PLEASE eliminate hovering in the mixer!

‘brain overhead’ is a good term!:)… that’s exactly what it is, when you go back to a mixer with real buttons it’s like a weight has been lifted and you can concentrate on the sound so much easier, as you don’t have to ‘think’ about where the buttons are, this relates to my brain muscle memory comment earlier.

I disagree. I have no trouble remembering where the hover buttons are despite them not being on permanent display. I believe i’d be more prone to misclicks if multiple buttons were squashed together in the channel width.

We just need to agree to disagree. :slight_smile:

There is of course far more room on the inspector than there is on the mixconsole. That’s the difference! One channel on view of course has more scope to display more information at once that a whole screen of them.

Are you telling me you’ve never mis-clicked on this mixer v7/8??

Well then at least remove the hovering on the inspector, that alone would be massive improvement.

You’d need to show which one takes longer though. What may take you longer may not take someone else longer. You can’t speak for everyone.

Add to the above arguments :

  • Comparing of values on different channels
    ( I do that constantly, when setting up headphone mixes, or with effect sends ).
    Nothing can be faster, than seeing all values at a glance.

With the hovering, I have to move the mouse to all values, I want to compare.
If I take it away to the next value, the first vanishes.
I have to keep it in mind …
That is as bad a design as it can get !
:neutral_face: >

  • Mouse acrobat.
    Currently, you have to do acrobatic mouse gestures, to make the mixer show multiple values in a row.
    Maybe some high end game players can be as fast, on the hovering mixer,
    as an average ‘mouser’, on a standard mixer.
    This again, is bad design.
    :neutral_face: >

That’s an idea that neglects the practical issues of showing all values at once though rather than showing what the parameters actually are.

You should be thankful it even shows you the value when you hover. Most DAWs only show the value once you open the plugin.

Which DAW mixers show all their parameter values on the channel strip? Certainly not the major ones from my knowledge. C8’s maxconsole is the most informative at a glance I can think of.

Missing buttons, due to them being small, doesn’t hold.
As You can read everywhere on this forum, that missing buttons is a big issue, on the current mixer.
I can assure You, that there where near to none threads about missing buttons, prior V7 !

Well of course there weren’t complaints about missing buttons prior v7, as they were all on display. The complaints were about the cluttered mess that meant.

AND the hovering problems have nothing to do with free adjustable mixer sizing.
Talking about buttons …
Another big step back to ‘bad design’, are the buttons are all looking the same.
Different shapes where way more intuitive and faster to find.
Add the low contrast labels and you’re slowed down even more !
:neutral_face: >

To the contrary they have everything to do with the freely adjustable mixer sizing. If the channels were of a fix wide width there would be no problem having permanent buttons. It’s precisely because the channels can be made so narrow that hover buttons are required, since multiple buttons can’t be effectively collapsed to fit a narrow channel width.

From memory channels pre v7 were of fixed width weren’t they? I know i’d prefer scalable channel width and i’m happy to have hover buttons to make that viable.

As I say, there are those who work faster with the new mixer, so your point doesn’t stand up.

Errr … what necessity would that be ???

The practicality of the variable strip width and it’s ability to be very narrow so not having room for multiple buttons on one slot.

It does take longer, you yourself admitted it takes an extra bit of time to hover (.1 or .2sec), so the simple fact is it does take longer.

Also, you can have proper buttons even if it is scalable, you can have proper buttons until you’ve narrowed the mixer down a lot that it becomes impractical, then the hover buttons can come in, but the problem is when you’ve narrowed the mixer that much the hover thing doesn’t work properly anyway as the buttons overlap with the adjecent channels and you never hit the right thing.

No, but that doesn’t mean I would misclick less if there were more/smaller buttons.

[quote=“barryfell”]
There is of course far more room on the inspector than there is on the mixconsole. That’s the difference! One channel on view of course has more scope to display more information at once that a whole screen of them.
[/quote]

Well then at least remove the hovering on the inspector, that alone would be massive improvement.

I’m not so sure. There are typically 4 buttons rather than 3 in the inspectors inserts, along with the parameter name and a value bar to display. I can’t think how it would be better if it was cut up into four separate buttons.

Have you used a Cubase version proir to v7/8?.. did you ever mixclick in Cubase before v7/8?.. i’ve been using Cubase since the mid 90’s and have never misclicked before until v7/8. It is a problem with this design.

No I said it could take just as long if there were more smaller buttons. I believe the reduction in visible options may even speed up the use for some people. If it doesn’t for you, so be it, but as I keep saying, don’t assume that’s the case for everyone.

Also, you can have proper buttons even if it is scalable, you can have proper buttons until you’ve narrowed the mixer down a lot that it becomes impractical, then the hover buttons can come in, but the problem is when you’ve narrowed the mixer that much the hover thing doesn’t work properly anyway as the buttons overlap with the adjecent channels and you never hit the right thing.

The trouble is if the bar is split into buttons then the parameters which show an estimation of their value in the background become more fiddly. Personally i’ve not found an issue with overlapping buttons at narrow widths. Maybe it’s just the way I use it.

I’m sorry but that’s just a ridiculous thing to say, less visible options speed things up???.. i’ve heard it all now…

Yes I used a few versions of SX before I left Cubase until v8. I personally prefer the new modular scalable mixconsole. I speeds up having to jump around as much as I remember in the old mixer. There were plenty little buttons that could be mis-clicked in the old mixer.

Actually having less options to choose between speeds up the decision process. A cluttered UI is often slower to use than a streamlined one.

You need to think about the cumulative effect of the design rather than elements in isolation.

Well i’d used Cubase prior to v7 for 16/17 years and never misclicked once before.

why do people think real buttons would mean it’s cluttered?.. this is just silly and being lazy in design, it is possible to design a scalable mixer with real buttons that’s not cluttered!!.. i suppose you think a real hardware mixing desk is too cluttered too with all those knobs etc…!:wink:

I’m not sure how you manage to misclick now then if you have such great hand eye co-ordination.

why do people think real buttons would mean it’s cluttered?.. this is just silly and being lazy in design,

Are you honestly asking why more stuff means more clutter? :confused:

it is possible to design a scalable mixer with real buttons that’s not cluttered!!..

It may well be. Hopefully Steinberg can come up with an elegant solution that appeases both of us. :slight_smile:

i suppose you think a real hardware mixing desk is too cluttered too with all those knobs etc…!:wink:

That all depends on how many parameters it has per channel. Some are too cluttered IMO, with knobs annoying close together for example and fiddly little buttons, but I appreciate that can be out of necessity for obvious reasons compared to software. There are of course good and bad hardware mixers designs.

It’s called brain muscle memory that i mentioned earlier, when you can see the buttons you can hit them.

No, i’m asking why you think more stuff means more clutter?.. i have a studio that’s full of bits and pieces, it’s not cluttered though, just functional, more things do not equal more clutter, it’s how you organise/design it.

I’m assuming in your living room there is no furniture or books or anything?.. just an empty room as everything else would clutter it!:wink:

Visibility isn’t necessary for muscle memory though. Muscle memory is based on physical position.

Which one is more cluttered?

A)

or

B)

I agree it’s how you organise it though. If there is an good way to show a lot of information then so be it, but of course more elements are more prone to creating clutter.

I’m saying there can be a happy medium between simplicity and quantity via good design, and that doesn’t mean showing too many parameters at once. On the other hand I admit too little is also dysfunctional.

For the record my living room is pretty minimal though. I hate clutter. :smiley:

Exactly my point!!!.. when it’s (the buttons) physical position is not there until you hover over it the brain muscle does not have time to learn because you constantly have to think about where to place your mouse all the time. It’s especially obvious when you work on a mixer with proper buttons after using c7/8 for awhile, it’s why no one complaned about mis-clicking before v7/8.

It’s also why we can drive without ‘thinking’ as all the tools you need have been learnt because you can see where to place your hands/feet at all times, imagine having your clutch or brake pedal invisible until you need it, your brain would have to think about where to place your feet all the time, even if it was in the same place all the time, it’s how muscle memory works.