Anderton
Regardless of what it suggests to you, mixer channel strips are fairly well-defined. Look at some mixers, or plug-in emulations of mixer channel strips, to see what the term "mixer channel strip" suggests to the majority of real-world users. The customizable aspect of the original ProChannel was that you could change dynamics and distortion processors, as well as choose different filter curves and highpass/lowpass slopes. This allowed you to emulate the channel strips in different mixers.
 

ampfixer
Still not sure why this has become such a heated argument.

Anderton
@kamikaze  Again, all I know about the original intention is what the ProChannel's developer told me, which I am relaying here. I have no reason to doubt what he said. Perhaps you know something about the ProChannel's development of which I am not aware.
 
The documentation I'm referring to is the X1 user manual. It spells out the rationale of the ProChannel. If you look at it you will see the PC has come a long way since its inception.
 
However, I still don't see what's so onerous about the current way the PC handles VSTs.
 
You can drag a single VST in from the browser. This automatically creates an FX Chain and opens the VST's GUI. One click minimizes the header while leaving the GUI open. The only optional addition to this process is renaming the FX Chain if you don't want it to display the default "FX Chain."
 

 
If you drag in an FX Chain, you can minimize the header so it doesn't take up space.
 

 
If you expand it, you can see a selection of "greatest hits" controls that you can specify and customize. Or not.
 

 
If you click the Effects button, you can see all the effects used in a chain, and open their GUI or GUIs, as well as collapse the header so it doesn't have to take up space in the PC.
 

 
I just don't get the angst surrounding these options. They certainly seem more than adequate to me. If there was going to be a ProChannel improvement, I think being able to put your modules in folders for easier selection would be more important to the average user than changing the current way of inserting VSTs.
 

sharke
Simply produce a module which is no larger than the size of a collapsed module but which holds one single VST. No expanding or collapsing necessary. Would still be able to move it around like any other module. Clicking on it opens the VST.

Anderton
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't get it. When you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it creates a module and you're one click away from collapsing it to the size of a header. With your ideal module that holds a single VST, you're still going to have to expend some clicks and/or drags to put the module in the ProChannel and specify what effect it should hold. With the plug-in browser open, I can't envision a clickstream that would be simpler than the current option (click to select, drag to insert, click to minimize). Like I said, maybe I just don't get it but that seems pretty simple.
 
You can move and re-order the resulting module around like any other module so I don't see what about the current scheme doesn't allow "moving it around like any other module."

AndertonI see only two issues your approach addresses: opening the VST GUI with one click instead of two (although you don't need to click anything to open the VST if you drag it into the PC - the GUI opens automatically), and the module adopting the name of the VST. However if you insert a VST in the FX Rack, it takes only one click to open it, and the rack label adopts the name of the VST plug-in. So the functionality already exists, just not where you want it.

AndertonAs far as I can tell the bottom line is you don't want to use the FX Rack, which does what you want

Andertonand instead do all your processing within the ProChannel, which would require that Cakewalk develop a specific module to duplicate the functionality already present in the FX Rack.

AndertonIn terms of a priority, I can't imagine that being more important than, for example, translating what audio Ripple Editing can do to MIDI Ripple editing, adding notation, or fixing bugs.

AndertonBut if not using the FX Rack is essential in order for you to make the kind of music you want to make, I can see why you would consider your request as really important.

RSMCGUITAR
Quite frankly, I'm in utter disbelief there has been this much pushback over Shark's rather reasonable suggestion.

sharke
That needn't be a complication. How about this: if you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it's automatically housed in my new scaled down single-effect module. If you want to use the full FX Chain, you have to add that manually. That would make more sense logically.

It's not that I have "so many modules." It's that I don't use presets and approach each track from scratch. The effects that I put in an FX Chain are changing all the time. I frequently go in one direction in a track and then decide it needs an entirely different approach. Or I might swap out compressors. Or I might use 2 different compressors in a signal chain (e.g. before an amp sim and after an amp sim).

Anderton

sharke
That needn't be a complication. How about this: if you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it's automatically housed in my new scaled down single-effect module. If you want to use the full FX Chain, you have to add that manually. That would make more sense logically.

It makes sense to assume that if you drag in a VST you want the single, and if you drag in an FX Chain then it's an FX Chain. Where that wouldn't work is for those who bring in a VST and then want to use it as the basis of creating an FX Chain within the ProChannel. That's probably a fairly small percentage of people but currently, that capability is available for those who want it and drag in a single VST.

Anderton

It's not that I have "so many modules." It's that I don't use presets and approach each track from scratch. The effects that I put in an FX Chain are changing all the time. I frequently go in one direction in a track and then decide it needs an entirely different approach. Or I might swap out compressors. Or I might use 2 different compressors in a signal chain (e.g. before an amp sim and after an amp sim).

 
Well, that's another difference in approach. I don't use presets either unless they're very specific (i.e., the best EQ and limiting for my voice when using the Worker Bee condenser mic), but I tweak only enough to get the sound I want and move on. I'm the kind of person who doesn't use an amp sim so I can change the sound later; usually the tone of it locks the music in a particular direction.
 
Probably part of this is philosophy. I spent the 70s through the 80s doing session work and production that was studio-intensive. Starting in the 90s when I began working with DJs, doing my Ableton-based live electronic act, and doing the EV2 project with Brian from Public Enemy, I've found I prefer playing live so I've become much more focused on having as live a feel as possible in recordings. In a way it harkens back to the original holy grail for recording engineers, which was to capture the magic of a live performance in the studio. On the "Simplicity" project, most of the "played" parts were done in a couple takes. I liked the "feel" better.