The answer you'll likely hear more of is Track Templates. I personally don't find them to be all that, but that's what you'll hear.

I think you CAN insert sends on multiple tracks by just selecting them all.
EDIT: oh, someone caught that.

CTRL-Drag is prolly the only way for the inserts.

ORIGINAL: Dude

ORIGINAL: John

In Sonar each audio track has EQ built in. The idea here is to not duplicate when you don't have to. PT HD has DSP hardware Sonar is native. Its really bad practice to add FX of the same type independently to each track. It takes up unnecessary CPU. A bus is the best way to handle this sort of thing in Sonar. Now clearly there will be times when you will need to have the same FX on two different tracks because they will be set up differently. In that case one will have to accept the CPU hit on that but to do so routinely is not a good idea when you don't have to.

You can copy and paste FX as many times as you want. Even with the same settings if you like in Sonar.

Humm, I think you're totaly missing the point.

Actually, the REAL point is to intercept any question that might possibly point towards something that Sonar can't do (especially when compared to a competing product), and deflect it by showing how the procedure in question is either unnecessary or bad practice.

ORIGINAL: Jonbouy

I'm gonna have to invest in a few terms at charm school I can tell.

I tried that. It works, but only if you really want it to.

ORIGINAL: Marah

ORIGINAL: Jonbouy

I'm gonna have to invest in a few terms at charm school I can tell.

I tried that. It works, but only if you really want it to.

lol...yer right **** 'em!...

ORIGINAL: Marah
Actually, the REAL point is to intercept any question that might possibly point towards something that Sonar can't do (especially when compared to a competing product), and deflect it by showing how the procedure in question is either unnecessary or bad practice.

Amen to that ... I mean, why add something that is obviously straightforward, valuable, reasonable, and even "general-software-standard" type functionality if you can instead sort-of get around it with a less efficient, less intuitive method that means you have to change your workflow and/or anticipate everything you might want to do in advance? LOL

Templates are great and have their uses
Track templates are great and have their uses
Busses are great and have their uses

None of that should preclude ALSO having an easy, intuitive way to change multiple things at once. It sounds like for the questions I posed, that there "mostly" is. Still seems like no easy way to add the same insert/effect to, say 20 tracks, at once. AND REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE, there ought to be a way to do that!

Humm, I think you're totaly missing the point. In my world, each track (say drums for example) will have a compressor, all with different settings, and it's a pain to add them manually or copy to each. Would be great to be able to add the plug to all tracks (or even better, all tracks in a folder).

Missing what point? Please reread my post to understand what the post is saying. If you can't get my point I will accept that I am not explaining it well. But I do believe I did explain it well enough.

Your situation might be different ... one compression setting for all your tracks!

This is a presumptuous statement. Nor is it any of your business what I do with a track of mine.

In regards to EQ, wich is used on all my tracks (hopefully on some of yours as well), I don't like the Cake EQ, so I end up inserting EQ on every track.

Why would you care what I put on a track? Is that any of your concern? The notion that the Sonitus EQ is not up to your quality standard is laughable but each to their own.

Actually your entire post is presumptuous.

Nothing wrong with using a compressor but it seems if you need one on every drum track perhaps your tracking needs some work.

Also often I use different types of compressors for various reasons. The notion that a single compressor type or setting is going to be useful for all tracks baffles me. But then you know all about how I do my mixes.

None of this is about any mix I have done. It is about the notion that routinely one would do as the OP wants to do is not a good idea from a Sonar user perspective. That is what I was saying. If you see it otherwise please explain why.

Then others have come up with ways to do as the OP wants with templates I don't see why this is being pursued any further anyway.

Actually, the REAL point is to intercept any question that might possibly point towards something that Sonar can't do (especially when compared to a competing product), and deflect it by showing how the procedure in question is either unnecessary or bad practice.

My motivation for what I post is clearly beyond your comprehension.

John,

Not answering for "dude", but for me, the point isn't that I would want the same exact setting in a plug on 20 tracks, but I OFTEN want the same plug on many tracks. For example - i might want to run ALL or MOST of my tracks through the SSL4000 E channel or G Channel ... could this get "handled" by using a track template ... yeah .. it could but that is ONE workflow idea ... the other would be to select all the tracks I want it on and somehow say "add SSL4000" to all these tracks ... that is an equally valid, highly intuitive, user friendly, commonly used in many software programs, workflow model that SONAR just doesn't seem to support.

So instead of blindly defending SONAR with a "not a good idea from a SONAR user perspective" comment, why not acknowledge it as a moderate deficiency in the product that could be easily addressed to make life easier for those who want to work that way?

Still seems like no easy way to add the same insert/effect to, say 20 tracks, at once. AND REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE, there ought to be a way to do that!

No your right, that's the ONLY thing that isn't handled well it would be nice, but OUGHT? I've never found it an issue.

If I had to use PT would many things seem like 'silly' workarounds to me? Quite possibly but I've got used to a Sonar workflow by now.

As I said

These things are often synonymous between two different platforms but the implementaion is sometimes seemingly vastly different.

I'll stand by that until someone can tell me convincingly that X DAW is less of a pain than Y DAW, to me there's little to choose as far as inflicting pain on the user goes between any of them.

I make no apologies for still having a shine for the lady that brought me into digital recording world either. So call me a fanboy and sue me what do I care.

She ain't all that so as to prevent me from keeping my eye out elsewhere though...

Not answering for "dude", but for me, the point isn't that I would want the same exact setting in a plug on 20 tracks, but I OFTEN want the same plug on many tracks. For example -

That was clearly address in my post.

ORIGINAL: John

Actually, the REAL point is to intercept any question that might possibly point towards something that Sonar can't do (especially when compared to a competing product), and deflect it by showing how the procedure in question is either unnecessary or bad practice.

My motivation for what I post is clearly beyond your comprehension.

Nolo contendere.

....I don't see why this is being pursued any further anyway.

Because the further it's pursued, the higher our post counts go.

Oh man, am I gonna have to make yet another new user name when I hit 1000? Hmm... maybe I should just stop at 666..... Beelzebub has an update put aside for me.... for meeee... for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!