Anderton
Much of all music is done with a combination of programmed and live techniques, and I work in a totally non-linear fashion - that's the basis of my "Recording on the Fast Track" seminar. However the extent to which someone feels they need to tweak presets and sounds differs. I know the sounds I want, get them, and move on. I don't expect universal agreement on this, but I think the faster one commits to sounds and incorporates them into the music, the better the "feel." Or maybe I just have a short attention span 
No I agree about the benefits of committing to sounds early on - but it doesn't always work out like that, and sometimes while you may commit to a synth sound early in the project (i.e. leave the synth controls a certain way without tweaking them), that doesn't mean that committing to EQ and compression settings for the track early on is realistic. Projects evolve. Tracks are added and removed, and other tracks processed differently to accommodate. My creative process is an ongoing affair in which parts are frequently swapped out, sounds rethought, arrangements modified and overhauled, and EQ settings completely changed as I might for example decide at some late stage to push something back in a mix whereas before it was up front. I'm far from the only person who works like this and find especially that those who work in kind of "out there" electronic or experimental styles report working exactly the same way. Other people work completely differently and might plan out and arrange the whole song from start to finish before even switching on the DAW. And of course, everything in between. It's the job of a good DAW to accommodate all of these working styles.
AndertonThe following are general comments about forums and effectiveness.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to intuitively understand a specialized workflow they don't use, don't need, and have not experienced. IMO discussions about "improvements" (which are often in the eye of the beholder) are most meaningful if the person wanting a change can explain clearly and concisely why they want a change, give practical examples of the conditions under which it is beneficial, and refrain from introducing elements that aren't relevant. For example, when you said the ProChannel was all about marketing and made references to "marketing blurbs," I felt obligated to point out that the genesis of the ProChannel was engineering-driven to accomplish a very specific functionality - allow custom mixer architectures that would allow users to go way beyond the prevailing DAW options to simply show and hide mixer sections. SONAR's engineers are musicians and use the program. Marketing does not drive updates.
My workflow is far from "specialized," it's just different from yours. And from the start, I've explained clearly and concisely my reasons for wanting the change. It actually started out very simple, but then I was driven into an almost philosophical debate on the issue by scook, who made a baffling attempt to make it look like I was talking through my hat in describing my reasons, by dishonestly accusing me of contradicting myself. The interesting thing is that most of the others chiming in seemed to understand what I meant without too much fuss.
AndertonI also don't recall many complaints about the FX Rack since improvements were made to it (I certainly don't have a problem with the FX Rack, or consider it "small and fiddly"). So I assume some people couldn't relate to your contention that using the FX Rack is problematic.
You assume a lot, and that's the problem. I've heard many people complain about the FX Rack and have called it small and fiddly. Sure it's an improvement that it now expands, but it's still very narrow and truncates plugin names (to the point of complete illegibility sometimes when using narrow strips). It's not as if legibility of labels has ever been considered an area of the program that has no room for improvement. Look at the very welcome addition of custom label fields in the automation lanes, which was in response to a few complaints (including mine) about losing track of automation lanes because of the inadequacy of the existing edit filter labels (they were also being truncated). I've heard lots of people on this forum say that they never use the FX racks and prefer the ProChannel. I've also heard people say they never "got" the ProChannel and never touch it. Both views are equally valid and should be accommodated.
AndertonIt also complicates matters somewhat that you do not post examples of your music so when you try to explain why a particular workflow is vital to what you do, there's no musical frame of reference - if I heard several instruments with 5-10 effects, that would help make your point. I'm not exactly stupid but I had to wade through a lot of verbiage to understand the crux of what you wanted. I still don't think it's particularly important, but at least I now understand why you think it's important.
This is a truly baffling comment to make. Not once have I ever heard someone claim that someone else's description of their workflow was "complicated" by the fact that they didn't post examples of their music. The end result of the music I create is irrelevant, and there is nothing in it which would suggest that I use one workflow over another. It sounds to me that you're almost skeptical of the descriptions of my workflow, and would like some kind of "proof" that I'm working with a particular kind of sound.
By the way, there was no need whatsoever to "wade through a lot of verbiage" to understand my viewpoint. It was set out very clearly from the beginning. Any subsequent "verbiage" is the result of having to explain and clarify things over and over to scook and yourself, and having to repeatedly defend myself against misrepresentation. In other words, it was a very simple viewpoint that could have been noted and either agreed with, or met with something like "well I can't say I have the same workflow as you but I get what you're saying."
AndertonPwalpwal has a point, too. Ideally, people proposing changes need to be realistic about the needs of the user base. For example I could make a convincing argument that being able to move MP4 video files on the timeline would make my life a whole lot easier. However I get the sense that most people here don't really care that much about video. So I'm not going to contribute to the "noise" with a feature request that would benefit only a relatively small number of users, especially in a forum whose mission statement is "Discussion focused on the use of SONAR software." I take a few minutes to tidy up my studio as I convert an MP4 video to a WMV scratch track against which I can do the score, and then get on with the project. So I don't feel a need to add, as pwalpwal says, "to the already humongous 'todo' list."
Thing is though, working with video in Sonar is an edge case. I suspect the vast majority of Sonar users don't. Working with audio effect chains, however, is almost universal. I suspect that if you took the subset of those people who use the ProChannel as their signal path, and said "would you like a method of inserting a single VST into the ProChannel without having to use an entire FX Chain module," most of them would say "sure, that's a welcome addition." In addition, I suspect that the vast majority of new users who investigate the ProChannel (it being one of Sonar's major selling points), will just presume that you could insert a single VST by dragging it, and will be surprised to learn that it has to rattle around in a big old FX Chain module by itself.
Now whether or not it, as an idea, should be prioritized over other feature requests, is debatable. Every feature request is evaluated accordingly. But it should be remembered that I never intended the comment to be a feature request, it was simply a casual comment in a discussion about the ProChannel which got blown out of all proportion.