It's my understanding that the Channel and Bus Console Emulators should be last in each channel and bus.  If so, that sure seems to limit or even eliminate the use of most other Pro Channel modules, since they would all be 'post' Fx bin.
 
For example, if you want to use the CE, but also want to use the QuadCurve EQ as a HP filter before the Fx bin, you can't.  You'd have to add another EQ to Fx bin to do that.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the CE be both a PC Module and a plugin that could be last in the Fx bin, like the CA-2A, for example?

It would certainly be more versatile, but the ProChannel was originally conceived as a mixer-style channel strip, which traditionally was the last part of the signal chain. The PC modules occupy that traditional space, (i.e., reverb, compression, EQ, etc.). As you suggest, one option is to add an EQ in the FX bin itself. The other is to feed a bus, so you can have a ProChannel before and after the FX bin. 

Also, there's been some confusion about whether the CE should be first or last. I think the most recent advice was that it should be first. Personally, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference where you put it.

If you use track templates it seems to be first.

I feel the position of the CE makes some subtle differences and I tend to liken it to real world decisions of how to patch anything...

In "the old days" it was a matter of patch cables and the order selected... There can be many reasons for selecting any given order...

As to how to deal with the fx bin relationship? The beauty of fx chains within the PC allow us to circumvent the issue multiple times (if desired). The only exclusion that I feel warrants the use/need of two PC's would be the quad curve EQ as it can only be in one place/instance per track/PC... Maybe hat will change sometime? It appears to be the only module so restricted...

For me I simply use a different EQ (sonitus for example) running in an fx chain if/when necessary...

Having multiple quad curve eq's within a single PC will be a very nice update when the Bakers get around to it! ;-)

Keni

Anderton
It would certainly be more versatile, but the ProChannel was originally conceived as a mixer-style channel strip, which traditionally was the last part of the signal chain. The PC modules occupy that traditional space, (i.e., reverb, compression, EQ, etc.). As you suggest, one option is to add an EQ in the FX bin itself. The other is to feed a bus, so you can have a ProChannel before and after the FX bin. 

Thanks.  Yeah, I thought about using a bus too....

Keni
I feel the position of the CE makes some subtle differences and I tend to liken it to real world decisions of how to patch anything...

In "the old days" it was a matter of patch cables and the order selected... There can be many reasons for selecting any given order...

As to how to deal with the fx bin relationship? The beauty of fx chains within the PC allow us to circumvent the issue multiple times (if desired). The only exclusion that I feel warrants the use/need of two PC's would be the quad curve EQ as it can only be in one place/instance per track/PC... Maybe hat will change sometime? It appears to be the only module so restricted...

For me I simply use a different EQ (sonitus for example) running in an fx chain if/when necessary...

Having multiple quad curve eq's within a single PC will be a very nice update when the Bakers get around to it! ;-)

Keni

I probably need to make better use of PC Presets/FX Chains and better plan a project in general, by creating/using templates, etc.  But, perhaps the bakers will consider adding some functionality where these PC modules are concerned.

I stopped using the track fx bin ages ago, and just put everything in the pro-channel using fx chains to load vst's. The only exception being when I want some fx pre fader and some post when the two locations for "insert" fx are useful, but even then the post fader fx can be put on a bus which the track is routed to. Which was the situation pre pro-channel when there was only the fx bins.

The pro-channel really makes the channel/bus fx bins redundant other than for ease of loading old projects that did use them.

As keni says, the biggest limitation in Sonar regarding fx/processing now is the restriction to only one quad-curve eq per audio track/bus.

tlw
I stopped using the track fx bin ages ago, and just put everything in the pro-channel using fx chains to load vst's.

I actually gave this a try, but control of FX chains in the ProChannel from control surfaces has been broken at least since the early X3 (maybe it never worked, I don't know) ... thus I can't go this way ...

tlw
I stopped using the track fx bin ages ago, and just put everything in the pro-channel using fx chains to load vst's. The only exception being when I want some fx pre fader and some post when the two locations for "insert" fx are useful, but even then the post fader fx can be put on a bus which the track is routed to. Which was the situation pre pro-channel when there was only the fx bins.

The pro-channel really makes the channel/bus fx bins redundant other than for ease of loading old projects that did use them.

As keni says, the biggest limitation in Sonar regarding fx/processing now is the restriction to only one quad-curve eq per audio track/bus.

Thanks.  I'm sure glad I asked the question.  I skipped right over some of this documentation in the Power Book and so on.  Just read through it.  I know there are new Fx Chains available, but until now I haven't been curious enough about them or maybe experienced enough to consider what they can do.