I'm all for improving track lanes, starting with the ability to resize them within the same extents as tracks, and to include their own auto-zoom.
 
But personally, I do not want layers back.  They were the definition of "fiddly" for me, particularly with more than 4-5 takes.  I don't get that from lanes.   Yeah, they're a bit rough around the edges, but even at v1 they just feel more "solid" than layers ever did even up to X1.   As with most things, YMMV.
 

Adding all the suggestions, just listed in this thread, LANES will soon be just like TRACKS.

 
That's what I DON'T want to see happen. However, that's exactly what I do...create tracks as I have more control over them than using "takes" with all that goes with them. I really don't use takes/multiple track takes often...I'm a "get it right on the source track" guy and just punch-in until I get it right. It's old school, but it works and I can ctrl+z and then press R at least 30-40 times per minute to re-punch my parts. LOL!
 
-Danny

stevec


I'm all for improving track lanes, starting with the ability to resize them within the same extents as tracks, and to include their own auto-zoom.
 
But personally, I do not want layers back.  They were the definition of "fiddly" for me, particularly with more than 4-5 takes.  I don't get that from lanes.   Yeah, they're a bit rough around the edges, but even at v1 they just feel more "solid" than layers ever did even up to X1.   As with most things, YMMV.
 

Hi Steve...

A rose by any name... I don't need layers back but what I do need are some of the features it had. Without those, I've lost the feature as I can't really use Lanes as they are now.

So fix Lanes, or allow for both/either (Lanes/Layers)... It doesn't matter to me. I am always so disappointed when something is replaced instead of added to... <sigh>...

Other than 3 difficulties I had with Lanes, they worked just fine for the most part... They were "solid" as far as the work went... what 3 issues?

1) No control of which layer remained on top when Layers were closed down.
2. Rebuild function was clumsy
3. The creation of additional empty lanes when dragging a clip from one track to another

Yes, there are many other issues... but none of them were "in my face" much...

Lanes? The list is overwhelming for me...

Keni

Danny Danzi

Adding all the suggestions, just listed in this thread, LANES will soon be just like TRACKS.

 
That's what I DON'T want to see happen. However, that's exactly what I do...create tracks as I have more control over them than using "takes" with all that goes with them. I really don't use takes/multiple track takes often...I'm a "get it right on the source track" guy and just punch-in until I get it right. It's old school, but it works and I can ctrl+z and then press R at least 30-40 times per minute to re-punch my parts. LOL!
 
-Danny

Hi Danny...

I understand tho I don't work that way anymore... I guess this is all a moot point for you as it sounds as if you don't use them at all...

When working "focused" at my workstation, I usually do one take at a time I do many undo/record processes until I get what I want...

But when I'm working on my vocals and I'm away from that location, I use it looping as I hone in on my target...

One of the issues which leads me to use layers/lanes is the redundancy of plugins if I use multiple tracks in these operations. I can get around it somewhat if I use a bus and do my processing there hence no plugins needed in the track... But it's not always a satisfactory solution and I must do the estra work of re-organizing after recording is finished...

Luckily, this is now far less of an issue for me as my new DAW has so much headroom in every way that I simply need to drop some old habits I've formed because of my need for workarounds with my older/low powered DAW...

Here's to getting the desired track! No matter how it's achieved! ;-)

Keni

Layers and looping are my little friends.

Getting it right is good.

But happy accidents happen more often when not erasing while tracking.

Looping means I do not have to pay attention to the computer. It means I can just play.

And then when focused on the screen, I can quickly delete, snip, fade, mute,...

Layers does this faster than lanes.

Difficult to compare lanes to what layers should have been.

But: still too much space, and another menu, and soon lanes will be tracks, and tracks will be track folders, and we will be back to the need for layers: a bunch of clips in A track, all using the same effects and routing.

After a few more days of working in X2 I've come to the conclusion that I prefer layers for recording and lanes for working with automation/envelopes.
If they fixed the zoom level of the lanes, then I'd be perfectly happy with them.  Why not have both?

and soon lanes will be tracks, and tracks will be track folders

 
...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...   Oh wait, that didn't happen either.   
 
 
Since we've had tracks and folders for years now I don't see those becoming anything different.  Though I would love to see folders (optionally) taking up the role of a bus...   Anyhow, this is obviously a personal preference thing.   So I'm good with lanes under the assumption/condition that they're new and open to improvement.   Like these two from Keni's list:   
 
1) No control of which layer remained on top when Layers were closed down.   [A widget to choose which lane's clips are visible when collapsed would be ideal IMHO]
2. Rebuild function was clumsy [An option to consolidate clips from select lanes, assuming empty space exists, would be great]

The only other thing I'll add that I mentioned before, is a min/max height range similar to tracks and their own auto-zoom to along with it.   With those three things I think lanes could be great.
 
 
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anyone's desire to see layers return.   But I'm also a realist which is why I'm always pushing for changes to the technology that's likely to remain.
 

1) No control of which layer remained on top when Layers were closed down. [A widget to choose which lane's clips are visible when collapsed would be ideal IMHO] 2. Rebuild function was clumsy [An option to consolidate clips from select lanes, assuming empty space exists, would be great]

 
Not fair comparisons. These are examples of what needed to be fixed. Not attributes of layers. These issues should have been fixed years ago.
 
Lanes provide some help with these historic bits. But now we have a bunch of new non-helpful functions. EG: track minimized piles clips, not easy to discern number, requires extra attention to see vertical lines,....
 

I like automation lanes. They're good.

Unfortunately I can't say the same about track lanes because:
1. Bouncing clips on a lane puts new clip to the topmost lane. No good.
2. I can't find "Remove empty lanes" feature anywhere.
3. Drag clip from lane to new track does not work.
4. Track Lanes on/off button location is - to be polite - not well thought.
5. They take too much space and make Track View look confusing (or I just can't use this feature yet)
6. Empty lanes with Solo button on look confusing.
7. Add/Remove track lane buttons are too small.
8. Vertical track view zoom may throw active track/lane out of the screen. After zooming I need to search track manually.
9. Copying audio clip on a lane may mute new [linked] clip gain to -INF even if clip gain envelope is in the defaul 0 dB value. ("Submitted to development" few days ago.)

Summary: I do not enjoy Track Lanes. Either I don't know how to use them properly or their design does not suit my workflow. Now I avoid using track lanes and use tracks instead.

yo panup

To me, most of your listed items are bugs.  And then some are by-de-clutter-design. And a couple are ommissions.

Most of these will be fixed.

Even so, layers, with the bugs fixed, would still be easier to use, and more in keeping with the real purpose: lots of clips on one track using the same FX and routing.