scook

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.

Yet there is currently a big 'ole thread, started by Craig, asking "what would make DAW's easier to use?" and absolutely chock full of suggestions and feature requests. I don't see any forum hosts complaining that it is "not appropriate for this forum" or that it would be better suited to another forum. 

sharke
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. 

But it did not have to do so. The feature request could have been placed in the appropriate area and the discussion about the request could have happened there. There is always a possibility of new ProChannel modules being developed. To date the development has been slow. I was surprised when Boz Digital released their PC plug-ins.
 

sharke
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. 

Inserting an FX chain preset is no more work than inserted a VST. The work to needed to create an FX Chain preset is a one-time thing.
 

sharke
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.

You must, no one is forcing you to use anything or do anything. It is your choice. No one here can provide the solution you are seeking. All I did was suggest some ways that may work using the existing architecture and point you to the appropriate area to make a feature request.

Surely the best possible/clearest feature requests come out of discussion?

Absolutely and is probably one reason why the Ideas area permits discussion. It also allows users to vote on ideas unlike this area.

I haven't read all 3 pages, so sorry if this has been mentioned. I like to use PC for VST plugs, because the PC doesn't get "frozen" when you freeze a track.

I like to freeze my guitar tracks, with the (CPU killer, after too many instances) amp sim and speaker sim - then use PC for any eq, compressor or any other FX.

Just another use for PC ;-)

So I'd hate to see it go...

scook

sharke
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. 

But it did not have to do so. The feature request could have been placed in the appropriate area and the discussion about the request could have happened there. There is always a possibility of new ProChannel modules being developed. To date the development has been slow. I was surprised when Boz Digital released their PC plug-ins.
 

sharke
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. 

Inserting an FX chain preset is no more work than inserted a VST. The work to needed to create an FX Chain preset is a one-time thing.
 

sharke
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.

You must, no one is forcing you to use anything or do anything. It is your choice. No one here can provide the solution you are seeking. All I did was suggest some ways that may work using the existing architecture and point you to the appropriate area to make a feature request.

Like I said, it wasn't a feature request. It was just the natural progression of a discussion - in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of threads around here go off track at times. Just look at the mammoth one about the staff view. It's not a huge problem. 
 
FX Chain presets are great, for those times when you want to use a preset. I never use effect chain presets and have no use for them. 
 
Also, just to clarify, I am not here "looking for a solution" or making an official feature request. It was just a remark in a discussion. You then set about furiously trying to pick it apart, mainly on the basis that your workflow is different to mine. In the process you also attempted to discredit me as "contradictory"  in a dishonest way which was intended to make it look as though I was talking through my hat. 

sharke
FX Chain presets are great, for those times when you want to use a preset. I never use effect chain presets and have no use for them. 

And here lies part of the problem. This could be part of a solution.
 

sharke
Also, just to clarify, I am not here "looking for a solution" or making an official feature request. It was just a remark in a discussion.

And my comments were suggestions based on the existing architecture. I now understand you are looking for help or expect anything to come of this. It has all been a lot of talk.

scook

sharke
FX Chain presets are great, for those times when you want to use a preset. I never use effect chain presets and have no use for them. 

And here lies part of the problem. This could be part of a solution.

 
Part of the problem is that I "don't use presets"? Erm.....ok then....
 
For the last time - I do not find signal chain presets to be helpful in my workflow or approach to mixing. They just aren't. I've tried doing things with presets. Didn't work out for me. 
 

scook

sharke
Also, just to clarify, I am not here "looking for a solution" or making an official feature request. It was just a remark in a discussion.

And my comments were suggestions based on the existing architecture. I now understand you are looking for help or expect anything to come of this. It has all been a lot of talk.

 
That's generally what a discussion is, yes. 

sharke
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.

 
You said "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." 
 
The intent now remains the same; however, it has been modified over the years in response to user requests. I was simply correcting you because contrary to your contention, a particular intent and function was indeed baked into the ProChannel. The original design of anything often influences the degree to which it can be changed or adapted to other uses. 
 
As to whether someone was acclimated to using the PC or not, the reality for me is I didn't use the console much previous to the X series because I found it insufficiently flexible. The FX Bin was a much better option. When the PC came along, the console became viable for me and also, streamlined my use of the FX Rack because I could host my "bread and butter" modules in the PC.
 
The ProChannel has met the goals that Cakewalk intended for it to have. With hindsight, you are welcome to think those goals weren't ambitious enough. But at this point, it was designed for a specific functionality and has probably gone as far as it can based on the original design and intention. To re-do the PC from the ground up to serve a different purpose would likely be less important to people than something like Ripple Editing or a mastering-quality limiter, but of course, I have no way of knowing that.

sharke
Yet there is currently a big 'ole thread, started by Craig, asking "what would make DAW's easier to use?" and absolutely chock full of suggestions and feature requests. I don't see any forum hosts complaining that it is "not appropriate for this forum" or that it would be better suited to another forum. 

Well, it wasn't really appropriate for this forum. However, this was an appropriate place to ask a general question about DAWs because most users here are quite knowledgeable. There is no other forum that would be more appropriate because it was not about problems, specific feature requests, hardware, etc.