Cross 2.6 and 3.0 can't co-exist with the same collection

[FigDJ]

For the following reasons I am sticking with 2.6 until something change.

In 3.0
1. The deck waveforms are too small vertically.
2. #1 makes the interface for beatgriding too crowded.
3. The way to display loops in the track waveform changed to a Traktor like display. No decreasing slope just blocked.
4. Locator's color coding was rendered ineffective by the new waveform.
5. Legacy setting for waveform still does not provide a good solution for me.
6. Beatmacher waveform has lost definition. Not as clear as previous versions.
7. Beatgrids are less visible.
8. Another bar for the video alone takes too much screen space. Older version was better in order to display more of the track list.

Scenario
Given all of that I have 3.0 installed at the same time that I keep 2.6.
All track are analyzed used 2.6.
Both 2.6 and 3.0 are pointing to the same directory for track analysis information.
Both 2.6 and 3.0 are using the same collection.

Sequence
1.When using 3.0 a peak only analysis is done to include the color in the waveform.
2. for resaons stated before went back to 2.6.
3. Same track that was anlyzed for in 3.0 is loaded on 2.6.
4. Beat grid position in deck waveform does not match beatmacher grid position.
5. Except for color, the waveform in Beatmacher looks the same shape as in 3.0.
6. Performed peak analysis using 2.6 in an attemp to fix the deck beatgrid and beatmacher grid missmatch. Problem persisted.
7. Performed a full analysis in 2.6 in an attemp to fix the deck beatgrid and beatmacher grid missmatch. Problem resolved.

Conclusion
Cross 2.6 can't use the peak information from 3.0 correctly.
Cross 3.0 must perform peak analysis in order to add color.
Peak anlysis files are not compatible.

Workaround

Have 2 peak analysis folders one for 2.6 and one for 3.0. This solution, however, takes double the disk space for virtually the same information.

This particular problem may be more extensive if someone goes from 2.6 to 3.0 and tries to roll back to 2.6 as a full track analysis is required to repair the beatmacher waveform once back in 2.6.

[sylMV]

Hi,

In 3.0
1. The deck waveforms are too small vertically.

Height didn't change.

2. #1 makes the interface for beatgriding too crowded.

see #1.

3. The way to display loops in the track waveform changed to a Traktor like display. No decreasing slope just blocked.

Yup, it has been judged more efficient and/or beautiful. I'm not personaly involved in this decision, but can't go against. Noting/forwarding your criticism though.

4. Locator's color coding was rendered ineffective by the new waveform.

By 'ineffective', you mean 'disappeared' I suppose. Cause yes, locator color coding was removed has becoming unreadable with colored waveforms. Do you find new locator's drawing really less efficient?

5. Legacy setting for waveform still does not provide a good solution for me.

As you might have noticed, it's only legacy concerning the color scheme, not the way waveforms are drawn.

6. Beatmacher waveform has lost definition. Not as clear as previous versions.

Can't agree. Old beatmatcher was terribly bad in an objective way (not respecting the audio content at all). It just emphasized a bit more bass kicks.

7. Beatgrids are less visible.

Agreed, and I don't know why
Will try to make this change available soon.

8. Another bar for the video alone takes too much screen space. Older version was better in order to display more of the track list.

Opinions are really shared on this point. Your feeling is like user experience has been degraded, for others it's the contrary. Very hard to satisfy every one...

Scenario
Given all of that I have 3.0 installed at the same time that I keep 2.6.
All track are analyzed used 2.6.
Both 2.6 and 3.0 are pointing to the same directory for track analysis information.
Both 2.6 and 3.0 are using the same collection.

Sequence
1.When using 3.0 a peak only analysis is done to include the color in the waveform.
2. for resaons stated before went back to 2.6.
3. Same track that was anlyzed for in 3.0 is loaded on 2.6.
4. Beat grid position in deck waveform does not match beatmacher grid position.
5. Except for color, the waveform in Beatmacher looks the same shape as in 3.0.
6. Performed peak analysis using 2.6 in an attemp to fix the deck beatgrid and beatmacher grid missmatch. Problem persisted.
7. Performed a full analysis in 2.6 in an attemp to fix the deck beatgrid and beatmacher grid missmatch. Problem resolved.

Conclusion
Cross 2.6 can't use the peak information from 3.0 correctly.
Cross 3.0 must perform peak analysis in order to add color.
Peak anlysis files are not compatible.

Workaround

Have 2 peak analysis folders one for 2.6 and one for 3.0. This solution, however, takes double the disk space for virtually the same information.

This particular problem may be more extensive if someone goes from 2.6 to 3.0 and tries to roll back to 2.6 as a full track analysis is required to repair the beatmacher waveform once back in 2.6.

Don't know about this grid/beatmatcher mismatch. Any screenshot to show me the difference between 2.6 and 3.0? On all tracks?
And yes, 3.0 add more info in analysis data for colors. But I can't remember how it behaves from 3.0 back to 2.6, I'll check.
On a side note, you'll agree backward compatibility is not the most important when releasing such a big version. We prefer having most of the users updating and staying with 3.0.

Cheers,

[RoJeC]

We have to hope somewhat that the changes in the back are followed by (usually relative easy) changes in the GUI. Likely the MV people did not attent the Microsoft course for product development; so bigger chance of having GUI influenced by users

I'll make sure I'll have a copy of 2.6 analyses files back from a backup. (these also work for v1.7 with the grey screen which I still find the best usuable GUI in all light conditions and actually made me choose Cross one day )

[daniel clark]

I'll make sure I'll have a copy of 2.6 analyses files back from a backup. (these also work for v1.7 with the grey screen which I still find the best usuable GUI in all light conditions and actually made me choose Cross one day )

be careful using later versions collection can become null and void by using them in earlier versions ,, had that experience ,, will post link with info ,, only lost data for 1800 files ,, could be worse ,,

viewtopic.php?f=359&t=25679

[RoJeC]

Thanks for the warning. Use latest collection in older; never vv. (only upgrade). Not tried v3 to v1.7 yet.
Do not expect backwards compatibility.
Just try to have some persons remember to have the better things of the past twisted into future developments.
Before others go retro

[FigDJ]

Hi,

In 3.0
1. The deck waveforms are too small vertically.

Height didn't change.

Let me state what I mean.The overall space alloted for the waveform display is smaller vertically. While the waveform stayed the same size the reduction brings the top and bottom edges closer to the wavefom. When using the beatgrid then the beatgrid adjust buttons are now closer to the waveform. This results in a very bussy/ conglomerated diaplay.

3. The way to display loops in the track waveform changed to a Traktor like display. No decreasing slope just blocked.

Yup, it has been judged more efficient and/or beautiful. I'm not personaly involved in this decision, but can't go against. Noting/forwarding your criticism though.

Efficient I can understand if someone has done measurements. Beautiful is subjective and not based in measurements. It would be ideal to provide options to display rather than completely change the look and feel without options.

4. Locator's color coding was rendered ineffective by the new waveform.

By 'ineffective', you mean 'disappeared' I suppose. Cause yes, locator color coding was removed has becoming unreadable with colored waveforms. Do you find new locator's drawing really less efficient?

5. Legacy setting for waveform still does not provide a good solution for me.

As you might have noticed, it's only legacy concerning the color scheme, not the way waveforms are drawn.

I have notice and that is the point. Then the setting should be labeled different if it is just a change of colors. The way of displaying the waveforms as well as other elements was completely change without giving the user optionsto display one way or the other. So I am stuck on 2.6 until someone give more user options or someone else decides again on an entirely different way to display the waveforms. Fo me the clarity offered by Cross in the waveform display was a big plus.

6. Beatmacher waveform has lost definition. Not as clear as previous versions.

Can't agree. Old beatmatcher was terribly bad in an objective way (not respecting the audio content at all). It just emphasized a bit more bass kicks.

I agree on your point of respecting audio content. However, when you switch to legacy mode the beatmacher has more than one color displayed. I mean yellow and an some shades of yellow white or red and some shades of red and white. The all beatmacher was solid red or yellow. the extra color shades in legacy mode makes it fuzzy.

In my oppinion legacy modes mean to display things the way it was before not a combination of the new and old way.

8. Another bar for the video alone takes too much screen space. Older version was better in order to display more of the track list.

Opinions are really shared on this point. Your feeling is like user experience has been degraded, for others it's the contrary. Very hard to satisfy every one...

Please don't get me wrong, I am in the same business (software development). Coding coding is very hard stuff specially when trying to ssatisfy the requirements from a very diverse group of users and besides my points in this conversation I think the Mixvibes team is terrific.

However, I still think that some new features could have been inplemented with the options for the user to choose what they felt it was best for them.

Don't know about this grid/beatmatcher mismatch. Any screenshot to show me the difference between 2.6 and 3.0? On all tracks?
And yes, 3.0 add more info in analysis data for colors. But I can't remember how it behaves from 3.0 back to 2.6, I'll check.

I will try to get some screenshots uploaded ASAP

On a side note, you'll agree backward compatibility is not the most important when releasing such a big version. We prefer having most of the users updating and staying with 3.0.

I agree on the point of backward compatability. But 3.0 waveforms in their current iimplementation do not work for me and there are no options to choose anything other than color when it comes to the waveform display. i guess I will just have to shut up and get used to it.

[UncleVibes]

Please don't get me wrong, I am in the same business (software development). Coding coding is very hard stuff specially when trying to ssatisfy the requirements from a very diverse group of users and besides my points in this conversation I think the MixVibes team is terrific.

It's true sometime and wrong other. We have room for a better understanding of users needs... That's sure. Let's say that there are other opinions but the devs follow orders.

[discopex]

Re: track waveforms

I like the current waveform better than 2.6. To me it displays the song structure actually very well. 3.0RC1 waveforms were worse than 2.6 though. A matter of taste obviously and perhaps some fine tuning of the legacy option is then needed. Beatmatcher looks alrite too.