Changing the vertical order of "Modules" in the channel strips in the mixer

Sometimes I'd like to change the vertical order of these "Modules" to better fit my needs. So that I don't have to vertically scroll the channels strips so much. Is there a way to re-arrange the vertical order of these "Modules"?
 
Thomas

Simply drag them to the vertical position where you would like them to be.  

I'm talking about the "send" and the "fx" modules etc. in the channel strip, right above the channel fader. Not the Pro Channel section.
 
Bst
T

"There is a reason for how the modules are displayed. They follow the signal path. "
 
While this may be true, it can be quite convenient to be able to access what you want right away. 
 
I was thinking about Mixbus where the channel gain knob is right above the fader. They sort of belong together quite often. The knowledge of the signal path is sometimes essential to know and you are right in mentioning this of course, as the order of the modules may assist in awareness of this.
 
I guess what I want to achieve is having as much as possible visible and accessible without having to scroll or click too much. For instance, when using two sends on a track, I'd rather have the two send level knobs visible than having to go through drop down menus first etc.
 
I really love when I at a glance can "see" the mix in front of me. It's of course a matter of taste and we all work differently. I spend a lot of time sitting at an old physical traditional console - at a glance I can see and compare settings. I'm probably trying to achieve something like that in Sonar if possible. Being able to just look and compare and reach out and tweak a knob. That also makes it easy to spot a mistake.
 
Thomas
 
 

Is two monitors an option for you?, I have the console on a separate one and that works quite well.
 
Roy

If you ever feel the need to read a thread that's pulling your leg. Bookmark this one.

Beepster...a certain person pulls this stunt after every new release. The naming convention for the pseudonym follows the same pattern and the questions follow a similar pattern each time.  Your solution will be met with a counter as to why that won't work and/or an addendum to the problem that goes into detail some other perceived flaw..  It's a very softcore, backended way to complain about features.  It's never one question.  It is usually a series of similar questions with predictable responses from the OP.  It's like clockwork each time .

dubdisciple
Beepster...a certain person pulls this stunt after every new release. The naming convention for the pseudonym follows the same pattern and the questions follow a similar pattern each time.  Your solution will be met with a counter as to why that won't work and/or an addendum to the problem that goes into detail some other perceived flaw..  It's a very softcore, backended way to complain about features.  It's never one question.  It is usually a series of similar questions with predictable responses from the OP.  It's like clockwork each time .

I see. Looks Andrew has pwnd him with the "free support for registered users" comment which I find humorous.
 
Still though I find the fact you can hide console modules rather useful. Doing it on a track by track basis might be cool. Rearranging? IDK. Seems unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Probably a pain to code too.

I think the real difference between the OP and people who actually, like, make music, is this: People doing real work just get on with it. Then, when they come across a situation where they could use a function that they can't find, they go and seek help on getting that. The OP, whose name is not Thomas, spends more time thinking up hypothetical gotcha use cases than he ever has on making music. This is one of the things that makes his "I'm a veteran of the old console days" shtick so hilarious. He's a veteran of nothing more than these forums. He might well have been in the same room as a console a few times, but he's clearly never done anything worth a damn with one.

THERE I SAID IT.