Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

mike_mccue
@bpm200, One thing we should mention for the benefit of readers is that direct signals and signals from a mic'ed amp often exhibit different "times of arrival". One can either leave the signals with the relative offset or endeavor to align them so that there is no timing offset. I imagine you know this from your experience but it occurs to me that it should be acknowledged that the two discrete channels in a two track such as you are describing will either have, or not have, a relative timing offset depending on if, and or where, you make a choice about whether you will adjust, or not adjust, for the offset. 

 
This is actually an argument for NOT recording this way since you have less control - the two channels are embedded in one clip now so editing the offset will be problematic. I think you have far more flexibility by recording as two discrete channels rather than a single stereo track. Since one of the channels is the reamp channel you are shooting yourself in the foot doing this, since the effects you put on the track later will process both channels which is probably not what you want in this scenario since one channel is reamped.
Since your main reason for having a stereo track seems to be to save real estate it seems that putting the two tracks into a folder would handle your requirement better. 

Noel,
What do you mean by putting the two tracks "in a folder"?
 
Regarding the effectiveness of this technique and adding FX later, one solution is (for me) to use GuitarRig5 as an effects rack.  It allows independent selection of right or left input for processing and outputs stereo.  
 
But based on the responses in this thread, I surmised I could use the "Channel Tool" to effectively make the DI/mic track a mono track output.  All of the individual tracks are grouped/sent to a reamp bus where effects are added.  
 
 

Kev999

John
What is wrong with having the tracks as mono next to one another? Name each what you want. They are mono anyway.
 
I don't see a reason to use stereo.

It's convenient in a situation where you are recording lots of takes in take lanes and you want to use both of either dry & wet or mic'd & DI signals. Matching up two sets of take lanes, even on adjacent tracks, can be a bit mind boggling.

Maybe so. It seems to me that if you do multi track recording and use takes you have this "problem" anyway and though I see your point, its done this way all the time.  What I find interesting is mixers with mic pres don't have stereo channels for them. Most mixers have only mono channels. The idea of keeping things neat may not always serve the process well. I'm not convinced that what the OP wants is a useful addition. 

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
I understand. However it looks like the benefit to recording a single stereo wave with a reamp and normal channel seems more trouble than its worth. Rather than allowing for something like this, perhaps the community would be better served by us adding some UI and editing features to allow dealing with multiple mono track groups better.

This is an excellent opportunity to point out that Cakewalk's Channel Tools, with its independent "Left" and "Right" samples delay capability can serve to time align two halves of dual track regardless of how you create the two track. Easy. Breezy.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

200bpm
Noel,
What do you mean by putting the two tracks "in a folder"?
 
Regarding the effectiveness of this technique and adding FX later, one solution is (for me) to use GuitarRig5 as an effects rack.  It allows independent selection of right or left input for processing and outputs stereo.  
 
But based on the responses in this thread, I surmised I could use the "Channel Tool" to effectively make the DI/mic track a mono track output.  All of the individual tracks are grouped/sent to a reamp bus where effects are added.  

 
Create a track folder and drag the two mono tracks into it - then you can hide the individual tracks and only see the folder if that satisfies the clutter issue. However working with multiple takes - you will continue to have a lane for each mono track. 
Correct, Channel tools will let you split the signal but now if you want independent fx processing for the reamp channel on the track you have to send to a new bus right - doesn't that defeat the simplicity of having a single track if so? Just trying to understand what this buys you...

Its not an issue of having a single track, but of not having to maintain the relationship between independent DI and miked tracks, and also having the flexibility to select the DI or miced track for further processing.  
 
Short of the ability to assign non-contiguous inputs to a stereo pair (which can be faked in RME totalmix), I should have to tools to do what I need.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Just trying to understand what this buys you...

I can offer one scenario: Have you ever tried to use Audio Snap on more than one track?
 
If you compare using SONAR's audio snap on multi tracks to Pro Tools multi track warp capabilities, you'll quickly see the benefit of combining disparate tracks into a single stream in SONAR.
 
In Cubase, for example, people often combine disparate tracks into a single multi track "surround" .wav file so that they may use warp tools on multiple tracks as effectively as with Pro Tools basic grouping features.
 
In SONAR, one can similarly use a "stereo" track made of disparate sources to allow for time aligned audio snap stretch and shrink processes.
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is just a random example I have imagined. I don't practice the process that the OP has described so I'm not trying to justify a preference for one way to work or another. I am, however, expressing a preference for encouraging people to work in the manner they find makes sense to them. I think that habits can be liberating and any workflow that someone finds that detaches them from the "left brain" and let's them live in the "right brain" has merit regardless of how many ways someone else can point out potential downsides.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

Dan Gonzalez [Cakewalk]
Yes, your inputs should be listed as Stereo, Left, and Right for a single pair. Left acts as the odd number in the pair and Rights acts as the even number in the pair. So Inputs 1 would be: Inputs 1-2 (Left) and Input 2 would be Inputs 1-2(Right). Obviously Inputs 1-2(Stereo) is both.

 
Dan he wants to use non contiguous inputs to record to a single stereo track so he cant do that in SONAR.
I know Totalmix allows internally routing inputs to arbitrary hardware outs but I'm not sure if it allows arbitrary routing of inputs to DAW channels...

My mistake, I understand what the scenario is now. 

I'm behind the curve on this one. I've tried a number of ways to record direct and mic at the same time and always end up running the mic to one input and the direct to a second. I use this all the time for acoustic guitar with a pickup and have never run into any timing problems. It also affords a ton of options for further processing. If I tried to merge the two signals onto 1 track as L/R and then treat that as two signal chains my head would explode.

If you choose to call it a timing offset it's doesn't have to be thought of as a timing problem.
 
Let's say you have an acoustic guitar with a piezo pickup and you also have a microphone placed 6 inches from the strings.
 
The direct piezo signal will arrive slightly earlier than the microphone signal.
 
It takes the sound approximately 22 samples at a 44,100Hz sampling rate ( 0.5millisecond ) to travel the 6" distance between the strings and the microphone, so the microphone signal will be approximately 22 samples behind the direct signal.
 
Is 22 samples an offset or a problem? It is up to you to decide. If you were to decide to align the two sources then Channel Tools will do a great job of it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
As far as post processing and heads exploding, the OP has already mentioned that one instance of Guitar Rig placed in the effects bin can easily process left and right channels as separate sources. Many other VSTs will do this too.
 
You don't need to add extra SONAR buses, as has been suggested by others, to process a "side" of a two track discretely, but you can if you want to.
 
 

I to have used both my Saddle PU and a mike on my Acoustic guitar tracks since the day I was given more than 4 tracks to play with. I guess I better go redo all those songs:? 
 .. anyhow-- the mike cable was shorter than the patch cable so now we're even... :) 
 
My whole take on this topic at this point is everyone would design a DAW differently. We all have an idea in our heads how things should work. You take the time to explore as many DAW's as possible and pick the one that works for you.
For the dozen things I can think of that Sonar does " the wrong way" for me, there are 100's of things it does right. Cubase has more things it does wrong for me etc etc..  
Isn't it Reaper that lets you roll your own?