ampfixer I'd love to see 1 bin for everything, but I'm not holding my breath.

Kamikaze

mudgel

Recently we've had some Cakewalk updates and releases of 3 high end plugins for the PC so clearly Cakewalk don't see PC as a dead standard.

What were they? (or do you mean the VSTs?)

pwalpwal
yeah but now you're trying to find a way to shoe-horn your VST collection into the PC because you have (PC-only i assume) a handful of PC-only-plugins
but yeah, i argued against the PC right from the start, seeing it only as a "lock in" business strategy
ymmv of course ;-)

sharke

scook
Without a custom FX Chain UI, there is no need to leave the FX Chain expanded. The only time the FX Chain needs to be expanded is when launching the VST UI. Up until now, the discussion was all about real estate. The solution to the real estate issue is don't leave FX chain expanded.

That's not entirely true. It's problematic to make statements about what people need or don't need when you have no real insight into their mind and their workflow. Everyone's different. Personally, I find it helpful to be able to view my effect chain in full when making sound shaping or mixing decisions. I might typically have 5-10 effects in a chain sometimes, and when you have the FX Chain modules closed, you cannot see what effects are in them or their order.

sharke
Not only do I like to be able to see what effects I have on a track at a glance, but I also like to be able to shuffle them around on a whim to see how order affects the sound.

sharke
It's also probably worth pointing out that if I'm looking at the ProChannel, then chances are that I'm adjusting or experimenting with plugins. That means I need to have everything expanded and visible. The only time I don't need everything accessible is when I'm not looking at the ProChannel, in which case it really doesn't matter how much real estate the effects use and collapsing the modules is of no benefit. When I'm playing with a signal chain in the ProChannel, that's the point at which real estate is important, and that's the point at which an expanded FX Chain module with only one VST in it feels like a waste of space. 

sharke
You're forgetting that people sometimes mix up VST's in FX Chains with ProChannel modules. They're not necessarily putting their entire signal path through one FX Chain. They might have one or two VST's in an FX Chain, followed by the Quadcurve, followed by another FX Chain with one VST, followed by the Saturation knob....and so on. In these scenarios (in which I often find myself), the waste of screen estate is glaring.

sharke
The problem with FX Chains in the ProChannel is that they take up quite a lot of vertical space for what they are, especially if you're only using them to host one plugin. And let's say you're mixing VST plugins in a signal chain with  ProChannel modules. You might have VST->PC Module->VST->PC Module->VST. You'd need 3 FX Chain modules in that chain, and that's a lot of wasted vertical space.

sharke
They could still take up much less space, and that would be a good thing. Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

sharke
It's also a pain to have to keep collapsing and uncollapsing FX Chains in order to access the plugins within them, versus one click on the VST name to open it when the module is expanded. When you're mixing or on a creative roll, your train of thought is fast and you have a ton of things going on at once and you're making hundreds of gestures and actions in the DAW in response. You're opening plugins one after the other and adjusting them at the speed of thought. Little things like opening and closing PC modules to access the plugins behind them is an unwelcome step in such a fluid process. 

sharke
And you're also missing the point that people like to look at their whole signal chain at a glance and see what's there. There is every reason to keep an FX Chain with one VST in it open - so you can see what's in it while assessing the track in the mix and making decisions about what to add, what to take out, what to rearrange in the signal path. It is simply not practical or convenient to indicate a list of VST's in the FX Chain label. A basic VST holder that expanded and contracted to the number of VST's in it would be a perfect solution and really streamline things in the ProChannel.

sharke
 
2) Collapsing the FX Chains in the above example would regain the screen estate, but means you have to expand the FX chains to see what was in them.

sharke
I really have no idea why you're so opposed to such a simple improvement to the ProChannel, to the point where you're willing to readily dismiss another person's style of working, and to grossly misrepresent things they've said (to the point of lying). For example, this:
 

scook(oh wait, you don't use PC modules)

 
Why even bother saying something that's so clearly untrue? I said I don't use many of them, not that I don't use them.

sharke
Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

Anderton
I use the ProChannel for I believe what was its intended purpose--a mixer channel strip with mostly set-and-forget parameters, but which can be tweaked when necessary. I use the FX Rack for the "creative" plug-ins that need ongoing adjustments, and where the plug-in's GUI can open up into whatever size window its developers thought was necessary.
 
So given the way I work, I have no need to make the PC more complicated. If future modules are to be developed, I'd want them to be along the same "set and forget" type of philosophy (like the Channel Tools PC module I made, or utilities like the Panipulator).
 
Differentiating between "utilitarian" and "creative" processor functionality, then putting each into its own "basket," makes sense to me.