Clone [klohn]
 
noun -  a person or thing that duplicates and imitates another in appearance, function, performance, or style

Hey Guys,
 
I think the issue is that the clone does not go deep enough. I believe the controls are linked because both SITs are pointed to the same insrtument plugin instance after the cloning. This is not desireable behaviour for a clone. You would expect 2 instrument plugin instances running in the synth rack when you are done. The instrument defnitely should get cloned as well. I even tried making SITs where the instrument plugin was in the effect bin of the audio track before merging them and after the clone there was a new version of the plugin but midi on the clone was pointed to the original instance.
 
SITs are workable but have their quirks.  FYI I just use them for sketching out new ideas... once I get serious in a project I inevitably split them.
 
George

TimV
Are the original and clone sharing the same MIDI channel?  If so, maybe having different MIDI channels would unlink them.

The clone is much deeper than that. All the mix controls are linked too.

Yeah I found after the clone if you create a new instrument instance break up the new SIT into audio and midi and point to new plugin instance it seems to behaive after that.

I gotta admit, I'm totally cornfused reading this. LOL! In my experience, if I clone one of these, everything should be linked because it is is linking to the same softsynth. If I change the SS in one of them, it breaks the link on my end and that's how I'd expect it to behave...unless I'm totally missing something else? Help! lol :)
 
I don't like SIT's though they are cool for quickie ideas. I remember using one and I kept having to reload a sample bank every time I loaded up a project for the first time. It was driving me absolutely nuts and still happens to this day at times. The samples sound distorted, buzzy, clipped, like a razor blade is cutting them to shreds. It seems to be an NI thing. (which is where most of my issues come from) Ed (Bapu) read a post of mine where I was complaining about this. Everyone else was sort of stumped as to how/why this was happening to me. As soon as Ed saw it he said "get rid of the instrument track, Danny. They have done weird things to my projects in the past."
 
As soon as I did and switched back to the old way (one midi, one audio) all my problems were gone. So I don't use them anymore.
 
-Danny

Hi Danny,

I think the confusion was that I expected everything about a SIT to be cloned, just like everything about an audio track is cloned (including the plugins). For an instrument track, this would mean cloning the synth as well.

I mean let's say you have a normal split MIDI/audio pair connected to a synth. If you clone the audio track, you're going to have two audio tracks connected to the same synth. Now either you want this (let's say you're going to pan them left and right and EQ them differently or delay one side for instance), or you're looking to create a whole new clone of that synth with its associated audio and MIDI tracks. If the latter, then surely the most convenient method would be to package them as a SIT and then clone it, and then split both of the resultant SIT's into their constituent parts.

But that's not how cloning SIT's works in Sonar apparently. Perhaps the bottom line is, there should be a convenient method of cloning the synth itself.

Danny Danzi
I gotta admit, I'm totally cornfused reading this. LOL! In my experience, if I clone one of these, everything should be linked because it is is linking to the same softsynth. If I change the SS in one of them, it breaks the link on my end and that's how I'd expect it to behave...unless I'm totally missing something else? Help! lol :)
 
I don't like SIT's though they are cool for quickie ideas. I remember using one and I kept having to reload a sample bank every time I loaded up a project for the first time. It was driving me absolutely nuts and still happens to this day at times. The samples sound distorted, buzzy, clipped, like a razor blade is cutting them to shreds. It seems to be an NI thing. (which is where most of my issues come from) Ed (Bapu) read a post of mine where I was complaining about this. Everyone else was sort of stumped as to how/why this was happening to me. As soon as Ed saw it he said "get rid of the instrument track, Danny. They have done weird things to my projects in the past."
 
As soon as I did and switched back to the old way (one midi, one audio) all my problems were gone. So I don't use them anymore.
 
-Danny

Like you, Danny,  I do find SITs useful for "Quickie ideas", but I split them as soon as that idea turns into a song/ track.  I used to use them all the time, but when I started having  issues with them, went back to the "old way" of separate MIDI and audio tracks.
 
It was John's response that summed it up for me..  SITs are just that: simple.  They are great for jotting down an idea, but should be split when you decide that the idea is a "keep-er".
 
I have now returned to using SITs when I am writing etc., but split them as soon as I realise that I will keep the idea.
 
 

Funny how experiences can differ...   I use SITs more often than the traditional split design, right up to project completion.  For my uses they simply work, with the side benefit of taking up less screen real estate.  I rarely ever need to split an existing SIT, and if I do, it's usually just to access multiple outs.   Definitely a case of YMMV. 
 

@stevec - I used to use SITs like you all the time.  The only issue I had with them was that the input gain knob doesn't seem to work.  Most of my soft synths seem to output too hot, so being able to reduce the input gain is pretty important to me.
 
As you said, though, YMMV.

Is there any DAW that doesn't have SIT's these days? Pro Tools has them, Reaper has them...can't speak for Cubase but I'm presuming they have them too. There's no reason why they should be problematic or work in unexpected ways, other than bad design and/or bugs.