Well... More like nice idea if you could pull it off and make it actually work. But that'd be one heck of a trick I think.

JohanSebatianGremlin
Well... More like nice idea if you could pull it off and make it actually work. But that'd be one heck of a trick I think.

Roland has an auto set function for their interfaces. They showed it years ago while owning Cakewalk...

JohanSebatianGremlin

Keni
Not trying to be facetious.. but a Virtual Engineer plugin is an idea I've been thinking about.
I'm supplying PA/recording services for a festival this weekend and must rely on a friend who is not an engineer to mix when i am performing (yeah, i get to do both at this gig)

How would that work?

I have some ideas on this.  None of this would match the skill of an expert sound engineer, but could provide some very acceptable results in many situations.
 
You are probably familiar with "Dugan-style" auto-mixers.  This is a simple algorithm for auto-balancing several microphones, especially in a panel discussion format.  It is crude, but effective for those limited situations.
 
I think it should be possible to develop a an algorithm that is like the Dugan, but allows operation on different parts of the spectrum.  Say for example, that there are 6 frequency ranges where we typically have to mix to get voices/instruments heard, e.g.:
0-60
60-200
200-600
600-2K
2K-5K
5K-20K
 
Imagine that for each of these 6 ranges, we would identify priorities for each track, maybe on a 1-10 scale.  The priority would identify which tracks were the most important to hear in that frequency range.  For example, in 60-200 maybe we call the kick drum a 9, bass guitar a 7, bari sax and bass trombone both are 6 and so on.
 
In the 600-2K range, the female vocal is a 10, the background vocals are 7s. Guitar is 7.5. Low strings are 4, cymbals are 3, and so on.
 
It would be the job of the DAW to translate those priorities into dynamic EQs, automation, or whatever to cause the instruments to balance in each frequency band consistent with the priorities.
 
And of course, we'd want those priorities to be changeable through automation, and the priorities might be different in the bridge section of a song.
 
If this could be done as a "macro process" (i.e. with the results of the algorithm being implemented as automation curves or settings on standard effects processors, then it would be cool to be able to freeze the automix actions, so that we could then go in and make further refinements by hand.

I'd say very simply..... GET RID OF or minimize the use of ICONS, seriously - words have instant meaning - Icons require a translation through a visual que that doubles the processing necessary to do a very simple task. The musical DAW probably has programs from 10 - 20 different manufacturers and there's no standard base of these visual cues. That being said keeping track of supporting file locations for 10 - 20 programs is a nightmare typically. Eulas and licensing over a long period of time requires constant maintenance of passwords, email accounts, hardware locks  etc etc etc. Sonar in particular needs to better isolate the work requirements of the console view and track view. Better audio interface and VST IO naming would be more helpful.

I'd like to add :----This thread is filled with rants - mine included, but I've been using Cakewalk for a very long time---DOS 3.0 . I've recently moved on as a long time user of Sonar 5  to the current Sonar Professional and I'd like to  commend Cakewalk Twelvetone systems for an awesome dedication to long time backwards compatibility. I have midi based projects that are more than 20 years old that I can bring up and use with the current version. That is very rare in this industry and I think it deserves an honorable mention. I haven't updated in 10 years and the portability from sonar Version 5 projects to the current is amazingly quick and consistent. I have a number of major competing DAWs on my system and Sonar smokes them all as the most well rounded full featured product.

There are some great comments here many of which I agree with.
 
Thinking about my personal experience many of the challenges that I have have are not with the recording or mixing tasks that I am trying to perform, although I know that I still have a lot to learn, but with the management of the ridiculous number of resources that I have available to me. 
 
Take a simple example like selecting a Rhodes sound for a track, I have five hardware modules and multiple VSTs from which I can source the sound that I want but the process requires me to use multiple different interfaces to search for the sound. What I would love is a way to search all of the available sounds from all of the installed VSTs and my Master.ins and allow me to audition and favourite within the list and when I find a sound I want to then be able to drag it into the project and set up the tracks I need to access that sound.
 
If there is a way of doing this I have missed it.
 
Something else I personally would find useful  would be the ability to add some personal notes to the specific item like Hardware Definitions, VSTs and Samples. The software equivalent of the "Post It".
 
I appreciate that there would be some complexity here given that we all have different setups and those setups change as we add or remove hardware and install, uninstall or upgrade software. It would also involve a high level of cooperation with other developers. For me though the challenge is less about how I create a midi track or add a compressor to a buss its much more about simplifying the process of selecting from the vast array of choice that I have.
 
I have a personal theory that The Beatles would not finish Sergeant Peppers if they recorded it today and that the limited choices they, and George Martin, had helped rather than limited the creative process.
 
Sadly my response to the challenges is often one that perpetuates the problem in that I add to my choices. Back to the Rhodes example, even though I know that based on all of the sounds available to me across hardware and VSTs, I have literally hundreds of really good Rhodes sounds, and that getting the right one is just a matter of auditioning them selecting one and possibly doing a little editing, I'm considering the Lounge Piano upgrade in the vain hope that it will provide a single point of reference for Rhodes sounds!
 
From a personal perspective most of my challenges are about Studio Management rather than Recording Management and Sonar is basically the Studio that I am trying to manage because most of what I use is hosted within Sonar. At the last start up Sonar reported I have 500 VSTs and it is the management of these on other resources that seems to add the most complexity to anything that I do.

Thoughtful comments all ...  I am a computer professional by occupation and I find Sonar as complex a piece of software to master as anything I use at work. I also recall my first attempts at using a DAW. I gave up on the first one I tried but ended up with Cakewalk 9 Pro Audio and have been using Cakewalk ever since. I would offer these suggestions.  

• Along the lines of project templates, start with a set up matching your basic use of the DAW. Myself, for instance, I mostly record my acoustic and electric stringed instruments, and vocals. As I've gotten further along, I've added some midi drums, bass, and a few keyboard tracks to augment my acoustic sound. Otherwise. I never use a lot of the synths and advanced midi stuff. So, any way you can hide things that don't fit a particular mode of use, the better. 
• The buy-at-your level suggestion prompted me to think -- I learn by taking a simple task I want to accomplish (e.g. record a guitar and a vocal track) and dig into the software help just enough to figure out what I want to do, not by going through the tutorials step by step. What would really be cool for someone whose learning is task based, would be to have feature groups, where you could start with a set of controls for achieving something simple, then as you discover the need for the more advanced features, enable those or step up to the next level of exposed features and controls. In Sonar, you might have a novice mode where most of the features are hidden except what it takes to record and mix a few tracks of audio with a metronome included, limit the number of effects. presets, etc. Then as ones expertise increases, expose more features, plugins, etc. In Sonar, it would be just a more task-based combination of things like task bar customizations, and project templates tied together in sort of a super-set geared toward one's level of use. 
• Every feature, be it a clip to edit, a plug-in, a task bar module, should have some place to click on it and link to the help topic. My experience with Sonar is you have to get out of the workflow to get help, especially with the plug-ins. So, first, put the help close to the task at hand. Then, if there are more online aids such as video clips or blog posts, those should be linked in the help. So, lets say, I am editing a track and switch my track editing to work with transient markers. I don't know how that works. Instead of having to Easter-egg through the help system, there might be a region in the top-right corner of the track, or a tiny rectangle, whatever, that if I click on that, I get directed to the help topic. Then if there is a video online on Cake TV, the link is in the help topic. That way, instead of leaving the workflow, opening the help and trying to find the topic, or worse yet, windowing out to a browser and going an poking around on Cakewalk's site for half an hour, I could just keep drilling down into the helps available and then close back out to where I was in the project when I got curious. 

kellyg
Thoughtful comments all ...  I am a computer professional by occupation and I find Sonar as complex a piece of software to master as anything I use at work. I also recall my first attempts at using a DAW. I gave up on the first one I tried but ended up with Cakewalk 9 Pro Audio and have been using Cakewalk ever since. I would offer these suggestions.  

• Along the lines of project templates, start with a set up matching your basic use of the DAW. Myself, for instance, I mostly record my acoustic and electric stringed instruments, and vocals. As I've gotten further along, I've added some midi drums, bass, and a few keyboard tracks to augment my acoustic sound. Otherwise. I never use a lot of the synths and advanced midi stuff. So, any way you can hide things that don't fit a particular mode of use, the better. 
• The buy-at-your level suggestion prompted me to think -- I learn by taking a simple task I want to accomplish (e.g. record a guitar and a vocal track) and dig into the software help just enough to figure out what I want to do, not by going through the tutorials step by step. What would really be cool for someone whose learning is task based, would be to have feature groups, where you could start with a set of controls for achieving something simple, then as you discover the need for the more advanced features, enable those or step up to the next level of exposed features and controls. In Sonar, you might have a novice mode where most of the features are hidden except what it takes to record and mix a few tracks of audio with a metronome included, limit the number of effects. presets, etc. Then as ones expertise increases, expose more features, plugins, etc. In Sonar, it would be just a more task-based combination of things like task bar customizations, and project templates tied together in sort of a super-set geared toward one's level of use. 
• Every feature, be it a clip to edit, a plug-in, a task bar module, should have some place to click on it and link to the help topic. My experience with Sonar is you have to get out of the workflow to get help, especially with the plug-ins. So, first, put the help close to the task at hand. Then, if there are more online aids such as video clips or blog posts, those should be linked in the help. So, lets say, I am editing a track and switch my track editing to work with transient markers. I don't know how that works. Instead of having to Easter-egg through the help system, there might be a region in the top-right corner of the track, or a tiny rectangle, whatever, that if I click on that, I get directed to the help topic. Then if there is a video online on Cake TV, the link is in the help topic. That way, instead of leaving the workflow, opening the help and trying to find the topic, or worse yet, windowing out to a browser and going an poking around on Cakewalk's site for half an hour, I could just keep drilling down into the helps available and then close back out to where I was in the project when I got curious. 

Just pressing F1 in any window or screen widget will open the appropriate Help file for that item. It's a system that is being constantly refined. At present Eli items open automatically in the Browser.

anydmusic
For me though the challenge is less about how I create a midi track or add a compressor to a buss its much more about simplifying the process of selecting from the vast array of choice that I have.
<snip>
At the last start up Sonar reported I have 500 VSTs and it is the management of these on other resources that seems to add the most complexity to anything that I do.

Create custom plugin lists using Sonar's plugin manager that only contain the ones you want to use is one way to go. Takes time to do but only needs doing once on a big scale then a bit of editing as you find new plugins you prefer tpo the ones you usually use.

And/or uninstall plugins you don't like or never use.

Having hundreds of plugins or many synths with hundreds of presets each isn't compulsory :-) Nor is using any of the presets - most non-synth plugins usually need configuring to work with your audio rather than the audio the preset-creator had when they created the preset anyway. And that's assuming they even ran any audio through the plugin rather than just dialing in a generic "bass guitar compression" or whatever.

You're right about the risks of drowning in complexity, having too much choice and too many options so nothing gets finished. My personal way round that is one reason why I prefer hardware synths, and often analogue ones with no ability to store presets at all. It removes some of the temptation to endlessly adjust stuff. It's an old-fashioned way of working where once something's been tracked the decision becomes either to keep it or decide at some point it's not needed after all or only bits of it are.

I then get hung up on other options and it still takes ages to finish anything :-) As a friend of mine puts it, "recording is like decorating a house, it's never finished, you just decide to stop at some point". Having a deadline to meet can help with that, as did the cost of paying for studio time by the hour in the days the only way to make a good quality recording was to hire an expensive studio.

Another approach is to deliberately restrict what plugins you use and get to know a few of them really well rather than using lots and hoping to find a plugin and preset that sounds OK.

tlw
Create custom plugin lists using Sonar's plugin manager that only contain the ones you want to use is one way to go. Takes time...

In the spirit of making things easier, there ought to be a little button on EVERY plug-in's window (like the thumb tack button) that causes the plug-in to be disabled from the menus and bypassed when scanning.  This would need a confirmation box so that we wouldn't wipe something out by accident.  If it is disabled rather than being removed altogether, it wold be easy to re-enable it later if I changed my mind about its usefulness.
 
The idea here is that it is likely you will have the VST window open at the point you decide this really isn't something you want to see again.  One click (and a second click to confirm) and it is done.