Keep at it , Sharke 👍 If there's a way to vote for your
suggestion you would get a big yes from me .

Would you guys just let Craig win? It's the only way this will stop. HE's never wrong, particularly when there is no right or wrong.

sharke
 

AndertonBut if not using the FX Rack is essential in order for you to make the kind of music you want to make, I can see why you would consider your request as really important.

Sentence ignored on the basis of it being nothing more than sarcasm/snark.

There is nothing sarcastic about that last comment - it should be taken at face value. It has become clear over the last few posts that you see the ProChannel as something entirely different compared to how I see it. I see it the way it was explained to me, i.e. a way to create a custom mixer architecture, which is how I've used it and which does not feel at all limited to me in that context. I really don't use anything in there other than dynamics, Console Emulator, and EQ, with the occasional exception of Breverb or (even more rarely) Tape Emulation. The only FX Chains I use, and rarely at that, are utilities based on Channel Tools. IOW I treat the PC like a Console channel strip. I use the FX Rack for VSTs, with one standout advantage being that because I'm into real-time control, the FX Assignable controls are extremely convenient.
 
Only the last couple of posts of yours really consolidated the reasons why this is important to you (although some of these comments may have been posted elsewhere and I missed them in the noise - when someone takes a long thread in a different direction, sometimes it's difficult to know at which point it changed direction, and whether there were relevant comments before that). You mentioned constant opening and closing of the GUI with FX Chains to get at the VST you want to edit because you are constantly tweaking a huge number of VSTs, complex collections of modules, having so many modules you didn't want to have to name them because of the time that would take, and perhaps most importantly, wanting to use PC modules with VSTs (although I don't recall you saying it in quite this way, it sounds to me like since you can't place the PC modules in the FX Rack, you want to move what's in the FX rack to the ProChannel). None of these are issues in the way I work, so of course I couldn't understand your perspective until it was explained in a way that made sense to me.
 
Before that I was seeing the "specs" - "I want to be able to open a VST with one click," okay fine, use the FX rack, "I don't want to take up a lot of space in the ProChannel," fine you can minimize it, "I want to use the QuadCurve with other VSTs," okay, place it before or after the FX rack. I wasn't seeing any deal-breakers in your "asks."
 
Really the only "complication" is that audio needs to go into and out of a placeholder. Other than that, I get that you're basically just asking for a piece of graphics on which you can click and open up a GUI. Now that I know exactly what you want and exactly why you want it, it seems to me that the existing FX Chain structure would do what you want if scaled down. You would drag the VST into the PC, and it would create an FX Chain. The only difference is that it would open in the collapsed position, couldn't be opened, and the "effect" label you see when you open up the FX Chain would be part of the header. 
 
Edit: Actually I just realized there would be a complication. You would need to tell SONAR when you drag in a single VST which module you would want - the single plug-in module, or the "real" FX Chain because you might want to edit the FX Chain (e.g., add more effects) once it's within the ProChannel. It wouldn't be enough for SONAR to assume automatically that if you're bringing in a single VST, you have no intention of adding to it within an FX Chains context. 
 
So now what you're saying makes sense to me. It still isn't something that I find of interest, given how I use the ProChannel...although usually with SONAR, once something is added I find something useful to do with it. 

Interesting arguments going on here ..I did learn something , I learned if I'm gonna throw something in the Pro Channel it might as well be this ...
 
Before

 
 
After
 
 

 
I honestly had no Idea I could do that ..
 
thanks fellas ,
 
Kenny

AndertonThere is nothing sarcastic about that last comment - it should be taken at face value. It has become clear over the last few posts that you see the ProChannel as something entirely different compared to how I see it. I see it the way it was explained to me, i.e. a way to create a custom mixer architecture, which is how I've used it and which does not feel at all limited to me in that context. I really don't use anything in there other than dynamics, Console Emulator, and EQ, with the occasional exception of Breverb or (even more rarely) Tape Emulation. The only FX Chains I use, and rarely at that, are utilities based on Channel Tools. IOW I treat the PC like a Console channel strip. I use the FX Rack for VSTs, with one standout advantage being that because I'm into real-time control, the FX Assignable controls are extremely convenient.

 
I think it was always clear throughout this entire discussion that I see and treat the PC as nothing more than a processing path, and also the reasons why I don't use the FX bin (or "rack"). But given that I do use the PC this way, and given that a lot of other people see in it exactly the same purpose, it seems perfectly reasonable to want to improve it in a few areas. The mark of good software design in a program as complex as Sonar is that it doesn't box you into a specific workflow. So in developing and evolving that software, you have to take into account the various ways that people use the program. Personally, the ProChannel stands out to me as a far superior way to organize and experiment with effects and processing. It's longer, it's wider, and having the controls for things like EQ always open and visible is a huge advantage. It's also the most flexible way to incorporate ProChannel modules with VST effects in your mix, for the simple reason that you have complete control over the signal flow. Whereas by using both the FX Rack and the PC, you have to divide the signal path into two parts and decide which comes first. 
 

Anderton You mentioned constant opening and closing of the GUI with FX Chains to get at the VST you want to edit because you are constantly tweaking a huge number of VSTs, complex collections of modules, having so many modules you didn't want to have to name them because of the time that would take

 
It's not that I have "so many modules." It's that I don't use presets and approach each track from scratch. The effects that I put in an FX Chain are changing all the time. I frequently go in one direction in a track and then decide it needs an entirely different approach. Or I might swap out compressors. Or I might use 2 different compressors in a signal chain (e.g. before an amp sim and after an amp sim). Sometimes I start with the Quadcurve in a PC, and then add an FX Chain with some VST's. At some point, I decide that I would like to try putting the compressor before the EQ, and just doing that now requires that I insert a whole new FX Chain before the EQ just to hold that one compressor. When I'm swapping out effects and reordering them as often as I do, the idea of manually labeling FX Chains to indicate what's in them becomes ridiculous. Which is why a better way of hosting VST's in the PC would be very welcome. That's all. 
 

Anderton...and perhaps most importantly, wanting to use PC modules with VSTs (although I don't recall you saying it in quite this way, it sounds to me like since you can't place the PC modules in the FX Rack, you want to move what's in the FX rack to the ProChannel).

 
No that's not entirely it - even if I didn't use any PC modules at all, I would still prefer the PC. Like I said before, the FX Rack is too small and fiddly and doesn't show enough of the VST name for my tastes. And it's even worse if you have your console strips set to "narrow." 
 

AndertonReally the only "complication" is that audio needs to go into and out of a placeholder. Other than that, I get that you're basically just asking for a piece of graphics on which you can click and open up a GUI. Now that I know exactly what you want and exactly why you want it, it seems to me that the existing FX Chain structure would do what you want if scaled down. You would drag the VST into the PC, and it would create an FX Chain. The only difference is that it would open in the collapsed position, couldn't be opened, and the "effect" label you see when you open up the FX Chain would be part of the header.

 
That's exactly what I want - a scaled down FX Chain that doesn't expand or collapse, it just has a labeled, clickable header that opens up the GUI. You could even go one better and have an FX Chain module that sizes itself around how many effects are in it. As you add or remove effects, it expands or contracts thusly. Although that's probably getting a little too fancy. 
 

AndertonEdit: Actually I just realized there would be a complication. You would need to tell SONAR when you drag in a single VST which module you would want - the single plug-in module, or the "real" FX Chain because you might want to edit the FX Chain (e.g., add more effects) once it's within the ProChannel. It wouldn't be enough for SONAR to assume automatically that if you're bringing in a single VST, you have no intention of adding to it within an FX Chains context.

 
That needn't be a complication. How about this: if you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it's automatically housed in my new scaled down single-effect module. If you want to use the full FX Chain, you have to add that manually. That would make more sense logically.

sharke
That needn't be a complication. How about this: if you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it's automatically housed in my new scaled down single-effect module. If you want to use the full FX Chain, you have to add that manually. That would make more sense logically.

It makes sense to assume that if you drag in a VST you want the single, and if you drag in an FX Chain then it's an FX Chain. Where that wouldn't work is for those who bring in a VST and then want to use it as the basis of creating an FX Chain within the ProChannel. That's probably a fairly small percentage of people but currently, that capability is available for those who want it and drag in a single VST.
 

It's not that I have "so many modules." It's that I don't use presets and approach each track from scratch. The effects that I put in an FX Chain are changing all the time. I frequently go in one direction in a track and then decide it needs an entirely different approach. Or I might swap out compressors. Or I might use 2 different compressors in a signal chain (e.g. before an amp sim and after an amp sim).

 
Well, that's another difference in approach. I don't use presets either unless they're very specific (i.e., the best EQ and limiting for my voice when using the Worker Bee condenser mic), but I tweak only enough to get the sound I want and move on. I'm the kind of person who doesn't use an amp sim so I can change the sound later; usually the tone of it locks the music in a particular direction.
 
Probably part of this is philosophy. I spent the 70s through the 80s doing session work and production that was studio-intensive. Starting in the 90s when I began working with DJs, doing my Ableton-based live electronic act, and doing the EV2 project with Brian from Public Enemy, I've found I prefer playing live so I've become much more focused on having as live a feel as possible in recordings. In a way it harkens back to the original holy grail for recording engineers, which was to capture the magic of a live performance in the studio. On the "Simplicity" project, most of the "played" parts were done in a couple takes. I liked the "feel" better.
 
If a song changes character substantially over the course of writing in the studio, I don't try to tweak it. I usually re-record it based on what I learned in the process of writing in the studio. I'm not saying this is better or worse than how other people work, but I'm sure you can understand why aspects of handling plug-ins that pose problems for you are not something I encounter...hence the need to understand where you were coming from. It was too far out of my performance-based frame of reference. 

ampfixer
Would you guys just let Craig win? It's the only way this will stop. HE's never wrong, particularly when there is no right or wrong.

I'm certainly in agreement with Sharke's proposal of allowing single fx item in the PC without an effects chain. To me it just seems like an obvious improvement. I'm amazed that that there is any strong opposition to it.

imo it's not opposition, it's rationalising why you don't need it so it doesn't get added to the already humongous "todo" list

Anderton

sharke
That needn't be a complication. How about this: if you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it's automatically housed in my new scaled down single-effect module. If you want to use the full FX Chain, you have to add that manually. That would make more sense logically.

It makes sense to assume that if you drag in a VST you want the single, and if you drag in an FX Chain then it's an FX Chain. Where that wouldn't work is for those who bring in a VST and then want to use it as the basis of creating an FX Chain within the ProChannel. That's probably a fairly small percentage of people but currently, that capability is available for those who want it and drag in a single VST.

 
If you wanted to bring a VST into the PC with a view to starting an FX Chain, then you would first insert an FX Chain module and then drag the VST into it. And of course if you wanted to transfer a single VST in the PC into an FX Chain module, you could do that. I think dragging VST's onto the PC to start an FX Chain is probably an edge case and would hazard a guess that most of the VST's people are using in ProChannels are not part of a fully fledged FX Chain which utilizes custom controls. In other words, I would estimate that in a majority of cases, the FX Chain is not being used to its full potential anyway. 
 

Anderton

It's not that I have "so many modules." It's that I don't use presets and approach each track from scratch. The effects that I put in an FX Chain are changing all the time. I frequently go in one direction in a track and then decide it needs an entirely different approach. Or I might swap out compressors. Or I might use 2 different compressors in a signal chain (e.g. before an amp sim and after an amp sim).

 
Well, that's another difference in approach. I don't use presets either unless they're very specific (i.e., the best EQ and limiting for my voice when using the Worker Bee condenser mic), but I tweak only enough to get the sound I want and move on. I'm the kind of person who doesn't use an amp sim so I can change the sound later; usually the tone of it locks the music in a particular direction.
 
Probably part of this is philosophy. I spent the 70s through the 80s doing session work and production that was studio-intensive. Starting in the 90s when I began working with DJs, doing my Ableton-based live electronic act, and doing the EV2 project with Brian from Public Enemy, I've found I prefer playing live so I've become much more focused on having as live a feel as possible in recordings. In a way it harkens back to the original holy grail for recording engineers, which was to capture the magic of a live performance in the studio. On the "Simplicity" project, most of the "played" parts were done in a couple takes. I liked the "feel" better.

 
Much of today's electronic music is produced with a combination of programmed and live techniques. Oftentimes the bulk of the arrangement is programmed, but then parameters on synths or effects are performed live after the MIDI is down. And many solo producers work in a non-linear fashion, i.e. they're composing, arranging, sound designing and mixing all at the same time. This kind of workflow benefits from very fluid and flexible tools.