I recently stumbled on a forum (KVR) that had a instructions on using macros and logical editor commands to be able to show only selected tracks in the mixer… You can just find it i posted it here about 10 days ago…
I tried my very best to get this working… It seemed to work fine when you only had audio/instrument tracks in your track list, but as soon as you add a group or FX or folder, the command no longer does anything.
Im sure there is another bunch of commands to get this working… I tried for a while but after an hour of trying to work out confusing boolean algebra in my head i gave up…
Maybe, at least for now… steinberg can come up with a bunch of PLE presets or keycommands that would show only selected tracks and a bunch of other variations… This is already capable in the software… but let them do the math - we are musicians not computer boffs and prefer to get on with the project instead of wasting time trying to work out PLE boolean nonsense. It would take the guys over there at Steiny about 5 days to implement…
here’s my +1
I totally agree that Protools handles this aspect of track management alot better, and too would love to see this feature introduced into cubase.
Having said that I have managed to come up with a good workaround (for me) using folders and the dual arrangement page in Cubase.
Basically I keep all my tracks in folders, so what I’ve done is create a second set of folders with the extension hidden on my “lower” arrangement page. Then when you want to hide a track just drag it down to its respective hidden folder. This will also move it to the end of the mixer which I know is my hidden portion so I don’t scroll there anyway. When you want it back, drag it back up again. I find the dual screen thing a real plus and something I miss when doing work in Protools. As are folder tracks. You can’t win really there’s always something greener on the other side till you get there and take a look back.
OK. Well the best way to keep it interesting is to discuss both the advantages AND the disadvantages*.
One disadvantage I see straight away is that some users, both new and ones who work with large and fragmented (untidy) tracks and parts, might complain about tracks being lost which coould happen even if it was an option.
If you have a tidy mind it would work but if you had a busy lifestyle and a piecemeal composing style then it could
sometimes be a nuisance.
Because that’s the way the dev team would (should? ) argue about implementing it. Also, nothing is “scientifically” or “medically” proven. Science and medicine always try to disprove a theory rather than prove it.
Other features that seemed a good idea from the forum and taken up seem to have annoyed a lot of users. Significantly the VST Bridge and the old freeze function. Present Lane editing must have seemed like a good idea too (don’t know who’s idea that was) but there’s a few noses out of joint there at the moment.
Also you have to weigh up which features to support, i.e. whcich threads to keep alive…
Right now I would far rather that Steinberg fixed the lane management and fixed the showing of automation points at all times, than implemented the hiding of tracks in the project window. These two are more important to me.
The point i think you’re missing conman is that this is now, and has been for some time, the ‘digital age’… and MANY of the constraints of a purely ‘physical’ studio have been removed… it’s called progress.
Just think for a moment if that first caveman/Neanderthal/cro-magnon had never had the insight/desire to raise that first bone/stick/rock to strike against that first log/other resonant object then the world’s arguably oldest profession would never have come to be!
Same as Leo Fender’s desire to provide some bottom end which cold compete with amplified guitars and the way drum kits evolved around the same time…
The same as Edison who had the desire to capture sound for posterity with his wax cylinders… Sony with the walkman… indeed when Marconi, Tesla Popov et al were researching radio there were no real practical applications that immediately sprang to mind for them… just think about how radio and other wireless systems are ubiquitous in present time! … people like Rupert Neve, Bill Putnam, George Martin etc…
Of course the other thing is not everyone’s musical needs are the same… i for one would not miss loopmash, arranger tracks or half of the midi plugins but to some people they are their bread and butter!
One of the major functions of a forum such as this is for feature requests… it’s us that are the end users… or at least the more vocal end users lol and as such are intimately familiar with our own work practices from the bedroom hobbyist through to people making a pretty decent living with it! Some people use it for scoring classical/films/TV etc… some people just want to string a few loops together… some of us like to do full bands with realtime multitracking… Cubase is one serious musical ‘swiss army knife/multitool’ at the end of the day… for it’s own survival it needs to service MANY different needs… VERY FEW people will ever use or in fact NEED to use every aspect of the program in every context… If someone comes up with an idea which they feel could enhance their own work flow why not put it forward for discussion?.. you know… one’s man’s meat is another’s poison?
Why bother ‘debating’ whether a suggested addition to cubase is necessary or not if you find it does not appeal to oneself? why not just move on to another post as i’m sure the vast majority of users on the boards are inclined to do.
I do not understand your comment… “Also, nothing is “scientifically” or “medically” proven. Science and medicine always try to disprove a theory rather than prove it.” i’m still trying to figure out what you’re alluding to here…
Gosh and golly? Seems I don’t understand anything oh my guru.
I do not understand your comment… “Also, nothing is “scientifically” or “medically” proven. Science and medicine always try to disprove a theory rather than prove it.” i’m still trying to figure out what you’re alluding to here…
What I’m saying is nothing is acheived without at least a little thought applied as to whether it will work for everybody. I’m sure even cavemen argued about what improvements could be made to work on a bow or even a club. “Spikes on the club Mr Ugger, that’s the way forward.” “Nah, Mr Grunter, Nails is the new way forward. Put nails in em.” “Nah! Nails gets rusty and drops out.” “Ah! They gets rusty. That makes em more dangerous.” “Oh! That’s a point.”
Again, though just another futile post about my post and me and not on the subject in hand.
What you don’t get is that progress is never achieved without discussion OF the possible progression. Anyone who doesn’t want discussion is just another fascist who wants it his way. And fascism never got anything done except fighting.
So stop fighting by just talking about me and actually contribute to the discussion in hand if you can.
I’ve told you a possible objection. Tell me the benefits besides the OPs first impressions and or where the present design falls down.
I won’t tell you you don’t get it. I won’t tell you that you always say that and I won’t post a long missive about your character or try to shut you up. Honest. You might even get me to bump the thread.
OH, seems I already am bumping it by actually discussing it in a professional way.
Again the point is it doesn’t need to work for everybody! lol… not every one has the same needs or indeed wants!
Same as not everyone needs a multi I/O interface/Bass guitar/Mic Pre etc…
Why use words like ‘futile’ and ‘fascist’ in your post? or accuse me of ‘fighting’ with you lol… a little extreme considering all i did was to present a different viewpoint from your own… bit of an over reaction mate!.. i thought my post was considerate and thoughtful throughout… it was certainly meant with the best of intentions…
There is no disadvantage to using a track list for managing tracks. The current disadvantage in the current methodology is not being able to completely hide arrange tracks at all. Adding the optional ability to do something that you cannot do at all directly right now cannot be a disadvantage by itself, it could only be that with a completely stupid design of a new thing designed to be better than the old thing.
That’s what “development” means? Adding new things and making some old things better?
Is it really that hard to have an adult conversation about a simple feature request here? If anyone could explain to me in what way Cubase’s current track management system is generally better than any of the track lists being discussed I’d be willing to listen… but only to people who’ve actually used both things. If that’s not the case, if the other thing is easily a better approach than what’s there now … I really don’t get some of this discussion at all… the seeking of hypothetical “disadvantages”.
There are no disadvantages compared to what’s there now. It’s all upside. All of it. As soon as Cubase adds it (of course) it will then be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Gosh.
Are people really that sensitive?
Seriously, we aren’t the board of directors discussing some potential new corporate policy that affects people. It’s a simple software feature in use by millions of people. Either it’s a better approach than the current system or it’s not. If you think it’s not a better approach, explain exactly why not. If you’ve actually used both in the real world that is.
Good. Now we’re on track. Thanks. What you’re missing is that I’m not against this at all. what I’m saying is that from a devs point of view is that he might not see it your, or even my, way.
Making suggestions is fine but that’s all it is, a suggestion. Without discussion of all it’s points both good and bad means it just goes down the pan quicker. Everyone wins a discussion. Nobody wins an argument. And I’m not here to win anything. I’m here, the same as you should be, to push it forward.
Yes, I am sensitive that it must irk an OP when posters discuss other POSTERS rather than the post.
And, we are allowed to discuss different viewpoints and not just our own. That includes me. Right? You’re not wrong because I have a different viewpoint. So stop behaving as though I shouldn’t have a say because I see MAYBE a disadvantage. I’m allowed to be wrong. So are you. No sweat.
The only questions I would ask (everyone participating) are…
Have you personally used it (a track list to manage tracks) in the real world in real sessions?
If so, do you think it’s a better approach than what’s there in Cubase now?
If you don’t think it’s a better approach, a workflow improvement, please explain why.
If you do think it is an improvement, how might an implementation here maybe improve on what’s out there already?
It’s really that simple.
If you haven’t used the thing in the real world then obviously any answers to questions 2-4 would be mostly speculation and (imo, mmv) maybe even counterproductive to the discussion, depending. If you have used one of them and just don’t like them? That’s perfectly fine… but at least that position and reasonable opinion would be based on actual use, not on anything else.
Better?
If you like I can give some very detailed examples of exactly how a track list could easily improve the workflow in Cubase… if people can agree to view those things objectively, in proper context. If not, if some people don’t care to actually look at a thing objectively, I suppose it would be left to speculation and similar.
Off topic: This is why (imo, mmv) every DAW forum needs a dedicated feature request forum to objectively analyze and discuss things like this in proper context. And yes, my personal frustration after having spent thousands of dollars on this product over many years and seeing things like this continue to linger there is certainly a part of what annoys me about some of these discussions. I still have to work in it occasionally (tons of old projects) and those things still annoy the heck out of me. Sorry.
Ok, fine lets do it the old Pro’s and Con’s decision management system then!
PRO’s: Well one of them for me would be an “optional” method of decreasing clutter and improving workflow leading to better effiency / faster results… It would be very refreshing to able to edit and mix different groups or sections on a clean page as if it were a new project, and just bring different elements in systematically. (very useful for post and film cue composing!)
CONS: Well i personally cant see any, if its properly implemented, One of the ways, it would just be a hide-able tracks list (like in Pt or Studio one) that could fit in to where the inspector is and in this list you could see the tracks that are hidden and unhide them (and also move, select, delete diff tracks). Other possible suggestions as to how this could be implemented are welcome.
again, i say if its properly implemented it could be a feature that one does’nt necessarily need to touch, you could simply just chose to not hide any tracks… If you suspect any tracks may be hidden. then simple, just double check the track list…
To me, even if it is purely just for the mixer, not in the arrange,- Scrap/update the silly Can/Hide functions and have options that include showing selected tracks only, show folder contents etc…
I suspect that may be quite easy to implement as Cubase already has the code and functionality for hiding tracks setup, its just not been used to its potential.
Great post audiocave, thats a nice sensible checklist…
Hmmm yes, i was actually gonna ask that at some point… Im quite new to the forum, so i wasnt sure about where to post a feature request (or argument )
I know Pro Tools has an Ideascale page that users request features and ppl (“like”) them and they go on a list… so like the one with 5000 ppl agreeing will be at number 1 and you can comment, disagree underneath it.
Quite a good idea, although Avid seemed to have ignored the top3 features for PT10 on that list which seriously pissed off alot of ppl!
They’re not all really just about track visibility but you wouldn’t know that unless you use a few of them. They’re also (in some cases) for editing and information. Let’s take a look at Reaper’s as one example. I hesitate to use the name of the host but you kinda have to because they’re all designed a little differently. It’s “track manager” isn’t just for track visibility.
It’s for…
Hiding showing tracks, mixer and arrange, sync them or not.
You can rename tracks from there, even hidden tracks. Obviously seeing many more at a time at once vertically.
It not only shows how many FX are on each track, you can call the FX window directly from there, for any track.
I think (not sure) it also shows which tracks have hardware FX on them.
Bypassing PDC for that track or the selected tracks. (maybe not relevant here)
Total overview of Record, Solo, Mute status for all tracks… and you can set those things from there.
Track locking, unlocking and status.
Freeze and unfreeze tracks from there, the selected tracks, and it shows the status of frozen tracks.
Some other stuff that probably wouldn’t be relevant to Cubase.
If you don’t need any of that in a dedicated list… don’t ever open it.
That’s just one example that fits that particular host. They’re all a little different functionally, but the general idea that it’s all about track visibility isn’t really the case. So this is what I mean about “analyzing a thing objectively”. Finding out what it really does and then deciding for yourself if any of that might be useful in Cubase or any other host.
And no, I don’t use Reaper in the studio… so not pimping it. Similarly, Reaper could really use an info line like Cubase’s.
Have you personally used it (a track list to manage tracks) in the real world in real sessions?
Yes, use if all of the time in ProTools. As in my earlier use-case reply, I like to keep backup/archive/old tracks in the project in situ with the other or newer tracks. Can’t do that in Cubase, have to put them into a folder either at the top or the bottom of the project. Not so useful. Consider also that you record with multiple microphones on your guitar amp - and at the start of the project you decide only to use the dynamic mic, so you hide the other mics - but later for a solo you decide you need to go to the ribbon mic, dead easy to find if it’s right next to the dynamic mic track but just hidden.
If so, do you think it’s a better approach than what’s there in Cubase now?
See examples above. Generally in PT I’ve got the track list showing to the left of the project window. Note also that when you’re using PT grouping you can group hidden tracks too. So, if you’re editing the aforementioned multi-mic’ed guitar track you’ll be instantly and automatically editing all mic tracks, cutting, moving, etc. If you’ve grouped them correctly - even if they’re hidden! Very powerful feature which again I’ve been using in anger.
& 4. - nothing to declare.
The only CON I can think of is that the development of this feature may push other more important or more useful features down the list.
Would definitely like to see a feature request and bug logging and voting system so we can get a bit more visibility about the priority of requests/bugs.
That’s the only “Con” to having a dedicated FR board. Some people (the small minority granted) will actively argue against (?) or heavily lobby against (?) some optional things instead of just saying, “Sounds nice but it’s not that important to me personally…” or just maybe saying nothing at all, because (I guess) they think it might delay the other thing that they really want being worked on.
Most reasonable people are more likely to say “Hey, if you guys see value in it… I’m all for it. Especially if it’s optional and I don’t have to use it.” We all generally end up using it anyway once it’s there.
Honestly, an FR is usually just to get something on the actual list… not necessarily to give it priority over anything or everything else.
It’s a strange phenomenon, FR’s and such. PT guys pooh-poohed clip gain, now they love it. They pooh-poohed SoundCloud uploads, now they have it and many like it. It kinda goes like that with DAW users. Once you actually get something and get to use it, it’s better than it was before you had it.
I occasionally “bump” retrospective record for my current host because I used it in Cubase (handy) and I want it there too. Nice feature.
As a final off topic observation, I’ll leave you guys with this general thought - and a reminder that I don’t use Reaper, it’s just an example - an example of a professional user (he works in audio and film post) forwarding a feature request based mostly on Cubase and Pro Tools automation. It’s well thought out, well organized, and nobody there is telling him … “Go use Cubase or Pro Tools”. they’re kinda saying “Hell yeah.”… to a man.
The automation panel mockup he did there looks a lot like Cubase’'s doesn’t it? There’s even a screenshot of the Cubase automation panel in that thread. People wonder why Reaper moves so fast. One reason is that it’s professional users are usually dead on point - and very concise - with their feature requests and observations.
