Im wondering… When will we see proper track management in Cubase… Like the ability to hide tracks in the arrange page, show only a certain user defined track groups in the mixer (like Pro Tools) etc.
In fact a track list option with hide feature like PT would be fantastic would’nt it…
I just find once I start composing and the tracks start to pile up, everything seems so cluttered and i start to feel claustrophobic!
Is it just me who feels this way?
I had a play around in logic the other day and found their folder system absolutely awesome - where the contents of your folder is shown in a completely new arrange/ sequencer window and in your mixer you have this folder that you can open and mix seperately… this is so great for composing film cues etc…
unfortunately logic’s limited audio editing means i cant possibly switch over, So i am just kind of hoping that someone from steinberg reads this and considers it for Cubase 7 or 6.5
I asked for that years ago and sort of gave up. But I agree with you. If there were a way to Hide/Show track types on the arrange page like in the mixer it would be fantastic.
Maybe there could be a preference which would allow the Hide/Show selections from the main mixer view to be reflected on the arrange page.
But in all fairness, it could get complicated when you think about manually moving parts f a song.
There are so many other amazing things about Cubase that I’ve learned to choose my battles and just deal with it. I’ve grown accustomed to creating my own subfolders.
Every time I look at Logic and ProTools I’m reminded Just how amazing Cubase is.
I don’t necessarily see this as a bad idea but how long have you been using Cubase? Other composers seem to manage with large arrangements and this is the first I’ve seen this mentioned. Mind you, maybe it’s coming to all DAWs as I guess this would have been brought up before if it was an old feature on PT. PT must have beaten Steinberg to the draw so it might be in v7. You never know.
No offense Conman, really none intended, but you seem to be a bit of a regular apologist around here. You dont “nessecarily see it as a bad idea”? That’s an odd response to what is a very old and really very practical feature request.
Just saying. As a lurker mostly I rarely (if ever) see you say “Great idea. We need that.” when someone shows frustration over a random missing bit. I usually see you trying to explain why Cubase maybe doesnt need something someone else complains about. It all comes off a bit “protective”.
Nothing personal, just… odd. “Not necessarily a bad idea?”. Really?
It’s in fact a great idea. Ask anyone using a host that has something like that.
Anyway, it occurs to me that the people who should be leading the charge for things like that are people who are it’s most ardent and vocal supporters instead of being defensive. You can really love a thing and still point out it’s flaws or shortcomings and ask for improvements. That’s how things get better.
Like the poster directly after you said, most people who’ve been asking that question for years just gave up. I hope you have better luck than we did. Anyway … Cubase (one of the greatest DAW’s ever created) should have had something like this years ago. Reaper, PT, Logic, S1, almost everyone has it now.
I always try to get the thinking off the one way negative track and introduce another point on the matter that may lead to a new approach other than “Hey! Fix this.” or “Give us that.”
I never understand why anyone has to comment on whatever I say as though it’s against the social norm here.
I never comment on your contributions unless they address me directly as this has. I just don’t see the point.
I try to amplify the thread and not stagnate on the same spot. Different DAWs have different ways of doing things and people do manage.
For instance if one finds a workaround for a desired function that you have in mind that the program will do then it helps the programmer to see what needs to be done when he can see where anyone’s thinking points him away from HIS intentions when designing the DAW. We don’t know if the programmer reads it and considers to his mind that the function is actually there. Cubase, and I’m sure other DAWs, provides many ways to acheive the usual recording / mixing jobs. In a lot of ways the user can utilise most DAWs to the way they think fit.
I’m sure they know a good idea when they see it and I don’t think they deliberately go out of their way to leave features out just to annoy some users.
I’m not an apologist. I’m a realist. On some cars to change the light bulbs you have to take the engine out. I thik this might be one of those cases and it may take time.
And sometimes I can see the programmers’ point of view as maybe “What else do they want?”
And if we stopped this attitude of “not offending” each other maybe a real conversation will start leading to a bigger thread and so more attention.
But in all fairness, it could get complicated when you think about manually moving parts f a song.
And a good quote from stevont as to maybe why it’s not there. Steinberg has to give consideration as to whether it would annoy more people than it pleases. There are plenty of threads bemoaning new features that they introduce.
A good idea needs as many critics as it does supporters to iron out potential problems.
Again, my comments were not personal. It just struck me as kinda odd that (since you obviously haven’t even used the feature in PT he talks about?) why didn’t you just forward the conversation (maybe?) by asking “why?” he thinks it would be an improvement? At least try to understand exactly what you’re commenting on before commenting on it?
Your first reaction was to excuse the absence of something that (apparently) you’ve never even used? That’s all. I guess all you heard was PT and that irritated you, dunno. “Guess PT beat Steiny to something or other?” What is the point of that, if not just being kinda defensive?
It seems your first reaction is to take mild offense at any mention of any issue with Cubase. Even if you don’t even understand, or have no experience with, the thing being talked about. It’s like the Knights Templar… rise to the defense… instead of maybe trying to have an actual conversation?
After the conversation you still might disagree with the value of something but at the very least you’d actually know what’s being discussed?
Love ya man. Let’s end it here before Steiny kicks the thread to the lounge. I’m sure you’ll need the last word so I’ll let you have it so it won’t go any deeper into Disneyland. Maybe that’s your job here, to explain to us munchkins what the developers are thinking and why they don’t do some of what we ask for? You seem to be doing it (yet again) above so I assume you have inside info.
Excuse me. I’m addressing the thread. You guys seem to be talking about me.
I don’t need comments about me. The OP needs constuctive comments about the subject he started.
I’m trying to tell him that maybe it is considered by the programmers that the function he wants is, via folders etc. already there.
Unlike you two regular snipers, I’m not trying to pick an argument.
I don’t comment on your posts or others’ posts because I consider it impolite and stupid because it achieves nothing.
Because I have another viewpoint does not mean I’m wrong and yes, maybe the “munchkins” need a bit of reality.
But, I don’t tell anyone what to do and I don’t put words into others mouths. And I don’t tell anyone else off as if they’re not toeing some imagined party line.
Now, if you can, please by all means talk about the subject and not hijack it by talking about me or others.
Personally i would welcome an addition such at this… it WOULD speed up my work flow somewhat under certain circumstances…
I frequently get projects with 70-80 channels including groups/returns etc, which even with two fairly large res monitors can be a bit of a task to deal with, particularly in a frenzied tracking session using multiple tracks… you could just ‘folderize’ what you don’t need to see same as the arrange window allowing you to focus on the job in hand instead of having to constantly scroll the mixer, change workspaces, work on multiple mixer configs etc… there would be nothing forcing people to use it…
Having used PTHD on quite a few occasions myself i have to admit it’s a desirable feature…
As a few are aware on here i have some pretty nasty disability causing problems with my upper body/arms/hands etc… even from an accessibility standpoint this would be MOST welcome too!
This would be more useful to me than using folders to hide tracks because then I can keep associated tracks next to each other in the project but just keep some hidden.
For example, I very often comp a track, duplicate it and then bounce the duplicate, because I want to keep the original comping track. Then if I could hide the original right next to the new one I’d know where it was for later and my project would be tidy. Moving the track to a separate folder somewhere else to keep things tidy is nowhere near as convenient.
I’ve been working with Logic 8 on friends’ studios a lot lately and the difference in workflow and layout is > profound> . With Cubase, you spend so much time changing views, hiding, unhiding, managing layouts, etc, > it’s ridiculous> .
The Cubase mixer is similarly > awful- > no proper overview, instead you’re constantly switching views. > Even worse is the Hidden Tracks implementation. While improved over SX3, it’s still a mess. > Logic has a simple “H” button on the tracks view, IIRC, to manage tracks. > Even better is Pro Tools’ approach- a list of all tracks on the left that you highlight to manage visibility> - what could possilbly be easier?
Not my words, none of it.
I hope they get it sorted out in C7 or 8… but it’s not new. They’ve had years to consider it already which is why some may be a little frustrated (?) after waiting 4-5 years with no real solution. That’s not really “whinging”. It’s only asking why it’s taking so long.
Going back to 2005 through 2011 now (6 years?) … has an “official representative” commented directly on it at all one way or another?
Also a temporary ‘recycle bin’ where you could put a track when you think - ‘this is ok but I might not use it, let me put it somehwere for safekeeping in the project’ Of course any such track woud be disarmed in the ‘recycle bin’
When I track gets really long say 200-300 bars it would be good to cut screen acreage horizontally too maybe using part markers that could be scrunched down by Ctrl Click so that they form only a vertical line (but still play back) until toggled back.
I agree, with a little thought and preparation much can be acheived. I don’t see this as undesirable but I can also see some reasons why it’s not as the OP needs it to be. But in some quarters apparently it niggles not to be an individual like all the rest. They call me a company apologist as though there’s something wrong with that.
I don’t see why not in this case, as I’d find it handy too to hide sections of the mixer if it gets cluttered, but sometimes the software cannot do everything we all want all of the time.
Hey guys sorry I have been my internet has been down the last 2 days (Curse South African bandwidth limitations!!)
and come back to see a very unnecessary argument has arisen… this clearly was not my intention!
I was just basically frustrated at the time of writing as it the large track count in my project was really cluttering my mind…
Yep - To me Cubase is Superior to all above mentioned DAW’s in every sense other than than this - and if such a feature were implemented it would truly the top of tops for me…
I kind of wish i hadnt played around in PT and Logic to actually see this kind of feature in action because now everytime im producing in Cubase I kind of wish for it…
i have been on the cube for a couple of years now (5 i think not too sure anymore)…
If you check out the net, as brought up by other members in this topic, it has been regularly requested for about 6 years maybe longer…
“so it might be in v7” - This exactly what im hoping for!