My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

I especially like how the clips become layers when slip editing:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=108312

Why is it a few dudes can do what a 25+ year old, many dudes, organization doesn't. (Should read "refuses to do?")

No doubt it is because the underlying Cockos premise is "openness," and user involvement/commitment. And CW/Roland is secretive.  Hence the Reaper code is built to have variation and modification.

The X series continues to make me think of all the comments about Avid/Pro Tools' lack of ability to modify.   I wonder if Avid would have moved to 64 bit, and better MIDI stuff, sooner they would be in less trouble now.

kevo


My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

I'm optimistic.  I beleive the reason they stopped fixing Layers was they realized they built it wrong in the first place.  (why else would they have dropped it after only one version?)  Basically their "fix" to Layers was to rewrite it - and rename it to Lanes.  I think they've got a good platform now and I expect to see fixes and enhancements for years to come. 

I think they've got a good platform now and I expect to see fixes and enhancements for years to come.

 
I think (and hope) that's the case for the new stuff in X1 - that the new UI was the platform they needed on which to build and enhance SONAR going forward, instead of adding new features and tools that didn't quite match the "older" stuff.   I guess a version or two from now we'll know...
 

SteveStrummerUK

FastBikerBoy


Always interesting to see different working methods.

Steve, do you understand the way the rebuild function worked? Whenever I used it it always seemed to jumble the layers into some sort of order usually not how I wanted it. I could never see a logic. If I could that may have helped - I think it might have been clip length based?

I got so I daren't use it. I'd love to see a user configurable rebuild function though. One that would sort them into order perhaps using a 'flagging' method where a user could flag a clip or layer's priority. Or based on recording order perhaps.

I can see how the rebuild function would work well for you in the method you've described but for me where I had full length takes it always just jumbled them up. When you need as many takes as I do that's a real pain.

 
Karl, I understand what you're saying, but all I want to be left with are the clips that are going into the final mixdown.
 
I'll generally make a copy of the project that's completely unedited and uncomped in case I do make a rick somewhere and delete off the wrong bit. But I like to have each track at mixdown in the 'live' version of a project only containing the audio I want - and as far as keeping the project tidy but still editable, that means the only step I don't perform is to bounce each track to one clip.
 
Using X1 Rebuild in my method, and even with overlapping clips, I am generally left with a maximum of just two Layers per track.
 
To do this in Lanes, I would need to do a lot of dragging - in fact, my workflow (apart from the initial set up) would probably be much quicker if I used completely separate tracks and bounced them all together at the end of the process.
 
 

At the risk of using the old "+1" response I feel that it just about sums up my feelings.
So..


+1

soulicious


While I appreciate your comments FBB, as someone who has made extensive use of layers and now lanes, I have to respectfully disagree with a few points:
 

• They have gained
  
  
  1. Improved Solo mute buttons  My workflow was much better when I could swipe over all (or any combination of) mute or solo buttons in layers and engage/disengage with one button press.  The one button press solo lane is nice, but it is limiting compared to the way layers behaved. Layers also allowed me to solo more than one track.  This functionality made it convenient to designate one layer as the "master comp" layer and listen to the comped sections while auditioning other layers with another solo button engaged.  Another advantage with multiple solos (or multiple mutes) was the ability to compare takes for sake of creating a second comp.  You could get a second "background vocal" take to use for some nice phase/chorus effects by comparing other takes that were similar in timing.  With lanes, I have to move the audio data to a new track (which becomes a workflow issue if there isn't much screen real estate left due to the fact that lanes don't rebuild).
  2. Ability to display different data types in each take ie. clips in one transients in another or inline PRV and clips If "Take Lanes" by definition is for capturing takes and comping, then displaying different data types using edit filters is not necessary.  Edit filters can be used on the final comped track.  Why would anyone need to display prv and clips in a take lane?  As a frequent user of layers/lanes, I've never once needed this feature.  Has anyone else?
  3. Ability to drag re-order This was easily done with layers by "Shift+dragging".  No advantage for lanes here.
  4. Ability to rename a take It was easy to rename the clip in the layer by going into the clip properties. Not a big advantage for lanes here either.
  5. Ability to include notes about a take. This is nice, but I had no problem using the track description space in X1 and previos to keep all my notes in one place.
  6. Ability to record into a chosen lane This is a taste factor.  I can see how someone might like this, but I preferred simply pressing record and rebuilding the layers.  It saved screen real estate, and by not "knowing" where the new take was, it required me to "listen" for the best take and not assume the new one was best.

I can't resist being redundant here, but this sums it up very well too.  You are dead on.
So...


+1 +1

And to add...

I think the best of both worlds is to be able to see the layers on the track the way we used to, just as we can do with envelopes being on the same track.

Lanes have allowed us to see envelopes on separated out (which I welcome and prefer), but we still have the original way (which has its uses but I rarely use now)

Lanes should allow us to see the audio layers in a similar way as an alternative, rather than the only way.  I know some might not care too much, but imagine how you'd feel if you happen to prefer editing envelopes on a single track and were now forced to use automation lanes.  Fortunately you have a choice there.  I think we should have the same choice for audio clips -- it doesn't change the existing paradigm to do so.

VariousArtist


And to add...

I think the best of both worlds is to be able to see the layers on the track the way we used to, just as we can do with envelopes being on the same track.

Lanes have allowed us to see envelopes on separated out (which I welcome and prefer), but we still have the original way (which has its uses but I rarely use now)

Lanes should allow us to see the audio layers in a similar way as an alternative, rather than the only way.  I know some might not care too much, but imagine how you'd feel if you happen to prefer editing envelopes on a single track and were now forced to use automation lanes.  Fortunately you have a choice there.  I think we should have the same choice for audio clips -- it doesn't change the existing paradigm to do so.

 
I for one would definitely welcome this Peter.
 
 

kevo


My biggest concern is that Track lanes end up like Layers.
When CW gave us layers many moons ago, that was it - nothing further was done to them. They were what they were bugs and all.

I do have to admit that the randomize clips was fun! I think CW called that function "rebuild layers".

If history repeats then all the discussion on how Track Lanes can be improved is moot.

(applause)
 
That's it in a nutshell.
 
If take lanes work as they should they offer a much more clean approach, I use them currently in another app and they just make more sense than layers ever did.
 
I got to the point with layers in Sonar as Karl said that I couldn't depend on them and actually did what Steve is talking about and that is just using seperate tracks to manage takes.
I'm hoping at some point with X2 that I can return to using Sonar for the tracking phase but frankly I'm still finding it an easier, quicker and more bullet-proof task done elsewhere.

I'm in with the ranters.

Tonight it’s official.  I hate take lanes.  I do heavy comping between many takes in all my band projects.  With layers, it was always easier to do the comping between layers in one track, and this frequently involved pasting clips or parts of clips into blank layers.  This procedure is a nightmare with lanes. 

Most of the time, clips cannot be pasted into specific blank layers.  Sometimes, the pasted clips show up in weird places, like the main track lane.  Tonight, I could not paste a copy of a clip from one lane into another lane in the same track.  But when I inserted a new track, there appeared several lanes containing all my pasting attempts!  In another instance, I added blank lanes to a track.  The lanes were numbered out of order!  Then, I selected one blank lane to paste into, but the clip got pasted into a different blank lane!

I am astonished that the X2 videos trumpeted the lanes as something wonderful.  They almost unusable.  Cake:  please bring back layers, or give the lanes all layer functionality. 
 
Reasons I hate lanes: 

1)  Copy/paste between lanes in the same track or between lanes in different tracks is totally buggy and randomly weird;
2)  Lanes cannot be sized smaller than the minimum limit, which is too large;
3)  It takes two clicks to open a track, then open the lanes (on different buttons), and two more to close lanes, close track.  (Layers required one click on one button.)
4)  There is no reason for a main track lane if you have multiple lanes.  The previous layers collapsing of layers was better.