Tab to transient (tab to hitpoint) feature is useless as is

Why can we not use the new tab to transient/hitpoint feature in the arrange window?? That’s the only place I’d find a real use for it.

Not only that, but when you ‘create slices’ in the waveform after setting the hitpoints, you can only edit them in that specific editor - they appear ‘glued’ together in the arrange window.

This is not at all how the function should behave to be useful; we need a tab to transient feature exactly like it is in ProTools.

It’d also be nice to get transparent events back ASAP, but I hear you guys are working on that already.


I cannot check certain things at the moment, but would it be possible to stop using the word “we”?


Agreed, though I’d have phrased it differently. It’s not “useless” as is but I think that bringing more of the hitpoint based features into the arrange window would be a huge boost. Actually the more of the “Sample Editor” window functions that can be done in the arrange page the better. Just like “in-place” MIDI editing.

Being able to do Tab to transient location and very importantly Audiowarp within the context of the arrange window would be fantastic. All the bones are there, the new hitpoint detection algorithm is great. Just need to GUI it into the arrange window.

Blatantly rip off Pro Tools “Tab to transient” and Logic’s “Flex Time” and CB will be kicking ass.

Just dissolve the part and all your event slices can be edited on the project page

Cheers for the dissolve hint, but it’s still really a huge PITA that I can’t use tab-to-trans features in the arrange window.

I’m confused on why there’s an issue with my use of the term ‘we’? We = the userbase… perfectly acceptable/reasonable for me to state ‘we’ in my post. I’ve talked to other Cubase users (to make sure I wasn’t doing something wrong and the case was, in fact, that tab-to-trans didn’t function in the arrange window), and they agreed that that functionality would be a huge asset. Given that, what’s wrong with me saying ‘we’?

You is not Me. I don’t care at all for such a function. Hence your use of we does not represent ‘the user base’. Chris is totally correct IMO.

Luck, Arjan

Why not accede graciously? It’s often best not to generalize when speaking of functionality anyway. Tomato/Tomahto.You can guarantee this is an issue for you- but not necessarily for others.

Another outlook-because for whatever reason, purporting to speak for the voiceless masses slightly annoys the hard working Site Administrator, and he asked you politely to speak in the singular. :slight_smile:

YMMV, of course.

Fair enough - shouldn’t have spoken generally. I still hold that the group I’ve spoken with agrees with me on the subject, but I digress…

Are there any plans to implement an actual tab-to-transient feature in the arrange window?

I had no idea Cubase finally has tab to transient, a feature I’ve wanted for a long time. But I agree with Jeff that it needs to be functional in the arrange window to be really useful.


But if JeffTD shared cubase with collaborator or partner then the use of the word “we” is fine and correct, I think Chris was a little quick, though explaining afterwards that We = User Base scuppered that defence completely. :smiley:

seriously, either add a way to calculate hitpoints automatically via function or at least some general algorithm like…

find softest amplitude peak
find loudest amplitude peak
calculate an average amplitude peak value

use this data to decide where automatic hit points will be set

sorry to be slightly off topic here … once we create slices with hitpoints …say a drum loop or a footsteps sample
is it possible to export these in a batch without selecting each newly created clip

Well it would be nice to save one button-push. :laughing:

Seriously. It’s more desirable to have as few windows per job as possible in most situations as it saves expensive mistakes being made because working in one window it’s easier to mix up what job your doing or forget to change function when you change job. Much better to have a different window to work in as then you make a deliberate choice of what operation you need to do.
The convenience of some suggestions sounds like a good idea but in practise might throw up more problems than it solves. While that may not be the case here it may be useful to keep that in mind.

^ ^ Funny, it’s working totally fine in practice for ProTools users for years now.

This is one of the few aspects of pro tools I like better than cubase.

Maybe I don’t understand the use of hitpoints, but it seems like this would work a little better if you could control the sensitivity of the hitpoint detection.

Also, it’s a little annoying when you open your marker window and see that there are now hundreds of markers - perhaps hit point markers could be under a different category?