The Top 10 Most Requested Features

[monkey man]

I mentioned this years ago and haven't been around to push the idea:

If DP could provide a "tunnel" through / around the MAS for a single, "floating" channel (mono or stereo), determined by which VI the currently record-enabled MIDI track is routed to, one could conceivably maintain, say, a 512 or 1024 buffer for the duration of the project.

This would obviously, to a great extent, negate the need to render or freeze VI tracks. It would save a huge amount of buffer-adjustment time. Most importantly, it would offer a snappy response-time for VIs to MIDI input during MIDI tracking.

I thought of this some years back and posted it during a discussion where we touched on Logic's VI response to MIDI input. I think the thread was debating DP's CPU efficiency. All I remember is that the idea seemed to go down well; nobody, AFAICR, objected to it. Why would he / she anyway?

I'm bringing this up now because, as much as the idea scares the Hell out of me, it may be time to look at ditching all my MIDI hardware and going ITB. Electricity price increases (lots of synths and 3 24I/Os), as well as the MOTU AVB dilemma (can't upgrade due to lack of TB on my machine) I face could both be taken care of if I were to take this plunge. A system comprising a single or even 2 AVB units would chew much less juice and not require TB.

It's a brave (for me) path to be exploring given the time (programming many thousands of patches) and money I've invested in my beloved synths, but the lack of musical activity has dragged on for so long now I'm starting to wonder whether or not I should just be done with it. A transition to VIs was on the cards anyway, but I'd not envisaged its taking place for several years hence.

Just thinking out 'loud; please forgive me. This is what prompted the "tunnel" idea's being regurgitated at any rate; I've never taken the MIDI hardware's snappy response-time for granted. I can't imagine having to manage buffer delay whilst tinkling the ivories...

[bongo_x]

There are several other Mac standard things I’d like to see in DP like selecting a range of tracks by holding the shift key. Doing it one at a time is really annoying.

Sometimes I'm wondering if we're using the same program. Yes, you can select a range of tracks either with the Shift key or the Command key. You can click, then shift-click a lower track, and it will select all tracks between them. Or you can just click and drag. Of course, I'm talking about the Tracks Overview window, but that brings up something else: if you learn to use the windows wisely, you can use the Tracks Overview for selection and many other things, then return to the Sequence Editor to use that selection. Or vice versa. I think you mentioned that you'd like it to maintain selections from window to window, but it does that. Always has. Always. If yours isn't doing that, then there's a problem in your installation or something, because DP definitely maintains selections from window to window.

Well, that’s exactly the point I’m making; Why in the world do I have to switch to a different window to select a range of tracks, and then switch back to work? Why can I select a group of tracks one at a time with the opt key in the Seq window, but not shift select, which I can do in the Tracks window, but I can’t select tracks at all, group or otherwise, in the Mix window?

I don’t see any way that this can be explained as a work flow option and not just a left over limitation of an older version. It should be changed. There are many things I wish DP did like Pro Tools, and vice versa, but some of those are just different ways of working and a personal preference, not flaws in either program. Most of the other things I’ve listed do not fall in that category. These are shortcomings.

Your video is interesting, and I can see how that would be very useful for you, but when I see things like this I’m reminded how entirely different many of our workflows are. It IS like you’re working in a different program.

I use the Sequence window and the Mix Window over 95% of the time. I use the MIDI window sometimes, the Drum window rarely, and the Tracks window only if I have to (mostly because it screws with my hidden tracks), the others are not a part of my world. I rarely have MIDI tracks or VI’s playing in a track. I work out the parts for them and then print them to audio, and then disable and hide the original tracks. Hidden tracks are always disabled tracks, disabled tracks are almost always hidden, I don’t want them reappearing at random. Most all of my time is spent manipulating audio files; editing, effects, etc.

As far as I can tell, the Tracks window itself serves no real purpose other than to make up for the things the other windows won’t do for some unexplained reason. The Seq window and the Tracks window have almost exactly the same functions, except for the limitations. I’m sure that wasn’t true in the past, but now it just seems to be a legacy feature. That’s fine and I’m sure lots of people make good use of two screens doing slightly different versions of the same thing (as I’ve seen in videos and in other programs), but I don’t need it and I don’t see the need for the limitations of the Seq window.

Here’s just a quick example of how I would do something in Pro Tools; if I wanted to hear in solo several tracks that were not grouped I would swipe across them with the selector (because it will go across tracks), and hit "shift-s" (shift-i would put them in input, shift-m mute, shift-r record). Two quick moves. That of course is taking into account my own setup and preferences, but I can select and loop and hear solo’d several tracks that easily. And if I wanted to go to the mixer those tracks would be selected and highlighted there. Of course it’s possible to do the same thing in DP, but not nearly as quickly (unless I’m missing something).

I hate to compare one program to another, but my frustration is that there is no reason for these limitations. Nothing about the workflow of DP would change to make this possible. In fact the workflow is incredibly similar between the two, and several years ago Pro Tools would not have worked like that but would have worked just like DP does today.

[Babz]

Here's something that I do, and not everyone sees why I do it. Some people try it, get it right off the bat, and they thank me. Others look at it and say "why would I want to do that?" Well, if you see it and know why you'd want to use it, then it's for you. If not, c'est la vie. It's called...
Using Mission Control in DP:

• You Tube Video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNSsG5gcKRw
  Tips Sheet Thread:
  http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 45#p199845

<snip>
Shooshie

I know you've been recommending this for a while, Shooshie, and I know I should've been paying better attention, but I've got a moment in between projects now so I think I'm going to give this a try.

One question (which has probably been asked before): How is this better or different than using DP's window sets feature?

I am wary of relying too much on Apple OS features, only to have them yanked away from me in an upgrade (like when they got rid of the wonderful Labels feature and replace it with the far inferior "tags" Grrrr ....One reason why I'm still on Mountain Lion. )

Babz

[Shooshie]

I use the Sequence window and the Mix Window over 95% of the time. I use the MIDI window sometimes, the Drum window rarely, and the Tracks window only if I have to (mostly because it screws with my hidden tracks), the others are not a part of my world. I rarely have MIDI tracks or VI’s playing in a track. I work out the parts for them and then print them to audio, and then disable and hide the original tracks. Hidden tracks are always disabled tracks, disabled tracks are almost always hidden, I don’t want them reappearing at random. Most all of my time is spent manipulating audio files; editing, effects, etc.

As far as I can tell, the Tracks window itself serves no real purpose other than to make up for the things the other windows won’t do for some unexplained reason. The Seq window and the Tracks window have almost exactly the same functions, except for the limitations. I’m sure that wasn’t true in the past, but now it just seems to be a legacy feature. That’s fine and I’m sure lots of people make good use of two screens doing slightly different versions of the same thing (as I’ve seen in videos and in other programs), but I don’t need it and I don’t see the need for the limitations of the Seq window.

This only illustrates the difficulty in really learning a DAW when your real commitment is to another DAW. The Tracks Overview is part of my workflow, because it's a versatile and important part of DP's design. I couldn't really use DP effectively without it.

The Sequence Editor and the Tracks Overview are really nothing alike, and their functions hardly overlap at all. If the overlap is all you are seeing, then that's part of your problem with DP. In my previous post, I suggested some changes you might make that would really enhance your use of DP. (and no, the Tracks Overview does not screw with your hidden tracks if you set the preferences as I suggested.)

I tried. If my suggestions don't appeal to you, then you're rejecting some things that would help. You can work in DP anyway you choose, so I'll leave it at that, but your assessment of DP is simply wrong. You're still making negative claims that are not accurate. I'm not saying DP can't be improved; a few of your complaints are similar to my own. But many of your problems could be eliminated without changing the app; just your way of using it. Setting preferences, for instance. Giving windows their own spaces.

But I said I'd leave it at that. Horse, water, drink...

Shoosh

[Shooshie]

Here's something that I do, and not everyone sees why I do it. Some people try it, get it right off the bat, and they thank me. Others look at it and say "why would I want to do that?" Well, if you see it and know why you'd want to use it, then it's for you. If not, c'est la vie. It's called...
Using Mission Control in DP:

• You Tube Video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNSsG5gcKRw
  Tips Sheet Thread:
  http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 45#p199845

<snip>
Shooshie

I know you've been recommending this for a while, Shooshie, and I know I should've been paying better attention, but I've got a moment in between projects now so I think I'm going to give this a try.

One question (which has probably been asked before): How is this better or different than using DP's window sets feature?

I am wary of relying too much on Apple OS features, only to have them yanked away from me in an upgrade (like when they got rid of the wonderful Labels feature and replace it with the far inferior "tags" Grrrr ....One reason why I'm still on Mountain Lion. )

Babz

Yeah, Me too, Babz. But I've been using it for 8 years now, and so far it's still my favorite way of working.

How is Mission Control different from Window Sets? All I can say is that I used to have about 30 window sets, but after discovering Spaces (mission control) I dumped them. I can't explain why I find MC more appealing than WS, but I do. It takes me about 10 to 15 seconds to distribute my windows each time I open a project, but for some reason I still prefer it over window sets. Try it and see. Maybe you won't find it as appealing. I don't know.

Shooshie

[bongo_x]

and no, the Tracks Overview does not screw with your hidden tracks if you set the preferences as I suggested.

I’m sorry, I missed that part. I can’t seem to find it here or in the preferences. Then at least I would be able to use the Tracks window to quickly enable or disable a bunch of tracks, which is all I really do with it.

I’ve never been able to get into the virtual desktops thing, going back to versions of Linux many years ago. It looks like it works great for your system though. Then again, I’ve always run my Macs in single app mode so I’ve always had something of that flavor.

The Sequence Editor and the Tracks Overview are really nothing alike, and their functions hardly overlap at all. If the overlap is all you are seeing, then that's part of your problem with DP.

Apparently. I can’t tell what the difference is supposed to be except for artificial limitations for no apparent reason.

But again, I’m not asking for changes to the basic workflow of DP, there’s nothing basically wrong with it, just eliminating shortcomings that seem to have no reasoning behind them. Taking the Logic out of it, in other words ;)

[frankf]

I know you've been recommending this for a while, Shooshie, and I know I should've been paying better attention, but I've got a moment in between projects now so I think I'm going to give this a try.

One question (which has probably been asked before): How is this better or different than using DP's window sets feature?


Babz

I prefer Window sets, Shooshie prefers Mission Control. It's really a personal preference and he I and others have described the value of both methods. One thing though with Window Sets: I had to reset all of mine when I got a larger monitor. I don't think I would have had to do that if I used Spaces.

[HobbyCore]

Apparently. I can’t tell what the difference is supposed to be except for artificial limitations for no apparent reason.

But again, I’m not asking for changes to the basic workflow of DP, there’s nothing basically wrong with it, just eliminating shortcomings that seem to have no reasoning behind them. Taking the Logic out of it, in other words

I understand what you're saying and I agree with your sentiment.

The 'problem' is that other programs combine most all of the features of the tracks and sequence views into a single window. So when you look at DP, it seems like they are needlessly separated.

The other side of it is that DP allows you to separate workflows into different visual containers. This can reduce complexity for some workflows that primarily require only the features of one or the other.

Personally, as I've experienced Logic Pro X more recently, I have also become a bit confused by the separation of the track/sequence windows. Logic (and PT and Cubase) manages to do all the functionality of both, that I'm aware of, in a single window. When I come back to DP, the sequencer window just feels limited, and the tracks overview is like just hitting 'Z' in logic.

[bayswater]

I try to resist making direct comparisons between DAWs. Someone who's name starts with Shoosh told me when I first got here, the best way to get the Cubase workflow is to use Cubase.

But if I look at DP and Logic, the TO is a bit like having the main window in Logic with all the other inspector and library windows open. In DP the sizing and layout is manageable given the amount of information being presented. In Logic this view feels very busy and crowded. The SE is more like keeping a cleaner Logic window without all the other windows you need to do configuration and setup. Using your argument, I might say that Logic needs to put all the stuff in the Inspector and Libraries in the track headers so I don't have to open the former up to make setup changes.

Comparing the two it seems to me the ease of use, if you use the two as designed, is not that much different. In DP you might be toggling back and forth between the TO and the SE (although you need not be if you have an organized workflow). In Logic you'll be moving back and forth between edit windows, libraries and inspectors (although, again, you shouldn't be doing this). In both apps, maybe the fact that you can keep changing things is more a curse than blessing.

Maybe both applications pretty much have to do what they do the way they do it because their basic approaches are different. Logic is a region or object based app where tracks are the way to position things in time and send signals to channel strips. DP seems to have given up this level of complexity, and settled on tracks as the focus, without any real loss of function and flexibility.

It might sound easy to take all the stuff in the TO and add it to the SE, but I wouldn't assume that would be an easy programming task, and I'm not convinced the result would be easier to use. If it was easy to do and would work well, and MOTU hasn't done it, you'd have to assume they're all idiots and that's clearly not the case.

Unlike Shooshie, I don't do any editing in the TO, but find it perfect for config and setup, and it really does serve as a sequence overview. All my edits get done in the edit window that best suits the material, SE or MIDI Edit. One key press gets me back and forth. It's a click in Logic, assuming the desired windows are open, and the flippy triangles are set right.

In the ideal world, DP would edit audio just like PT, do articulations just like Cubase, do regions just like Logic, patterns just like Live. I'm told that the answer is Samplitude, but they abandoned their Mac port, and that make me wonder how simple to update these apps are.

[HobbyCore]

In the ideal world, DP would edit audio just like PT, do articulations just like Cubase, do regions just like Logic, patterns just like Live. I'm told that the answer is Samplitude, but they abandoned their Mac port, and that make me wonder how simple to update these apps are.

You could always gauge how awesome Samplitude is by the fact that their brand new $999 version can't even be sold on the second-hand market for $230. Multiple legitimate copies available out there if you're curious. Nobody else wants them.

Also, my 'DAW comparison' was simply to help explain why someone may feel that DP's track/sequence views would be redundant and limited.

[Shooshie]

Babz, and others looking for the big difference between Mission Control and Window Sets:

Mission Control is shifting you between desktops. It can actually use Window Sets as a means of resetting everything or bringing back a Consolidated Window you've accidentally closed.

Window Sets are pre-defined setups for windows. But they can't bring back arrangements you just created, or put windows into the latest arrangement that your work has morphed your windows into.

So, it's not so much one vs. the other, but how we use each one. Mission Control adds a dimension: your current working arrangement, like food on a plate, can be moved away or brought back as-is. Window Sets cannot do that, but they're still useful for your starting point with any window setup.

If you need examples, I'll try:
I'm always changing my arrangements in any desktop as I work. Say I'm in the Mixing Board. I'll open a couple of meters and follow a track, maybe automating an EQ or something. I've got the EQ open, the Meters open, and the Mixing Board open. The Mixer is open to all channels. The other windows are arranged around it as best allows the viewing for what I'm doing. Now, I decide to go to another full-screen arrangement in the MIDI Editors desktop. I'll have three or four MIDI Editor windows in there, one-each from 4 chunks, with the active one on top. Maybe I'll look at the 2nd chunk's MIDI Editor and compare it to the 4th chunk's MIDI Editor. Maybe I'm comparing tracks, or instruments... it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, in the Tracks Overview (Consolidated Windows), I've got sidebars with changing windows. Maybe I've got Groups open, or Track Inspector, but on the right side I have the Legend and the Selection Windows open. Now I add the MOTU meters below the Tracks Overview.

SO, you see... each desktop is starting to get very customized as I work.

I can go between these desktops without changing a thing. Double click on a MIDI bar in the TO window, and... zip... I'm in the 3rd Desktop where I keep my MIDI editors, and it's still set up with the comparison of the windows, and I'm looking at the selected bar, with all my tracks still showing as I left them.

Switch to a plugin desktop, and that's going to be VERY customized from chunk to chunk, but they all remain open and in the positions where you left them. Because you're switching between virtual monitors, essentially, you're not specifying preset window arrangements. You're switching between where you left your workflow last, which is where you'll pick up when you get back to it.

You see? You cannot possibly have enough window sets to cover this. And if you did, you'd never remember them all. This allows you to WORK. This lets you mess around with what you've got. When you come back to it, it's exactly as you left it. Window Sets are not like that. They are rigid. This is flexible, yet it stays put. And, you can still use your window sets to get back to a certain place.

If you try it for a while, you'll see that this is the main reason why this experience cannot be duplicated any other way, except possibly buying 16 monitors. But where would you put them all? No, this is truly the best of all worlds.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Also, my 'DAW comparison' was simply to help explain why someone may feel that DP's track/sequence views would be redundant and limited.

They are not. You know nothing about the Tracks Overview Window if you think it's just a limited Sequence Editor.

Jeez, folks. Work with me a little. Try it out. Work for a day or two this way, and see if it doesn't suit you better. Try reading and learning about the Tracks Overview Window, too. There are some things about it in the Tips Sheet, though not nearly enough.

You folks who want regions, do you realize that you've GOT regions in the Tracks Overview Window? Do you realize that it works a little like the Song Window? It's got cells, which are a little like chunks that you can arrange. You can move things around VERY quickly. Change resolution, select every other cell, or every 3rd cell, and you've just selected all the downbeats. Or all the 4th beats, or whatever. Slip over to the MIDI Edit Window and grab one of their velocities, then CONTROL-SHIFT-DRAG to proportionately bring up the downbeats for emphasis. Saves you from having to carefully select each one amidst all the other MIDI stuff that's happening. Just click-click-click, and you've selected a complex group or pattern. It's just a matter of visualizing what's in the tracks, then carefully adjusting the window resolution to fit it.

In the Tracks Overview Window you can instantly drag a region to a scratch track for further isolation from the rest of the track. There, you can mute it, edit it, change it's output channel, or any of a thousand other operations. Done? Drag it right back into its mother track.

I could come up with a thousand more examples, but at some point you just have to try it and learn how to use it, how to incorporate it into your workflow so that YOU come up with the scenarios for the Tracks Overview Window and how it's used.

Shooshie

[Michael Canavan]

Honestly what Shooshie said!
Tracks Overview and the Sequence Editor can easily take care of 90% of what you need to do in DP.

An example from DAW comparison 101:
Logic needs the MIDI editor open to see inside the regions/objects in the Arrange Page. As far as things like automation goes there's literally not a way to draw automation over MIDI notes like in the Sequence Editor. This is why Apple decided that the piano roll MIDI editor should be a sub window in Logic's main page, copying DP and Live respectively. In Logic markers are next to worthless, they really barely do anything. in DP a marker in the TO will allow you to select everything to the next marker, this makes rearranging a part in a song that much easier.

To DP's credit there is one mixer, in Logic the Environment is the 'real' mixer, the Mixer is simply what tracks you have in the Arrange page. Plus an easy and really quite elegant way of working in DP is to have the TO on top in the Consolidated Window and the Sequence Editor on the bottom with very wide vertically tracks, anything you select in the TO shows up in the SE instantly in full edit mode.

The object oriented nature of the Arrange Page in Logic works pretty well there, but it would screw up things in DP, the only thing that would be of use IMO is if you could cut, pasted and glue the parsed regions in the TO so that selection (as in point click) no matter what zoom level for that region would be a bit easier when zoomed in.

Another thing worth mentioning is you can drag other Sequence Chunks into the TO from the Chunks window. This is soooo much better than making the song 20 minutes long so you can drag things from past the end of the sequence like you do in Logic.

I think it's because me and Shooshie worked in DP when the Sequence Editor simply didn't exist that we realize that the SE is for fine audio editing and MIDI automation/rough editing. The TO actually does more in terms of the whole song.

[monkey man]

I am wary of relying too much on Apple OS features, only to have them yanked away from me in an upgrade (like when they got rid of the wonderful Labels feature and replace it with the far inferior "tags" Grrrr ....One reason why I'm still on Mountain Lion. )

Babz

Hey Babzie, you're probably already aware of this, but a free app called XtraFinder allows our beloved label colours to be seen in their full glory as we're used to:

https://www.trankynam.com/xtrafinder/

You'd think Apple would at least give us the option of choosing the newer system or the original. I mean, colour labels have looked that way since OS9 (probably before that even), so it's not as if they could've thought that it wouldn't inconvenience many, many folks. Then again, it probably didn't even occur to them...

[monkey man]

I'm not even doing any work yet, but I imagine Spaces would be more convenient for me. I've a bunch of window sets, but TBH they're never going to match exactly any given scenario (workflow?) I've set up whilst, well, working. They're great in theory for this, but there're always unique situations to every project.

I experienced many crashes back in the day when switching window sets. I can't see how Spaces would have that effect, as, if I'm understanding this correctly, all windows remain "intact" or open; one's just looking at 'em (or not) depending upon which "Space" is selected. I don't know why DP crashed as it did, but I suspect it was because a bunch of windows along with all the attendant rendering was being asked to open at once. I'll bet I'm not the only one who's held his breath (actually became a habit) whilst waiting for a window set to open. IIRC, the smaller the project size, the fewer the active busses and plug-ins, the less likely DP was to crash upon instantiation of a new window set.

As Frank suggested, any time you buy a new monitor or run the app at another location (different monitor), you'd have to re-save your sets lest windows creep off-screen or space is wasted around them.

Seems to me that I too will be ignoring them and using Spaces; it'd be a rare scenario for which any of my sets would be 100% perfect. I'd like to think that should Apple abandon the feature at some point, that we Unicorns could talk MOTU into providing a similar (knowing MOTU, probably better!) feature within DP.