Conquistador.
UncleAgeConquistador, as with every DAW, either it clicks or it doesn’t. For me Tracktion clicked. I never expected Podium to be like this. And even though I have never understood why almost every app has all that stuff in the track panel area I figured it was just me with the problem as most others were used to it. Or more like, it’s just that some people’s brain just processes things differently. Me, I will always appreciate the simplicity and depth of Tracktion.
See, everyone wants the added features but they want the devs to figure out how to keep them hidden until needed. For me, Tracktion did that. And to be honest I have never gotten a thing from the “hierarchy” layout of Podium. I use Podium because it’s always been stable and interface is comfortable to look at for long periods of time (not that overly bright crayon appearance of Tracktion). And I wanted to support a dev that I thought was doing an outstanding job (even if I didn’t always agree with the direction that app was taking). In the end, I just always worked around the hierarchy part.
Do I love the interface and workflow in T3? Absolutely! But I don’t want either app to try and be like the other. I think Podium has come a long way. What I’d really like to know is where does Frits see it going, over time?
namungerMy vote is… “No. I think its very easy to use. No need to make any changes”, but I’ll qualify “easy”. Did I find it intuitive when I first started? No, it took some time (though not much, maybe a few hours of use). Once I fugured it out however, I find it quite easy, and I prefer it to any other DAW I’ve tried – that’s why I use it.
It always seems odd to me when someone says, “I wish Poduim was more like DAW X”. I see Podium as the alternative to DAW X. If I wanted DAW X, that’s the one I would use. I know, some will say “take what works in DAW X, Y and Z and put them together”, but I like the fact that Podium has its’ own way of doing things, for those of us that don’t like X, Y, or Z.
Slomo@namunger wrote:
It always seems odd to me when someone says, “I wish Poduim was more like DAW X”. I see Podium as the alternative to DAW X. If I wanted DAW X, that’s the one I would use. I know, some will say “take what works in DAW X, Y and Z and put them together”, but I like the fact that Podium has its’ own way of doing things, for those of us that don’t like X, Y, or Z.
I have to agree to this. It’s a bit odd to want this unique program to become some sort of a collected sum of other apps. If I want the features in e.g. Ableton Live then I’ll use Live and not Podium. Personally I used Live for about an hour and then it got kicked out. It just didn’t work for me. I could still mail them (Ableton) and ask them to add features found in Podium though, make it more like Podium… 😉
We are dealing with a professional software here, “Podium, a professional music production software solution” (from the front page) and a professional software isn’t always easy to understand, yet master, at least not in the beginning. It just takes some commitment. Try to learn editing on the Avid system, modelling in Softimage (XSI) or make music in ProTools and you see what I mean. I don’t find Podium difficult at all compared to the learning curve some of these got.
Conquistador@Mike G wrote:
Regarding 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
Some sort of consistency to the three key views in Podium would help. A mock up would help here but I need time to put that together properly.
@UncleAge wrote:
Me, I will always appreciate the simplicity and depth of Tracktion.
Same here.
What is it about designers and coders products that is so attractive I wonder? Jules was a designer and a very good one. Just like Frits. Features with style I guess, but even the best designers cannot avoid the need for refinement.
I would say both devs have done much to change the way people think about Music software.
See, everyone wants the added features but they want the devs to figure out how to keep them hidden until needed. For me, Tracktion did that. And to be honest I have never gotten a thing from the “hierarchy” layout of Podium. I use Podium because it’s always been stable and interface is comfortable to look at for long periods of time (not that overly bright crayon appearance of Tracktion). And I wanted to support a dev that I thought was doing an outstanding job (even if I didn’t always agree with the direction that app was taking). In the end, I just always worked around the hierarchy part.
Pretty much my thinking as well. I would say with 2.20 and its focus there is certainly a significant step in the right direction.
Do I love the interface and workflow in T3? Absolutely! But I don’t want either app to try and be like the other.
Neither do I. There is a huge amount of crossover on features between hosts. Some ideas are worth consideration at least. No need to copy the entire app. Would make more sense to get the app being copied. 🙂
I think Podium has come a long way. What I’d really like to know is where does Frits see it going, over time?
A question for Frits I think. Plenty of clues on these forums though.
Conquistador@namunger wrote:
It always seems odd to me when someone says, “I wish Poduim was more like DAW X”. I see Podium as the alternative to DAW X. If I wanted DAW X, that’s the one I would use. I know, some will say “take what works in DAW X, Y and Z and put them together”, but I like the fact that Podium has its’ own way of doing things, for those of us that don’t like X, Y, or Z.
Yes but an attempt to simplify Podiums user friendliness is harmless. 🙂 Even if that means using a set of features from another app as an example. In the past there have been many references to DAW x,y or z in preview threads right here on this forum when adding features to Podium. 😉
You can use Product A (certain features of it) as an example for Product B without wanting Product A I find nothing odd about that. 🙂
@Slomo wrote:
It’s a bit odd to want this unique program to become some sort of a collected sum of other apps.
Really? 😉
In many ways Podium already is.
Frits would have had to stop with the idea for Podium going no further than his head a decade or so ago to avoid his creation being a sum of other apps to a great degree. It is the presentation of what Podium offers that is different in some ways but its similarities to other existing apps is far more than its differences.
Notice how many of the FR’s on the future forum already exist in many other apps? Nothing wrong with that but Podium will increasingly be the sum of other apps features and vice versa no doubt (for the most part) while presenting its features in its own unique way which is fine IMO.
Examples?
Audio features
Midi features
e.t.c
There is a huge amount of crossover between apps. It cannot be avoided. But Podium is a very clever presentation of many other features found in other apps. Better in many respects IMO.
The new Editor Bar in 2.20 is an excellent example.
Want to see how it works in reverse? Look at Presonus Studio 1. There are so many similarities with Podium so really feature crossover cannot be avoided one way or another. Or one host being to some degree or another being the sum of another similar host.
PDM will never be the new Tracktion…I never said I want that. I bought Tracktion ages ago. I don’t use it anymore. Refinement of certain Features with consideration given to some of those already in Tracktion is what I am asking of Frits here. 🙂
I would not want Frits to ever run into the delay compensation issues and the complex Racks that Tracktion has had. No thanks. But there is plenty there to consider for Podium in its own unique way.
SlomoI was addressing workflow and not features per se.
H-manWhoa! I just voted and now it’s 50 – 50. Who’s gonna win uh? 8-[
I really, really like the Podium track hierarchy as it is. I spent a lot of time testing the compact mode betas and now it’s second nature to me.
Additionally the project and track template capabilities combined with Comp-tracks, and the recent updates to the browser and track-bouncing make this a very fast environment for me to daydream some music into existence.
I own licenses for a number of other DAWs but I just don’t use them, and so for that reason I guess I’m not affected by the desire to have Podium behave as they do.
Now which way did I vote…
:-k
I should make clear that I’m all for healthy discussion on the topic. Forums work, that’s why there are so many, and the issue of first impressions for new users is as important as it is complex.
ConquistadorHe he… 🙂
I think I have another suggestion for an improvement here. Will need to put some screen shots up at some point. :-k
ZynewaveI’ll get round to revamping the mixer. Some of the “spreadsheet” like behaviour of the effect headers is a leftover from the old expanded track mode. With that mode gone in 2.20, I can now start cleaning up some stuff.
Before the mixer, I will be looking at the tracks region. For 2.21 I’m trying out a new feature that will make navigation easier. I’m not quite ready for a preview topic on that yet.
After that, I’ll be looking at the track header contents. I’m not entirely happy with the current design. I think it tries to cram too much functionality into the small space of the header. It can be confusing at times with all the controls, menus and different mouse actions. I’m thinking about a solution where the contents in the header is mainly information, and then add a single button on each header. Clicking this button will show a larger popup panel to the right of the track header (semitransparent overlay on the track lanes) with easy controls for managing the effect chain etc. That’s beyond 2.21 though.
soundquist@aMUSEd wrote:
I have no major problem with the hierarchy – it’s the project management that bugs the hell out of me.
I have to agree with the above.
On the subject of the hierarchic UI, I think your voting alternatives are perhaps not formulated in an optimal way. Who wouldn’t want the UI revised and simplified, as in alternative 1?
But that should in my opinion be done exactly as the developer himself says in your quote, which I’ll repeat:
“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.”
LiquidProj3ct@Zynewave wrote:
I’m not entirely happy with the current design. I think it tries to cram too much functionality into the small space of the header. It can be confusing at times with all the controls, menus and different mouse actions. I’m thinking about a solution where the contents in the header is mainly information, and then add a single button on each header. Clicking this button will show a larger popup panel to the right of the track header (semitransparent overlay on the track lanes) with easy controls for managing the effect chain etc. That’s beyond 2.21 though.
+1
Conquistador@Zynewave wrote:
I’ll get round to revamping the mixer. Some of the “spreadsheet” like behaviour of the effect headers is a leftover from the old expanded track mode. With that mode gone in 2.20, I can now start cleaning up some stuff.
Good news thanks.
Before the mixer, I will be looking at the tracks region. For 2.21 I’m trying out a new feature that will make navigation easier. I’m not quite ready for a preview topic on that yet.
I think the current focus on UI / Navigation e.t.c is spot on.
After that, I’ll be looking at the track header contents. I’m not entirely happy with the current design. I think it tries to cram too much functionality into the small space of the header. It can be confusing at times with all the controls, menus and different mouse actions. I’m thinking about a solution where the contents in the header is mainly information, and then add a single button on each header. Clicking this button will show a larger popup panel to the right of the track header (semitransparent overlay on the track lanes) with easy controls for managing the effect chain etc. That’s beyond 2.21 though.
Nice idea for a solution. 8) While you did say it was beyond 2.21…I have to say…hopefully it is not too far from 2.21. 😛
Conquistador@soundquist wrote:
On the subject of the hierarchic UI, I think your voting alternatives are perhaps not formulated in an optimal way. Who wouldn’t want the UI revised and simplified, as in alternative 1?
Even though (at the time of this post) they are less than those who voted for changes there are at least 6 forum members that voted against changes. They chose this option…
“No. I think its very easy to use. No need to make any changes.”
See for yourself in the current poll results. So yes not everyone wants this change or refinement. But thats ok. I would have been surprised if everyone picked the same answer. 🙂
The poll answers were put together with thought given to as many options as I could think of but no more than 6. Any more than that and it would start to look like a longer Q and A Survey. I did not want that. 🙂
I wanted to keep the options short but as varied as possible. Its a just a quick poll looking for views from potential and existing users. It would never have been optimal as such, as probably whatever choice of poll answers I chose would never please everyone (which is normal as we are all different). While there are always different ways of approaching a poll even if its not perfect or optimal its still ok though as is IMO. 🙂
But that should in my opinion be done exactly as the developer himself says in your quote, which I’ll repeat:
“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.”
He is certainly already thinking about refinements which is very good to read indeed. 8)
Malcolm JacobsonHaving just spent the past few hours playing around with release 2.20, I’ll admit to being one of those people who’ve kept going back to other programs – mainly Reason and Reaper – because I found certain things in Podium too confusing.
Recent releases have made great improvements, but I still find some things – e.g. the fact that you can’t select multiple tracks – really frustrating.
I’m glad to hear Frits is focusing on these things now, and I look forward to trying future releases.
Cheers,
Malcolm.
ConquistadorThanks for your views Malcolm and everyone else (for or against) so far. 🙂 Its been quite interesting seeing the numbers and the votes so far.
A question for you Frits…
I loaded up the default set up and wondered how to get tracks to show up in the mixer docked to the right (as the Master chain). I searched the Wiki and the the forum and did not really get any straight answers for this sorry I am quite confused at this point.
I don’t really understand this aspect of Podium but would like to know what exactly this does. I usually just disable the viewing of it in the mixer but I am curious about it now. 🙂
The screenshot shows the space for the Master chain.
I would have thought adding an effect track to the master track would cause it to show in the mixer but it just shows up in the Master strip (ZPEQ).
How do I get the “Master Chain” to show up in the mixer and or what exactly is it? Master FX chain? 🙁 Thanks in advance.