Say I have a 1000 measure piece and I’m working around measure 600. I have 3 tracks - A, B, and C. The Cycle (loop) is on Measures 599-601. The playback cursor is at measure 600. The top panel with the tracklist is centered on measure 600.
I click on track C to open the MIDI editor for track C, scroll to measure 600 and edit some notes there. Then I click on Track A to open the MIDI editor to that track, scroll to measure 600 and tweak some notes there. Perhaps I click “Play” so it plays 599-600 in a loop. Then I do the same for track B. Then I click on track C again to open the MIDI editor to tweak some more notes there, but it’s moved to another measure! Sometimes it’s showing measure 500, or 300, or all the way back to 1!
Why doesn’t it stay where I left it? All the editing in all three tracks was done at Measure 600, and the playback cursor has never left the range 599-601.
If I’m just switching between a few different tracks editing the same measure why does it change when I go back to the editor? How do I prevent this?
Thanks in advance.
The Key (or other) Editor doesn’t open of you click to the track (in the track list). So the question is, where exactly do you click? Do you single- or double-click?
On mine it does. If I single left-click on the X it opens the editor to that track. If it’s a MIDI track it opens in the MIDI editor; if it’s a drum track it opens in the Drum editor, etc. The question is, what determines what measure it’s displaying when it opens?
This is not the track, this is the MIDI Part, which you select.
The Editor always jumps to the beginning of the MIDI Part. This if how Cubase works. If you want to scroll the Editor to the cursor position, is the [F] key twice.
It has been discussed many many times in the forum already.
Another workaround could be to use a key command on “Zoom to Locators” or the combo of Zoom MEM and Zoom ZAP.
The lower zone needs to get focused first, though.
What is the advantage of doing that? I assume they did it that way because it confers some advantage or benefit.
It’s it’s been discussed so many times then that suggests that many people must find it counterintuitive or confusing, but I’m sure Steinberg must do it for a very good reason which is why I asked the question above.
I only come here sporadically and I’ve never seen anyone ask but I’m sure if I was here every day for many years and read the forum like a book I would have seen it, but sadly I have a day job - two actually - so I miss out on all that fun.
I’m sure it’s documented but one would have to know the precise words to use to find it.
The “F … F” solution proposed by Martin seems to work well enough for me. But I do think there are some major problems with focus - especially the lower zone losing focus. As I mentioned in another post, I have a professional background in usability and interaction design, and Cubase violates a great many of the basic principles of good interaction design.
It’s a common problem with old software because companies don’t want to alienate their existing users who have already memorized the quirks of the old UI, by changing the UI. If the software was cleanly architected then the UI is just a shell over the internal machinery of the program and can be swapped out without having to change the internals. This allows such companies to offer a “Classic” UI for the old graybeards and a more modern one for younger users at the click of a button. I suspect Cubase is not so cleanly architected.