 'tidy' and easier to manage, the Rebuild feature is ideal for my purposes. As I delete bits and pieces off the individual clips I've recorded, rebuilding the track does this for me.

Steve


This is brilliantly explained, along with images that make your point very well**.  
This clearly shows the workflow difference and impact, which pretty much makes one of the cases for layers and why it was so important to many of us.  I understand that not everyone is impacted by the loss of layers, but for me the analogy would be getting touch screen functionality at the expense of mouse/keyboard access.  Yes, the impact is that much for some of us...

**note:  I didn't copy your images in my response to avoid too much duplication of them, but they can be seen back here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2749131

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer here...but I disagree. The above example, doesn't illustrate why lanes don't work as well as layers IMO, it illustrates why knowing when to "Auto-Punch" (or punch in) is so important. 


Look at the takes, there's no overlapping parts. Steve's recording one section at a time until right, then building a comp that way. That's exactly how auto-punching the different parts of the solo would work, meanwhile it would lead to the same result on a single track, without having to do additonal slip editing or muting. He's essentially auto-punching the hardest possible way.


Even using his X1 example above (the one with Layers), he would have got the same result on a single track without having to mute/edit the clip start end times by auto-punching until nailing the take, then moving to the next part of the solo.


Lanes/Layers aren't best suited as an auto-punch replacement, they're best used for recording the same passage, and identifying the best take. Example, the best of the singer singing "she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah." The singer would sings it five times at the start of the song, and you sift through the fave takes to identify the best of those passages. If you were going to have the singer do it one word at a time, then move on to the next word, that's where you'd want to punch in.

I'm not trying to discredit the idea that there's no room for improvement in lanes, but I just want Steve and others who might be using lanes for something like the above workflow, that auto-punch is the right tool for that particular job. 

If you're recording consecutive sections of a song: use auto punch. 

If you're recording overlapping sections of a song: use layers.

 
Hi Christopher
 
I fully understand what you are saying about using auto-punch, but with all due respect what you say about the clips in my example not overlapping isn't true.
 
This image clearly shows eight clips which all overlap. What I've done at this stage is to split them all into the parts I want to use and then muted the parts I don't want (that contain, e.g. unwanted string noise and/or amp hum):
 

 
 
In these circumstances, I always check there are no pops or clicks where I've split the clips before deleting off the extranneous parts. In X2, as per this image, I'm now stuck with these eight clips in eight different lanes. My point was that, with this identical project in X1, all I have to do is hit Rebuild Layers and I'm done.
 
Apologies if I didn't explain it very well
 
(Edit) And I fully appreciate that there are many ways to skin this particular cat, all I was trying to say is that I could do it 'my' way in X1, but I've lost that ability in X2.

Keni


We all/each have our reasons and methods to our work...


I for one never use auto punch anymore as I've found more ease and accuracy using separate takes and editing/compositing afterwards...

Of course we can find work arounds and other methods to accomplish our work but Cakewalk/Sonar has always made one of it's strong points that it allowed us each to work how best suited us...

So I don't try to tell people how they "should" work... I only look to the programmers to supply us with the tools we each need to suite our work methods.... Not only a single work method... ...and Cakewalk has been wonderful about that until X1.... Now many methods have been trashed and replaced with things that (for some) make work easier and for others, not so...

Keni

I hear what you're saying, but ideally, you'd be looking at these features as tools, and you want to be using the best tool for the job. Can you use layers/lanes for recording consecutive parts? Sure...but they're not going to work as well for that because auto-punch is the right tool for that job. You can choose to ignore that if you'd like, but by doing so you'd only be making things harder on yourself. As I point out above, even the old layers approach doesn't work as efficiently as auto-punch for that task.

Why make things hard on yourself when there's a better way? I'd suggest you stop fighting Sonar and try adjusting to it. And if you want to make things hard on yourself, why all the threads/posts about how awful lanes are? It took some getting used to for most, but right now, it seems like a lot of people (myself included) are happy with the new approach and prefer it. It could be improved, but it's a nice step forward.

adjusting

Funkybot

Keni


We all/each have our reasons and methods to our work...


I for one never use auto punch anymore as I've found more ease and accuracy using separate takes and editing/compositing afterwards...

Of course we can find work arounds and other methods to accomplish our work but Cakewalk/Sonar has always made one of it's strong points that it allowed us each to work how best suited us...

So I don't try to tell people how they "should" work... I only look to the programmers to supply us with the tools we each need to suite our work methods.... Not only a single work method... ...and Cakewalk has been wonderful about that until X1.... Now many methods have been trashed and replaced with things that (for some) make work easier and for others, not so...

Keni

I hear what you're saying, but ideally, you'd be looking at these features as tools, and you want to be using the best tool for the job. Can you use layers/lanes for recording consecutive parts? Sure...but they're not going to work as well for that because auto-punch is the right tool for that job. You can choose to ignore that if you'd like, but by doing so you'd only be making things harder on yourself. As I point out above, even the old layers approach doesn't work as efficiently as auto-punch for that task.

Why make things hard on yourself when there's a better way? I'd suggest you stop fighting Sonar and try adjusting to it. And if you want to make things hard on yourself, why all the threads/posts about how awful lanes are? It took some getting used to for most, but right now, it seems like a lot of people (myself included) are happy with the new approach and prefer it. It could be improved, but it's a nice step forward.

I respectfully disagree.  I'll repeat my analogy above.  Touch screens are a step forward too -- but imagine if you upgraded to find out that it no longer supported a mouse.  Imagine further that people like to tell you that you don't need a mouse because you can do everything with a touch screen and that you can get used to it.  Which you probably could, and most of the advice would be well-meaning, as is yours.  But at the end of the day I would argue why not continue to support the mouse and have touch screen support, rather than either/or?  


Analogy over now;  what I would like to see is the ability to view layers the way we used to when the track is collapsed with the option to expand them into layers.  This is similar to the way envelopes work in X2:  you can see all the envelopes on one track, or opt to view them separately as lanes.  I think there's an opportunity to do something similar with audio layers and audio lanes.


FWIW, I often do complete takes of a solo that overlap from start to finish.  I found with layers I could very quickly organize parts in a way that was flexible and suited my workflow.  I have been really trying to do the same with lanes, but it is just not the same at all...

If programs started FORCING the user to use touchscreens I'd be pissed. I'm disabled and just using a mouse causes me pain. If I had to reach over and touch a screen every time I wanted to do something I'd be out of commission with an hour or so.

I really hope Cakewalk doesn't start going down this path because I'd be forced to drop them. Windows 8 can bugger off as far as I'm concerned. Sure you CAN use traditional HIDs but it is designed in a way that seems to discourage it.

The software manufacturers need to realize not everyone wants this shift. 

VariousArtist

FWIW, I often do complete takes of a solo that overlap from start to finish.  I found with layers I could very quickly organize parts in a way that was flexible and suited my workflow.  I have been really trying to do the same with lanes, but it is just not the same at all...

Have you tried this (and I only found out about this recently and it really changed my attitude towards comping with lanes):


1. Record a bunch of takes to lanes
2. When you identify the best section from each take*...
3. Click the Mute tool, then hold down Alt (I think it's Alt, either that or Ctrl) as you drag the mute tool over the best take for each section


Result: All other lanes are automatically muted with a single click and drag; you're done. Once finished with the entire comp, just hide the layers. You can even bounce if you really want to.


*Note: no matter how you work, steps 1 and 2 are required. This means, you can now comp or audition each take with a single click and drag motion using layers. If you already knew about this, maybe someone else will find it helpful. I know I did...

Funkybot

Have you tried this (and I only found out about this recently and it really changed my attitude towards comping with lanes):


1. Record a bunch of takes to lanes
2. When you identify the best section from each take*...
3. Click the Mute tool, then hold down Alt (I think it's Alt, either that or Ctrl) as you drag the mute tool over the best take for each section


Result: All other lanes are automatically muted with a single click and drag; you're done. Once finished with the entire comp, just hide the layers. You can even bounce if you really want to.


*Note: no matter how you work, steps 1 and 2 are required. This means, you can now comp or audition each take with a single click and drag motion using layers. If you already knew about this, maybe someone else will find it helpful. I know I did...

Thanks for the suggestion, it really is appreciated that you are taking the time to try and help.  However, I think one of the missing functions for me is "rebuild layers" -- maybe it's there with lanes and I've missed it?  Another item is the usage of screen real estate...

Consider the following workflow, one of many that might illustrate where layers worked well:
- you record a bunch of takes, say a baker's dozen
- one of these takes is the "main one" but you have little bits here and there that you might include
- you move the "main take" up to the top
- you cut out various sections for consideration from the other dozen tracks
- then you hit rebuild layers


You should now be left with about 2-3 tracks.  One of these is the main take that you are interested in, and the others are the bits under review.  Now maximize that track and all your layers take up the full screen height without any waste -- that's 2-3 tracks spread across the entire height of the screen.


Take this a step further, and imagine that you might be doing the same thing across two or three tracks simultaneously.  In this scenario it's still possible to work effectively across multiple tracks, each with multiple layers.  I may not necessarily make a habit of working this way, but as and when I do it is very fast and effective.


I'll need to play around with take lanes more and find ways to get used to them.  I suspect I may end up using tracks in places of lanes, and put those tracks in a folder.   Or something.  There are things I like about lanes, but I just wish we could have them AND layers too.