I think this has been my first serious "are you effing kidding me" moment with Mixbus  
 
I mean in Sonar I don't have to worry about inserting a stereo EQ plugin like Passive EQ onto a mono track. It just handles it. Mixbus? I have to open the "pin connection manager" and then mess about with some horrible L/R pin connection doobrie to get it to route the audio only to one side of the plugin, and then to top it all off I have some absurd looking squiggly pin connection lines in my FX chain on the strip. 
 
Why can't Mixbus just configure all of this automatically behind the scenes? If I want to convert a track to a stereo track then I will do that myself. This just seems like a major workflow bummer if you're going to be swapping out plugins all the time. 

You should have a mono or stereo option for the plugin itself in the plugin manager, but I agree. Things like this will keep Sonar as my first choice for tracking and editing.
I have still yet to figure out exactly how to use EZD2 or AD2 with multi channel out. It's a pain.

clintmartin
I have still yet to figure out exactly how to use EZD2 or AD2 with multi channel out. It's a pain.

I watched the video(s) on how to do it and it made me decide that when I track in SONAR I will export all the individual drum tracks for Mixbus. I rarely mix inside of AD2 or EZD2 (or BFD3 or Slate SSD4 etc.) anyway.
 
Back to the OP. Yup I feel that pain too James. It is kind of wonky. It's like a programmer designed it (which is probably true if if (s)he is/are a musician/engineer.
 
And to Clint, yes a mono version of the plug is kind of the answer but not always  there is no one size fits all in Mixbus it seems.

The other thing we have to (sort of remember) is the underlying architecture of Mixbus is based on Ardour and Harrison is choosing by default to conform to that behavior. That still does not make it better/right.
 
Maybe more people need to push the Ardour (open source) development team to understand this somewhat basic principal. 
 

I do like Mixbus (and Tracktion too) I've been playing around with both tonight.
Sonar is much more advanced, mature and elegant, but it's fun using different tools.

clintmartin
I have still yet to figure out exactly how to use EZD2 or AD2 with multi channel out. It's a pain.

 
EZDrummer is fairly straightforward - you can assign the output of each drum channel to one of 16 stereo outputs, but by default everything goes to the same external output so everything is summed all together that way.
 
AD2 is a little tougher to grok but basically each drum channel exposes a mono output externally, but uses a stereo signal internally (since each channel has a pan control), and the master bus is stereo.
 
Where EZDrummer falls flat is in its (lack of a?) notion of busses - many of its presets have Reverb, Comp, and EQ Controls and/or similarly named channels. I haven't grazed the manual, but I assume that Reverb and Comp, which also present as channels, are processed off an internal 'main' bus which all the drum instrument channels go to (which is not exposed to the user).  
 
The internal routing of AD2:

• There are two "FX" sends on each channel, plus a "Bus" send, for a total of three sends on each instrument channel.
• There is an insert FX chain individually available on every channel and bus, including the master bus.
• There are Room, OH, 'Bus'  and Master, which are presented in the bus section, which are stereo, and are also available externally as stereo channels.

• Room, OH, Bus, and Master all can send to the two FX busses.
• Room, OH, and Bus are summed post 'insert FX' to pre Master fader.
• The two FX busses can be summed pre or post Master 'insert FX', via a checkbox.

 
Either kit will work fine exported dry, excepting that EZDrummer has pannable stereo outputs for the instrument channels whereas AD2's are mono (but you can pan in Sonar instead). Both will allow you to tweak each drum instruments output level individually (via a special dialog) before it hits its channel, so you can still use more than one instrument (drum) per channel but still be able to fine tune individual levels.
 
I've found that, once I got my head around AD2's routing ( and it took awhile...) , I can do pretty good starting from one of it's built-in presets and tweaking within AD2, using its effects and inserts, from there. To recreate the same insert and bus chains in Sonar is do-able, but can be a chore.
 
My thinking is, if the drums are to be exported as a stem for use elsewhere, use the built-in mixers and work off of the presets, they're good starting places.
 
OTOH, if somebody else if going to mix the drums as audio tracks in some other DAW, then use the the multi-outs.
 
This is just a hobby for me, it's just me, so I'm fine with the internal mixers in these plugins.
 

bapu
The other thing we have to (sort of remember) is the underlying architecture of Mixbus is based on Ardour and Harrison is choosing by default to conform to that behavior. That still does not make it better/right.
 
Maybe more people need to push the Ardour (open source) development team to understand this somewhat basic principal. 
 

Yeah but I'm not sure exactly how much Harrison develop the underlying DAW themselves, given that it's open source. Because when you read their update blurb sometimes they say "we added this" or "we added that." Did they, or was it just an Ardour update?

clintmartin
You should have a mono or stereo option for the plugin itself in the plugin manager, but I agree. Things like this will keep Sonar as my first choice for tracking and editing.
I have still yet to figure out exactly how to use EZD2 or AD2 with multi channel out. It's a pain.

I have mono versions for my Waves plugins but little else. I use Native Instruments "Passive EQ" a lot, for example, and it's very much a stereo plugin with separate dials for L and R (but you can link them). There's no mono version. No problem in Sonar, just drop it in a mono track.

sharke

bapu
The other thing we have to (sort of remember) is the underlying architecture of Mixbus is based on Ardour and Harrison is choosing by default to conform to that behavior. That still does not make it better/right.
 
Maybe more people need to push the Ardour (open source) development team to understand this somewhat basic principal. 
 

Yeah but I'm not sure exactly how much Harrison develop the underlying DAW themselves, given that it's open source. Because when you read their update blurb sometimes they say "we added this" or "we added that." Did they, or was it just an Ardour update?

That is true. Being open source they (Harrison) could divert from Ardour's developemnt path but that could be nightmarish in the long run. They (Harrison) would have to only add what is missing from Ardour on the assumption that Ardour would (possibly) never add that. Think bolt on to fix platform as opposed to contatly having to rewite code because of something Ardour decides to change.

James,
 
Because I am a member of the financial contributors to the Ardour community (recurring monthly donation) I have access to the lastes nightly build of Ardour for Windows.
 
I just downloaded the most current version.
 
Pin assignment maintenance is definitely in Ardour exactly as we see it in Mixbus.
 
Which confirms my assertions above (at least to me). And since I am also a software developer I still hold that Harrison (mostly) brings to the table their DSP experience and thus they add their EQ/COMP/LIMIT/LEVELING to the Ardour implementation.
 
I've attached a link to a screen shot of Ardour's Mixer if you are interested.
 
ArdourMixer
 
That image alone should at least make anyone who owns Mixbus, appreciate what Harrison does for the platform.