ORIGINAL: 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 -

That was clearly address in my post.

But it sounded like a dismissal.

ORIGINAL: 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 -

That was clearly address in my post.

I'm not sure which point in which post you are referring to ... but mostly what I've heard is:

"Use templates, project or track" - which is fine, and I do, but shouldn't preclude having the other functionality

and ...

"Having the same plug-in on multiple tracks is a 'bad practice' " - which is such a ridiculous comment that I'm not even sure how to reply. You use the Sonitus EQ? Fine - no prob - but you are using THE SAME PLUG on every track - what about someone who wants to use a different EQ - why is that "not a good idea" then to have it on every track? Like I said - I might have 30 or 40 tracks with several of the same plugs - all with different settings of course. Please explain why this is a "Bad idea" ?

ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox

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

This is where Sonar has fallen down and behind in my view.

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

To be fair to John equally the criticism you've levelled at him for defending the product (and why shouldn't he stand by his preference?), could be levelled at you for being determined for some strange reason unknown here to make hard work of it.

I actually spent a fair bit of time trying to elucidate to YOU in particular on what I do every day without any issue, yet you persist on saying it's difficult for some reason.

Everything you asked was covered (and is covered in the manual btw) and we've deduced that you can't insert the same plugs into different tracks in one go....big deal.

I'm now going to format my hard-drive because my DAW sucks so bad!

ORIGINAL: Jonbouy

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

To be fair to John equally the criticism you've levelled at him for defending the product (and why shouldn't he stand by his preference?), could be levelled at you for being determined for some strange reason unknown here to make hard work of it.

I actually spent a fair bit of time trying to elucidate to YOU in particular on what I do every day without any issue, yet you persist on saying it's difficult for some reason.

Everything you asked was covered (and is covered in the manual btw) and we've deduced that you can't insert the same plugs into different tracks in one go....big deal.

I'm now going to format my hard-drive because my DAW sucks so bad!

Not sure what your gripe is with me? I acknowledged that a couple of my points were answered and I'm thankful for that. I pointed out what I also said was a "moderate" deficiency and you're getting your panties in a wad? I agree it's not a BIG deal - it doesn't stop me from working, it doesn't make my songs any worse (LOL), it doesn't cost me hundreds of dollars in time, but it is an inconvenience and one that could be EASILY fixed. There are dozens and dozens of other convenience features in SONAR that I and you could live without just as well, but I'm glad they are there and they each make life a little easier. This one would too. Why does it bug you so much?

When you say a couple do you mean 4 out 5 the one you didn't get an answer too being one you originally acknowledge as not being much of an issue in the first place.

I'm calm and cool.....honest....really...

ORIGINAL: MatsonMusicBox

ORIGINAL: 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 -

That was clearly address in my post.

I'm not sure which point in which post you are referring to ... but mostly what I've heard is:

"Use templates, project or track" - which is fine, and I do, but shouldn't preclude having the other functionality

and ...

"Having the same plug-in on multiple tracks is a 'bad practice' " - which is such a ridiculous comment that I'm not even sure how to reply. You use the Sonitus EQ? Fine - no prob - but you are using THE SAME PLUG on every track - what about someone who wants to use a different EQ - why is that "not a good idea" then to have it on every track? Like I said - I might have 30 or 40 tracks with several of the same plugs - all with different settings of course. Please explain why this is a "Bad idea" ?

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

Where in that do I say you can't do what you want to do?

Did it not end with how to do exactly what you want to do?

Couldn't it be an admission of acknowledging that it could be a useful thing to do on occasion.

Does every thing need to be spelled out so that nit picking is not possible?

Is this forum no longer capable of reading things in context?

That post was in answer to the OP. A lot of ideas were being forwarded in it. I was not making a dissertation on the subject but trying to get across the limitations of native FX processing. Also a way to overcome it and still a way to do as the OP requested. By doing all that in a very few lines I thought the subject was closed or at least fully dealt with by it.

I went back and hi-lighted the part that is saying that I understand where this can be used because some seem to have missed it.

Some of you did see this others it seems found secrete meanings in it and motivations that were not there.

BTW no where did I make any comment about the notion of this being a feature request. I had no comment on that and I still don't.

'm now going to format my hard-drive because my DAW sucks so bad!

ROTFLAO!!!!!!

Thanks for the post.

OK - I'll try point by point ...

In Sonar each audio track has EQ built in.

yes - call it what you want - it is still a "PLUG IN INSERT" - the same one mind you - on every track

The idea here is to not duplicate when you don't have to.

I agree .. sort of ... and say "don't duplicate what isn't necessary to achieve what you want"

Its really bad practice to add FX of the same type independently to each track.

Completely incorrect statement that demonstrates some fundamental lack of understanding of mixing methinks

It takes up unnecessary CPU.

only if it's unnecessary (to achieve what one WANTS) and if CPU power is a factor - which on most modern systems it isn't for most people for most projects.

A bus is the best way to handle this sort of thing in Sonar.

no a buss is not the best way to handle the same plug-in on multiple tracks but with different settings on each one - in fact - not even possible. And frankly, even assuming that an effect with the SAME settings on multiple channels will yield the same output as routing those to a buss and applying the effect there is not correct.

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.

Now we agree on something ... but would say "2 or more" as in maybe 10 or 15 or 25

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.

do you have some CPU problem with your computer ... man ... you might need to call ADK and get set up with some new kit dude!

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

yep and that's what I do - jsut not as efficient as having away to do it with one action. BTW- I could also work with 16 track limit and bounce around to do mixes, but that doesn't mean that's the best way to do it!

Where in that do I say you can't do what you want to do? Did it not end with how to do exactly what you want to do?

uh ........ I can't select 20 tracks, insert a plug in on one of them, and have it auto insert on all 20 ... if I can ... I missed that, apologize, and would be really happy to be told I'm wrong on that point and shown how to do it again!

ORIGINAL: Jonbouy



When you say a couple do you mean 4 out 5 the one you didn't get an answer too being one you originally acknowledge as not being much of an issue in the first place.

I'm calm and cool.....honest....really...

I don't know ... at least 2 or 3 out of the 5, maybe 4 .. dunno .. haven't had a chance to actually try it yet. And yes, 1 that I admitted was a "moderate" level deficiency that isn't addressed. Never claimed anything else.

Feel better now?