DPX feature requests (yes I know...)

[Michael Canavan]

Case 1:
Then you also use separate MIDI tracks and separate audio tracks; what I'm proposing is in addition to what's already available in DP. Like I said - every daw that has true instrument tracks also has the ability to do things old-school.

The reason I did not add it to my list, it goes agains the concept of Chunks. Yes, you can write an entire piece in a single Sequence chunk, but many users use V-Racks and multiple Chunks for various reasons. If a virtual instrument receives MIDI directly on channel 1, then it by virtue of what V-Racks are it loses that ability on channel one in a V-Rack. So if for some reason end user A starts off a song with a VI in a track with MIDI data etc. then what happens when he moves it to a V-Rack? does the plug in just know how to rewire itself to now receive data from what? does the VI track then become a regular MIDI track that points to the V-Racked VI? This is some serious recoding and there are multiple ways this would fail miserably and end up with major bugs.

If you work in V-Racks then having the extra MIDI channel 1 of every VI doesn't clutter your tracks. It's only when you ignore V-Racks and Chunks that it seems like a waste of space. Really the only thing that sort of suffers by working with DP's V-Racks is track automation, but DP has great MIDI automation, so personally I save any track automation needs I might have for mix down when I'm working in a single Sequence Chunk exclusively.

[Shooshie]

This list has my complete support, except for #5. Let's don't talk GUI.

Surely you don't object to having fonts large enough to read? When the Zoom was added to TO, the column headers could have been included in the objects that can be resized. Other windows in a list format with tiny headings could get the same treatment.

I support font size options, with two caveats:
1) they don't mess with the existing GUI (spacial stuff, lines, planes, boxes, etc.), except expanding them a little.
2) they don't break existing themes.

Just let the boxes be a little more elastic to accept font options. We don't have to be able to use 64 pt. fonts. Just enough to accommodate our aging eyes. So it shouldn't be too hard to make fonts that grow and spaces that grow with them... to a point. Once it starts requiring redesign of the GUI, and once our themes no longer work, they've gone too far.

Shoosh

[musicman691]

Case 1:
Then you also use separate MIDI tracks and separate audio tracks; what I'm proposing is in addition to what's already available in DP. Like I said - every daw that has true instrument tracks also has the ability to do things old-school.

The reason I did not add it to my list, it goes agains the concept of Chunks. Yes, you can write an entire piece in a single Sequence chunk, but many users use V-Racks and multiple Chunks for various reasons. If a virtual instrument receives MIDI directly on channel 1, then it by virtue of what V-Racks are it loses that ability on channel one in a V-Rack. So if for some reason end user A starts off a song with a VI in a track with MIDI data etc. then what happens when he moves it to a V-Rack? does the plug in just know how to rewire itself to now receive data from what? does the VI track then become a regular MIDI track that points to the V-Racked VI? This is some serious recoding and there are multiple ways this would fail miserably and end up with major bugs.

If you work in V-Racks then having the extra MIDI channel 1 of every VI doesn't clutter your tracks. It's only when you ignore V-Racks and Chunks that it seems like a waste of space. Really the only thing that sort of suffers by working with DP's V-Racks is track automation, but DP has great MIDI automation, so personally I save any track automation needs I might have for mix down when I'm working in a single Sequence Chunk exclusively.

You and others are missing something I wrote in my initial post here and the follow-up: what I'm asking for is in addition to what is possible now in DP. I'm not advocating getting rid of anything. If you want to work the way DP is now you would still be able to - nothing would change. And in your case the user could just move the MIDI data out of the new style instrument track to wherever it would need to go to fit what you're talking about. Simple to do.

[bayswater]

Just enough to accommodate our aging eyes.

Yes, that, and increasing monitor resolution. We no longer have 640x480 monitors, and a lot of the GUI, and most 3rd party plugins take that into account, but not the fonts. So you have to choose between unreadable text or huge Effects windows. There are other places where readability could be improved with increased contrast. But I agree -- don't change the basic layout.

[stubbsonic]

what I'm asking for is in addition to what is possible now in DP. I'm not advocating getting rid of anything. If you want to work the way DP is now you would still be able to - nothing would change. And in your case the user could just move the MIDI data out of the new style instrument track to wherever it would need to go to fit what you're talking about. Simple to do.

I was thinking about how this could be accomplished. If DP offered a kind of "linked" track set that just appeared (and hid things) in a special way. You'd end up with a mixed set of assignments. A MIDI input in one column, and an audio output in another column.

The current features & options offer maximum flexibility and configurability-- except for the lack of a full-featured MIDI Bundles page. I also like that I can have a MIDI track that is still playing, but turn off the VI separately.

I have to say, I am embarrassed at how long I waited before I joined the V-Racks party.

About the MIDI Regions thing, this one seems kind of ominous (in a bad way). I didn't like it when DP started to clump my MIDI tracks into what it "thought" were my phrases (in the TO). I had to kind of ignore it and work around it. But it seems like being able to select a range and say "Define MIDI Region", then start populating a soundbites-like list of MIDI regions, would be ok. Perhaps those could be like little one-track SMFs

-- As a side note, I don't mind holding COMMAND when free-lassoning in the TO-- so perhaps my "grid-off lasso" option is on a per-window basis.

[Michael Canavan]

what I'm asking for is in addition to what is possible now in DP. I'm not advocating getting rid of anything. If you want to work the way DP is now you would still be able to - nothing would change. And in your case the user could just move the MIDI data out of the new style instrument track to wherever it would need to go to fit what you're talking about. Simple to do.

I was thinking about how this could be accomplished. If DP offered a kind of "linked" track set that just appeared (and hid things) in a special way. You'd end up with a mixed set of assignments. A MIDI input in one column, and an audio output in another column.

User interface wise all of this is lot more work in terms of knowing the program, it again also adds the possibility of problems, since a track goes from hosting MIDI in the TO to being only a host for the VI in the V-Rack. I just think the main reason DP doesn't have a single MIDI and instrument track for VI's hinges on the fact that no other DAW has Chunks and V-Racks, nothing even close to those concepts exists outside of DP. I'm not at all saying the space saving concept (if you don't use V-Racks) of a single track for a VI and it's first MIDI channel is a bad idea, there's a reason why the DAWs universally do this, just that it's IMO a quirk of DP that comes from it's one main unique feature, Chunks and V-Racks.

[musicman691]

what I'm asking for is in addition to what is possible now in DP. I'm not advocating getting rid of anything. If you want to work the way DP is now you would still be able to - nothing would change. And in your case the user could just move the MIDI data out of the new style instrument track to wherever it would need to go to fit what you're talking about. Simple to do.

I was thinking about how this could be accomplished. If DP offered a kind of "linked" track set that just appeared (and hid things) in a special way. You'd end up with a mixed set of assignments. A MIDI input in one column, and an audio output in another column.

User interface wise all of this is lot more work in terms of knowing the program, it again also adds the possibility of problems, since a track goes from hosting MIDI in the TO to being only a host for the VI in the V-Rack. I just think the main reason DP doesn't have a single MIDI and instrument track for VI's hinges on the fact that no other DAW has Chunks and V-Racks, nothing even close to those concepts exists outside of DP. I'm not at all saying the space saving concept (if you don't use V-Racks) of a single track for a VI and it's first MIDI channel is a bad idea, there's a reason why the DAWs universally do this, just that it's IMO a quirk of DP that comes from it's one main unique feature, Chunks and V-Racks.

Who's to say there can't be the way it is now and what I'm talking about? I don't use V-racks but at the same time I'm not saying they shouldn't exist for those whose workflow accomodates them.

[stubbsonic]

I'm not at all saying the space saving concept ... of a single track for a VI and it's first MIDI channel is a bad idea, there's a reason why the DAWs universally do this, just that it's IMO a quirk of DP that comes from it's one main unique feature, Chunks and V-Racks.

Who's to say there can't be the way it is now and what I'm talking about? I don't use V-racks but at the same time I'm not saying they shouldn't exist for those whose workflow accomodates them.

Good, you both agree on this.

I think some requests can be lumped into a category: "Other DAWs do this this way, why can't DP?" And in many cases those requests are perfectly legit-- either because it simplifies something, or it adds a function that is musically necessary, or it makes the workflow less tedious. And this one is a case where DP got it right-- MIDI tracks play VI's and externals, and device groups. Instrument tracks can sit in the tracks or in a V-Rack for all chunks to use. It's really elegant. That a MIDI track and an Instrument track take up two rows on a TO makes things a little easier for me to categorize and control than if they were consolidated. But I can see some cases where this might be simpler for some kinds of things.

[csavetman]

I'd be down with the following:

1. VCA faders

2. Adding the option (or fixing- however you see it) to move grouped faders so they retain their relative balance, not proportional scaling as is currently the case. Again, It can be set as a preference, so as to retain backward comparability with older mix sessions.

3. Adding little disclosure triangles in the mixing board for inserts and sends, allowing you to collapse them from view without using the mini menu. Allow it to be on a channel by channel basis or global for the entire mixer.

4. Adding an option for send assignments in the track assignments box,. (Ex:: All selected tracks send A to buss-1)

Carlos

[musicman691]

I'd be down with the following:

1. VCA faders

2. Adding the option (or fixing- however you see it) to move grouped faders so they retain their relative balance, not proportional scaling as is currently the case. Again, It can be set as a preference, so as to retain backward comparability with older mix sessions.

3. Adding little disclosure triangles in the mixing board for inserts and sends, allowing you to collapse them from view without using the mini menu. Allow it to be on a channel by channel basis or global for the entire mixer.

4. Adding an option for send assignments in the track assignments box,. (Ex:: All selected tracks send A to buss-1)

Carlos

Agreed on all. I never noticed the grouped faders moving proportionally and not relatively - will have to pay attention.

[David Polich]

Resizable fonts for all windows! Please!

[Basstrup]

My wishlist, and I know some of this has been mentioned above.

UI:
Add track, even the new create track feature is great, I still would like to see a more stream lines UI for Add Track. Today if you hold down Option while in the Add Track dropdown, you can select multiple MIDI, mono and stereo tracks. If hold down option + shift you can also add multiple aux tracks. But no way you can make multiple master faders. I'd like to see the option to add multiple what ever when holding down the option key.

In the mixing board holding control while clicking on the track name you can change track color. In Track you need to hold down command. Same for the Sequence window, where you have to be very careful to click the first few pixels. Worst though is option + click in the Tracks window and the color scheme editor shows up. Personally I do never change the Color Scheme when working in a project, and I spend more time clicking away from the color scheme editor when trying to change track color in the Track window.

New features:
Be able to have sets of markers and be able organize markers like layers in Photoshop.
Be able to turn sets of markers on and off. Be able to assign a color to specific set of markers

Add take selector in the Mixing Board. Add a dropdown over the input button



Option for "100mm" faders in the Mixing Board

Being able to rename bus from other places than the bundles window. Like when you select bus in a send.



Being able to move tracks to a specific tracks folder


Add a Show Tracks for side bar and add functionality to Load Board Layout. And add a Select all unused tracks function.



VCA faders

Being able to find overlapping notes. I have noticed in some projects I receive there are overlapping MIDI notes, Almost duplicate but not exactly the same. One note might be one of a few ticks longer than the other. This creates an issue with running out of voices on some instruments, specially outboard MIDI synths. Also be able to find MIDI notes that extend beyond the beginning of the next note (same note) - seems this happen easily when editing that long note then will extend into the following note after editing.

Fix / new feature Plug Ins:
Add longer delay time in the otherwise excellent delay plugin, it is just too easy to go "out of range"

Add functionality to MW Limiter, like set limiting based on LUFs


New Plug Ins Wishlist:
Add a good digital reverb - LX480 anyone?

Add Pultec type EQ

Get those Meters from cue mix into DP

[Shooshie]

User interface wise all of this is lot more work in terms of knowing the program, it again also adds the possibility of problems, since a track goes from hosting MIDI in the TO to being only a host for the VI in the V-Rack. I just think the main reason DP doesn't have a single MIDI and instrument track for VI's hinges on the fact that no other DAW has Chunks and V-Racks, nothing even close to those concepts exists outside of DP. I'm not at all saying the space saving concept (if you don't use V-Racks) of a single track for a VI and it's first MIDI channel is a bad idea, there's a reason why the DAWs universally do this, just that it's IMO a quirk of DP that comes from it's one main unique feature, Chunks and V-Racks.

There's no cause-&-effect relationship between the absence of 1-track MIDI/Audio/Instrument and the presence of V-Racks and Chunks. Rather, they are both the result of a deeper philosophy, which is about keeping all tracks, instruments, and MIDI unique and independent, so that it is easier to enable them each to interact with the others in any way that you specify. That's harder to do when Instrument/MIDI/Audio are all the SAME TRACK!

Shoosh

[Shooshie]

There are some very good suggestions here. If you don't mind, I'd like to comment.

My wishlist, and I know some of this has been mentioned above.

UI:
Add track, even the new create track feature is great, I still would like to see a more stream lines UI for Add Track. Today if you hold down Option while in the Add Track dropdown, you can select multiple MIDI, mono and stereo tracks. If hold down option + shift you can also add multiple aux tracks. But no way you can make multiple master faders. I'd like to see the option to add multiple what ever when holding down the option key.

In the mixing board holding control while clicking on the track name you can change track color. In Track you need to hold down command. Same for the Sequence window, where you have to be very careful to click the first few pixels. Worst though is option + click in the Tracks window and the color scheme editor shows up. Personally I do never change the Color Scheme when working in a project, and I spend more time clicking away from the color scheme editor when trying to change track color in the Track window.

Both these suggestions are about consistency in the UI. I've often wished for the very same things, and I especially hate trying to remember which keys to press in which window to change the color, or to avoid the color editor, which should not be so accessible in any window, except by deliberate key command.

It should not be difficult to do either of these. Just tighten up the interface commands between windows. It should be the same command, no matter which window you're in, and that probably can be applied to other things as well.

As for the adding of multiple tracks, again I agree with Basstrup: the option key should give you a multiple of ANYTHING in the menus.

New features:
Be able to have sets of markers and be able organize markers like layers in Photoshop.
Be able to turn sets of markers on and off. Be able to assign a color to specific set of markers

Add take selector in the Mixing Board. Add a dropdown over the input button
[photo removed for conciseness in reply]

Option for "100mm" faders in the Mixing Board

Being able to rename bus from other places than the bundles window. Like when you select bus in a send.

Hear! Hear! I totally agree! I've asked for this before, too.
And I love the idea of sets of markers. I'd like to be able to copy marker sets and store them in the clippings window for other projects. Often, my markers are simply the basic layout of a song. Intro, verse 1, verse 2, bridge, etc. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to copy them from one project to another, because the measure numbers differ slightly, but perhaps we could SHIFT marker sets to get them lined up.

Being able to move tracks to a specific tracks folder


Add a Show Tracks for side bar and add functionality to Load Board Layout. And add a Select all unused tracks function.

I left the pictures in this because I think it's such a good idea. (not that the others were less good)
This would be very helpful.

Being able to find overlapping notes. I have noticed in some projects I receive there are overlapping MIDI notes, Almost duplicate but not exactly the same. One note might be one of a few ticks longer than the other. This creates an issue with running out of voices on some instruments, specially outboard MIDI synths. Also be able to find MIDI notes that extend beyond the beginning of the next note (same note) - seems this happen easily when editing that long note then will extend into the following note after editing.

This could EASILY be added to the Search Window. In fact, it may be there already. I haven't checked. But it should be an easy addition which would actually encourage people to explore and utilize this amazing feature. How many DAWs have a Search window? How many DAWs allow you to search for rhythms, notes, ranges, an dozens of other parameters? This is one of the reasons I love DP!


The rest of your suggestions are good. No problem with them. In fact, I've no problem with ANY of these suggestions, and I've wished for them more times than I can remember. MOTU, are you listening? These would not be hard to do. For most of them, they are probably 5 minute fixes in the code, providing it doesn't step on something else.

I love the idea of an overlapping notes search, but I also need to point out that there IS a feature to delete duplicate notes; it's not the same thing, so don't figure we already have what's being asked for here. Just to see all the overlapping notes in a track highlighted for fix or removal would be a relief to anyone who works in detailed MIDI.

Thanks for the great suggestions, Basstrup!

Shooshie

[bayswater]

Rather, they are both the result of a deeper philosophy, which is about keeping all tracks, instruments, and MIDI unique and independent, so that it is easier to enable them each to interact with the others in any way that you specify. That's harder to do when Instrument/MIDI/Audio are all the SAME TRACK!

I also prefer DP's approach of having each object do one thing. I think in "signal flow" and a DAW like Logic makes it difficult to do that. But, I think it will still do all the same things through reassigning inputs and outputs.

There are other areas where DP's approach -- everything does one and only one thing -- could be relaxed; e.g. having separate windows for duration, pitch, velocity, quantize, humanize, split, invert, etc.