Even if this was the minority opinion and 30% of people wanted the old way back … that’s still a significant-enough percentage to warrant the change.
But it’s more than 70% of people meted out over the weeks this poll has been up. So … the project managers should be shouting at the developers to work faster to sort this out. It’s one of the few show-stopping bugs–sorry, “features” in C6, which is otherwise a more elegant implementation of “Cubase” than C5 in almost every way.
~Stu
I’d have to disagree that it is “more elegant”. To be honest, I wish they would stop messing with the way cubase looks and just focus on how it works. There ARE some advantages to the “new lanes” functionality, ie: great for doing a fast comp of similar material, and I do like not having to watch the waveforms shrink to nothing after 10 takes or so… That said, The “clarity” of a project opened in C5 compared to C6 is un-deniable. I suggest prefs for “Use C5 lanes mode” and “Use C5 project view”.
Really is just 70% of 140 people who responded. There are likely well over 10,000 people using CB6 by now. I have nothing against an option for old style editing but if these kinds of campaigns lose touch with reality ,I don’t think they do much good. Calling this a showstopper is,in my opinion , asking the developers not to take you seriously.
I agree, that threats to “go somewhere else” do not do a thing. I will say that the C6 has put a serious brake on my work-flow (which is comp. comp, and then comp the comps) and forced me back to C5.
It is unlikely that there will be a an option in C6 that reverts to any prior behavior, since the new way constitutes a re-writing of that feature and to include anything else “new” behaviors must be written.
Yes I’m sure the code for “old behaviour” is no longer there. So, more new code is needed, and along with that, will come more bugs that need to be ironed out (which of course, may never be)
So frustrating… 
So you’re agreeing with a poster thats just offering negative ,baseless speculation and you’re extending this by adding that any change will add bugs and also that you know they may “never” be solved.
Seriously; have you looked up “never” recently???
I’m just stunned by the need for some hopeless negativity.
Seriously, have you looked up “may” recently? I used it in front of the adverb “never” in order to qualify it and express “possibility”. The phrase “may never be resolved” is the same as “possibly never be resolved”, which is not the same as an unqualified “never”.
So thanks for the English lesson 
You have a good point funky, I think when a developer works on an application to provide new functionality, it’s more often than not out with the old and in with the new, so notions of reversion or preference switches are not adequately backgrounded.
Really ,aren’t you just quibbling instead of reflecting on my point? Using the word “may” ,which I quoted, doesn’t mitigate the sense of hopeless negativity that your comment displays. This is negativity that isn’t based on anything except except the ill-considered comments of another poster .
Look, I’m not out to attack , but to me you start the thread with a solid request to the developers to reconsider a changed feature.We Cubase users all benefit when a real problem is presented to developers; even if another user isn’t bothered by the issue. But you’re letting yourself be goaded by other posters to go to war and you’re driving off the cliff with your last comment. Why not stick to specifics of the issues and continue to make a rational case rather than wallowing in doom and gloom?
Mr M
I think all that funky said is that he understands the code may no longer exist and that at least for now we must “put up” with the situation or “shut up” as the case may be, since the problem has been presented well and I believe it may have already been said that campaigns are such that in and of themselves they are negative, unwarranted etc because they do little to alter the views of development/moderation/marketing and project management staff.
Mr M, It would appear that the only person goading me in this thread, is you!
Absolutely - But only to illustrate to you the way you quibbled over the semantics of MY message, and ignored its actual meaning and instead focussed only the language used.
The points I made in my message were perfectly realistic, despite you focussing on the word “never”.
As an ex-software developer/analyst/IT manager of over 30 years on more platforms and in more languages than you can shake a stick at, I know the score when it comes to software design and development. I can spot the potential pitfalls in this sort of thing a mile away. So, I am only being realistic when I say that, (a) because hardly any new code is totally bug free, and (b) because SB has a track record of frequently missing the “blindingly obvious”, we will in all probability be in for a long and rough ride just to get this baby back to where it was in SX3.
The fact they keep asking for detailed usecases is a prime worry, when all they really need to do is open up SX3/C4/C5 and emulate that lane behaviour exactly.
All of this makes be a saaaad funkydrummer 
It’s a good point but aren’t we missing the larger issue, which is why there was a design change in the first place, ie to allow simultaneous cutting of lanes as indicated here: "ungroup" MIDI lanes / "comping" problems - Cubase - Steinberg Forums
Maybe it’s not great for some uses but I’m sure as some have suggested there could possibly be future behaviors, such as muting or cutting “parts” separately or potentially an explode function as Vic France has suggested, which are all good ideas IMV.
I like it that we are now able to see all the lanes without them shrinking to nothing but I would like the option back to used them like in C5 where you can mute the parts you do not want to hear and leave them muted and get on with your work without having to worry about bouncing down the track. I vote for keeping the C6 look but an option to work the C5 way and add a button for the C6 select to hear mode.
I see they have announced Cubase 6.0.3… but no mention of any correction to lanes behavior? This makes me sad… I have found the new lanes system very frustrating. When something is muted, it should always remain muted!!! Also, what’s up with the lanes multiplying like mating rabbits??? For example, recently I had a vocal track with maybe 7 lanes or so… I did some edits, slicing and moving things a bit. I open up the project file the next day and there are 40 lanes in the vocal track alone??? And this is not a show stopper??? That is amazingly time consuming to mess about with.
Please do SOMETHING to correct this new lanes functionality. It is very very frustrating to use right now.
Today, a project with 4 lanes… some were split but everything still on 4 lanes. The project was saved. When reopened… like 15 seperate lanes now on a single track??? The lanes multiply like rabbits. PLEASE FIX THIS!!! THIS IS DRIVING ME CRAZY!!!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD/(*insert deity name here) GIVE US AN OPTION DO DISABLE THESE NEW AUTOMATIC FEATURES WITHOUT USING STRINGS OF WORKAROUNDS ! Angels will sing your praises! 71% of your user base will love you more - a LOT more!! We’ll buy you a huge barrel of beer!! Please please pretty please with chocolate sprinkles on top 
Same feelings here…
I stay with C5, simply because the Lane editing in C6 is totally unusable
If Steinberg does not include the old lane style in the next updates, for sure i’ll make my next album with C5 (which i used for my previous album… 2 years ago !)
Cheers;
F;
You can split an event on a single lane by using the Range Tool then Shift-X.
I’m unclear what people are objecting to with the MIDI lanes. Do you want MIDI on different lanes to play simultaneously or mute each other? You can get it to to either as it stands now.
After a frustrating start, I am a convert to the new way and so have voted no.
SURE - that is the most useful option with cubase, at least for me 