Where is 12.8?

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by nige108

Yep, no more money from me. I'm fed up with making blind payments. How many other companies take money from there customers and don't tell them what they are getting for it?

What are you getting? Their continued existence.

[JFreak]

Well we all have our own opinions regarding priority of new version wishes, don't we? I myself agree with plugin chains and track presets feature requests. Those would be great, if properly implemented.

But I actually disagree with the polarity switch thing unless there's a polarity switch for every send as well. The problem is, if there is such a "plugin" in every output of a mixer, it needs some processing time and how it would be implemented with HDX beats me. Not to mention, it should be easily controlled with control surfaces such as C|24 which is a lot older than this feature request. I'm fine with inserting a plugin for it.

And the bus soloing... I don't get it why people are so desperately crying for it. PT mixer is as close as it gets to analog console, and using analog console I have never needed this. If I wanted to hear what the reverb is getting, I simply turn the mix knob to zero. Multiple sessions... Well... I don't mind if it's implemented but I don't need it. Import Session Data is good enough for me. Undoing deleted tracks? That's something Avid could perhaps implement, but obviously it wouldn't work if you had already deleted the files.

Point being, Avid isn't in the business of implementing everything their customers ask for. They are in the business of pleasing their most lucrative market (post) and they also need to be a gatekeeper of denying feature requests that mess with their golden goose.

[nige108]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

What are you getting? Their continued existence.

You have to laugh otherwise you'd cry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amagras]

This delay is starting to smell like ilok licence replacement...

[DarkandKurious]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Well we all have our own opinions regarding priority of new version wishes, don't we? I myself agree with plugin chains and track presets feature requests. Those would be great, if properly implemented.

But I actually disagree with the polarity switch thing unless there's a polarity switch for every send as well. The problem is, if there is such a "plugin" in every output of a mixer, it needs some processing time and how it would be implemented with HDX beats me. Not to mention, it should be easily controlled with control surfaces such as C|24 which is a lot older than this feature request. I'm fine with inserting a plugin for it.

And the bus soloing... I don't get it why people are so desperately crying for it. PT mixer is as close as it gets to analog console, and using analog console I have never needed this. If I wanted to hear what the reverb is getting, I simply turn the mix knob to zero. Multiple sessions... Well... I don't mind if it's implemented but I don't need it. Import Session Data is good enough for me. Undoing deleted tracks? That's something Avid could perhaps implement, but obviously it wouldn't work if you had already deleted the files.

Point being, Avid isn't in the business of implementing everything their customers ask for. They are in the business of pleasing their most lucrative market (post) and they also need to be a gatekeeper of denying feature requests that mess with their golden goose.

I think you're making a very valid point. Most people's feature requests seem to be about their specific situation rather than the broader picture, even from a technical viewpoint. Multiple sessions open at once? How would all the routing work when you have a different I/O setup for hardware inserts on different channels? It is ITB people who want such things, yet PT doesn't even handle one heavy mix session with VI's well. When the foundations of the software is shaky, things like this are asking for even more trouble. The soloing has so much flexibility that I have always found a way to hear anything I wanted to solo. Making sure that the delay compensation doesn't go haywire because some bus is orphaned from an output, making sure that we can trust what we see on the screen, implementing a better graphics engine so that there are less errors or crashes because PT can't redraw the waveforms quickly enough, fixing the underlying stability, reducing the problems with multithreading, those things are necessary for everyone, in every industry, every day. I personally think people should stop requesting new features and continue to ask for stability, and nothing but stability. The crashes because of conflicts in memory management and CPU management need to go.

[electrodaddy]

Apparently there have been six major releases in the past year. I can only count two. What did I miss?!

https://twitter.com/AvidProTools/sta...33753486331904

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by electrodaddy

Apparently there have been six major releases in the past year. I can only count two. What did I miss?!

https://twitter.com/AvidProTools/sta...33753486331904

We have had quite a few updates to PT and I think they are also counting freeze, commit, Cloud Collaboration and new HD Driver but IMNSHO Iwould NOT call the dot updates "major releases" as they were needed to even get PT to start so I am with you there. Maybe they (Avid) count MC aswell

[electrodaddy]

Cloud, freeze and commit we're over a year ago. Sand bug fixes certainly don't count as a major release. Definitely some fibs going on there!

[clausiii]

Originally Posted by DarkandKurious

I think you're making a very valid point. Most people's feature requests seem to be about their specific situation rather than the broader picture, even from a technical viewpoint. Multiple sessions open at once? How would all the routing work when you have a different I/O setup for hardware inserts on different channels? It is ITB people who want such things, yet PT doesn't even handle one heavy mix session with VI's well. When the foundations of the software is shaky, things like this are asking for even more trouble. The soloing has so much flexibility that I have always found a way to hear anything I wanted to solo. Making sure that the delay compensation doesn't go haywire because some bus is orphaned from an output, making sure that we can trust what we see on the screen, implementing a better graphics engine so that there are less errors or crashes because PT can't redraw the waveforms quickly enough, fixing the underlying stability, reducing the problems with multithreading, those things are necessary for everyone, in every industry, every day. I personally think people should stop requesting new features and continue to ask for stability, and nothing but stability. The crashes because of conflicts in memory management and CPU management need to go.

I think people who want multiple open sessions want it the way how Nuendo handles this. One session is active, others are kinda disabled but open. You can copy/paste things and so on or quickly enable another session (and the first session is then disabled). It's quite useful in certain circumstances.

[deanrichard]

Exactly. This is how most DAWs that support multiple sessions work. Only one is active at a given time. There is added convenience because you can quickly switch between sessions, and also because you can easily cut from one session to paste to another. But again, only one is active at any given moment. And DAWs that support Sub-projects are similar in that only one project is open and available at any given moment.

Originally Posted by clausiii

I think people who want multiple open sessions want it the way how Nuendo handles this. One session is active, others are kinda disabled but open. You can copy/paste things and so on or quickly enable another session (and the first session is then disabled). It's quite useful in certain circumstances.