Topic: Preview: Compact track layout

@Zynewave wrote:

The zPEQ track under send 2 in your image is inside a track chain panel but it is one of 3 tracks inside that track chain panel that is graphically sharing that waveform to the right, or sharing the same audio track.

I’ve just hidden the bounce track lane as an experiment. You weren’t supposed to pick up on those details :wink:.

😛

@Zynewave wrote:

The bounce sound event is still on the hidden lane. I’m thinking of a method to paint the bounce sound as a background image on the drum lane, once bounce is activated.

Dealing with bounce enabling Effects track from within a track chain.

This might be a good idea… have only one track, bounce enabled within a track chain. That way if a user wants to tap the tree (or bounce a version of his processed track from any point from a chain) that has 4 FX for instance, then he can bounce enable any one of the 4 Effect tracks (but only one) and that output will then be drawn / visible in the track that is shared by all those FX…replacing whatever waveform is already there.

That solves the problem of how to draw multiple waveforms for bounce enabled FX tracks that are within a track chain panel. I don’t think it should be possible or needs to be possible. Especially in compact mode. One bounce enabled Effects track from within a track Chain panel, should be enough. Disabling the bounce enabled track then frees up the single slot for any other Effects track in the chain to be bounce enabled. Thoughts?

I don’t think it is unrealistic to expect a user (especially in the simpler Compact mode) to only want one bounce track enabled within a Track chain panel. One would assume a user wants to work with one bounce track at a time anyway…certainly for a new user.

If any one of the FX tracks are bounce enabled any attempt by a user to bounce enable another FX track, should be met with a simple explanation that “Only one bounce track can be enabled from within a track chain panel”. You might even add that text to the Track Properties option for enabling a bounce track as well / instead of a pop up, so that the first time a user creates a bounce track from an Effects track within a track chain, he will see that text.

Confusing blank track headings?!?!?!?

When adding a new FX track from within track chain panel, a blank track with no name appears. It’s not at all clear what to do next. I think the text “FX track” as a default track identifier should appear on that track.
That text will then be replaced by the name of the plugin that is inserted on that track.

Also there is still no pop up message that tells a user what to do like “Right click here to add an Effects Track. Left click to insert an FX mapping”.

Do not assume anything of a new user, keep it ultra simple. I think the four large buttons that appear in the Project start page for new projects, are a masterclass in simplicityIMO. Lets keep that going.

The addition of so many new features with of this new level of flexibility(compact mode), needs to be matched by a similar level, but of simplicity in presentation that makes it easy to understand so many new changes. That is not happening yet. Just being frank here. Too much is being asked of a user here IMO. Especially new users who I would think are your no.1 target surely.

Making Podium easier for them to access makes it easier for you to get new users. Make it harder by adding features without even a small pop up (that is all that is being suggested here) is complicating the process of allowing new users to “get” the clearly powerful new features. That needs to happen very quickly. Make the most of all your hard work Frits.

Smart Podium
It was nice to left click on an FX / Parent track and see Podium intelligently remove my VSTi folder from my list of FX mappings. Of course when I went back to a new track the VSTi mappings re – appeared for selection, nice. Perhaps I have just noticed an older but useful feature.

Can we now have Mixer snapping please?
http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=977

I am far more inclined to use more tracks in Podium now in Compact mode (so job well done there) but that means a larger number of mixer strips to manage and dragging the mixer across the screen results in a sliding motion that is not the best way to view a high number of track strips. Mixer snapping is a far better and elegant way to scroll across the mixer. Samplitude and Sonar have this really simple but useful feature.

db values on Fader Background

@Zynewave wrote:

I have since moved the line down to the middle of the knob. The reason the slide was at the top of the knob was to allow text to be written on the area where the knob moves, like it’s done in the mixer. I have since decided not to write dB labels on the fader background.

I think you might have to move it back up 😛 I think having the db values on tracks is necessary and is the natural evolution of the development of track level info in Podium. If you personally or even if anyone else finds it a distraction (I cannot imagine why) then please allow it to be hidden for those that do not want it.

At some point surely Podium will need to have these track level features…
http://www.zynewave.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1041

But at least for now please do not so quickly and easily dismiss the idea of db values behind those new track sliders. I have always admired the way the db values on the glass mixer buttons update and correctly reflect what is underneath them in the mixer.

So they are not a gimmick but an excellent and accurate reference point for mixing that also show a designers touch. But…one should not be forced to use the mixer for that sort of db reference or a 3rd party app like Sonalksis Free G to get simple db Value references at track level.

Without db values the button might have looked odd with the position of the line at the time but AFAICT it was clearly not finished. The db values had not been added. Adding them will ‘complete’ that feature IMO.

To clear up any possible misunderstandings: The fader knob shows the current gain dB value, just like the mixer knobs. It’s the 0, -3, -6 etc. labels underneath that I have decided not to show to avoid cluttering the lane headers with too much text.

It would appear there is no misunderstanding. That is why I said “If you personally or even if anyone else finds it a distraction (I cannot imagine why) then please allow it to be hidden for those that do not want it.” Meaning an option would please all. If it looks like “clutter” to you or anyone else simply disable it.

If you want to do precision mixing, then use the mixer.

That is exactly why I also said “But…one should not be forced to use the mixer for that sort of db reference or a 3rd party app like Sonalksis Free G to get simple db Value references at track level.”

I think it’s a missed opportunity but it’s your decision. No worries. You indicated that it may change in future but either way one can still produce a perfectly professional result without them in Podium of course. In any case the severe ongoing issues with automapping are a far more pressing issue compared to seeing background db values at track level.

@Zynewave wrote:

@kingtubby wrote:

I’m generally in favour of the direction Frits is taking with this, though I have to agree at the moment it is looking a little complex.

Please be more specific. What is “it” that is looking complex?

Sorry, I should have clarified my point a bit more. From my own perspective the direction you are taking is fine and makes sense. I was just trying to look at it from a new users point of view. I thought that perhaps having the information in the track headers replicated in the inspector could look a bit too much to take on board initially.
Of course, I understand that the group panel can be hidden and also that overall it’s still a work in progress.

One thing that is starting to bother me though is the fact that the options and settings are all over the place. It can be a bit of a trial trying locate particular settings. Would it make sense and/or be possible to have it all located under one menu/sub menus?

Please give me an example. Are you talking about the different dialog windows for the editor profiles?

I’ve looked at it again and I see now that I was a bit off the mark…again 😳 I can see that some of the available settings are arrangement specific and are therefore probably not suited to grouping with the global settings. Regarding the editor profiles though, I have the tools in a particular order that is the same for all the editors. Perhaps an option to set this globally in this case might make sense. Currently one has to go through all the individual profiles, though obviously once it’s set then it’s done.

Mart.

@Zynewave wrote:

I may even decide to force hide effect tracks in compact mode, and thereby remove the “hide track lane” option, to further reduce UI complexity.

I agree with estwing, that is a very good idea. That will definitely help keep things simple thanks.

One question – How to hide master track from tracks view.(but all other tracks must stay visible)