PLEASE eliminate hovering in the mixer!

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.

The buttons are always in the same place, so there is no need to think about where they will be, therefore the muscle memory argument doesn’t hold up.

Muscle memory means you don’t need to see what you are doing. I hope you aren’t looking at your cars controls when you are driving for example.

you’re missing the point entirely, that’s exactly why you don’t have to see the controls, because you’ve learnt through musicle memory to know where they are. If you were never able to see them (only by hovering your feet over them), you’d never learn and would always have to have a quick look to see where your feet should be.

You’ve bascially proved my point, thanks!:wink:

If they only appeared when you put your hands/feet near them you would still learn where they were without looking very quickly. It’s not like you are a dog at the controls of a helicopter! :laughing:

You’ve bascially proved my point, thanks!:wink:

No your point is invalid. :stuck_out_tongue:

Ok i’m out, you’re clearly a fan of having a mixer with little to no info unless you hover over something, you must like the additional work involved in working with an invisible mixer.

No I just like having less clutter so I can focus on what I want to more easily. Some elements not being on permanent show works well for me overall. :slight_smile:

As I said a while back, we’ll just need to agree to disagree. There is no right or wrong answer here IMO, as it’s what works best for us each personally.