Jump to content
murat k.

Accessing QUADCURVE EQUALIZER Panel from the Tiny EQ

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, murat k. said:

I get it. So it's about Ryzen. Just like Olaf said:

 

First AMD processor I've ever had but commercial DAW builders are using them so I figure why pay more for a less powerful Intel part. 

There's no discernible difference when using a Ryzen system apart from it having more cores and being cheaper. There are some misguided souls around these parts who seem to think you should only buy Intel. Don't believe them. There is a choice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

First AMD processor I've ever had but commercial DAW builders are using them so I figure why pay more for a less powerful Intel part. 

There's no discernible difference when using a Ryzen system apart from it having more cores and being cheaper. There are some misguided souls around these parts who seem to think you should only buy Intel. Don't believe them. There is a choice. 

I have bad experience with AMD's in the past. But Ryzen can be different I don't know.

By the way I've changed my ThreadSchedulingModel to 3. It feels better. 

Yeah, really. Cakewalk turned to Cakerun after that. Thanks.🙂

Edited by murat k.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi🙂

@murat k.

Is the track of the opened flyout window then selected or/a d made active to work immediately with a midi controller on it?

or

Is a shortcut possible so that I can first select the track, then open the flyout window?

 

I do almost everything with controller, not mouse, if possible😁

Thank you:)

Bassman.

 

Edited by Heinz Hupfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Bassman 🙂

I'm sure that you're gonna need this even if you generally work with your controller. Think that you have 64 tracks. You can easily access the view of the EQ Panel by double clicking the Tiny EQ Graph.

image.thumb.png.f29377c8b411acb01948da9eb3e73ab6.png

You have 8 channels on your controller. No problem. Just drag the WAI Control to the desired location which is the bottom green bar in this case. Or if you want to jump to the desired track with your controller, OK, use it. That's it. Now you are able to see the EQ Panel while altering the EQ by your controller.

Edited by murat k.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2021 at 12:57 AM, murat k. said:

I get it. So it's about Ryzen. Just like Olaf said:

yeah, everywhere i've seen it mentioned it's got great reviews - especially the zen3 platform. i have the same aggressive setting for the thread scheduling. speed wise the  vishera can pull it off, even though i've got some hungry plugins, but it's the rest of the problems that ruin the mood. in benchmarks, i've seen the 3700x on zen3 is at least double the speed of the 8 core vishera, depending on the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, murat k. said:

Supporters of this Feature Request:@Mark Morgon-Shaw , @Olaf, @Starship Krupa& @marled

Still few. Guys, we will be able to do this after the implementation:

 

how did you make that video? it's cool.

to the able to detach the window from its fixed position and reposition it is also among the suggestions on my list of requests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2021 at 11:29 PM, Olaf said:

Thanks, man, I'm glad you agree - I mean it would be useful and beautiful to see all those things implemented.

I've stopped updating it, because it seems they were left largely unanswered, and there is a resistance to change - and even the two that were implemented when I last updated, could have been implemented in an a lot smoother and more intuitive way, in my view.

Since then I've had maybe another 10-15 ideas about improvements or workflow corrections - like setting all the VU visualizations settings from a single dialog window, for all the views and work modes, instead of 5 or 6 separate menu items, in two views, each with separate submenu items that need to be clicked individually, going at least 20 times through the menu tree, like now. Or registering all the customization and Preference settings in a single file that can be saved and reloaded on a fresh install - including menus, lenses, visualizations, you name it. I've stopped adding the new ideas, because it seems there's no point.

I've cut D17 on the list. I hadn't even noticed it. To be honest, I haven't worked a serious heavy session in CW for a few months now. I'm still waiting for some serious betterment in terms of that list, and especially stability, but I hadn't noticed that change announced in any release notes.

I really appreciate the list and the effort you've put into that. Maybe most points needs to be put in a separate feature request in order to get the attention they deserve just like this single feature topic. It's a pity to see them disappear from the radar knowing they could really make a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Olaf said:

how did you make that video? it's cool.

Thank you @Olaf. I used After Effects for this, but you can also make it with any animation software.

21 hours ago, Olaf said:

to the able to detach the window from its fixed position and reposition it is also among the suggestions on my list of requests.

I share the same thoughts with @Teegarden

21 hours ago, Teegarden said:

I really appreciate the list and the effort you've put into that. Maybe most points needs to be put in a separate feature request in order to get the attention they deserve just like this single feature topic. It's a pity to see them disappear from the radar knowing they could really make a difference. 

Intuitively we should open EQ Panel by double clicking to the graph and one click (not double click) to the graph to close the opened EQ Panel. For the present one clicking to elsewhere on the GUI but the EQ Graph closes the opened EQ Panel.

Edited by murat k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mike Z said:

I'm definitely a supporter of this idea. 

Thank you  for the support @Mike Z 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@murat k.@Teegarden

Thank you guys for your encouragement, but I don't think posting individual posts for now around 85 suggestions would be a good idea. The amount of reading would be the same, it would just be harder to navigate, correlate and follow the suggestions, the overlapping and repeated ideas, etc.

Anyway, if people are too lazy to read through a 5 minute text, I don't think following 85 separate posts will be easier.

My idea was simple - people would read, and say "I agree with C4" or "I want B16, too", or whichever, or just quote what they like, and whoever else wanted the same thing could give it a like. If anybody had an additional idea, they could suggest it, and have it added.

This way we could have created a group effort, which would have had a little more impact, and correlate all ideas together, cause many pertain to similar aspects or the same general workflow, etc.

For instance, another idea I have for the EQ, that I haven't added to the list, would be the optional doubling of the EQ bands, to a total of 8 bands + the filters, via an interface button. Basically add another row of knobs in the interface, sharing the same visualizer, via a button that says "(switch to) 8-band" or similar. Personally I found that 4 band is a little limitative, and many times I need more. 8 bands would turn it into a power house, and pretty much cover any EQ needs. Programming wise, I think it would be nothing, just insert another EQ module in the same track, without the additional visualizer and filters. It could be done in a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@OlafThere is no problem about having a feature list. I had one too. 

It's about hierarchy. Think that you keep your files in separate folders in the computer. Same thing. We didn't tell you to create 85 different topic. Group them, prioritize them, research previous topics, support them if you want just like you did here. 

No one has to read your topic till the end. But everyone reads titles here. Even if you create 85 different topic, everyone will read the titles and eventually some of them will get attention some of them will not.

If they don't get attention no problem, this doesn't mean your idea is bad. Maybe people didn't get it. Try to explain it. I mean if you want to help Cakewalk's development, this way is the right one.

You are great about creating ideas. Now make it work.

Edited by murat k.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2021 at 11:24 AM, Olaf said:

For instance, another idea I have for the EQ, that I haven't added to the list, would be the optional doubling of the EQ bands, to a total of 8 bands + the filters, via an interface button. 

If you feel you need 8 bands plus a hi & lo pass filter then you're doing it wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

If you feel you need 8 bands plus a hi & lo pass filter then you're doing it wrong. 

You've just set a limit to "doing it right", to 4 bands plus filters. It follows that all fully parametric EQs with unlimited bands, in the world, are for those who "do it wrong".

I seriously don't think that's the case, and I can quickly give you an 8 area EQ template as a default.

On 5/31/2021 at 12:38 AM, murat k. said:

No one has to read your topic till the end. But everyone reads titles here.

No one has to do anything. But you won't be able to take part in a discussion on 85 topics , or 50, or 30, unless you read about them. It is the way it is. Personally, I don't only read titles. And if you're looking for certain features in a DAW, you're gonna have to take part in the topics about them. It's a favor you're doing yourself, not anybody else.

On 5/31/2021 at 12:38 AM, murat k. said:

Try to explain it. I mean if you want to help Cakewalk's development, this way is the right one.

You are great about creating ideas. Now make it work.

That maybe sounds like a little too many motivational books, right there. I don't need to make anything work, I didn't even need to come up with ideas. It's not my job to, and I have no personal stakes in it. I don't have a personal crusade to change CW.

I have done that as a well intended initiative to put my ideal version of the DAW out there. Further down, it's everyone's prerogative to support, for themselves, what they also wish to have as features, and it's CW's prerogative to improve their product, in whichever way makes sense, as they're looking to have a competitive DAW.

People can get together and support those changes they want themselves, I didn't intend it as a personal favor to me, and there's no point in making it an 8 hour job to convince anybody of anything. It's neither an ego trip, nor a personal pursuit.

Moreover, the suggestions are already explained in full, and if anybody needs any further clarification on something, they can just ask - I've had talks with those who wished to participate, on several of them, and some were quite nice.

Edited by Olaf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is what I call doing business.

A week ago, I made a suggestion to Overloud, about their new Supercabinet. I didn't even contact them, it was just a comment to one of their videos.

 

 

Today they've launched a new version, exactly to implement that feature. It took them a week. No comments, no to and fro.

It's their interest to make their product better. And from what I've seen the first reactions are positive.

And I'll be happy to use the feature.

This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

Edited by Olaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It worked @Olaf because you did the right thing for this time. You didn't requested 85 things in a YouTube post. This is what I'm talking about.

You have a potential. Use it right way.

Edited by murat k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olaf said:

You've just set a limit to "doing it right", to 4 bands plus filters. It follows that all fully parametric EQs with unlimited bands, in the world, are for those who "do it wrong".

Like I said if you can't mix with 4 EQ bands you're doing it wrong.  Either learn to record or learn to mix.  

image.png.ba7483af540643bf9b6bff031e2a27df.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

Like I said if you can't mix with 4 EQ bands you're doing it wrong.  Either learn to record or learn to mix.  

yeah, what he said. and get rid of those pesky expensive dynamic EQ and multi-band compressor plugins 😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I just have to say something about this. Some people like Olaf, thinks that Cakewalk is like 2 years ago. I understand him, in a way. He made that request bulk 2 years ago and he didn't even noticed some features became available in this period. 

Things have changed.

Nowadays we are getting very important updates with every release and I'm gladly seeing that our requests become true with an update. With hoping this one too. 😊

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...