Topic: Zynewave synth & effects, opinions?

That sounds good..

Must confess.. I installed my first Podium beta about 2 years ago, and made noise within 5 minutes. Maybe it’s just me. I’ve never quite got to grips with what the problem is. I can see that the ‘inverted waterfall’ signal flow isn’t what everyone recognises – having said that, folks use that kind of tree structure everyday with Windows explorer, and have no trouble with that..

Having a different way to visual your work can always help tho.

If this new diagram could have an option to show where busses route to – since these weave around the traditional pod structure. I sometimes lose track of where the feeds and returns are [however, a quick bit of intelligent track renaming often solves that :)]

So there we are!

DSP

The one thing I really liked about Tracktion is the timeline based workflow. I have come to realize that this really only works on a track by track basis and that as you start grouping tracks you quickly lose the visual benefit this approach provides. One of the more common feature requests in Tracktion has to do with Track folders, which might help to alleviate this issue, but I can’t see it being as good as the hierarchy approach that Podium uses.

When I think back to my first look at Podium, I was a bit confused with this hierarchy approach. I didn’t have much of an issue with bottom up approach but I was initially perplexed by the right to left view of groupings. To me it would have been quicker to understand that the source was to the left and that as you worked your way right throught the mixer you worked you’re way closer to the output.

Just wondering…might it not be better to keep any adjustments to the current hierarchic system completely separate from a simple traditional arrangement editor of sorts, even with certain restrictions on flexibiltiy as suggested earlier in this thread by Frits?

Lowering the learning curve for new users is of course the aim here but outside of Frits traditional arrangement editor idea on this thread IMHO I think a new user would still have to deal with the hierarchic approach earlier than they might want to.

But the simple Tracktion approach of…

Track one> Audio or midi data>Inst. and / or >FX > Master out (flowing down) is the most simple way of getting people into Podium. darcy raised a good point about Tracktion when working with 20 or more tracks. So I think hiding collapsed tracks (which sounds imminent now) will solve that problem in Podium.

In a nutshell if the biggest problem for most people is simply“why is it not as simple as Host X” or “why does the signal flow not follow the same simple (if not as flexible) approach as host X” then to get those users to switch to Podium it will have to at least have an almost non existent learning curve like Tracktion.

Those users want and love the workflow they have because it is very easy to understand. So probably giving them exactly what they have as a separate traditional arrange editor is going to be more effective than something that mirrors it, but is still not as easy to understand as the Tracktion structure.

Of course Tracktion has had a good deal of marketing as well but well before Mackie came along (I was there) it was indeed so easy to get up and running and gathered users quickly.

As suggested by Frits earlier, a user could still switch back to the current system for more powerful and flexible routing options.

As Podium has been available for two years I think there should have been far more users of this product. Way more.The whole sequencer landscape has changed considerably since then.

I watched one of the Podium vids again today and I must say Frits does some pretty detailed hand holding. I mean it is quite difficult to actually get it wrong as a new user, if those vids are followed carefully. This leads me to to agree with Frits thoughts on the hierarchic mixing approach.

I realize that the hierarchic approach will not appeal to everyone, even if they fully understand the concept.

It’s two years now, so people have had time to read about it, (the guide is very well written with pictures e.t.c) tutorial vids are available (and have been for well over a year), the demo is updated as well.

What else…the support forum pretty much answers any questions people have about getting up and running. I have used it many times when I needed some answers. Frits response is so quick that every question to the best of my knowledge regarding Podium over the last two years has been fully answered surely.

So a lack of information is not the problem for sure. It may very well be that with so many other packages out there that mirror Tracktions workflow from left to right or Tracktion mirrors theirs, it could be that people just simply expect that kind of signal flow in a sequencer and anything else causes some head scratching. Especially after being so used to a type of workflow for so many years.

If the last two years are anything to go by, (not a short time) it’s possible that many people actually do understand the idea behind the hierarchic approach (it is not that difficult to understand really) but just prefer not to have one out of maybe two or more packages on thier hardrive being so radically different to work with. Not everyone likes change. Or too much of it.

The only thing I can suggest is to really lower the learning curve to match the very simplest of hosts out there like Trackion but of course keep the more advanced features.

A separate traditional sequencing editor may be better than a different type of hierarchic approach.

@Zynewave wrote:

I don’t think this is practical. Collapsing group tracks would fold upwards, meaning the track you clicked to collapse moves upwards (away from your mouse pointer). Parameter tracks would be positioned above instrument tracks. etc.

Does this happen in existing sequencers/hosts like Cubase SX? I don’t think so. (Maybe, I don’t use groups in SX)

@Conquistador wrote:

Having said that, although difficult to understand initially, it is still a great idea. I guess it’s a case of how to turn this great idea into something everyone can get into and understand quickly.

We could start here: Why is it a great idea and better than existing methods?

Some of the most flexible and powerful things in life require a good deal of time and effort to learn them. The benefits at the end of the learning curve with Podium far outweigh any initial difficulties faced trying to understand it in the first place.

Obviously. But hiding behind the excuse that it is complex and powerful is an excuse, not a reason. The complex and powerful can be made to be understandable if taught properly. As they say this is not rocket science. More like unintentional obfustication.

When I have had no trouble learning other host/sequencer software, I really do have to ask if it’s Podium or me that is being awkward. And I am not alone in this.

If Podium is so worthwhile (and it may well be) then something needs to be done now to capture the readers attention. No matter how worthwhile and powerful and complex Podium is, if it takes several months just to grasp basic concepts, then it simply is NOT a productive use of a new user’s time. The user will gravitate towards a host/sequencer that actually allows them to make music. (What a concept! 🙂 )

However, clearly not everyone can or will give that time to learn before giving up so…

See above. People have limits on their time and other responsibilities-jobs, families, chores, a life away from the computer,etc. It simply is NOT a case that a person merely needs to apply themselves to the learning of the software. Users do not like bashing their head against a wall for whatever reason.

The reason why many gave up was because they were unfamiliar with the workflow in Podium.

And also because it was not sufficiently explained to them.
As much as I would like to support Podium, I also own Cubase SX, Tracktion 2, eXT and Chainer. Users have options and they will go with the software that lets them realize their musical ideas. THAT is the more powerful way in practice. Demonstrate that Podium can do that and I think many potential users will be convinced.

a. The current problem with people giving up because they simply do not understand the *way things work* in Podium will vanish because a structure similar to Tracktion is far simpler to get into and is already very familiar with most users.

Ok, so why use a Tracktion clone/wannabee. I already own the real thing-Tracktion 2.

@Conquistador wrote:

The only thing I can suggest is to really lower the learning curve to match the very simplest of hosts out there like Trackion but of course keep the more advanced features.

There is no need to dumb down Podium. After a couple of years there are still constant problems from many users trying to learn Podium. At this point, we have to question if all this info is getting through, and if not why not? Why is Podium better, what is the benefit of the workflow-in practice, not in theory. In theory, Podium appeals to me. In practice it seems very awkward-still.