I changed the names of my tracks
in the Track-List and in the endpoint-counfiguration of my VSTi-Rack,
but the names in the mixer stay the same.
Why is that?
In the attachment I send pics of the Tracks, the VSTi-Rack and the Mixer.
Thxs, best, Roman
Dorico currently labels mixer channels after the instruments that are routed to them, rather than the plugins that play them. This logic doesn’t yet take player numbers into account.
Hi, rename the instruments in the setting page.
in the Setup-Mode the names are correct.
But unforunately that doesn’t affect the mixer.
See the attachments.
Hi. rename the instrument - not the player.
Yes, that did it…
Thxs a lot…
Curious why in the manual there is a completely different information and even no support employee knows the right way…
Thxs for your knowledge!
Just to be clear, nobody here on the forum from the Dorico team is a “support employee”: Ulf leads the audio engine project, Paul is one of the Dorico developers, and I’m Dorico’s product manager. Not that there is anything wrong with being a support employee: when I started working in this field more than 20 years ago, that’s where I started.
I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with the specific titles of your positions…
What I do know is that the information in the manual didn’t help to reach the goal, because it doesn’t seem to be correct.
For this reason I asked for help, and I got it from new member “derBertram”.
What Paul said is not really wrong, but it didn’t show me the way I would have to go to achieve the target.
What I also wonder is:
in the mixer, above the correct designation
Flute 1, Flute 2, Flute 3, etc. there stands
Flute 1, Flute 1, Flute 1…
Where does that name come from?
Please see the attachment…
Paul clearly stated that the tracks are named after the instrument. Most of us here can understand that one new to Dorico may not yet grasp the distinction between Player and Instrument, as other notation packages do not separate the function; but please be careful how you characterize things, since Lillie works tirelessly to make sure the manual is as correct and accessible as possible.
Item 5 in the diagram at https://steinberg.help/dorico_pro/v3/en/dorico/topics/play_mode/play_mode_mixer_r.html?hl=mixer%2Ctrack says that the fader governs the “instrument.” Again, perhaps this should be highlighted more forcefully for newer users, but it is not incorrect.
maybe Lillie does as you said…
But in the manual of Dorico 3 in the chapter to Play Mode Endpoints on page 529 there is written:
“1. Name - Allows you to change the name of the selected plug-in instance. This affects the name
shown in the VST and MIDI Instruments panel and in the Mixer.”
( https://steinberg.help/dorico_pro/v3/en/Dorico_Pro_3_Operation_Manual_en.pdf )
And that doesn’t really work…
Changing the name in the Endpoint-Configuration affects nothing to the mixer…
Or did I understand anything wrong?
I’m wrong - ignore.
Hmmm… am I in the wrong movie or what?
The manual says:
“1. Name - Allows you to change the name of the selected plug-in instance.
This affects the name shown in the VST and MIDI Instruments panel and in the Mixer.”
Actually, nothing in the mixer changes when changing the name in the Endpoint-Configuration, or did I miss something?
Which part of it didn’t I understand???
Apologies - I misunderstood what you were trying to achieve. There are quite a few search results for “endpoint” in the Dorico 3.1 Version History, so you might supplement the manual with that version history in addition to the 3.5 Version History. The Operations Manual is only intended to be up to date as far as 3.0.10, and changes have evidently been made to this area of the software since then.
Version 3.1 History clearly states:
“Renaming VST instruments. A new Namefield has been added to the Endpoint Setupdialog, accessed by clicking the cog icon for a specific plug-in in the VST Instruments panel in Play mode. The chosen name will then appear both in the VST Instruments panel and in the Mixer. (STEAM-9148)” and in the Version History 3.5 the word mixer doesn’t appear…
So the Sentences in the Version History 3.1 as well as in the manual are wrong, aren’t they?
And the real problem is still not solved…
I wish someone from the Steinberg team would admit to having made a mistake instead of always looking for the cause in the user…
If you rename the plugin then it will be updated in the tooltip as shown. There are 3 items of information and adding all 3 in the label would be too crowded. There’s the name of the plugin (which the user can override), the name of each plugin output (which the plugin itself controls, since only the plugin knows what the outputs represent, eg a drum plugin may have bass, kick and hi-hats on separate channels), and finally the name of the instrument that is routed to that plugin.
I thought the point of this forum was to make the software better rather than to shame people and insist on an apology or admission of some sort of guilt. You long ago made the point that you found the documentation unclear. Both Daniel and Paul have responded on this thread, so the Team is aware of your thoughts.
if there are three pieces of information, which one will probably be the most important to the user to see at a glance?
The one given by Dorico or the one he entered himself?
And if you think the label would be too crowded with three entries, why can’t the user decide for himself and choose which labels he wants to show and which he wants to hide?
Well, to be honest: The longer I work with Dorico and the more functions are added from update to update, the more I recognize the weaknesses of the program… Weaknesses that don’t exist in Cubase from the same Steinberg company, and I don’t understand why the Dorico development team doesn’t take a little more of the experience gained from the almost 40 year old software into account…
To some users who don’t care about the plugins that are loaded, the Instrument name is more important, to users of plugins with multiple outputs, the names of those outputs is more important, to you, the new plugin name is important. There’s no one default that will satisfy all users, or even the same user in all situations. We could add some UI to allow the user to choose (and maybe we will one day), but adding extra options and UI is not a trivial thing, and any changes have to be localised in 9 languages. We are a small team that doesn’t have the resources or 40 year development effort of Cubase. Dorico’s Play Mode has one person working on it (me). I have been a Cubase user for 25 years and we follow Cubase’s precedents where it makes sense and is feasible for us to do so. Dorico isn’t a DAW. It has some DAW-like features. Some users will always want more DAW-like control. Many users don’t touch Play Mode (or even play back anything at all). We have to juggle our priorities to devote our time to features that will have the most impact to the most users.
At the school where I used to teach, there was a story of a parent who came into the front office to complain about the results her child had received on his most recent report. The child’s teacher happened to be in the office and overheard.
“Your son, Madam,” he said, “is an underachiever.”
“No,” the mother replied. “You, sir, are an overexpecter!”
Kudos to the team for patiently continuing to respond to the concerns of the few users whose posts are needlessly thorny.