Anderton
I just can't get upset about about the length of time it would take me to do something I would never do, e.g., clone 20 tracks of 10 reverbs. If cloning lots of tracks with lots of CPU-hungry effects is essential to the art you create, then of course it's important to you and I can understand why you would be upset. Just don't expect me to be upset.

As an i7 user you are less likely to get as upset as a core duo user. The point of the exercise might be that this functionality may create a performance spike in more common workflow (less plugins), and may not necessarily be desirable behaviour esp when triggering this during playback/record.

Anderton
I just can't get upset about about the length of time it would take me to do something I would never do, e.g., clone 20 tracks of 10 reverbs. If cloning lots of tracks with lots of CPU-hungry effects is essential to the art you create, then of course it's important to you and I can understand why you would be upset. Just don't expect me to be upset.

Ok, but you always advocate Sonar.
I just wanted to tell everybody, that I came to conclusion that if you see rotation pointer for some time after cloning, or your track template inserting is pretty long, it is more likely not because it should do some work, but because of bug. And I'm trying to prove it. Nobody denied or confirmed it yet.

Doktor Avalanche
At Adq, you subtract Z to compensate for doing the cloning twice in the equation (X+Y) when in fact you are only doing it once. X+Y-Z is the time it SHOULD take cloning properties+effects. In simplistic terms. Sorry can't explain it any clearer than this.
Also you missed my comments about arm monitoring.

Oh, I get it, nice math :)
Arm setting only affect CPU performance during playing with many audio and synth tracks. And it is turned off.

Anderton

Adq
Why do you think it is normal behavior?

If SONAR clones tracks without effects and properties, then I assume it doesn't need to capture effects/properties data and then populate the clones it's constructing with that data.

this seems to imply that track properties aren't contained as a "properties collection" of the track object, and that sonar has to "parse" the track to find out what properties, if any, need cloning - that could give you your delay
hth

It is not "parsing" because
1. Any "parsing" would be much much faster.
2. You only need to do it once, and time is proportional to the number of repetitions.
So it is about setting track's plug-ins and properties after it adds new tracks.
I have some thoughts about it, but it has no much sense to guess without knowing design and code.

2. you only need to do it once if you store it somewhere, but yeah, no code access here either

Adq

Anderton
I just can't get upset about about the length of time it would take me to do something I would never do, e.g., clone 20 tracks of 10 reverbs. If cloning lots of tracks with lots of CPU-hungry effects is essential to the art you create, then of course it's important to you and I can understand why you would be upset. Just don't expect me to be upset.

Ok, but you always advocate Sonar.

I don't use only SONAR. If something equivalent happened in any of the other programs I use, it wouldn't bother me either.
 
I understand what you're saying but I know nothing about code, so I'll let you guys sort out what could account for this while I go make music. 

There are some performance fixes in next update. Suggest OP posts again after installation.

What is addressed is slow loading of project templates containing many synth tracks. I am not specifically aware of a slow track template load issue. We can look into it if there is a bug report with an example.

Wait. You think that is slow? This is slow:
 
[tube]dqP0XZ6FJO4[/tube]
 
https://www.youtube.com/w...=&feature=youtu.be