John T
I'm honestly not seeing how that can't be done with sends as post-fader, which is what they are with default. Apologies if this has already been explained, but if it has, it's not clear to me.

Until I looked into VCA's I did think the same way you do.
 
My example of simple one fader doing a jump from 0dB to -8dB, and let's say a send at -12dB on that postfader - already create a change in dry/wet without we thinking so much about it.
 
Sending -12dB send on 0dB  fader, is not the same ratio dry/wet as doing -12dB on -8dB fader.
 
What we do, until entering automation, just setting the start levels on faders - we adjust send to sound right after we made the move. Depending on what we have in send chain effects this becomes more obvious or not noticed at all.
 
But once automation in place, and a slope or jumps on a couple of places - we are in trouble.
 
When I started mixing more seriously making songs fully finished about 15 years ago, I kept it very simple and minor adjustments through out. But as getting more experienced you want things to be altered all the time to maintain the interest of the listener - things come a go, and a lot of things is happening all the time.
 
You can very well be hit by the lazy bug and let things be as they are throughout. But I found that songs and music that I listened to - there are so many layers of intersting things going on. And I try to learn from that - make music that last more than one listen.
 
So if you have tools that assist you in making complex things simpler - you are more likely to use it.
That is how I work anyway.
 
The same as the money bug - do I really need this as I need to open my wallet again?
 Why this thread was created in the first place.

John T
As it goes, I can think of a use case for VCAs which Sonar currently doesn't handle well.
 
Say you've got a bunch of tracks that you want to automate up and down as a group. A drum kit might be one example, or a group of backing vocals.
 
Now, if you have sends on the tracks, but route the tracks themselves to a bus, in order to run into the bus, you do run into the problem of the sends not being adjusted along with the bus.
 
A VCA type control would mean you could automate things at the source track level with only one lane of automation. Currently, you'd have to create the automation for all the individual tracks. This is because grouped tracks don't obey automation from a single track within the group.
 

You could use the buss send instead of the track sends. That way it would still be proportional. I have done this many times. Personally I prefer leaving the tracks set for balance between them and route them to a buss for control.
  

That does work, but only in a limited way. You don't have control over different send levels in a group, which you may well want.
 
Take the drums example. I almost always have little or no reverb on the kick, more on the snare, more still on the overheads.

lfm

John T
I'm honestly not seeing how that can't be done with sends as post-fader, which is what they are with default. Apologies if this has already been explained, but if it has, it's not clear to me.

Until I looked into VCA's I did think the same way you do.
 

 
Didn't need to "look into" it. Use this kind of control all the time doing live sound.
 

lfm
My example of simple one fader doing a jump from 0dB to -8dB, and let's say a send at -12dB on that postfader - already create a change in dry/wet without we thinking so much about it.
  

 
I think I must be misunderstanding you, because on the face of it, this is simply wrong.
 
You bring down the dry signal of the original track. The send on the track is post-fader. Therefore, whatever reduction you applied to the track is also applied to the send, and the wet/dry ratio is preserved. Or do you mean something else?
 
 

John
You could use the buss send instead of the track sends. That way it would still be proportional. I have done this many times. Personally I prefer leaving the tracks set for balance between them and route them to a buss for control.
  

Sometimes that works depending what is feeding the bus.
A vocals bus with both lead and background vocals with harmonies maybe have different requirements on reverb sends through out the mix.
 
Do we want the system to run us - or us to run the system?
 
It also means the planning to have no sends of tracks ending in a bus, unless the return from those sends also are returned to the same bus.
 
The more I come into VCA way of thinking the more I feel I will use it.
Just more flexibility with less work.
 
Many things with VCA's can be done in other ways - but with more work involved.
You can start splitting tracks after duplicating and set fixed levels instead of automating - but more cumbersome.
You can change send automation everywhere you changed volume automation - but more cumbersome.

lfm
My example of simple one fader doing a jump from 0dB to -8dB, and let's say a send at -12dB on that postfader - already create a change in dry/wet without we thinking so much about it.
 
Sending -12dB send on 0dB  fader, is not the same ratio dry/wet as doing -12dB on -8dB fader.
 

Your example is describing a prefade send, not post fade. The level of the signal sent to the -12db post fade send is adjusted relative to the value of the main channel fader. That's why it's called post fade! You are describing it as an absolute fixed value of -12db.
 
The wet/dry ratio must stay the same, otherwise there would be no point in post fader sends.
 
There are some advantages with the way PT has implemented what it calls vca faders (which is still just grouping - in PT you create a group before assigning it to a vca fader) with regards to automation, and relative levels when both the channels and the controlling vca are automated, but they are nothing to do with what you are describing. 

John T

lfm

John T
I'm honestly not seeing how that can't be done with sends as post-fader, which is what they are with default. Apologies if this has already been explained, but if it has, it's not clear to me.

Until I looked into VCA's I did think the same way you do.
 

 
Didn't need to "look into" it. Use this kind of control all the time doing live sound.
 

lfm
My example of simple one fader doing a jump from 0dB to -8dB, and let's say a send at -12dB on that postfader - already create a change in dry/wet without we thinking so much about it.
  

 
I think I must be misunderstanding you, because on the face of it, this is simply wrong.
 
You bring down the dry signal of the original track. The send on the track is post-fader. Therefore, whatever reduction you applied to the track is also applied to the send, and the wet/dry ratio is preserved. Or do you mean something else?
 
 

I follow this logic much clearer that I do Lars'
 
The ratio must remain constant otherwise when the fader reaches -INF you'd still be able to hear the send yes?

Indeed.

John T

lfm
My example of simple one fader doing a jump from 0dB to -8dB, and let's say a send at -12dB on that postfader - already create a change in dry/wet without we thinking so much about it.
  

 
I think I must be misunderstanding you, because on the face of it, this is simply wrong.
 
You bring down the dry signal of the original track. The send on the track is post-fader. Therefore, whatever reduction you applied to the track is also applied to the send, and the wet/dry ratio is preserved. Or do you mean something else?

I am saying that is the misconception I lived by until I started studying what VCA's are about.
 
Why is there an issue automating volume and not sends?
 
[****e numbers removed not take up anybodys time reading it]
 

John T
A VCA type control would mean you could automate things at the source track level with only one lane of automation. Currently, you'd have to create the automation for all the individual tracks. This is because grouped tracks don't obey automation from a single track within the group.

I'm still not getting something (and you're a smart guy, so I hope you can explain it to me ). If the dry tracks are going to a bus (or aux track), and the sends are going to a bus (or aux track), couldn't you just set the dry and effects buses for the desired relative level, then group them ratiometrically so they track each other as you write automation to bring them up and down? The only difference I see is that this requires two automation curves, one for each bus, but since you can write them simultaneously I don't see how that's a problem or even an inconvenience.