Change Control Room GUI

That’s not correct. Steinberg released their own R128 meter as a plugin.

Lydiot, I really wasn’t only referring to your post but to general posts on the forum that complains about things that does not work or that does not exist, when the problem is really user error.
But yes I was referring to your post as well.

In all honesty, in what daw can you see everything YOU want to see, and everything I want to see, and everything Hans Zimmer wants to see at the same time without having any compromises?

If you want to run the mixer full screen, you have to adapt to the design. I don’t agree with the GUI design at all either. But stating it isn’t possible when it is, is just not good as it lowers the value and importance of what really is the issue.

Being able to see it all In the CR at the same time as we could before is important.
But now there are several meter sections as well in addition to all the old functionality.
To be honest, there was no way to really view a large expanded CR section, large meters, and a good size mixer on one screen ever.

Personally I’d prefer to be able to see both peak meters, loudness and CR functions at the same time. But I would also like to be able to see my mixer channels, plugins, stereo fold down metering, media bay, marker window, pool window, edit channel settings window, floating main panner window and my project window.
I would prefer to be able to see them all at the same time.
Realistic? Not really is it? So they have to make compromises.

I really don’t think sharing space between CR and metering is the worst choice, especially within the mixer view. I do think that it all should be able to be viewed at the same time in the actual CR window though.
And yes, the general GUI design of the design elements within the CR is awful!

Edit: and never forget, this is Nuendo… key commands can control a lot!
For example switching sources in the CR without actually having the CR visible at all. Pretty neat I’d say.

I’d agree with you if you could put forth even one argument for why the redesign of the Control Room GUI was desirable and requested. There isn’t a single thing I can think of that they did that from a GUI standpoint was necessary. If you dig the way it’s done now (and you don’t, which makes your criticism of my posts “strange”) then that still doesn’t exclude the possibility to code it so that there’s the option to use the tabs or have all extended into one larger section. And this doesn’t even address unconventional horizontal sliders with difficult to read text running through them, a standard found, well, pretty much nowhere in professional audio-land.

Name dropping a big composer doesn’t help convince me that the Control Room GUI is well designed for the dialog editor, the sound designer, the re-recording engineer etc. Good for him that it isn’t annoying (we assume).

Feel free to like or dislike the criticism. All I have to say is that sitting still and not saying anything while paying them money for the app tells them one thing and one thing only: Keep doing what you’re doing. If history tells us anything it is that there’s a way to get the oil to the wheel. Not doing anything ain’t it.

ok here here’s a few things that caused these changes.

1• The new design of the mixer is clearly based on a total rewrite that was necessary as the code was old and it was not possible to update it to handle longstanding requests for multiple pre/post inserts etc.

2• The programs GUI design is basically the same for a very long time. With the technical need for new code for the mixer they decided to “upgrade” the GUI quite a lot. Conceptually it was decided it had to be based on a specific idea for a new controller developed by Yamaha.

3• A very long standing user request for years and years especially in the Cubase camp has been for a re sizable mixer. What for, I have no idea. But apparently it was asked for enough that Steinberg considered it a important concept to base the new GUI design around.

4• Other long standing requests have been for better metering. multiple type PPM and digital meters as well as Loudness meters. The old meters in the C/R really were close to useless so any new meters had to replace them.

These four points I know are valid. I’m sure there might be others I dont know of.
they all affect the choices and design decisions taken by Steinberg devs.
I clearly do not agree with them in quite a few different design areas.

Would I have been sad if they kept a more traditional Steinbergian GUI design and kept the old CR design but with new and added metering? No I wouldn’t.

Could I see that they in any way would have been able to do so while making it work with the Yamaha designed controller? Nope.

And Yamaha owns Steinberg…

It seems to me that you make some points that doesn’t amount to the overall conclusion you draw from them.

Next update end-of-year if we’re lucky.

Wonder if we’ll see any improvements on this.

For comparison - Old Control Room:

The Control function is to take incoming signals and route them to outputs. Sounds like a mixer more or less. Because it is more or less. Compared to:

Wait, that’s not the control room, is it? Why yes it is, only it’s when you want to see the meter…

clickety click:

Horizontal sliders, not faders. Function name written right on top of the slider making it harder to read what the heck you’re looking at, instead of under the fader. And yet again more tabs - MORE CLICKING! Totally breaking with mixer and design convention.

In addition you can check this video:

http://youtu.be/G_4NgjlAxH4?t=12m48s

at around 12:50 you can see a good example of the lack of visual feedback and requirement to click around to get crap done. Not to mention that the whole thing looks like a poorly designed Fisher-Price toy.

No comment of course…

100% with the OP.

+1

If it ain’t broken… don’t “fix” it.

It’s only been six months since this thread was started, let’s all be patient, right Steinberg?

Seriously, how much effort is it to just tell us if you’re going to change this or let us suffer through this sucky eyesore?

Do we need to campaign these issues more publicly or?

+1

+1

Dean

+1

+1

used to be somewhat elegant, now its like the mixconsole-- ‘designed by mattel’ (the MC is in fact all designed by one person from what I heard, little wonder things can go the wrong way).

  • 1 Million!!

I just posted this in another thread:

well there are things which I like in the current version:

When mixing only I can integrate the CRoom into the Mixer - so I can reach stuff fast and easy. Monitors mainly.

But when recording a gang of four musicians it is a PAIN to work with.

Wouldn’t it be nice to keep the current version - as a part of the mixer - and have a second one (like we have more than one mixer) - which is designed as a “traditional” mixer? With real faders, like a real mixing desk…

So the “new” one, nicely integrated in the Mixer, could be used for accessing MY stuff - internal stuff - and a second one for the cues… Lets call it “Cue Mixer” …

Which is EXACTLY what the guys over here are talking about…

I too am liking having the control room attached to the mixconsole but a separate cue mixer is a great idea - although it should have more cue sends, as four is just not enough.

4 are usually ok here - but I can imagine larger studios - a full band could use 5 or more cues…

To implement what we all want and need should not need a “redesign”.

Just keep the “mixer-sidebar” controlroom as it is at the moment (please do not change again and again) but just add something like that “Cue-Mixer” - GUI could be based on the Mixer GUI - but just with “controlroom / Studio channels”.

If those Studio Outs / Cue Sends could be “part” of the Mixer itself we could just set up one of the 4 mixers for that - disabling all other channel-types… only keeping the Studio Outs 1-4 - or better - 1-8… Ok - there needs to be integrated all those metronome options though… but after all; This would be all we need I would say.

That sounds perfect to me.