Spider Audio Split/Merge wish...

[Loque]

The spiders do auto routing and i hate it. Its nearly impossible to know which CV should be used for auto routing, so "no thx".

i've never once experienced either audio or cv spiders autorouting. and i use them constantly

Just do this:

[etyrnal]

I like this idea. And it could have label taped onto the cable showing the value.

I wish multiple cables could simply be routed to/from from a single jack, with a scale “knob” accessible by alt-dragging on the cable or jack.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Loque]

I like this idea. And it could have label taped onto the cable showing the value.

I wish multiple cables could simply be routed to/from from a single jack, with a scale “knob” accessible by alt-dragging on the cable or jack.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Yea, i like it too. But could be a bit difficult to unlink a cable ro to pick a specific one

[Timmy Crowne]

Yea, i like it too. But could be a bit difficult to unlink a cable ro to pick a specific one

True. Maybe clicking and holding a jack would float a patchbay over the location with all the cables separated if the standard view was too cluttered. It would be like having a Spider automatically embedded into all jacks.

[selig]

I wish multiple cables could simply be routed to/from from a single jack, with a scale “knob” accessible by alt-dragging on the cable or jack.

Funny, I was just reading through this thread wanting to post my usual “why can’t we just connect cables freely” rant, and saw your post.

Software doesn’t have the restrictions hardware does, and this is an odd throwback to physical hardware. There are ways to make it even more elegant than the current setup IMO.

To deal with selection one cable from multiple cables, simply have a hover list of all cables by name (you’ll always know the name of the device you’re wanting to disconnect). Selecting the cable you want, to either disconnect or to move elsewhere, would be simple an quick. In some ways it could be even quicker than at present, since it would be easier to know which cable is the one you want in most cases.

Anyway, we can dream - the OPs wish is also a good way to deal with Spider issues. Just wish we didn’t even need to take up space with unnecessary rack devices!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Timmy Crowne]

I wish multiple cables could simply be routed to/from from a single jack, with a scale “knob” accessible by alt-dragging on the cable or jack.

Funny, I was just reading through this thread wanting to post my usual “why can’t we just connect cables freely” rant, and saw your post.

Software doesn’t have the restrictions hardware does, and this is an odd throwback to physical hardware. There are ways to make it even more elegant than the current setup IMO.

The hardware-look helped us learn the software at first, but it seems like the rack paradigm when followed too strictly can negatively impact efficiency. Perhaps that’s true with any design concept.

Reason has so many oscillators, filters, amps, envelopes, LFOs and sequencers spread across its devices, a lot of it becomes redundant. If a user wants access to a simple LFO, they usually have to load an entire machine that takes up a lot of screen real estate, not to mention precious CPU.

Interestingly, the Props have chosen to subvert realism in other contexts. The horizontal mirroring of the rack’s rear comes to mind. Maybe the next Props flagship app could be an enviroment where individual modules can be loaded and wired discretely, just take what you need. We can dream.

Haha, your averted rant inspired another rant!

[chaosroyale]

Options: Auto-route audio/CV ON (hit shift to not auto-route) Auto-route audio/CV OFF (hit shift to auto-route).

There, Props could add that option and fix it for everyone. Personally I would be on the "default not auto-route" team

[selig]

Options: Auto-route audio/CV ON (hit shift to not auto-route) Auto-route audio/CV OFF (hit shift to auto-route).

There, Props could add that option and fix it for everyone. Personally I would be on the "default not auto-route" team

It’s an slight extra step, but you can also shift-drag new Spiders to prevent auto-route (as with any device).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[etyrnal]

Options: Auto-route audio/CV ON (hit shift to not auto-route) Auto-route audio/CV OFF (hit shift to auto-route).

There, Props could add that option and fix it for everyone. Personally I would be on the "default not auto-route" team

It’s an slight extra step, but you can also shift-drag new Spiders to prevent auto-route (as with any device).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Thank you for offering that tip. I do actually know about shift drag I use it all the time. I love using option key alternates because it really really extends the speed of inefficiency and power of software. The problem is a lot of time software companies are catering to the least common denominator. And I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just mean it's frustrating if you are a power user when software company is trying to keep things simple for users that are not Advanced users. I always feel like the way to get around that is to sort of hide the power moves behind key combinations. Then basic users don't know they exist and they won't get in their way, but Power users who are you still looking for modifier keys and key combinations will know that they are there and we'll be able to use them extensively. And if they are implemented in a way that has a consistent Paradigm you almost don't even have to read the manual to know that they are there and what they do and how they would behave. It's as simple as the words on the keys like alt or option or shift or control. There's several pieces of Powerhouse software out there that implement this very well where a normal click gets you the obvious function, alt gives you the alternate version of that function shift takes it a step further, alt and shift together get you an even further amplification of the function. Etc.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[selig]

It’s an slight extra step, but you can also shift-drag new Spiders to prevent auto-route (as with any device).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Thank you for offering that tip. I do actually know about shift drag I use it all the time. I love using option key alternates because it really really extends the speed of inefficiency and power of software. The problem is a lot of time software companies are catering to the least common denominator. And I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just mean it's frustrating if you are a power user when software company is trying to keep things simple for users that are not Advanced users. I always feel like the way to get around that is to sort of hide the power moves behind key combinations. Then basic users don't know they exist and they won't get in their way, but Power users who are you still looking for modifier keys and key combinations will know that they are there and we'll be able to use them extensively. And if they are implemented in a way that has a consistent Paradigm you almost don't even have to read the manual to know that they are there and what they do and how they would behave. It's as simple as the words on the keys like alt or option or shift or control. There's several pieces of Powerhouse software out there that implement this very well where a normal click gets you the obvious function, alt gives you the alternate version of that function shift takes it a step further, alt and shift together get you an even further amplification of the function. Etc.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Great points, and all things Reason could really use - sadly, I get the feeling Reason is not targeting the "pro/power" user that much. Reason has always been marketed as a tool to allow the average user to have the power of the pros at a reasonable cost, not necessarily the pro user.

[etyrnal]

Thank you for offering that tip. I do actually know about shift drag I use it all the time. I love using option key alternates because it really really extends the speed of inefficiency and power of software. The problem is a lot of time software companies are catering to the least common denominator. And I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just mean it's frustrating if you are a power user when software company is trying to keep things simple for users that are not Advanced users. I always feel like the way to get around that is to sort of hide the power moves behind key combinations. Then basic users don't know they exist and they won't get in their way, but Power users who are you still looking for modifier keys and key combinations will know that they are there and we'll be able to use them extensively. And if they are implemented in a way that has a consistent Paradigm you almost don't even have to read the manual to know that they are there and what they do and how they would behave. It's as simple as the words on the keys like alt or option or shift or control. There's several pieces of Powerhouse software out there that implement this very well where a normal click gets you the obvious function, alt gives you the alternate version of that function shift takes it a step further, alt and shift together get you an even further amplification of the function. Etc.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Great points, and all things Reason could really use - sadly, I get the feeling Reason is not targeting the "pro/power" user that much. Reason has always been marketed as a tool to allow the average user to have the power of the pros at a reasonable cost, not necessarily the pro user.

Only to make a distinction, but I don't equate Pro with power user. Just because somebody is making money using it doesn't mean they're a power user, and just because a person is a power user doesn't mean that their professional or making money. I considered a power user to be someone who is extremely proficient and is using the software to its extent.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[selig]

Great points, and all things Reason could really use - sadly, I get the feeling Reason is not targeting the "pro/power" user that much. Reason has always been marketed as a tool to allow the average user to have the power of the pros at a reasonable cost, not necessarily the pro user.

Only to make a distinction, but I don't equate Pro with power user. Just because somebody is making money using it doesn't mean they're a power user, and just because a person is a power user doesn't mean that their professional or making money. I considered a power user to be someone who is extremely proficient and is using the software to its extent.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Sorry, my bad - point taken and I think we agree on this (I just didn't use the best terms above).

I tend to prefer to use the terms "power user" and "casual user", since a casual user can still be a pro and a power user can still be a hobbyist (as you said above).

I consider a power user to be someone using the software often enough to need workflow enhancements like key commands. I consider someone to be a causal user when they only use the software on occasion and cannot remember key commands.

For example, I'm a professional AND a causal user of video editing software. I use it for my products/tutorials, but only need it at MOST once a month. But when I use it, I need the quality and features of a "pro" user. In my case, key commands are useless in this situation because I can't remember them, and I often get bogged down trying to work quickly but not being up to speed on the software because of limited time on the system.

But with Reason, even when working on my own music for fun, I'm a power user. That's why I've added key commands for common functions, and always remember them because I use Reason almost every single day.

So as a VERY general rule, I see the causal user needing on-screen buttons, and the power user needing key commands. The "perfect" software guides you from casual user to power user when the need arises, and has all the power features hidden just below the surface to make the change natural and obvious.

Reason does SOME of this, but not in all cases. Most power users run up against the limitation of Reason sooner or later, like the lack of automation modes, inline crossfades, or lack of edit groups. And many casual users get stuck when having to deal with advanced concepts before they understand them, like the overly complex (IMO) comp mode, or routing issues (stuff that happens behind the rack that you're not aware of), or metering limitations (no peak mode on channels). Maybe I picked bad examples, but my point is it's difficult to design software for BOTH types of users, which in my experience are the two camps that need addressing - not the "pro" vs "amateur" distinction that some try to make, which has no relation to how folks actually use the software.

[etyrnal]

Only to make a distinction, but I don't equate Pro with power user. Just because somebody is making money using it doesn't mean they're a power user, and just because a person is a power user doesn't mean that their professional or making money. I considered a power user to be someone who is extremely proficient and is using the software to its extent.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Sorry, my bad - point taken and I think we agree on this (I just didn't use the best terms above).

I tend to prefer to use the terms "power user" and "casual user", since a casual user can still be a pro and a power user can still be a hobbyist (as you said above).

I consider a power user to be someone using the software often enough to need workflow enhancements like key commands. I consider someone to be a causal user when they only use the software on occasion and cannot remember key commands.

For example, I'm a professional AND a causal user of video editing software. I use it for my products/tutorials, but only need it at MOST once a month. But when I use it, I need the quality and features of a "pro" user. In my case, key commands are useless in this situation because I can't remember them, and I often get bogged down trying to work quickly but not being up to speed on the software because of limited time on the system.

But with Reason, even when working on my own music for fun, I'm a power user. That's why I've added key commands for common functions, and always remember them because I use Reason almost every single day.

So as a VERY general rule, I see the causal user needing on-screen buttons, and the power user needing key commands. The "perfect" software guides you from casual user to power user when the need arises, and has all the power features hidden just below the surface to make the change natural and obvious.

Reason does SOME of this, but not in all cases. Most power users run up against the limitation of Reason sooner or later, like the lack of automation modes, inline crossfades, or lack of edit groups. And many casual users get stuck when having to deal with advanced concepts before they understand them, like the overly complex (IMO) comp mode, or routing issues (stuff that happens behind the rack that you're not aware of), or metering limitations (no peak mode on channels). Maybe I picked bad examples, but my point is it's difficult to design software for BOTH types of users, which in my experience are the two camps that need addressing - not the "pro" vs "amateur" distinction that some try to make, which has no relation to how folks actually use the software.

Well put. One of your last statements has to do with it being difficult to design this into software, and I think I have to disagree, because the paradigm already exists, it requires no creativity on the part of the software developer, it only requires implementation. And enough of their power users make known to them in their forms and other channels that they are definitely not unaware of what the power users want, it's just a simple matter of implementation. The paradigms for this type of workflow enhancement they have been around since the 90s. It's just a simple matter of them putting them into play. As far as software development goes, the code for almost all of this already exists it just has to be put in place.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Ahornberg]

I found 3 different types of "wiring up" in 3 different pieces of software:

Reason: exact one out-jack can be connected to exact one in-jack.
VCV: one out-jack can be connected to multiple in-jacks.
u-he Bazille: the jacks and cables are polyphonic depending on the number of played notes simultaneously (PolyCV comes close to that).

What I haven't found jet: multiple cables connected to a single in-jack.