John T
I don't think I understand those maths at all. Where are you getting the numbers from in the first place? 1/22, 1/18 etc?

I'm glad you don't - meaning at least one of us is not mental.
 
I took log on dB number and got it backwards.
This example will not proove my point - that I thought I figured out.
 
I applied immediately for a spot in an elderly home today...

Anderton

John T
Yeah, that's basically it. It's a very slightly simpler way of doing something that can already be done.
 
Like I say, I'm not personally bothered about it. But I was trying to think of actual benefits of the feature, and that's the only thing I could really come up with.

Great, thanks for working through this with me. I was starting to think I was missing out on some game-changing feature because I just didn't see all this great value in it. Now I know why I don't 

That's good to know - it will never happend in Sonar - all we need to know.
And everybody else that implemented it did it for nothing too - does anybody really think that...
 
As I see it, it's not about that absolutely cannot do something - it's about how much work it takes to accomplish things. And a tool that assist you simplifying things...

Ifm I don't want you to feel we are piling up on you. I think you have handled yourself well. You've kept it on a high level. I support the idea that if CW were to implement it I would not be opposed to it.
 
It certainly wouldn't hurt anyone.  

lfm

Anderton

John T
Yeah, that's basically it. It's a very slightly simpler way of doing something that can already be done.
 
Like I say, I'm not personally bothered about it. But I was trying to think of actual benefits of the feature, and that's the only thing I could really come up with.

Great, thanks for working through this with me. I was starting to think I was missing out on some game-changing feature because I just didn't see all this great value in it. Now I know why I don't 

That's good to know - it will never happend in Sonar - all we need to know.
And everybody else that implemented it did it for nothing too - does anybody really think that...
 
As I see it, it's not about that absolutely cannot do something - it's about how much work it takes to accomplish things. And a tool that assist you simplifying things...

Well, I think the thing there is that some other DAWs don't have as sophisticated track grouping as Sonar does. They're just slightly different approaches to achieving broadly the same thing. This is be expected across different daws / mixing desks / whatever.

The OP I am glad to see someone else feels the way I do, I am watching and paying attention but I have not seen anything work paying for that I don't already have in the update of Platinum before my subscription ran out in march.  Platinum is solid as ever to me

lfm
 
That's good to know - it will never happend in Sonar - all we need to know.

 
I don't think anyone from Cakewalk said it will never happen in SONAR, but I could have missed something...
 

And everybody else that implemented it did it for nothing too - does anybody really think that...

 
Of course not, they implemented it to solve a specific limitation in their DAWs (e.g., Pro Tools 7.2) and/or offer an alternative workflow. The relevant question to me is how much or little benefit SONAR users would derive from adding it. 
 

As I see it, it's not about that absolutely cannot do something - it's about how much work it takes to accomplish things. And a tool that assist you simplifying things...

 
I agree, but you have to weigh the pros and cons. The examples given of VCA grouping applications don't seem particularly common. If adding VCA-style grouping is something that Noel can do in an afternoon, great - then it doesn't matter if only a handful of people use it on rare occasions. But if it would be difficult to do, given that SONAR already has sophisticated grouping options, I think it's legitimate to question whether the benefits would justify the resources needed to re-structure SONAR's existing grouping paradigm. 

Anderton
But if it would be difficult to do, given that SONAR already has sophisticated grouping options, I think it's legitimate to question whether the benefits would justify the resources needed to re-structure SONAR's existing grouping paradigm. 

 
That's the area I was batting towards with my example earlier. And I think (might be wrong here) that adding a function that makes grouped tracks follow a single automation line to the existing group system means we'd then have everything a VCA system could do. Because we already do have most of it.
 
Indeed, in terms of how VCA is typically implemented on a desk, this would only need to apply to volume fader automation.
 
So that might well be a trivial addition, where "give me the same VCA implementation as DAW X" probably isn't.

John T
That's the area I was batting towards with my example earlier. And I think (might be wrong here) that adding a function that makes grouped tracks follow a single automation line to the existing group system means we'd then have everything a VCA system could do. Because we already do have most of it.
 
Indeed, in terms of how VCA is typically implemented on a desk, this would only need to apply to volume fader automation.
 
So that might well be a trivial addition, where "give me the same VCA implementation as DAW X" probably isn't.

That's pretty clever. 

One does one's best.

John T

Anderton
But if it would be difficult to do, given that SONAR already has sophisticated grouping options, I think it's legitimate to question whether the benefits would justify the resources needed to re-structure SONAR's existing grouping paradigm. 

 
That's the area I was batting towards with my example earlier. And I think (might be wrong here) that adding a function that makes grouped tracks follow a single automation line to the existing group system means we'd then have everything a VCA system could do. Because we already do have most of it.
 
Indeed, in terms of how VCA is typically implemented on a desk, this would only need to apply to volume fader automation.
 
So that might well be a trivial addition, where "give me the same VCA implementation as DAW X" probably isn't.

That's the part I really fell in love with regarding VCA's in Cubase and ProTools, watching youtube videos - ability to apply trim automation to a range of tracks in one go. 
 
You get one automation line for the sum of original automation on track and VCA and one line still for the original automation if it exist.
If no automation exist - VCA automation is copied as is into track.
Then when you feel you are done for now - you select combine and all automation curves are summed, and VCA master curve is a straight line again. In ProTools called coalesce.
 
Cubase has a similar thing for trim automation - you get two curves until you freeze what you did.
Offset mode in Sonar, as I recall, you did not really see what you did, and you don't feel in control.
Just to visually see what you did in the process is really cool.
 
So let's say you can create an empty track and add to grouped tracks, and just mark that as master - and do the automation on that one that other combine with. Audio stuff can be disabled for simplicity.
 
The nesting part of VCA's are not there - but improvements are always improvements.