Conquistador.
ConquistadorOk…please do not vote until you have read the post. 🙂
Even if you are not a member of the forum please register and vote I would very much like to hear from potential users as well existing users. Post your comments please.
I like the hierarchic set up and went into some detail on this page why.
But I am really growing tired of it as any other app I pick up is just easier to use. The Grid is the same. I love the power it offers but I rarely use it as there just seems too many steps compared to other apps out there.
So what happened?
This is one of your own comments Frits (from another thread)
“I think the main problem as expressed in this topic, is that of the visual presentation in the mixer. The hierarchic engine is a very flexible construction. I frequently see user requests in the Tracktion, eXT and Reaper forums, where users are requesting possibilities of organizing tracks into folders, folders in folders, folder freeze, etc. All this is possible in Podium. It is a matter of tuning the Podium UI so that it allows simpler manipulation of the track organization.”
This is one of the reasons for my current problems with Podium and no doubt many others over the years who never bought a license…
1. “Turning the Podium UI” is about right but that is only part of it, a big part though…
This has always been an issue for me with Podium but much less than it used to be as you have done a great job simplifying it over the years in response to user feedback but navigating the UI is just harder work than it needs to be for the most part (sorry).
I can zip around it with my trusted combo of the GP, Mixer and arranger all in view…but if I fire up Tracktion I can’t help but wonder why is this so much easier to work in? What is missing? I was quite befuddled by this.
Here are IMO the rest of the reasons…
2. A single Browser. Uno, one, single, thats it. Nothing else. No…Nothing. A single powerful browser for everything in the arrange page. No more no less. Logic, Cubase, Sonar, Tracktion even PS1 operate this way.
3. A task focused area dead centre of the arrange below it. Touch anything and the area below brings up a lovely set of specifc tools directly related to what you are doing.
4. The main user options / buttons are tucked away to left at the bottom of the screen. Always visible and accessible. Much better than PDM IMO.
5. More settings are a tab away (top left of the screen). Podiums profile this and that region profile so forth e.t.c is just difficult to keep up with. Most of that goes straight over my head. It is much more complicated than it needs to be. I don’t know how many users know it even exists! I might have used it 3 times in 4 or so years. I don’t really understand it all and do not want to break something. Compare that to how many Tracktion users know of their Settings tabs existence, understand it and click easily through it to find what they need. I would think the difference in numbers is massive.
6. Zipping up projects. Tracktion allows you to zip projects up for other Tracktion users to unzip with everything intact. Audio files Midi e.t.c. Podium cannot yet copy audio dragged into a project talk less of zippiing a project up. It would not even work properly without manually copying over files first.
7. Tracktion has the inputs on the left…then the arrange…then the inserts. The inserts have arrows like Podium that point to the signal flow. Where they differ massively for me is the ease with which you can visually see Tracktions signal flow compared to Podium.
I want PDM to be the best it can be…some sort of changes that reflect the above suggestions would speed up Podiums uptake as it would be much easier to navigate and use. I think a new simple Tracktion like interface for users who want a quicker easier workflow would be gold. In a way the Compact view is still much more work to use compared to Tracktion for instance. The previous Advanced view… well lets no go there. 🙁
I suspect the results of the Poll will be very interesting one way or another. Comments for or against (or neutral) are welcome. 😉
MarkusMy vote goes for yes. Mixer is podium biggest weakness. Especially how it handle plugins. Actually it has done rly stupid way..
just my 0.02 cent..
pavouk100The hierarchic engine from the very beginning is very good and powerful, I think that no other host has this concept implemented. And that is also the problem – people used to other hosts have to understand some different concept here, unfortunately, many of them are not ready to get this, many of them just want cheaper/nicer live/cubendo/whatever. I don’t think that it is possible to solve this, either you align podium with mainstream hosts by removing hierarchical engine concepts, or you will learn to live with the difference and advantages/disadvantages it brings. I personally love mixer/tracks/hierarchy as it is, IMHO no need to do any changes.
pavouk100@Markus wrote:
My vote goes for yes. Mixer is podium biggest weakness. Especially how it handle plugins. Actually it has done rly stupid way..
Sorry, but you keep saying things like this without any clarifications. Why is mixer podium’s biggest weakness? What exactly you don’t like on mixer’s plugin handling? Please avoid answer ‘make it as in Live, it is nice’. Thanks.
Markus@pavouk100 wrote:
@Markus wrote:
My vote goes for yes. Mixer is podium biggest weakness. Especially how it handle plugins. Actually it has done rly stupid way..
Sorry, but you keep saying things like this without any clarifications. Why is mixer podium’s biggest weakness? What exactly you don’t like on mixer’s plugin handling? Please avoid answer ‘make it as in Live, it is nice’. Thanks.
Vsti needs to seperate from fx’s. It’s just stupid thing. Maybe adding some kinda vsti rack or something.
Example, in his way you can create 10 midi tracks and you just choose synth what you want come in input. Currently you cant do that. If i want to compress my kick’s, i need to make 2 instance of battery. One have kick’s other have hihats etc.. Stupid? eh..
When i start to use podium, i rly doesnt know which way mixer read those fx’s. Going upward order isnt best one. Dont really know any other host which do this.
Also I have notice that sometimes podium mixer just doesnt read my fx’s. It has like “bypass” some of my fx’s. Example limiter on master track. Couple month ago i made support question about this.
Also cause those fx’s going upward you have to soon scroll up and down all the time. Stupid? It takes time and you get frustrate. Best solution would be like arrow / E / FX / button. I have told this many times.
But like i said, it is just my opinion. Looks like no one else doesnt like me or my ideas. All i want to do, is make music making easier and faster. When your software is easy and fast to use, you get more customers. We talk about this in vip lounge.
kyranI’m actually wondering what you’re asking here.
When I read your post I get the impression that you want the interface to be layed out differently, but you ask for the hierarchical engine to be revamped.
I don’t think the hierarchical engine is a problem, it’s actually podium’s strength. It is not that difficult to grasp and very powerful.
In tracktion and live the signal flows from left to right, in most other sequencers it flows from top to bottom, in podium it flows from the bottom to the top. When you think about it, the approach of podium makes more sense really.
Maybe the interface can use a bit more clues that the signal flows from the bottom up.
Personally I think the foundations are very solid in podium, but the ui can use some tweaks. A lot of minor things might go a long way. I’ve got a sort of image of the perfect podium interface, but I’m lacking the time to mock it up.
aMUSEdI have no major problem with the hierarchy – it’s the project management that bugs the hell out of me. I do agree that it’s hard sometimes to distinguish plugins in a track
thcilnnahojI vote ‘none of the above’. 😛
I have never used Tracktion, nor will I ever (I hear development is long stopped anyway?). So I can’t relate to the things you see as easier – judging from only the screenshots I’ve seen, I wouldn’t want to work with it and would choose any ‘traditional’ sequencer over it. Are there any demo videos around? Have to remember to go check YouTube. I think the foundation and underlying concept of Podium is just dandy…
Conquistador@kyran wrote:
I’m actually wondering what you’re asking here.
When I read your post I get the impression that you want the interface to be layed out differently, but you ask for the hierarchical engine to be revamped.
One and the same pretty much. The representation of the signal flow in Podium (hierarchy) is one of my problems with it. Maybe keeping it as is and adding another view is better.
It may be more work and Frits might prefer a revision (or no changes at all).
Anyway…look at this image.
The mixer clearly shows the percussion track feeding into the ZpeQ but if you look at the corresponding track in the arranger it looks like the zPeq is feeding into the Percussion track. It’s a needless visual mix up that does not make sense.
To make matters worse the track below the Zpeq is feeding into it giving the impression that it is 3 levels below the percussion track. (Of course it is not) but it looks that way.
I know what is going on (used Podium for years) but I think that kind of problem is a hassle to visually deal with. The tracks at the very least should visually match the mixer signal flow. It just looks backward. I know someone who just simply could not understand it. He has used hardware and software for years. He is further down the road with software usage than I am. He found it really difficult to understand.
AFAICT he simply side stepped Podium completely I know he never posted here. How many times does that happen with potential buyers in month? Year?
I don’t expect Frits to drop the welcome changes to 2.20 and rush into this but I am simply bringing it up as he is working on UI changes however small or big. In any case It really could be much easier.
The image illustrated the kind of visual problem Podium presents a user needlessly. It gives legs to the “Podium is not easy” comments.
thcilnnahojI know you get it, Conquistador, but let me try to explain for anyone who might be reading that doesn’t understand: The track header in the arrangement is actually displayed more like a container for the whole signal chain. The actual “Percussion 4” track, containing audio or MIDI events, is the blank line under the zPEQ – it even has a signal flow arrow up into the hidden effect track. The name and controls (SMR, gain, pan) for this bottom track are drawn at the top of the container. At least to me it makes sense. :-k
The other gain and pan faders inside the ‘signal flow box’ belong to the effect track and are not available by default. I don’t know why CQSD has them activated in the picture.
How would you propose to change it? Pardon me if you already wrote down your ideas, maybe I missed it while reading all the threads. 🙂 If by saying “The tracks at the very least should visually match the mixer signal flow” you mean that effects should be stacked on top of the track then I would not like that better than the current view.
If I remember correctly you can’t see instruments, or at least effects at all on track headers in Logic, Cubase etc., which I think is not very nice. But anyone who likes it that way can choose not to show the signal chain on the track headers.
ConquistadorJust to clarify for those who do not know…Frits made a huge effort to change the UI here (in response to user feedback) and of course before and after that has made incremental changes to makes things easier. So its not like he has made no effort or that I am implying that. 🙂
@thcilnnahoj wrote:
I know you get it, Conquistador, but let me try to explain for anyone who might be reading that doesn’t understand: The track header in the arrangement is actually displayed more like a container for the whole signal chain. The actual “Percussion 4” track, containing audio or MIDI events, is the blank line under the zPEQ – it even has a signal flow arrow up into the hidden effect track. The name and controls (SMR, gain, pan) for this bottom track are drawn at the top of the container. At least to me it makes sense. :-k
Nice explanation. 8) It does however highlight the issue here. In Tracktion or indeed pretty much any other app there is no need for such an elaborate explanation. That is the point here. It should not be necessary. By the time job blogs has worked that out his Plan B Reaper download would be finished ready for install.
I don’t know anyone who does not want an easier way to do something. Easy sells. Complexity and power can be presented in an easier and more accessible interface. Maybe the Grid is let down by the inconsistency of the UI elsewhere. The implementation is excellent but UI consistency in Podium’s Track VS the Mixer is totally backwards IMO.
How would you propose to change it? Pardon me if you already wrote down your ideas, maybe I missed it while reading all the threads. 🙂 If by saying “The tracks at the very least should visually match the mixer signal flow” you mean that effects should be stacked on top of the track
The answer to your question is yes. Look at the GP. The signal flow goes up visually. The mixer exactly the same…tracks…no. You might not like a change to the tracks visually but you can see from my example here the three key visual elements in Podium (GP, Track and Mixer) do not all visually line up. Fact.
then I would not like that better than the current view.
I would also advise making any changes optional anyway. So don’t worry
If I remember correctly you can’t see instruments, or at least effects at all on track headers in Logic, Cubase etc., which I think is not very nice. But anyone who likes it that way can choose not to show the signal chain on the track headers.
Something else as a suggestion.
If you have four FX on say any RMX track it looks like this in the GP and mixer…
GEQ
GCO
Nitro
zPEQ
RMX
…if you click on the zPEQ the mixer and GP will both show the same FX track highlighted at the same level. The track view will still show this…
GCO
Nitro
ZPEQ
I know its a container for those FX tracks but its totally graphically inconsistent. I would definitely suggest a simple mirror of the GP or Mixer view. That would go a **very** long way.
2.20 saw Frits make this change…
“The device, preset, param and input popup menus in the mixer are now identical to the corresponding submenus in the track menu. “
This is the kind of consistency I am suggesting here. That change is exactly what was needed. A graphical tweak to the tracks view would go a long way. It simply is not consistent with the Mixer and GP currently.
The other gain and pan faders inside the ‘signal flow box’ belong to the effect track and are not available by default. I don’t know why CQSD has them activated in the picture.
I do that sometimes to get metering for FX tracks where the FX has no input or output meters. Also I do bounce from different points in a chain as well for more creative variation (Pan .e.t.c) 8)
LiquidProj3ctI really think that every host should be simplified to the minimum, avoiding multiples screens, menus…. = logical stuff = not a good friend for the musician.
thcilnnahojConquistador: Actually, I don’t think it needs explanation… I did explain it because you only presented one side of the coin, showing that it’s illogical.
As soon as you know how it’s supposed to be looked at it becomes clear, I think. To me, and since he made it, I guess to Frits as well, it was obvious from the first look.
If you were to use the view from the GP, then there would either still have to be some kind of container around the track and its effects or, probably the better solution, a little more space inbetween, like in the actual GP. Otherwise it would look like the tracks are flowing into each other. Another problem with that is the signal flow arrows – in the GP there’s only ever one track chain leading into the master track. It would look highly strange if a single track would flow upwards into some effects, and suddenly the last effect/send track in the chain flows to the left!?
I guess it can be even more simplified, but if you make it work then the question is still if that’s enough to get people like your friend to understand the ‘Podium flow’ – the way you proposed would still be backwards to people who assume that the signal flow goes downward like they’re used to from other sequencers.
I’m certainly not arguing that you’re wrong or that there shouldn’t be any changes. Maybe I am even starting to agree with you. If it can be made easier without clutter (as the extended mode kind of became with many tracks), then you have my blessing. I don’t necessarily think it needs change, though. That’s why I voted ‘none of the above’ in the first place. 🙂
Conquistador@thcilnnahoj wrote:
Conquistador: Actually, I don’t think it needs explanation… I did explain it because you only presented one side of the coin, showing that it’s illogical.
As soon as you know how it’s supposed to be looked at it becomes clear, I think. To me, and since he made it, I guess to Frits as well, it was obvious from the first look.
Its boiling down to a difference of opinion on that which is fine. I really do not think that is obvious to most people. Not nearly.
If you were to use the view from the GP, then there would either still have to be some kind of container around the track and its effects or, probably the better solution, a little more space inbetween, like in the actual GP. Otherwise it would look like the tracks are flowing into each other. Another problem with that is the signal flow arrows – in the GP there’s only ever one track chain leading into the master track. It would look highly strange if a single track would flow upwards into some effects, and suddenly the last effect/send track in the chain flows to the left!?
Either way the views are not consistent. I would say the mixer view maybe or similar would work with tracks. Maybe with thinner space between them if possible, but IMO it can and really should be refined for consistency.
I guess it can be even more simplified, but if you make it work then the question is still if that’s enough to get people like your friend to understand the ‘Podium flow’ – the way you proposed would still be backwards to people who assume that the signal flow goes downward like they’re used to from other sequencers.
True but progress of any sort is better than the current state. It will help. It may not solve every issue UI related but little by little is still progress.:)
I’m certainly not arguing that you’re wrong or that there shouldn’t be any changes. Maybe I am even starting to agree with you. If it can be made easier without clutter (as the extended mode kind of became with many tracks), then you have my blessing. I don’t necessarily think it needs change, though. That’s why I voted ‘none of the above’ in the first place. 🙂
Well I do appreciate the input so far from all on this thread. Its a refinement that I am asking for but how really its done, will be decided by Frits. He might agree with the idea he may not. 🙂
Mike GRegarding signal flow…
I think the “Arrows” show the signal flow, they are not quite arrows more like triangles poking out of the tracks.
Maybe this could be emphasised?
Maybe by actually drawing a line with arrows to show signal flow… or something like that?
edit: sorry thcilnnahoj just realised you already said this