Issues draging layers around

Hi there, hope everybody is doing well. I got some weird issues draging layers on top of each other (or in general) at some point of working on a project, that I do not really get what or when it is happening. it feels like, the drag layer option would be locked and can’t be unlocked unless the layers are separetely safed and reloaded into a new project. Safe/reload the current project does not “unlock” drag layers and I’m wondering, if I just miss something/ do anything by accident that causes this that i’m not aware of, or if this actually a bug? I’m very glad how reliable recovery loading projects work as for some reason SL7 turns unresponsive pretty often (since version 1 already actually) that appears to happen just randomly indicated by only an empty upper progress window . Some advice anyone? would be much appreciated. Cheers!

Macbook Pro 2018 ,OS 10.14.6

1 Like

I’ve written a couple of threads about this issue.
Try to see what happens if you have SL7 active in ARA mode inside your DAW and the standalone version open simultaneously; you will probably be able to move the layers again in your standalone SL7 project. For as long as your DAW is open in the background.

This is the locked layer bug…

Thanks for reply. I thought, this would be a bug. Unfortunately I can’t use the ARA mode as there is no ARA audiounit for Mac. (only VST3 - not usable for me) I wait for that to come out and all issues getting fixed now hopefully soon.

So you don’t have Cubase or any other DAW?

I’m using LogicX as my favorite and it would speed up my workflow immensly if I did’t had to do the > External Editor >> loop way

1 Like

Ok, I didn’t know the ”ARA2 compatibility” of different DAWs needs Audio units (or VST3 for that matter) to operate. That’s kind of a detour.

1 Like

What do we need to do to get answers around here? Honestly this is just ridiculous. $300 software that can’t even get a UI right. It’s plainly obvious that these guys have 0% interest in fixing basic crippling bugs, and 100% interest in creating objectively worse versions of Izotope RX’s restoration features to sell upgrades.

Ausa, you may email Robin directly; contact (at) divideframe (dot) com
However as long term users here, we have witnessed some lapses where the communications thin out (which also suffer via email).
One could theorize that hoping everything is fine health-wise, some complex developing is going on, vacations or else,

Knowing that Spectralayers’ version post-release support has been covered and most functional issues had been already ironed, I would suggest to exert a bit more patience…
Though meanwhile please keep posting your feature requests, workflow enhancements and issues you may find. Some of us for sure have been attentive and in light of previous responsiveness from Robin, there is a good chance for expecting improvements and fixes coming.
For pressing installation/license related issues there is Steinberg support to contact.

1 Like

Appreciate the suggestion.

Thanks for sharing this background. Respectfully I’m not sure I’d agree with the assessment that most functional issues have been ironed out. I was able to recreate every bug I’ve reported within 60 seconds of testing even in SpectraLayers 5. Except for the layer issue, though I suspect given enough time that would have presented too.

I know audio software has historically been held to lower standards but in 2021 there’s no excuse for this. RX is a great example of a UI that runs fast, is bug-free, and gets the little things right… like when you have a text field selected, command-A selects all of the text instead of highlighting the spectrograph.

SL for me is squarely in that category of software that you put up with because the tool is powerful, but every interaction is a frustrating, unintuitive slog. I picked up on that vibe seconds into my trial, and I guarantee I’m not the only one coming away with that feeling. This software is in serious need of an overhaul from an actual UX professional. I can’t fathom why Steinberg hasn’t put resources into that.

I guess can see where are you coming from. In my case, and would say that many others have shared this in the past, the focus is more into obtaining the results. The growth from SL1 to now has been increasingly widening in scope and deepening in functionality.

GUI speed and workflow has been iZotope’s forte while maintaining a superb level of quality of their algorithms, that said, the trend to a one-knob solution and “let the AI do the work that the factory presets indicate” are increasingly important in their software.

Spectralayers instead, has primarily focused in innovation and providing user control of most variables as possible, so to fine tune, to achieve minute precision in selection and again getting the hard-to-obtain results, you cannot get elsewhere.
Adding also the “french professional way” of the GUIs and workflow. If you have used INA-gram, GRM, etc, you understand what I mean. Actually if you check early Spectralayers GUI versions, it predates the look and speed that later the RX line employed.

That said, every version increase there have been glitches and difficulties, particularly because Robin had been increasing the demand to the GPU, DIrectx, GPL, etc protocols which in turn added complexity.
Several of us found workarounds or ways to get SL working and given some time most got fixed, particularly with this SL7 version. Where the forum has become a valuable source of usage requests and demands of this kind

Hence let me reiterate the appreciation of your detailed posts underlying and describing what you would improve and wanted fixed. Judging from Robin’s post a few weeks ago, he has been testing/teaching/dealing with the machine learning algos and probably developing some of the ideas outlined last year at other threads or who knows what lines of development?

///Personally I’d prefer he focuses in those important innovative features rather than in improving/fixing workflow tasks. And also wouldn’t like Steinberg meddling in the software. Both such actions would be a detriment to the above expressed focus.
Also, I respect your choices and you right to express them, all in a frame of respect and hopefully fruitful exchange.

I completely appreciate your stance and I agree with many of your points.

I’m definitely not suggesting that RX is in any way comparable when it comes to SL’s killer app: manual editing. But conversely, automated restoration through machine learning is Izotope’s wheelhouse. If I want to do anything other than “photoshopping sound,” I get universally better results from RX. And if I can’t photoshop sound in SL without the software fighting me every step of the way, what are we doing here and why are we charging $300?

I’m just sharing my experience as a new user in 2021. SL should be paying close attention to that perspective too if growth is on their agenda. Anyone who downloads the trial and tries to do what SL is billed for – photoshop sound – is going to hit every single bug I’ve reported, in order. I’d submit that many longtime users may have grown numb to these idiosyncrasies given that they’ve persisted for years across major versions.

There are certain usability expectations that accompany modern software in this price range. In 2021, a native-feeling, bug-free workflow like you find in RX isn’t a dream, it’s the baseline. SL’s UI specifically is fine. The larger issue is a UX problem. SL has the feel of an open source beta from 2010. It’s got major Ardour vibes. Everyone – both new users and old – should demand better.

I fully support your call for new features. My point is that feature additions and bug fixes are not mutually exclusive. I come from the tech startup space where 1, 2, 3 person teams develop world changing software.

If copying RX’s debleed so you can charge for SL 8 has to come at the expense of fixing your core experience, then it’s time to re-evaluate your operation.

Keep the features coming and tidy your house along the way. If you can’t handle both, bring in help. If you don’t want to bring in help, put your software on GitHub.

After our rather hefty comments here, I see more clearly the ways in which we seem not to align, so I guess we’d probably are reaching a point of agreeing to disagree, if you also agree.

When you give imposing and (to users here) pretentious qualifiers to comparatively demerit SL for more than “photoshoping sound” with RX, then your experience with SL is obviously poorer than ours. And that includes extracting sound which also employs AI, but at special cases with SL it involves applying several steps creatively, adapted to varying situations as opposed to simply open the module and feather your options thru RX presets… which is the only angle I could see I could get (in your wording) “universally better results from RX” mostly automated actions, which is, simply not my usage case.
We’d probably converge in this within time and usage, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Then the rigorous search for bug and usage improvements you’d been informing at the forum, that I praise and welcome, has come to happen quite a long time from version release. Actually after the tidying process had been had and many different usages had been tested. I know for a fact that in decades mature software, new glitches and improvs may be found by inquisitive users. Do such findings make a singled fix “a baseline” for its usage? Nope, to say it succinctly. Again, maybe for you it does.

Are your mentioned “usability expectations that accompany a modern software in this price range in 2021” the same in technical and many times specialized user base, to the expectations that would be had by global, larger segments? Not always, and as you point, if growth is a consideration, then yes, such is a variable to factor in. We’d surely disagree in its application degree.

Also I do not share your disregard for SL’s UI, which renders a UX very akin and high compatibility to my multi-screen system. Obviously you prefer to work with separate modules, which I sense will complicate the work with layers, tracks and several editors simultaneously. Your UX choice is yours entitlement. I comment only to offer an alternative to onlookers who might read disproportionately your universal disqualifiers, which expressed as such demerits the actual demands and requests already put forward here last year by the forum users and the responsiveness that acted upon most all.

Despite the relative quietness of the forum in the recent months, I sense we are a thriving community increasingly getting vocal and building a healthy relationship with the main developer, a research investigator with several papers on one of the leading fields that constitute the frontier of what these visual softwares may achieve.
In RX Advanced words: You can fix only what you can see, and Robin’s research is precisely on the field of what and how to extract information from images by visual software, there have been other researchers on related fields involved (if interested, I posted some info about his research and links earlier at this forum, it is available at internet). This is an strategic area companies won’t publish, but that I ponder in view of the incentives of who develops the tools one invests in.

So to no overextend what I believe has been already expressed here or elsewhere, a reiteration for you to get to know the tails, roots and complexities of this tool, of its evolution and of the community that as such and overtly is beginning to show the possibilities envisioned along the way and novel ones.

UX is not the same thing as UI. As I’ve said, the UI is fine. The UX is a mess, as evidenced by the pile of easily reproducible bugs I identified in short order.

I’m very confused; are we talking about the same RX? Is the workflow for the automated restoration tools not practically identical between RX and SL? Compare the de-hum dialogue. Compare the de-verb dialogue. Compare the de-clip dialogue. Compare the voice denoiser dialogue. And so on. In every case RX provides the same options as SL, and then some. You dial in your settings and the algorithm does its thing, and you either build on the results or undo and try again. I fail to see how SL provides unique ways to “apply these steps creatively,” except insofar as it allows for manual spectrograph editing. Which is my point. Manual editing is SL’s wheelhouse, so the fact that all of these bugs exist surrounding the manual editing process seems problematic.

The fact that SL 7 has been out for a few months has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of paying users to advocate for usability. There’s no rule in software that if bugs don’t get fixed within the first week of launch, they’re fair game for life. Steinberg isn’t charging any less just because the software is 6 months old.

If software offers a magic wand tool, you should expect that the tool will select the thing it’s highlighting when you click. If you drag your cursor outside a window, you should expect that the software won’t suddenly drop your input. If you use a trackpad (the preferred input method for 60% of Mac OS users) you should expect that the software won’t randomly click, deselect, zoom, and skitter all over the place.

These are reasonable expectations for any user, specialized or otherwise.

I get that as a longtime user you may feel some personal allegiance to this brand, but we don’t need people advocating for the companies selling us our products. We need people advocating for users.