Here's the steps:
 
1. Insert a Master bus into a project if it doesn't already have one
2. Insert a second bus (Bus B)
3. Click on the + button beside Sends on the Master bus. Bus B does not appear as a selection
 
Clicking Sends on Bus B shows Master as an option. If you create a third bus (Bus C), Busses B and C can see each other and Master, but Sends on the Master bus can't see Bus B or Bus C
 
Every track correctly shows every bus as Sends options.
 
You can only see another bus in the Master Sends list if you:
 
1. Click on the + button beside Sends on the Master bus
2. Select New Stereo Bus. Now the Master Sends list shows the newly created bus.
 
ALSO, click on the + next to Sends on the Master bus, select Insert Send Assistant, then select New Bus. Master does not appear as a choice for the Output of the new bus.
 
I'm not 100% positive this is new to Gloucester, but I don't remember it happening before. Obviously, this is a real nuisance if, like me, you use a lot of bus routing.
 
Can anyone reproduce this?
 
Thanks.

Yes, it has worked that way since at least X1.

Thanks, scook..
 
Does "worked that way" suggest that this is somehow a feature rather than a bug?
 
I can't see the advantage at all.

I see what you are saying but I also think that what you are asking for would cause a feedback loop.

Hi Vanceen,
I think the problem is that it would create a loop. If you have a bus in a project that is designated as a Master, all other tracks and busses will route to that bus by default. So if you add a new bus, that new bus will (again, by default) have it's destination set to the Master bus. You won't be able to route from the Master bus to the new bus because Sonar will not let you create a routing loop.
 
If you set the destination on the new bus to be something that does not end up at the Master, like a hardware out, you should be able to select it as a destination on the Master. 
 
Dean

Hmm...
 
Say you want a touch of reverb for the overall project, as a bit of "glue". You could insert a reverb into master FX or ProChannel, but usually the result is way too wet, and you have to turn the dry/wet balance on the effect way down to get a sensible result. This makes it hard to control.
 
So what I usually do is set up a bus and put the reverb on the new bus. Then I route the Master signal to the reverb bus through a Send, and route it back to the Master. Then I can control the amount of reverb with the fader on the reverb bus. Much easier to handle.
 
I've never had a feedback problem doing this. And, as I indicated in my post, it's certainly possible to do it, just not in a straightforward way. I've been doing a lot of this on an album I'm working on; I'm surprise to hear that it's worked this way for a while, but I've been wrong before.
 
I know you could route the reverb bus to the main outs of your audio interface. But I like to have the Master fader as the final, one fader to rule them all. I suppose you could achieve the same thing by making all the Master sends post-fader, but I want to do it My Way.
 
Oh well...

It may be a good idea to think about the looped/feedback issue. If you direct a subs output to another, and this other then is sending back into the sub, you're feeding the already affected track back into itself and thereby effecting the affected data and continuously increasing this data...

If you need a sub for the master for some reason, the sub would need to be directed to a different output than what you have labeled as master in your given scenario...

Thanks to all for your replies.
 
I see that I need to rethink how I've been doing this. You're all right, it's better to avoid loops, even if they haven't bitten me so far.

Start a new blank project
Add 3 buses
Route B and C to A
Create a send from B to C
Set B as the Default Bus
Save as a template.
 
This sets up A as the Final Bus
B is the default Master bus as far as the tracks are concerned
and C is the send from the Master to the Final Bus

Keni
If you need a sub for the master for some reason, the sub would need to be directed to a different output than what you have labeled as master in your given scenario...

+1 Bottom line: You can't send to a bus that will ultimately route back to the source (Master in this case) and hit the send again, creating a feedback loop. The send bus can route to the same physical output as Master, but it would have to be in parallel, not via the Master.