I actually took a look at the project browser because of this thread. I must say, I won’t miss it. I was able to work just fine without it.
Some people may be able to work without it but another thing is this:
When creating Automation Tracks, initially a Volume Track is created, then a Pan and Mute Tracks after that, which can be changed to other Automation types such as MIDI controllers, however even after the track type has changed; those track types are still present and can only be removed by clicking “remove unused controllers”, so are users meant to do this each time just to satisfy the fact that Steinberg products no longer offer a way to clean up projects?
I was using PB to set my basic tempo & signature changes. I’m sure that I will find my way around it but it was a feature that I was using everyday for the past 15+ years. Not extremely happy with them making it redundant !
The Project Browser was rudimentary (no editing possible), but very useful, I found, for getting an overview of different elements. And I see here that it had other uses. So why trash it? Weird. The best thing would be to come back with a new, more functional, feature-rich version. Because the basic idea was excellent.
Hello @John_McRIS and welcome to the forum.
You can edit data, using the Project Browser but it has caveats other editors, don’t, e.g., Key Editor, in relation to Note Off (this does not exist as an editable field in the PB).
The Project Browser as well, allows Automation data to be edited, which is extremely useful because often Snap Mode may not be engaged and nodes can be dragged inadvertently by a number of Ticks, rather than being on a beat or bar, which cannot be easily known using the InfoLine.
You’re quite right, I had the wrong idea (I was looking for something else). But in list form, all the same, it’s a bit rudimentary, programming-style. This editor could have been a great thing if SB had pushed it. But he preferred to remove it. It’s less work.
Wrong. Capacity of work has not contracted nor expanded. No-one’s working any less; its the same level of efforts/resources, diverted onto other areas.
On the contrary, the release note explanation suggests maintaining it would actually require even more effort going forward - meaning, taking resource away from other more important projects/feature improvements.
You make it sound like suddenly people now have time to put their feet up for a spell…
Less work here, that’s for sure, because it was time-consuming. More elsewhere, maybe, maybe not. You don’t know. It’s all supposition.
Sure. I was just reacting to you making no attempt to hide you were passing off your guesses/supposition, as fact… that’s all.
At least I used their own Release Notes detail to reinforce my point.
You’re being witty, but “less work” by giving up a function isn’t a suppositon, it’s a fact. The question of whether the time saved is given back elsewhere, that’s the supposition. But I think you and I are incompatible. There’s no point in discussing it any further.
What “work” might refer to, is the fact that for the PB, to function properly in future versions, e.g., > 13 it could require resources to keep it functioning bug free, i.e., it may be using an outdated library that SB no longer wish to support, or that the library itself (not just the browser) is no longer supported by the original developers and that workarounds must be used.
Either way, the need to be able to edit automation, note and project data in list form is still there and Steinberg have not proposed anything in its’ place, other than to presume an older version will continue to function on current systems but that potentially limits the scope for upgrades, relative to particular users since using an older version to open a project that has been saved in a newer version, can lead to project corruption.
You’re right. Have you seen any explanation from SB for abandoning this PB? The reasons may be good, I don’t know, but it’s true that it’s annoying and even frustrating for those who have built up a way of working, over many years, with this ultimately very interesting function.
No, other than what is in the release notes.
It would seem unfathomable, that no replacement for such a feature would be proposed.
In another thread, it was postulated that there is no list-based tempo editing function, other than via the Inspector but that of itself is fraught with difficulty in that the Inspector cannot be expanded horizontally and the scrolling situation there is far from ideal.
The Project Browser was originally intended as a debug tool so it’s not a given that this would be replaced (at all, or with something useful to end-users).
Also, the Inspector is now horizontally expandable.
That’s good to hear because I am always keen to upgrade, just to ensure compatibility with underlying OS changes, however saying that V12 is very stable on Windows 10, which is what N12 was designed for notwithstanding Windows 10 being supported for at least the next 2 years, which should be enough time for me at least, to be able to get all my project data in order, e.g., for older projects that were created prior to the Cubase/Nuendo codebases being unified.
Saying that, however there is still no way to edit automation data via a list since not all workflows use hardware faders, or even mice for that matter and this to me is something that has been potentially grossly overlooked.
P.S. It should be as simple as clicking on an automation lane and having this data exposed, in the same way as tempo, time signature and markers.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with you. It’s a simple fact that many users have built the PB into their workflow in the absence of other tools.
I know Steinberg dumped PB because it was a pain in the arse to maintain, and would become more so in future but, given it never had status as a user-facing function, it may require a campaign by interested users to get something with similar functionality back again.
Strongly agree with your PS by the way. I’d take that in a heartbeat.
A great strength, of Steinberg DAW software, has always been the fact that there are many ways to achieve the same or a similar function, which SB have built over many years and which users more often than not find themselves compelled into purchasing.
There are features already in N13 that are very exciting in terms of workflow, in particular the Visibility Tab, since consistency in respect of track selection (regardless of track type) is paramount so more functions (in particular editing) here will always be welcome.
Again, saying that, a global method of editing project data would offer a unique workflow experience so I am hopeful Steinberg will create something in future that allows powerful and objective approaches to editing and composing music.