I don't understand why Avid (the Same company that makes Pro-tools) can't embed the wave forms into clips so that If I want to look at audio information, I don't have to wait forever for the waveform redraw. Wow it's frustrating.... I know that I can turn it off, but I want to see what's there. In Pro tools you don't have to wait for waveform redraws, in FCP you don't have to wait for redraws, I've been waiting for Avid to fix this for 14 years .....Please

I'll gladly second this one.

I agree as well. And this highlights how utterly broken the product features request protocall is. This feature has been requested for years. It resurfaceses then dies then comes back to life. This whole section needs to be re-worked.

Carl, who is very helpful and nice, has for some reason strongly fought against this idea. But I am sick and tired of seeing feature requests just passed over and essentially lost.

Here is a link to the suggestion: http://community.avid.com/forums/t/61764.aspx

I absolutely agree. Waiting for my waveforms to redraw wastes precious time. Since it is available in Pro tools surely its not a major deal.

Hi,

BobbyMurcerFan:

Carl, who is very helpful and nice, has for some reason strongly fought against this idea.

Rather than "strongly fought against this idea," I would say I "presented an alternative opinion," and as I said before if I were working at Avid and was responsible for cataloging feature requests, I wouldn't want to have to dig through multiple forums to split out audio features from interface features from import/export features, etc, etc, etc.  I'd want to look at a big unfiltered list and organize requests myself in a way that made sense to me and worked within Avid's existing structure for dealing with feature requests.  (I don't know, but I assume that's what they're doing now, and why they haven't changed to multiple sub-forums.)

With regard to the feature request for redrawing audio waveforms more quickly, you're assuming a) that the feature hasn't been implemented because the request was overlooked or forgotten due to the design of the forum, and b) having a specific audio feature request forum would ensure that the feature wouldn't be missed.

In fact, nobody knows why waveform drawing speed hasn't been improved.  Maybe the request has been denied because it's too hard to do.  Maybe it's on the list but hasn't been addressed yet.  Maybe it's being worked on right now and will be in the next release.  Adding feature request sub-forums wouldn't solve any of that.

What you really want is a response from Avid telling you your specific request has been heard and what the status of the request is.  They're probably not going to do that, but that would set your mind at ease that your request hasn't been ignored/overlooked.  Multiple sub-forums would just spread out the requests; it wouldn't ensure anyone was looking at them.

good luck,
Carl

camoscato:

What you really want is a response from Avid telling you your specific request has been heard and what the status of the request is.

I think that's one great idea. Perhaps another matrix in the knowledge base that would include a list of all the most popular features requests, based on the number of times they have been requested in one or more threads and the additional user votes for it. For each request, a box would be checked in a list of what Carl has suggested: request denied, to be addressed, in design progress, in testing, ready for next release, or something similar. That way we all would know that Avid is listening and the status on our ideas.

Back to the topic: not only I'd like to have quickly redraws of the waveforms, it would be very nice indeed if those were better drawn: compare how ProTools and FCP display a waveform with the way it is in Avid and You'll see what I mean, the very same wave in Avid is not as readable and useful as it is in PT and FC.

Hi Larry,

Larry Rubin:

Perhaps another matrix in the knowledge base that would include a list of all the most popular features requests, based on the number of times they have been requested in one or more threads and the additional user votes for it.

Based on Kirk's response in the Chat with Avid forum, they can't tell the world exactly what they're working on or the status of devveloping features because it violates some regulatory prohibition against making "forward looking statements."  So it'd be cool to see what they're working on in what priority and all, but I don't think they can do it.

good luck,
Carl

OK Carl I see your point, but the problem remains how do we address the issue of multiple threads requesting the exact same feature, sometimes over a period of years, and seemingly no response one way or the other from Avid? This is what is frustrating a lot of users, not just Bobby. The silence of no response is what makes some users think Avid is not paying attention to these requests.

{EDIT} And here's a perfect example. I made this exact same request in a thread I started last year.

Carl,

I'm truly sorry that I used too strong words. But in all fairness, you are mis-categorizing my statements as well.

"What you really want is a response from Avid telling you your specific request has been heard and what the status of the request is."

While that would be nice, that's not what I asked for b/c I know it's not going to happen. It's been drilled into all of our heads that Avid doesn't comment on future releases.

What I DO WANT is to stop wasting everyones time posting requests that have already been made. I think Larry has been asking for a waveform improvement for over ten years, others even longer. I made the same request when I first started with AXP a few years ago. We need to know that these requests have already been made so we don't waste our time posting them all over again. And the responses to such posts often times contain nuances or ideas that belong together instead of spread across multiple threads sometimes years apart. So I think it would help the users of this forum to have the features requests better organized.

Yes, I certainly think it would also help Avid to have the requests pre-sorted and not duplicated. But my frustration is from a user's point of view; it's just ludicrous that we are posing the same thing over and over, not even knowing that it's already been requested.

And I'm sorry if my frustration seems directed at you, and I do appreciate your help very much.

No worries, BMF, and sorry for misunderstanding what you were getting at.

For what it's worth, I think you're right that reorganizing the feature requests could make it easier for users to see what's already been requested, but I also think that that's not the primary goal of the forum.  I think the goal of the forum should be bringing feature requests to the attention of the product designers, and I'm not convinced that reorganizing the forum is the best way to do that.

good luck,
Carl

camoscato:

Maybe the request has been denied because it's too hard to do.

That would be my guess. This would have been fixed a long time ago if it was easy as all of Avids' base, even broadcasters, don't like this issue.

How about adding a feature like this to the community-page?

http://www.ideastorm.com

Votable feature requests which show the most popular ones and are linked up to the forum for comments.

Fredrik :)

frediko:

How about adding a feature like this to the community-page?

 

http://www.ideastorm.com

 

Votable feature requests which show the most popular ones and are linked up to the forum for comments.

 

Fredrik :)

A fantastic idea!  I've always felt Avid needed a 'Cold Case' unit, where they look purely at fixing/improving what they already have, which to be honest is something they seem relunctant to do.  By this I mean, once they create a feature they almost never see fit to alter it in any way - with the recent exception of the TC effect.  Most people's 'ideas' will be improvements rather than new additions, I believe.

Ra-ey

I'll add my name to the list on this improvement. The problem is that Avid doesn't seem to remember the waveforms once they're drawn (it doesn't cache them to disk like you-know-who) but also it will only display them directly on the timeline tracks - which you have to resize to get any resolution at all. And that gets cumbersome, espiecially when you want to look at stereo tracks. YKW has a better scheme for this too.

I've long ignored the Avid waveform display but would turn it back on if Avid made it at all efficient or useful.