thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
As you can hear in the video, the spikes does not produce an audible degradation of the audio output.
Well, actually they do! Only very slightly noticable, though.
When I do MIDI only stuff I work at the same buffer size and I get a few spikes here and there, too. I don’t get the impression that Podium offers less performance than other sequencers – it’s just that Nucleum’s a bit hungry, given its Synthmaker nature. 😉
Incidentally, why not just delete the CPU indicator when recording demo videos in the future?
On the topic: I don’t have any wishes that are quick and easy to do at the moment.
thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
The problem with setting a specific color for new tracks, is that it can conflict with the users color scheme. The color could accidentally be the same as the color the user has defined for the background or the selection. When a color is not defined for the track, it will use the “default track color” specified in the color scheme, which should ensure that the color matches the color scheme.
Edit: Hang on, maybe you are just suggesting that the “default track color” option in the colors dialog should be enabled in the default setup? In that case it would not be a problem, and new tracks will have the track color picker enabled by default.
Well, the problem you mentioned would still be there (if a user saves his project made with default colors and then loads a color setup that uses this exact grey) but for now, I think taking this small risk is better than leaving new users in the dark.
A deeper look into the coloring system might be a topic for another far off day. 😉
thcilnnahojVery nice! 🙂
Even though you say shop’s closed, I’ll quickly try and pitch this one again, on the off chance that you missed it:
Add a default track color to the default setup color settings. Grey events/notes on grey background are not the prettiest thing to look at, and totally new users might be turned off. The coloring feature could be nicely displayed if all tracks were colored already, and it would also automatically activate the color picker in the inspector, which you can’t miss then on opening your first project ever.
Very easy to do and would help, in my opinion. Even if you set the same gray as the default color it would at least still show the color picker. Otherwise the track coloring options might be a bit too deeply buried in menus for new users to pick up.
thcilnnahojGot another one: When adding a new track by drag-n-dropping an instrument from the inspector, it’d be good if the track was selected automatically, so auto-assigned MIDI input goes straight to the new instrument! (Saw that in a Studio One video just now :oops:)
thcilnnahojFound a bug related to window updates:
With the Timeline editor open create a new MIDI event and immediately expand it by keeping the mouse button held and dragging right. The editor will only show the segment that was created before resizing.
thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
I don’t think resizing my 256×256 image in my paint program to 60×60 will provide a smoother image than the image resize algorithm applied by YouTube. I don’t know how they store the images, but if YouTube creates both the 60×60 and 36×36 images based on the image I upload, it’s better that I upload a hires image.
I think YouTube resizes every image you upload to 88×88, so a higher resolution wouldn’t help. However, this image is resized again by the browser (with a lousy algorithm, at least in Firefox, and I’m sure in IE too) because the YouTube html page says that the image should be displayed at a size of 60×60.
@Conquistador wrote:
@Zynewave wrote:
The editor bar is an optional element that can be placed in any toolbar. As long as thcilnnahoj does not use the “load default setup” command, his old setup behaves exactly as before, with key shortcuts and all.
Cool. Does that solve your earlier problem/request thcilnnahoj? Looks like it does.
Ahem, allow me to quote myself! I would like to always use new features, but this one time it’s just not practical for me. No worries! 🙂
@thcilnnahoj wrote:
Of course I can always keep my old setup, but I’d like to go with the times, and also I’m concerned about an easy-to-use workspace for new users that don’t know about the extensive customization abilities of Podium. It seems not near as well thought-out as it could be… I hope you don’t take it the wrong way.
@thcilnnahoj wrote:
I know I can keep my old setup, but I want to voice my opinion that with this new setup, at least the F keys might get a little impractical to use (for people who do use them). And I hope that Frits can appreciate all comments, positive and negative. 😆
thcilnnahojSince the max resolution that YouTube ever uses the image is 60 px, you can just resize the original yourself, upload that and you’ll have a picture with smooth edges! At least in the bigger one… I don’t think it’s noticable in the small 36 px image anyway.
thcilnnahoj@Conquistador wrote:
What do you suggest then? :-k
Further work on the way these buttons function, maybe to make them work more like tabs, instead of switching to a whole different profile. As it is in Logic or Reaper, I think, or like I suggested on page 4.
I know I can keep my old setup, but I want to voice my opinion that with this new setup, at least the F keys might get a little impractical to use (for people who do use them). And I hope that Frits can appreciate all comments, positive and negative. 😆
thcilnnahoj@Zynewave wrote:
I can’t see how I can avoid that YouTube shows a smaller 60×60 image. The 88×88 image is shown further down on the page. The image I uploaded was at 256×256.
Maybe I’m blind… but where? The small picture at the top is 36×36 px and the one above your profile information is 60×60 pixels, and when I grab the original, that’s 88×88 px large – your 256 was resized by YouTube, I would say. I’m saying that it further resizes the 88 px image to 60 px, resulting in jaggy edges. Again, it’s a very minor matter. 🙂
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. 🙂
thcilnnahoj@Conquistador wrote:
I think one of the betas possibly no. 3 messed up my Podium set up. 🙁
I have 2.19 on the same machine and when I used it (after using a Podium 2.20 beta) all my projects loaded up straight into… the Event List.:-s
I had that happen, too. But I just loaded the 2.19 default setup and then my user setup afterwards and it worked fine again.
thcilnnahojLooks like I’m the only one who has some gripes. 😉
Here’s a question to everyone: How is your personal workflow going to be like now – will you switch over from the Tracks page to the Editor and Mixer page only when you need them, or will you stay on those pages and minimize the editor/mixer (F keys) when you’re not using them. If it’s the latter, then what is the point of the Tracks page anyway? It can’t be those few pixels you gain from removing the little editor/mixer bar. Or do you not use keyboard shortcuts at all?
My answer: Prior to 2.20 I kept both editor and mixer minimized and opened/closed them with F6/F7 only when I needed them. In the 2.20 default setup, I can’t do that anymore. I now have to use the mouse to switch between their respective profile pages. And then I can only ever open/close one or the other (depending on which page I’m on) with the F keys. Add to that, if I want to change, for example, the ‘track color opacity setting’, I have to do that in three different profiles now for it to look consistent.
thcilnnahojWell, there have been many, many suggestions… minor and major. But we know you can’t do everything! 😉
I’m already very grateful for the new non-time-locked editors. 8)
But… let me be completely honest and say that if you stop here and call it finished, then I think the old setup with both the editor and mixer in the same profile is actually better. Nobody says you have to open them both at the same time.
With the old setup I can quickly close one and open the other with just two keystrokes. Not only would I lose that ability, but also I would now have two or more totally separate profiles, which likely means more maintenance. The new toolbar plus the editor/mixer header also takes up a little more space than both the editor’s and mixer’s minimized headers but actually provides less functionality. On top of that, the F6/F7 keys just become impractical to use with this setup, in my opinion. I don’t know how you intended this to work, but if it was me, I’d switch to the ‘editor’ profile if I needed the piano roll and switch back to ‘tracks’ when I’m done and want more space for the arrangement. I would not stay on the editor page and hide the editor, with F6 or otherwise.
Of course I can always keep my old setup, but I’d like to go with the times, and also I’m concerned about an easy-to-use workspace for new users that don’t know about the extensive customization abilities of Podium. It seems not near as well thought-out as it could be… I hope you don’t take it the wrong way.
Sure you can use the demo track! Demonstration is what it was made for, after all! 😆 Although you might’ve wanted to bounce some tracks as to not get CPU overloads.
I see that you use a higher resolution now, it’s strange that it doesn’t fill the YouTube window, however. Is it not 16:9? Ehh, also something very, very minor: You might want to check your YouTube user picture, as it is a victim of bad resizing done by YouTube. It says max. 88×88 px, I think, but with the new channel layout it’s actually only ever used at 60×60!
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.
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…