sharke
You're forgetting that people sometimes mix up VST's in FX Chains with ProChannel modules. They're not necessarily putting their entire signal path through one FX Chain. They might have one or two VST's in an FX Chain, followed by the Quadcurve, followed by another FX Chain with one VST, followed by the Saturation knob....and so on. In these scenarios (in which I often find myself), the waste of screen estate is glaring.

No I did not. You are the one fluidly switching between the real estate issues of single VST PC chains (or is it a click issue?), PC chains containing many plug-ins (no real problem here so it is unclear how they factor into the discussion) and the interleaving of FX Chains in the PC (an admittedly unrealistic scenario) in an unsuccessful bid to confuse the solutions provided by the current architecture. When offered the degenerate case

sharke
The problem with FX Chains in the ProChannel is that they take up quite a lot of vertical space for what they are, especially if you're only using them to host one plugin. And let's say you're mixing VST plugins in a signal chain with  ProChannel modules. You might have VST->PC Module->VST->PC Module->VST. You'd need 3 FX Chain modules in that chain, and that's a lot of wasted vertical space.

I demonstrated there is no real estate issue. The curious thing about your example though is you later admission it is not a real problem for you because

sharke
They could still take up much less space, and that would be a good thing. Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

 
Most recently you suggest

sharke
It's also a pain to have to keep collapsing and uncollapsing FX Chains in order to access the plugins within them, versus one click on the VST name to open it when the module is expanded. When you're mixing or on a creative roll, your train of thought is fast and you have a ton of things going on at once and you're making hundreds of gestures and actions in the DAW in response. You're opening plugins one after the other and adjusting them at the speed of thought. Little things like opening and closing PC modules to access the plugins behind them is an unwelcome step in such a fluid process. 

 
I doubt this is based on experience. It seems more like another hypothetical like the FX Chain/PC module sandwich argument provided above, exaggerated for effect.
 
As to this latest mis-characterization

sharke
And you're also missing the point that people like to look at their whole signal chain at a glance and see what's there. There is every reason to keep an FX Chain with one VST in it open - so you can see what's in it while assessing the track in the mix and making decisions about what to add, what to take out, what to rearrange in the signal path. It is simply not practical or convenient to indicate a list of VST's in the FX Chain label. A basic VST holder that expanded and contracted to the number of VST's in it would be a perfect solution and really streamline things in the ProChannel.

Another gross generalization much like the start of your msg 50. It is clear there is no need to have FX chains open when few plug-ins are in the chain. The FX Chain label can contain enough information to describe its contents. In the case where you are deciding how to populate a chain, I would suggest real estate is not an issue at that time. Your focus is on the chain and not the PC module above or below it (oh wait, you don't use PC modules). In the case where "5 to 10" plug-ins are in a chain there is no reason to have them collapsed. There is no reason to continue mentioning fully populated FX chains. There is no problem with them. At least not one mentioned so far.

scook

sharke
You're forgetting that people sometimes mix up VST's in FX Chains with ProChannel modules. They're not necessarily putting their entire signal path through one FX Chain. They might have one or two VST's in an FX Chain, followed by the Quadcurve, followed by another FX Chain with one VST, followed by the Saturation knob....and so on. In these scenarios (in which I often find myself), the waste of screen estate is glaring.

No I did not. You are the one fluidly switching between the real estate issues of single VST PC chains (or is it a click issue?), PC chains containing many plug-ins (no real problem here so it is unclear how they factor into the discussion) and the interleaving of FX Chains in the PC (an admittedly unrealistic scenario) in an unsuccessful bid to confuse the solutions provided by the current architecture. When offered the degenerate case

sharke
The problem with FX Chains in the ProChannel is that they take up quite a lot of vertical space for what they are, especially if you're only using them to host one plugin. And let's say you're mixing VST plugins in a signal chain with  ProChannel modules. You might have VST->PC Module->VST->PC Module->VST. You'd need 3 FX Chain modules in that chain, and that's a lot of wasted vertical space.

I demonstrated there is no real estate issue. The curious thing about your example though is you later admission it is not a real problem for you because

sharke
They could still take up much less space, and that would be a good thing. Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

 
You seem very emotionally invested in "debunking" my arguments with a fine tooth comb, almost as if we were talking about politics or religion. And in the process you're just overcomplicating arguments which are essentially very simple. You're also grossly misrepresenting what I said. 
 
First of all, when you say I'm "fluidly switching" between issues, I'm really not. I'm quite clear about what I'm talking about here - the waste of real estate caused by FX Chains under certain conditions. Any discussion is going to touch on more than one issue during its course. 
 
The "interleaving of FX Chains in the PC" is not an unrealistic scenario (I face it all the time), and the fact that you suppose that it is unrealistic shows how unwilling you are to contemplate the existence of other workflows and thought processes. And no, I didn't "admit that it's not a real problem for me." I simply pointed out that I don't use a lot of PC modules. That is not the same as saying "I don't use PC modules." I said I use the Quadcurve and the VKFX ones. There's a huge difference between using none and using some, wouldn't you say? So let's just establish some clear facts here: I use PC modules, I use FX Chains and I often freely mix up the two. So far, so good. 
 

scook
Most recently you suggest

sharke
It's also a pain to have to keep collapsing and uncollapsing FX Chains in order to access the plugins within them, versus one click on the VST name to open it when the module is expanded. When you're mixing or on a creative roll, your train of thought is fast and you have a ton of things going on at once and you're making hundreds of gestures and actions in the DAW in response. You're opening plugins one after the other and adjusting them at the speed of thought. Little things like opening and closing PC modules to access the plugins behind them is an unwelcome step in such a fluid process. 

 
I doubt this is based on experience. It seems more like another hypothetical like the FX Chain/PC module sandwich argument provided above, exaggerated for effect.

 
Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason I object to the idea of having to manually expand a module every time to access the plugins inside it is because I just haven't tried it yet? I don't have to try it - I know, without trying, that an extra click to open a plugin (or to even see my signal path in full) would get old very quickly. I know my own workflow and creative thought processes, and I know that (like many people I'm sure) I switch my focus very quickly from track to track, and that I'm constantly experimenting with and trying new signal paths and swapping out one plugin for another. I'm sometimes working on 2-3 tracks at a time, adjusting the processing on one track in response to changes on another track, going back and forth, rearranging stuff, deleting stuff, adding new stuff and generally working in a creatively haphazard way during which I really appreciate the idea of having everything laid out and visible in front of me at a glance. If you don't work this way, or don't mind having to expand and collapse FX chains all the time, or don't mind having to scroll up and down ProChannels unnecessarily because of the wasted screen estate which results from having multiple FX Chains containing only 1 or 2 VST's entwined with other modules in a ProChannel, then that's fine - but why on earth you're assuming that nobody else should have a problem with it is beyond me. 
 
No, the FX Chain/PC module sandwich argument provided above it not a "hypothetical," it happens to me in practice, very often. Again you seem to be working off of the idea that your own experience with using Sonar is the be all and end all, and that anyone who works differently to you must be crazy and/or lying. Good software development takes into account a wide spectrum of workflows, styles and user scenarios. 
 

scook
As to this latest mis-characterization

sharke
And you're also missing the point that people like to look at their whole signal chain at a glance and see what's there. There is every reason to keep an FX Chain with one VST in it open - so you can see what's in it while assessing the track in the mix and making decisions about what to add, what to take out, what to rearrange in the signal path. It is simply not practical or convenient to indicate a list of VST's in the FX Chain label. A basic VST holder that expanded and contracted to the number of VST's in it would be a perfect solution and really streamline things in the ProChannel.

Another gross generalization much like the start of your msg 50. It is clear there is no need to have FX chains open when few plug-ins are in the chain. The FX Chain label can contain enough information to describe its contents. In the case where you are deciding how to populate a chain, I would suggest real estate is not an issue at that time. Your focus is on the chain and not the PC module above or below it (oh wait, you don't use PC modules). In the case where "5 to 10" plug-ins are in a chain there is no reason to have them collapsed. There is no reason to continue mentioning fully populated FX chains. There is no problem with them. At least not one mentioned so far.

 
I don't see what's a "gross generalization." The idea that some people like to have their signal path instantly visible at a glance without anything being hidden is hardly radical. And no, I don't like the idea of having to manually type a label for an FX Chain when I just want to use one or two VST's in it. Firstly, that is a giant PITA, and secondly, I'd have to redo it every time I swap out one VST for another (which I do a lot). 
 
So let's review:
1) It's nothing out of the ordinary to end up with wasted vertical space caused by FX Chains with only one or two effects in them. Here's a typical scenario I face all the time: 
 

 
That wasted space wouldn't happen if we had a way to simply drag a VST onto the ProChannel and have it take up no more space than the line height of the plugin name. 
 
2) Collapsing the FX Chains in the above example would regain the screen estate, but means you have to expand the FX chains to see what was in them. When working at the speed of creative thought, often haphazardly as many people do, clicking to expand and close all the time is a PITA and completely unnecessary when there are clearly better options. Of course you can leave them expanded, but then you find yourself having to scroll up and down to see the whole signal path, which of course wouldn't be necessary if there was a better solution than FX Chains. 
 
Note that collapsing a dedicated PC Module like the Quadcurve is not the same as collapsing an FX Chain. In the former case, clicking once to expand reveals the module's controls. In the latter case, two clicks are needed to access the controls. Once to expand the module and another to open the plugin. Also, the dedicated PC modules are already labeled, whereas using collapsed FX Chains would necessitate the manual labeling of the module (over and over again if like me you experiment a lot with different signal paths and plugins). That's tedious and again, unnecessary. 
 
I really have no idea why you're so opposed to such a simple improvement to the ProChannel, to the point where you're willing to readily dismiss another person's style of working, and to grossly misrepresent things they've said (to the point of lying). For example, this:
 

scook(oh wait, you don't use PC modules)

 
Why even bother saying something that's so clearly untrue? I said I don't use many of them, not that I don't use them. 
 
 
 
 

sharke
 
2) Collapsing the FX Chains in the above example would regain the screen estate, but means you have to expand the FX chains to see what was in them.

This is not true. The label can contain information about the chain's content.
 

sharke
I really have no idea why you're so opposed to such a simple improvement to the ProChannel, to the point where you're willing to readily dismiss another person's style of working, and to grossly misrepresent things they've said (to the point of lying). For example, this:
 

scook(oh wait, you don't use PC modules)

 
Why even bother saying something that's so clearly untrue? I said I don't use many of them, not that I don't use them.

I did nothing of the sort. I was suggesting a way to deal with the real estate issue in the case of FX Chains with a single plug-in using the existing architecture and can only go by what you post such as

sharke
Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

 

I just want to open up the PC and have whatever VST I want in there with the controls visible (if I want them to be)

I use the ProChannel for I believe what was its intended purpose--a mixer channel strip with mostly set-and-forget parameters, but which can be tweaked when necessary. I use the FX Rack for the "creative" plug-ins that need ongoing adjustments, and where the plug-in's GUI can open up into whatever size window its developers thought was necessary.
 
So given how I work, I have no need to make the PC more complicated. If future modules are to be developed, I'd want them to be along the same "set and forget" type of philosophy (like the Channel Tools PC module I made, or utilities like the Panipulator).
 
Differentiating between "utilitarian" and "creative" processor functionality, then putting each into its own "basket," makes sense to me.

scook

sharke
 
2) Collapsing the FX Chains in the above example would regain the screen estate, but means you have to expand the FX chains to see what was in them.

This is not true. The label can contain information about the chain's content.

 
Yet how many people would be happy with the idea of having to type the name of a plugin into a label field, and changing it every time they made a plugin substitution. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to hit the keyboard to label a plugin manually. 
 

scook

sharke
I really have no idea why you're so opposed to such a simple improvement to the ProChannel, to the point where you're willing to readily dismiss another person's style of working, and to grossly misrepresent things they've said (to the point of lying). For example, this:
 

scook(oh wait, you don't use PC modules)

 
Why even bother saying something that's so clearly untrue? I said I don't use many of them, not that I don't use them.

I did nothing of the sort. I was suggesting a way to deal with the real estate issue in the case of FX Chains with a single plug-in using the existing architecture and can only go by what you post such as

sharke
Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

 

 
And I explained why your "solution," to collapse an FX Chain and manually update its label field to reflect its contents, whilst having to expand it every time you wanted to open the plugin, is significantly less convenient (and messier) than being able to simply drag a plugin into the ProChannel and have it sit there taking up no more height than its label. 
 
And if you would like to "go by what I post," then I would suggest not dishonestly interpreting this:
 

Tbh I don't use a lot of the dedicated PC modules, except maybe the VKFX ones and of course the Quadcurve EQ.

 
as this: 
 

you don't use PC modules

 
 
 

Anderton
I use the ProChannel for I believe what was its intended purpose--a mixer channel strip with mostly set-and-forget parameters, but which can be tweaked when necessary. I use the FX Rack for the "creative" plug-ins that need ongoing adjustments, and where the plug-in's GUI can open up into whatever size window its developers thought was necessary.
 
So given the way I work, I have no need to make the PC more complicated. If future modules are to be developed, I'd want them to be along the same "set and forget" type of philosophy (like the Channel Tools PC module I made, or utilities like the Panipulator).
 
Differentiating between "utilitarian" and "creative" processor functionality, then putting each into its own "basket," makes sense to me.

I believe the "intended purpose" of the ProChannel was to emulate the layout of an analog console. But really, when you strip away the marketing blurb and concentrate on what it actually is, it's nothing more than a processing chain. Whether or not you "set and forget" would pretty much depend on how you approach mixing. Some people set and forget - others tweak endlessly, balancing levels and frequencies in many different ways across the course of a mix. I, and I suspect many others, use it for both utilitarian and creative purposes, incorporating both EQ and compression as well as more drastic tone shaping tools into the chain. Since the order of an effects chain matters greatly, I prefer to have complete control over that and as a result I wouldn't be interested in separating two kinds of effect into ProChannels and FX Bins. And after all, Cakewalk themselves state in their documentation that the ProChannel "is designed to make it fast and easy to enhance any track or bus."
 
Giving us a way of inserting single VST effects into their own slot without having to use an FX Chain module would be making the PC simpler, not more complicated. 
 
Differentiating between utilitarian and creative processor functionality is a matter of user choice, not something which is "baked in" to the functionality and intent of the ProChannel. 

sharke
Yet how many people would be happy with the idea of having to type the name of a plugin into a label field, and changing it every time they made a plugin substitution. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to hit the keyboard to label a plugin manually.

You could work that way if you choose. Much like everything you described so far, it is your choice. How others work is anyone's guess. The current design provides a mechanism for saving the labels. Change the label once, save a preset, use the preset from then on. I suspect in some cases generic labels could used since it is unlikely one would swap out a compressor for a delay.

There is a very simple way to instantly switch between collapsed Fx chains & fully expanded ones - just set it up in a different screenset.
1 click is all it takes to go from
 

 
To
 

scook

sharke
Yet how many people would be happy with the idea of having to type the name of a plugin into a label field, and changing it every time they made a plugin substitution. There is absolutely no reason why I should have to hit the keyboard to label a plugin manually.

You could work that way if you choose. Much like everything you described so far, it is your choice. How others work is anyone's guess. The current design provides a mechanism for saving the labels. Change the label once, save a preset, use the preset from then on. I suspect in some cases generic labels could used since it is unlikely one would swap out a compressor for a delay.

I think the salient point here, is that it is indeed a person's choice how they work. But also salient, is the point that wrapping up a single VST in a large module which must then be collapsed and manually labeled unless you want it to waste 6 times the height of a single plugin is not convenient and is never going to win much in the way of popularity. People will do it because they have to, not because it has any benefits over not using an FX Chain. I don't work with "presets" of effects chains, I start each track's processing from scratch, and I'm sure many other people do too. Being able to drag a single VST into the ProChannel without having to use an FX Chain is a very simple, no-brainer kind of idea which would greatly improve the functionality and convenience of the PC. 
 

it is unlikely one would swap out a compressor for a delay.

 
Why so? I often rethink entire processing chains. I might well move a compressor earlier or in the chain (to another FX Chain if another PC module like the Quadcurve is in the way) and decide to add a delay in its place. Or a phaser, or a flanger. Processing chains are not just about EQ'ing and compressing and other "tidying up," they often incorporate radical sound shaping as well. Sometimes, I like to use multiple compressors at different points in the chain, dividing the compression up into multiple smaller pieces at opportune points in the path instead of having one compressor do all the work at one single point. Sometimes "sound shaping" might involve using radical sounding plugins to add chaos, followed by utilitarian plugins to "tame" the result. And moving around their order often creates very different sounds, something I like to experiment with. Happy accidents are welcome. When you work like this, it's vital to be able to see everything in the path right in front of you and be able to rearrange and swap out stuff at the speed of thought.