Suggestions for DP 6.0.3

[carrythebanner]

I just don't see the point of that. Unless of course you're just more comfortable in Logic and want DP to act like Logic.

Or Pro Tools. Or Cubase. Or Live. Or a number of other DAWs that give you the option of using a combined MIDI+VI track. Having separate tracks is great for a lot of reasons, but it's also convenient to combine them for other reasons.

[bayswater]

I just don't see the point of that. Unless of course you're just more comfortable in Logic and want DP to act like Logic. I think DP's VI implementation is the most intelligently designed VI setup I've seen in any DAW. Not just a matter of preference; I think the fact that we can address VI's just like rack gear is brilliant.
Shooshie

Agree. Cubase was set up like that earlier, using an effects rack. Much more flexible AND logical.

[James Steele]

I'm guessing no DAW can be all things to all people. I think the DAW that tries may be doomed. So how do you send multiple MIDI tracks to the SAME VI in other programs that have the combined MIDI/VI track? Frankly, it all seems confusing to me, but then again, I'm just one of many people here who have been using Performer/Digital Performer for well over 20 years now and I don't really see any reason for changing it. Is it so you can keep the MIDI track and VI always together? You could use a track folder for that.

Hmmm... perhaps MOTU could add a new column to the Track Overview that would be similar to locking layers together in Photoshop, so that if you moved one track, adjacent locked tracks would move with it. Seems it would get pretty convoluted if you could lock non adjacent tracks to move together. Seems to open a big can of worms and not sure just what the return is?

[carrythebanner]

I just don't see the point of that. Unless of course you're just more comfortable in Logic and want DP to act like Logic. I think DP's VI implementation is the most intelligently designed VI setup I've seen in any DAW. Not just a matter of preference; I think the fact that we can address VI's just like rack gear is brilliant.

Agree. Cubase was set up like that earlier, using an effects rack. Much more flexible AND logical.

But, in addition to the VST Rack, in a recent version (4? 4.5?) they also introduced a single-track option.

[bayswater]

But, in addition to the VST Rack, in a recent version (4? 4.5?) they also introduced a single-track option.

Could be. I went into the Cornfield after 3.11

[chaim]

4) In previous versions, I could open things like the CPU Monitor window and resize it in such a way that it would look good on my screen without being cut off by other windows. Well, in 6.02, things like the CPU Monitor window and others' seem like they were an afterthought. For example, you can't even put the CPU monitor at the top of the screen to the right of the Transport Bar without cutting off the bottom of the window with your main window. Do they look at the screen when they're designing this stuff? And for that matter, the whole new GUI needs attention quickly. It feels like they designed the whole interface around consolidated windows. Maybe they don't realize that many of us have multiple monitors and don't use consolidated windows at all.

Yes. The cpu window should be totally redesigned. It does not need so much attention even if it could be in the mac upper menu bar I would be happy.

[bayswater]

4) In previous versions, I could open things like the CPU Monitor window and resize it in such a way that it would look good on my screen without being cut off by other windows. Well, in 6.02, things like the CPU Monitor window and others' seem like they were an afterthought. For example, you can't even put the CPU monitor at the top of the screen to the right of the Transport Bar without cutting off the bottom of the window with your main window. Do they look at the screen when they're designing this stuff? And for that matter, the whole new GUI needs attention quickly. It feels like they designed the whole interface around consolidated windows. Maybe they don't realize that many of us have multiple monitors and don't use consolidated windows at all.

Yes. The cpu window should be totally redesigned. It does not need so much attention even if it could be in the mac upper menu bar I would be happy.

Don't think I understand the problem with the CPU meter. Is this what you are looking for?

[David Polich]

4) In previous versions, I could open things like the CPU Monitor window and resize it in such a way that it would look good on my screen without being cut off by other windows. Well, in 6.02, things like the CPU Monitor window and others' seem like they were an afterthought. For example, you can't even put the CPU monitor at the top of the screen to the right of the Transport Bar without cutting off the bottom of the window with your main window. Do they look at the screen when they're designing this stuff? And for that matter, the whole new GUI needs attention quickly. It feels like they designed the whole interface around consolidated windows. Maybe they don't realize that many of us have multiple monitors and don't use consolidated windows at all.

Yes. The cpu window should be totally redesigned. It does not need so much attention even if it could be in the mac upper menu bar I would be happy.

Don't think I understand the problem with the CPU meter. Is this what you are looking for?

Yes, complete with the processor spike indicator lighting up.

[chaim]

4) In previous versions, I could open things like the CPU Monitor window and resize it in such a way that it would look good on my screen without being cut off by other windows. Well, in 6.02, things like the CPU Monitor window and others' seem like they were an afterthought. For example, you can't even put the CPU monitor at the top of the screen to the right of the Transport Bar without cutting off the bottom of the window with your main window. Do they look at the screen when they're designing this stuff? And for that matter, the whole new GUI needs attention quickly. It feels like they designed the whole interface around consolidated windows. Maybe they don't realize that many of us have multiple monitors and don't use consolidated windows at all.

Yes. The cpu window should be totally redesigned. It does not need so much attention even if it could be in the mac upper menu bar I would be happy.

Don't think I understand the problem with the CPU meter. Is this what you are looking for?

No. That's what I have right now WITH THE SPIKE LIGHTED UP AS WELL !!!
I'm suggesting to tuck the 2 or three meters in a corner some place very small and that's it, Just for an idea, The Activity Monitor app, has an option where you can have the cpu meters in the dock when the app is running.

http://free.mailbigfile.com/03429716757 ... 11/01.tiff

[bayswater]

No. That's what I have right now WITH THE SPIKE LIGHTED UP AS WELL !!!
I'm suggesting to tuck the 2 or three meters in a corner some place very small and that's it, Just for an idea, The Activity Monitor app, has an option where you can have the cpu meters in the dock when the app is running.
http://free.mailbigfile.com/03429716757 ... 11/01.tiff

I know it wasn't you that made the original point here, but I was responding to the claim that

"you can't even put the CPU monitor at the top of the screen to the right of the Transport Bar without cutting off the bottom of the window with your main window".

Of course you can use any number of general CPU meters that appear in the menu bar. But there are other posts here that point out an inconsistency between what they tell you and what DP meters tell you.

[chaim]

Since you quoted my post as well, I thought you where referring to me.

And just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting to use the mac's cpu meter's in place of dp's, I was just suggesting that dp can steal the design idea and placement.

Peace.

[jpiscitello]

Here is a suggestion: FASTER SAVE TIMES!

I'm sitting through a 60-second beach ball not able to do anything. Why is it so slow?

I imagine it's all the VIs...but I rarely adjust them while composing.

Couldn't there be some sort of fast-save data structure - where the program keeps track of where the data for VIs are, and doesn't rewrite it unless the user has changed something?

Or at least an automated incremental backup feature (which by the way is a great feature of Pro Tools 7.4.x and earlier) which, without disturbing my workflow, saves in the background?

Big time-saver this would be. (Sorry if it's been said before)...

[Armageddon]

This is more of a wish than a suggestion. After remastering my album, I will finally be closing up shop on my old G3 setup for good and abandoning it full-time for my MacBook setup with DP as my main DAW. On my G3, and pretty much the DAW I cut my teeth on, I use Vision DSP in OS 9.2.2 (which, these days, is a painful thing to revisit on a daily basis).

There are a few features I've always loved about Vision that seemingly got lost or abandoned in latter-day DAWS -- the auxiliary setup is deceptively simple to put together and use, built in Q on every track (handy for quick shelving, if nothing else!) -- but the one I've grown to appreciate the most is the "Exact" mode. Anyone who's ever used Vision or Studio Vision probably knows what this is. It's a simple GUI button that, when pressed, forces every action to prompt a window in which the exact parameters of said action can be entered numerically. For most things, like nudging a note or editing a waveform, this can be a big pain in the ass and you'd usually just turn it off. But it comes in extremely handy when drawing automation, which is what I use it for.

In DP, you can draw in automation using a variety of tools, and while you can get it very, very close to how you want it, and within the measure range you want it, there's still a slight margin of error, seemingly no matter how close you zoom in (and sometimes, zooming in that much can be its own pain in the ass). In "Exact" mode on Vision DSP, after drawing an automation parameter like, say, a continuous volume change, the "Exact" window pops up, in which you can type in where the event starts and ends, down to the smallest part of a measure, as well as the starting and ending parameter, and the Exact function draws the data for you exactly where and how you want it (with the option to undo it and change your set parameters). You can also select from four different type of slopes for this event, from a straight line to a parabola. And in Vision, this works for any parameter of any automation, from volume to EQ frequency to any plugin parameter. With as much attention to detail as DP has, I'm actually amazed that this feature isn't already a part of the program (and it's not like you'd be "stealing" it from Vision, since it's been dead technology for ten years now). I don't mind drawing in automation, or even trying to massage it in the Event list if it's not right on the money, but occasionally, you just want a quick volume fade in one exact spot.

[bayswater]

There are a few features I've always loved about Vision that seemingly got lost or abandoned in latter-day DAWS -- the auxiliary setup is deceptively simple to put together and use, built in Q on every track (handy for quick shelving, if nothing else!) -- but the one I've grown to appreciate the most is the "Exact" mode.

If you have the Event info bar turned on in the sequence editor (in information bar preferences), you can click on an automation event like volume or pan, or a MIDI note, etc, and then enter an exact value in the event info bar. I haven't exhausted all the possible event types, but can't see why it wouldn't work for any event of any type that can be displayed in the sequence editor and any value that appears in the event list. And of course you can also keep and Event Info window open in the CW and apply edits to value there.

[Armageddon]

If you have the Event info bar turned on in the sequence editor (in information bar preferences), you can click on an automation event like volume or pan, or a MIDI note, etc, and then enter an exact value in the event info bar. I haven't exhausted all the possible event types, but can't see why it wouldn't work for any event of any type that can be displayed in the sequence editor and any value that appears in the event list. And of course you can also keep and Event Info window open in the CW and apply edits to value there.

I know you can enter or edit a specific value and placement for a single event in the Event list (which I've also done), but is it possible to enter a continuous event, like say, a parabolic fade from Measure 1/1/0 to Measure 1/4/475, from one window, without having to draw it in manually? Granted, DP's drawing capabilities are fairly decent, and I've managed to draw quite a bit of automation that got me where I needed to be, I've just not encountered a feature specifically like that. That would be awesome, however, if there's actually a way to do that already in DP ... I just always assumed you'd either have to draw it in or enter it event by event in the Event window.