Default Pro Channel Routing.

I know I've seen this discussed here before but I can't locate it.  I did a class at Berklee Online last year and had to produce a A/V presentation for an assignment on the routing in Sonar.  Why doesn't the preamp/channel module default to the first position? That is the first/top slot and not the current bottom slot. To obtain the most accurate channel simulation, this is the defacto standard in every other plug of this nature I work with. For example, the Slate folks really stress placing the channel strip as the first VST.  IF I recall, the bakers previously agreed with this approach.  I simply move it when I set it up but I guess I just don't understand why that is not the default setting.   Thanks folks!

Waves suggest using their NLS console emulator either last fx in a track to simulate a summing console that's receiving audio from a recorder followed by processing then hitting the summing mixer, or first to simulate a mixer used in tracking.

I suppose the most console and tape like system is to put the emulator first, then fx then tape emulation then more processors as desired ending with another console emulator to simulate the mixer->fx->tape recording process and the tape->fx>summer mixing process in a single go.

Or set up for "tracking", bounce all the tracks down with fx etc. applied then use the bounced audio as if it were coming from a tape and run it through processors andconsole emulation again.

If you were inclined to emulate a console and old-fashioned pre-DAW practices to the Nth degree that seems to me to be how to do it.

Wouldn't the channel emulator just be adding some EQ and Saturation? Wouldn't it therefore not really matter where it was placed?

Thanks for the replies. I use saved templates that I created that include my usual workflow.  Of course the channel emulator is adding EQ and saturation.  The concept of true simulation (oxymoron ;) ) requires that the signal be treated as closely as possible to the actual hardware in real life.  The effect is minimal on an individual channel. The sum effect when multiple instances are used is more apparent.   I own channel strip emulations from Cake, Slate, UAD, and Softube. It's interesting to see and hear the difference in a mix by using the different flavors.  
 
I guess my original question remains.  Of course it is possible to change the default settings. My point remains, why not set up in what is widely considered the correct signal path from the get go?  Trivial I guess to most.  While Cake is by far my favorite  DAW and used by myself 90% of the time, I actually prefer the Slate Channel and Buss strip version a tiny bit.  The DAW that seems to color and impact my mixes the most is Harrison Mixbuss.  PT seems a bit sterile to me and more than a little awkward to use as a primary DAW. I would surmise that I'm just too use to the Bakers and too old to change! ;)
Thanks for the cordial discussion. Steve
Chief Bottle Washer and Cook    Cypress Creek Audio   (Yeah, that's my control/workspace in my avatar)

RSMCGUITAR
Wouldn't the channel emulator just be adding some EQ and Saturation? Wouldn't it therefore not really matter where it was placed?

Where eq and saturation/distortion is placed and in what order is pretty important, at least for me.

The "overdrive before or after fuzz, eq the distortion or vice versa?" question is as relevant for hardware and well-written software processors as it is for guitar pedals.

stevee9c6
My point remains, why not set up in what is widely considered the correct signal path from the get go?  

Because what might be good for you, isn't good for someone else.
By having the option to choose your default routing, it gives the opportunity for all to be happy, not just some
 

berlymahn
@chuckebaby - thank you.

 
No problem Rodger

"Because what might be good for you, isn't good for someone else.
By having the option to choose your default routing, it gives the opportunity for all to be happy, not just some "
 
"As to trying to emulate the "real world":
In the good/bad old days, we would often record direct to tape to get as clean a signal as possible, and then bring it into the console for mixing. The inserts (compressors, etc.), would come first in the chain and then pass through the rest of the desk. So maybe putting it last would be more realistic."
 
 
Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that it be placed in a fixed fashion.  Whatever works for folks is what works for them.
At this point reading some of the comments, I am beginning to feel like I must have somehow misinterpreted my Berklee class as well as the past thread that the Bakers joined in on. In the thread I recall, the channel emulation was suggested as the first effect in the chain. This was specifically stated by one of the Bakers.  Maybe I am just senile at this point!  Regarding the comment about recording direct to tape for the cleanest signal... hmm, been at this since the mid 60's. I guess I must have missed that technique.  I have always recorded via the console using the direct outs going to tape/digital media.  I have not used a large format console for about 8 years now as I now work primarily with songwriters recording one or two tracks at a time.  Again, thanks to all for the cordiality and pleasant discussion.