Going back to the original question; I don't see how any member can know what CW is doing with the PC. I don't recall before it came out with X1 any hint about it. It seems to me that this is way CW works. Rarely do they announce work on upcoming things though sometimes they do.  

prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

sharke
Differentiating between utilitarian and creative processor functionality is a matter of user choice...

 
That's why I said it "makes sense to me," and I explained why. I'm just not into endless ProChannel tweaking. I get the sound I want, collapse the PC, and if I need to get into heavy processor tweaking, move on to the FX Rack processors (and often open their GUIs in a separate window). 
 

...not something which is "baked in" to the functionality and intent of the ProChannel. 

I was told the ProChannel's intent when X1 was being developed so I know whereof I speak, and yes, the workflow was baked in. It took several re-writes to the original concept to add more flexibility over the evolution of the X-series and get the PC where it is today compared to when it was introduced. 
 
I was careful to frame what I said in subjective terms. I don't claim that my workflow is universal, but I did offer what I had hoped would be useful insights on how to get the most out of the program the way it exists today. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has to finish a project (in my case, a 30-second radio commercial) so it's in someone's inbox tomorrow morning.
 

SergeQ
prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

I agree. The way I always explained it in seminars was that the ProChannel allowed users to create their own console architecture. I felt this was a definite improvement over other DAWs, where the traditional console customizing options were simply to show or hide sections of the console. 

SergeQ
prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

That's not strictly true - while there are some console-modeled modules in there (specifically, the console emulation module and the Quadcurve), that does not mean that the purpose of the ProChannel is to emulate the sound of a console. What console do you know that has in-built chorus, phasing or delay (there are ProChannel modules for each). Inserting your own VST's was obviously intended, otherwise there wouldn't be FX Chain modules. The ProChannel is essentially a processing chain, and even if you only use your own VST's there are significant advantages to using it over the FX Bins which are small and cramped. 

sharke
I think the salient point here, is that it is indeed a person's choice how they work.

If you choose to make it hard on yourself, so be it. All anyone can do is suggest how to use the existing software. I suppose your other options are: file a feature request and hope for the future, develop a different workflow or try other software.
 

sharke

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

Why so? I often rethink entire processing chains.

Let's put that back in context. I was posting about the label describing the plug-in in the FX chain. If I have an FX chain labeled COMPRESSOR it is unlikely the plug-in in the container is a delay.
 
 
Just like this thread, it appears to me you enjoy the hard road. I believe there is an easier way but the choice is yours.

John
Going back to the original question; I don't see how any member can know what CW is doing with the PC. I don't recall before it came out with X1 any hint about it. It seems to me that this is way CW works. Rarely do they announce work on upcoming things though sometimes they do.  

Yes and I do not recall any of the PC manufacturers ever commenting about their plans for the PC either. The topic is really not appropriate for this forum and most of the posts have nothing to with the topic. As I mentioned before, there is an area better suited for suggesting changes to the software.

Anderton

sharke
Differentiating between utilitarian and creative processor functionality is a matter of user choice...

 
That's why I said it "makes sense to me," and I explained why. I'm just not into endless ProChannel tweaking. I get the sound I want, collapse the PC, and if I need to get into heavy processor tweaking, move on to the FX Rack processors (and often open their GUIs in a separate window). 

 
But surely, in the context of a discussion about what would or wouldn't make the ProChannel easier and more convenient to use, we should be focused on the full spectrum of utility, not on how some people restrict its use. I think a lot of how people view the ProChannel is based upon their history with Sonar. I notice this on the forums sometimes. You have people who had used Sonar for years before the ProChannel was introduced, and to a lot of them, the PC is nothing more than a "gimmick" that they can't imagine using over the FX Bins. Whereas for people like me who bought into Sonar at the time the ProChannel was introduced and who don't know any other Sonar, the ProChannel is quite obviously a more powerful and flexible version of the FX Bin - it has dedicated modules some of which are useful, it allows your own effects, and you have a lot more room to work than the tiny FX Bins. I think if you did a survey you'd find a lot of people (especially newer users) who see the ProChannel as their one and only effect chain, ignoring the FX Bins. Not everyone of course, but a significant amount. 
 
 

Anderton

...not something which is "baked in" to the functionality and intent of the ProChannel. 

I was told the ProChannel's intent when X1 was being developed so I know whereof I speak, and yes, the workflow was baked in. It took several re-writes to the original concept to add more flexibility over the evolution of the X-series and get the PC where it is today compared to when it was introduced. 
 
I was careful to frame what I said in subjective terms. I don't claim that my workflow is universal, but I did offer what I had hoped would be useful insights on how to get the most out of the program the way it exists today. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has to finish a project (in my case, a 30-second radio commercial) so it's in someone's inbox tomorrow morning.

So regardless of its original intent, the fact that it had several re-writes to add flexibility suggests that the original intent is somewhat irrelevant in considering what the ProChannel and its intent actually is now. I think we're also way past the stage in which we can hope for plugin manufacturers to be developing dedicated ProChannel modules, and it's quite clear Cakewalk aren't going to be churning them out on a regular basis. So we have to start looking upon the ProChannel not as a place for dedicated modules and not as a place to encourage a "console style" workflow but as a sort of FX Bin-on-steroids. 
 
I don't doubt that your workflow is common, however I believe my workflow is common too, especially among people who work with electronic styles and who incorporate heavy sound shaping experiments into their music. I think the concept of promoting a "console workflow" is problematic in marketing terms, because it only really makes sense to those people who actually have experience with a real console. For many users, especially the younger ones, it makes no sense. 

scook

sharke
I think the salient point here, is that it is indeed a person's choice how they work.

If you choose to make it hard on yourself, so be it. All anyone can do is suggest how to use the existing software. I suppose your other options are: file a feature request and hope for the future, develop a different workflow or try other software.

 
The original post was about the possibility of other ProChannel modules being developed, it wasn't a feature request. This whole discussion on FX Chains just developed naturally as a spin off from the original OP, which of course happens all the time. 
 

scook

sharke

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

Why so? I often rethink entire processing chains.

Let's put that back in context. I was posting about the label describing the plug-in in the FX chain. If I have an FX chain labeled COMPRESSOR it is unlikely the plug-in in the container is a delay.

 
Regardless, that does not change the fact that to get to the point where you have that plugin sitting there and labeled, you have to first insert an FX Chain, then insert the VST, then label the FX Chain, then collapse it. Versus simply dragging the VST onto the ProChannel and have it sit there, fully visible and clickable all the time. 
 

scook
Just like this thread, it appears to me you enjoy the hard road. I believe there is an easier way but the choice is yours.

I don't enjoy the hard road at all - indeed it was you who took some simple arguments regarding the advantages of a simpler way to add VST plugins to a ProChannel and picked them apart to the point of absurdity. You even made a half hearted attempt to expose my arguments as contradictory, which of course they weren't. And it hardly seems necessary to point out, once again, that what I am describing is an easier way than using FX Chains. 
 
 

Sounds to me like the Summer doldrums are upon us and the kids are getting restless. When will we get there??? I DON'T want sprinkles on mine!
 
So many issues, so little time to carp. I really feel the pain, but I've come to the realization that nobody with the ability to affect change really gives a toss. Like most things I've seen in the last couple years, the Pro Channel was something that came out to great fanfare, wasn't fully developed, and then left behind so new, shiny things could be invented.
 
I wouldn't actually care, but lately they seem to making changes just so they will have changes to announce each month. There's not usually a mention of why, or how one change relates to a bigger picture. I'd like to think I'm wrong but there's no way to tell. 
 
With regard to this one issue, I put all VST's in the effects bin and use the PC for the EQ. Use the options in whatever way you feel comfortable, but don't expect Cake to revisit the issue.