User 905133

Thanks for the explanation of possible switching improvement (smoother/faster). That makes sense! I will give more thought to the second point to see if I can reconcile (and perhaps better explain) what I had been thinking with your comment.

Not sure if my suggestion for "Workflow Preferences" as a option for Lenses [now Workspaces] was considered as it was not a formal request, but a discussion embedded in a problem-solution type thread. If it had been considered and either dismissed or shelved, that's fine. If it hadn't, here's a new problem-solution thread that points to how workflow preferences that are scattered in different places could be aggregated via Workspaces. (BTW, I prefer "Workspaces" to "Lenses"--it seems a more descriptive name--at least to me. ) Thanks for all the fixes, improvements, etc. Oh--I have been going through my custom "Lenses" and they all seem to work just fine as "Workspaces." In fact, it might be my imagination, but I think they switch in more smoothly/faster.

TY for this recent line of discussion. Since the X Series, I had never before stumbled onto the Event Filter and had been missing it. Also, after searching "inline" in the current reference guide and bouncing between the guide and a recent tune, I found a chain nested of menus/submenus that enabled me to make the inline piano roll view acessible via double clicking behavior. I did not know about this specific personal workflow preference (perhaps because it is somewhat "hidden"), but retrospectively it is the kind of workflow preference I had in mind a month or so ago when I suggested a new category ("workflow preferences," I think I called it for Lenses [soon-to-be Workspaces]). So, thanks for pointing out these features!

Another option if you save your exported audio so you can find it in Cakewalk's Media Browser: right-click tune, select properties, choose details, edit fields, click OK.

I only tested "Fit-to-Time" once. Does that do what you want? Update: For a second round of tests (single 2' 47" audio track rendered from a midi soft synth project), I ran into an upper limit of 400% stretch and lower limit of 25% shrinkage. One test converted a 44 sec slice (Start -> Thru) and made it 30 seconds. Forgot to mention: I didn't see a way to do an instant preview; audio conversion took time to do. Update 2: Took the same 44 second slice and made it 60 seconds. Again, if there's a way to preview it, I didn't see it. Had to wait until the "Processing audio data" gauge finished. Footnote: On my 1st attempt with the 2' 47" track, I accidentally entered 1 hour as the target length. That's how I saw the 400% max. The track did expand to exactly 1 hour; however, the actual audio "only" expanded to 400% of the original. The rest was silence.

Not sure why I don't. (Just sharing this here to say its not everyone; I have no idea why. Could be any of a number of reasons. Probably not worth trying to determine.)

The subject of musical meaning and the composer's intentions in communicating meaning through music is a passion for me. In terms of historical writings and research from many particular perspectives, there is a lot out there (in many diverse fields of interest). Perhaps you are already familiar with some of what's out there. If not, and if you are interested in these topics for more than a casual discussion, I would encourage you to continue to explore the subject with a passion. As for me, some of "the literature" looks for meaning within music (from (a) microscopic to (b) macroscopic perspectives; for example from (a) the alleged meaning in intervals, frequency ratios, timbre, harmonics, etc. (microscopic) to (b ) meaning as based on or derived from large-scale things, such as culture, medium of communication, broad contexts, etc. (macroscopic) For me (and I recognize everyone is different and has different thoughts on any given subject), meaning is something that humans (as individuals and groups of individuals from like-minded, relatively homogeneous groups--such as interest groups and "sub-cultures" to diverse, heterogeneous groups--such as "society") ascribe to different aspects of experience. For example, people who like certain types/genres of music (traditional electronic music, ambient music, orchestral music, video game music, acid rock, etc.) might have a wider variety of experiences with regard to those favored genres and therefore a wider range of "meanings" (from descriptive/denotative meaning to evaluative/connotative meaning) than people who are unfamiliar with (or who dislike) those genres. Someone who thinks of "electronic music" as dance music might hear "Poème électronique" and find "no meaning" in it (or maybe think its "just a bunch of sounds strung together," but certainly not "electronic music." On the other hand, someone else with a background in "traditional electronic music" might hear different pieces of dance-oriented "electronic music" and think "It's all the same." I think your observations about comparing different versions of musical elements (such as reversing the order of notes, reversing a performance, etc.) and your speculations about the change in meaning based on the alterations are interesting. I am not sure this is a good forum for a "philosophical discussion" of this topic. I chose to share some thoughts here since (1) you seem interested in the broader subject, (2) others might also be interested, (3) you seem to be leaning in the direction of meaning as being ascribed to music as opposed to meaning being inherent in music and the distinction might be of use in sorting through "the literature" if you (or others) are interested, etc. Just some "food for thought" depending on your personal dietary preferences (a la what's music to someone might be "just noise" to someone else).

I explored Ctrlr a while ago, but decided I didn't want to invest the time to develop fluency with all the programming needed to build complex two-way panels (both to gear and from gear). It was fairly easy to develop a one-way panel with buttons and sliders to control a few features of my E-Mu ROMplers. I never thought about it before, but it is a bit like a studioware panel. I used it in realtime, not with Cakewalk. From the panels I see posted there, it looks like users have been developing some sophisticated panels, some that even have skins that mimic gear!!! It might be good to know if those panels could be used efficiently to interface with Cakewalk. Just a thought in case anyone is interested.

I have worked with the text colors for midi, synth, and instrument names in the track view and in the console view. I have not tweaked any background colors, yet. You might want to look at the ones under "background." I have some sample track name colors. I will see if I can change some backgrounds, too. It is something I have been wanting to try! UPDATE 1: I cannot get the background colors to change. I will try again later. UPDATE 2: Got it! See Focused and Unfocused Track Background Colors.

I agree!! Perhaps like Themes, users could make Lenses/Workspaces (from basic to complex), with sample screenshots and descriptions so other users can just drop the *.lns file (or whatever the extension will be for Workspaces) into the user Lens/Workspace folder. However, mastering lenses/workspaces is not a simple task and I believe it is asking too much to expect new users to learn how to create customized/simple UIs when trying to wrap their heads around Cakewalk basics. The basic lens/workspace is one option; I am suggesting that perhaps other users (more experienced with lens/workspace design) can offer a wider range of basic and advanced options with a screenshot so users can see what they look like before trying them.

If your the synth engine in your synth (hard or soft) will allow it, you could map an LFO to volume/amplitude and use CC11 (expression) to control the amount of the LFO--as long as CC11 is not used for something else. If your synth has a flexible architecture, you could use any available CC. This idea here (just one option that might be available to you) is to leave CC7 for overall volume (level) of the instrument and have CC11 (or another one, if available) for the effect.

In case it is still not clear, I was not asking for the ability to "Insert from Bus Template" or suggesting that being able to right click in the bus pane area would be useful. I was saying that I didn't see any benefits to either of these options. Maybe there are; I just haven't seen them described. Sorry if it looked like I was asking for help on how to use Track Templates. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing out how easy it is to create them. From what little I have explored so far (see screenshots previously posted), I have some definite thoughts on how to integrate them into my existing work flow. I need to sort that out along with integrating other advanced features I have not really explored fully over the decades. When I get around to it, if I can't figure out how to do something, I will certainly want to call on your (and others') more extensive experience.** Again, thanks for the discussion here as it has pointed me to explore Track Templates! If other Cakewalk users (new and old, inexperienced and experienced) haven't yet explored them, maybe this thread will prompt them to do so. **PS: When I do, I will probably either find a thread about Track Templates (how to create and use them) or create a "Creating and Using Templates" topic if one doesn't exist. That way, this thread can return to thoughts related to Bus Templates.

I was not asking for suggestions. I was responding to the "Insert from Bus Template" issue.

Thanks for the additional information, but the details in the new posts and in the online help seem to me to be about track templates, not bus templates available directly from the bus pane of the track window. I was under the impression that the thread was about having the ability to do something like right-click in the bus area of the track pane or to otherwise insert a bus from a bus template as opposed to using a track template. Based on my tests, (1) I couldn't see the benefit there would be and (2) it seemed that buses and pre-associated sends could be inserted from track templates into new or existing projects. It is good to know that the mechanism to create Track Templates is rather straight forward. However, I still don't know if having an "Insert from Bus Template" option from the bus pane would add something new or if it would be simpler/easier than what I did. (See screenshots above.)

Update: I thought, "Maybe my method doesn't add FX Sends and that's what the other methods do." To test this, I opened up an existing project and tried another insertion from the "Insert from Track Template" menu system. See below. The template I chose added Master bus and a track with FX sends. Are you discussing adding (1) a new FX sends bus from a template and (2) having one or more existing tracks directed to that newly inserted bus all in one step? This is giving me new ideas for revamping my workflow and new methods of creating templates and projects. Thanks for raising the discussion. .