1) Assign the same effects sends to a bunch of tracks at once

That one you can do, just by selecting multiple tracks. If they're all in the same folder, just select the folder.

2) Assign the same bus assignment (output) to a bunch of tracks at once
3) Assign the same input to multiple tracks at once

Sorry, can't reassign inputs and outputs en masse AFAIK. I'm actually kind of glad I can't do that. (I wish it weren't so easy to delete multiple tracks at one time.)

As for adding multiple effects, the time I'll spend adjusting those effects will make the time spent initially inserting those effects quite trivial by comparison.

If you normally put a compressor on each track, use track templates.

As far as assigning tracks en masse to a bus it can be done with select all or the tracks in question and goto menu track output. The second step can be keybound as track properties output if one desires.

ORIGINAL: John

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!

And that would change the fundamental issue? How? Please don't be stupid on purpose.

Well - thanks for calling me Stupid ... hmmm .... uh .... OK .... well anyway .. it changes the issue because the ONLY explanation you've given for your ludicrous statement that having the same plug on multiple tracks is a "really bad practice" is because it causes a "CPU hit".

The point is then - if HAVING dozens and dozens of plugs works just fine with my CPU, why would I care? Why would anyone care?

Well - thanks for calling me Stupid ... hmmm .... uh .... OK .... well anyway .. it changes the issue because the ONLY explanation you've given for your ludicrous statement that having the same plug on multiple tracks is a "really bad practice" is because it causes a "CPU hit".

It is stupid if they are all doing the same thing. But that notion is beyond your ability to understand it seems.

ORIGINAL: John

Please don't be stupid on purpose.

I think it's better to be stupid on purpose than to be stupid accidentally. Or instinctively. Although any stupidity will do when stupid is called for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIlFsERnmk

ORIGINAL: Marah

ORIGINAL: John

Please don't be stupid on purpose.

I think it's better to be stupid on purpose than to be stupid accidentally. Or instinctively. Although any stupidity will do when stupid is called for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIlFsERnmk

You two should get a room

ORIGINAL: John

Well - thanks for calling me Stupid ... hmmm .... uh .... OK .... well anyway .. it changes the issue because the ONLY explanation you've given for your ludicrous statement that having the same plug on multiple tracks is a "really bad practice" is because it causes a "CPU hit".

It is stupid if they are all doing the same thing. But that notion is beyond your ability to understand it seems.

hehe ... this is kinda fun ... ahem ....

so first of all, no one ever said to "do the same thing" - which I assume in your thinking means "have the same settings' - nope - the SSL channel I put on most of my tracks is set up different for the dif tracks ... so I'm not sure what the heck you are talking about .... but let's suppsoe for a moment they are not - that I set them all the same.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe the sum of 10 processed tracks is equivalent to processing the sum of those 10 tracks?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe the sum of 10 processed tracks is equivalent to processing the sum of those 10 tracks?

Why wouldn't it be?

The thing that I find odd is that all this was covered distinctly in my second post. If one is using the same plugin and it is with the same settings (which is the only reason to use a bus and does not need to be spelled out) then its dumb and stupid to use separate instances of the same thing. Normally EQ is applied to tracks with very different frequency response curves that is why most DAWs have it built in to the track as do mixers. Most of those tracks need their own unique EQ thats why its conveniently on every track. Compression not so much.

ORIGINAL: John

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe the sum of 10 processed tracks is equivalent to processing the sum of those 10 tracks?

Why wouldn't it be?

Wouldn't it depend on the nature of the processing?

For example, a HPF, at at given setting, on 10 separate tracks, might well be the same as routing them to a common bus and HPFing the bus. (I'd think it would be, or practically so, but I can imagine it wouldn't be.)

But such busing would definitely not be the same with a compressor, at a given setting, on 10 separate tracks, UNLESS the tracks themselves were identical... or maybe even then, it wouldn't be the same.

Again, isn't it all very dependent of the processing, the source material, the intentions....

Actually, I think there is a simple example that shows that the same effect with the same settings can act differently on multiple tracks.

Suppose, for example, you have a given effect with identical settings on multiple tracks. Suppose, also, that there are OTHER effects on those same tracks, as well. The results of the duplicate effect can be quite different depending on the ORDER of it relative to the other effects on each track. For example, if the duplicate effect is the 1st effect on one track, the 2nd effect on another track, the 3rd effect on yet another track, etc., then the results will be different, even for identical settings of that effect. A bus with a single instance of the effect cannot achieve matching results in such a case, in general, because you can't specify arbitrary send/return points (to/from a buss) in the chain of effects on a track.

That said, the more common scenario, as mentioned already, is when you want the same effect with different settings on multiple tracks (like with an eq, compressor, etc.). Lacking the ability to add an effect to multiple tracks with an easy shortcut isn't a show-stopper, by any means, but it sure would be a nice feature! I would use it, for sure!!