Yes, just as you have to switch your head and your eyes to a different monitor that is physically different and sits in a physically different place. All I have to do is to hit a shortcut.This means that, for example, when you have the sequencer window maximized, after hitting a sequencer track you still have to switch to either the rack or the mixer window, to see the related devices or mixer channels.´
And I already said which I prefer. And my way of doing it is certainly faster beecause I promise you that my fingers move a whole lot quicker than your neck.
hooray, more neck-movement - in case I needed that, I would just swiftly press the same shortcut again and look, there it is - the rack in all its glory - and guess what - I was faster again.When I'm mixing, I mainly work from the mixer, but I want to see the rack for each channel that I'm working on.
Yes, of course you would say that as first of all you spent good money on your redundant additonal screens - plus, of course, they physically clutter up your workspaceI disagree. With my current setup, I couldn't go back to a single screen workflow.Neither way of working is objectively better than the other of course.
Lol... the sheer condescension - how do you know I never worked with multiple screens, son?But you have to experience it to know what it means. Most people that went to run Reason on a three screen setup, will tell you the same.
Statistics: Posted by jens — Mon Dec 09, 2024 11:13 pm