Default Audio FX Plug-ins on New Audio and Instrument Tracks

[murat k.]

I often avoid loading new plug-ins unless necessary, so I’ve relied on the ProChannel’s "Set Modules as Default for Tracks" feature with stock plug-ins. However, recent advancements in plug-ins have made me realize there are certain ones, like FabFilter Pro-Q 4, that I’d prefer to use on every Audio and Instrument Track.

The Instance List feature of Pro-Q 4 is particularly useful, and Cakewalk could have implemented a similar functionality in its stock EQ as requested:

Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened, and I no longer expect it to. Besides, Pro-Q 4 offers much more than the Instance List feature.

To save time, it would be great if we could set specific plug-ins or FX Chains to load automatically on new tracks. Alternatively, the "Set Modules as Default for Tracks" feature could be expanded to include FX Chain Presets.

This would make workflows much smoother and eliminate the need to manually load the same plug-ins on every track.

[David Baay]

Sounds like a job for Track Templates.

[murat k.]

2 hours ago, David Baay said:

Sounds like a job for Track Templates.

Sounds like you didn't get the idea. And these ones for sure: @pwallie@OutrageProductions

Let’s say I did what you suggested. To create a new Instrument Track with my desired preset, I’d need to make separate Track Templates for each one and call them every time. If I want to make changes, I’d have to update each one individually. This clearly has nothing to do with Track Templates.

Suggesting ProChannel Presets, which is the more practical option, would have made more sense, but with this request being fulfilled, you’ll be able to load your desired plugin as default without even needing that.

The simplest thing developers could do in this case is to allow FX Chains saved in ProChannel to be recalled using the 'Set Modules as Default for Tracks' command.
And, of course, to ignore the words of status quo defenders who stand in the way of progress.

[David Baay]

For default audio tracks, you only need one template. This would be no different than having a default for Insert Audio Track. Only Instrument tracks would need individual track templates, and they already do. Just add the EQ to each Instrument track template when you create it, and you're done. And a track template includes the Prochannel configuration. Yes, a modicum of extra mousing is involved in navigating to 'Insert from Track Template', but in the grand scheme of how long it takes to conceive, record, edit and mix a project. it's insignificant in my view, and maybe not worth the development time to implement a new feature that's largely redundant.

Let me just add that there comes a point where it's truly more sensible to simply accomodate the way a program is designed and make the best use of what's available rather than insisting on having everything optimized to your personal workflow. Progress is in the eye of the beholder. This is a forum, meaning all are welcome to share opinions on any post. I leave it to the developers to weigh the responses on their own scales which may be calibrated differently than yours or mine.

[murat k.]

1 hour ago, David Baay said:

For default audio tracks, you only need one template. This would be no different than having a default for Insert Audio Track. Only Instrument tracks would need individual track templates, and they already do. Just add the EQ to each Instrument track template when you create it, and you're done. And a track template includes the Prochannel configuration. Yes, a modicum of extra mousing is involved in navigating to 'Insert from Track Template', but in the grand scheme of how long it takes to conceive, record, edit and mix a project. it's insignificant in my view, and maybe not worth the development time to implement a new feature that's largely redundant.

Let me just add that there comes a point where it's truly more sensible to simply accomodate the way a program is designed and make the best use of what's available rather than insisting on having everything optimized to your personal workflow. Progress is in the eye of the beholder. This is a forum, meaning all are welcome to share opinions on any post. I leave it to the developers to weigh the responses on their own scales which may be calibrated differently than yours or mine.

I’m suggesting that we could solve the problem with just one click, but you’re defending a scenario that’s worse than what I currently have to do. On top of that, you’re giving me a lesson in sense. What makes sense is to support someone when they point out an issue in the program’s design and request a solution, not to give irrelevant advice or defend suggestions that you think are related.

[David Baay]

Sigh...

[murat k.]

This is Feedback Loop, where we have the chance to shape the software based on what we request.  Instead of suggesting a workaround for the current situation, the community should work on improving the request.

For example, someone could say: 'This feature could be applied to either all Instrument or Audio Tracks, or it could be Instrument Track specific.In this way, we could have a single default preset for all new tracks, along with individual instrument-specific presets.'

Such comments should be made in feature request topics.

But instead, I'm dealing with people who don’t even understand what I’m asking for, or who have accepted being stuck with inefficient workarounds, while expecting others to do the same.

[murat k.]

Summary:

[murat k.]

By the way, since track templates were mentioned even though they are completely unrelated to the topic, I wanted to remind you that track templates need this feature:

The nice thing about this request is that it hasn't been polluted by an unrelated workaround or people defending it.

[Sock Monkey]

I sort of agree with Dave. The more crazy personal features that are added to any software the more that software becomes messy and unstable. Keep it simple is what makes for  good stability. 
Everybody has their own personal ideas about what a perfect workflow should be. That’s 1,00,000 people!! 
If you try 15 possible different Daw’s you will find each has a couple of features that are perfect for your workflow. There’s no possibility that one daw can please everyone. So use the one that works best for you. 
Cakewalk / Sonar is already way over complex and I would rather see a lot of useless things removed for the sake of stability than to keep adding layers to the onion. 
I vote for stability over making everything one click does the trick! 

[murat k.]

18 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

I sort of agree with Dave. The more crazy personal features that are added to any software the more that software becomes messy and unstable. Keep it simple is what makes for  good stability. 
Everybody has their own personal ideas about what a perfect workflow should be. That’s 1,00,000 people!! 

This is a feature for any user who prefers plugins other than stock plugins. The term 'crazy personal features' doesn’t belong here.

Stability is an issue for developers to resolve; it is not something that gets broken by newly added features.

18 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

If you try 15 possible different Daw’s you will find each has a couple of features that are perfect for your workflow. There’s no possibility that one daw can please everyone. So use the one that works best for you. 

I am a Cakewalk user. I just know that a better Cakewalk experience is possible, and I am sharing my requests, despite a community being in the way of progress.

18 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

Cakewalk / Sonar is already way over complex and I would rather see a lot of useless things removed for the sake of stability than to keep adding layers to the onion. 

Finding Cakewalk complex simply means you’re not using many of its features; in fact, it has a lot of deficiencies.

18 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

I vote for stability over making everything one click does the trick! 

'Stability' and 'One Click does the trick' are neither opposing nor separate concepts. You cannot vote on something that doesn’t exist.

[Sock Monkey]

3 hours ago, murat k. said:

Finding Cakewalk complex simply means you’re not using many of its features; in fact, it has a lot of deficiencies.

Ahh! Now this is exactly what I’m getting at. For me it has possibly only a few missing features. That is because of my personal workflow. You are correct that I don’t use or need a lot of the features that it has. But I probably also use a bunch of features that you never use. 

Let’s just say that the list of all possible features for an Daw  includes 1,000 items. 
Is it possible for any given Daw to achieve this?  
It would be so bloated and clunky to use that it would stand the chance of being the worst Daw on the planet. In my world , Sonar (and Cubase ?) are already pushing the limits. These are very old programs and I would hate to have to look at that code!!

What are the chances that you will find the perfect match for you?

Out of that list of possible features a lot of users might only need 50 to 100. Odds are good they will be happy with most Daw's. But as the numbers go up the odds of finding the right Daw go down.  The users that need the most features will seek out the best Daw's but will always have to live with a compromise. Or use 3 Daw's. 

As I try other Daw’s I often find something I think is brilliant. And I say to myself -- "it is too bad Sonar doesn’t do that!"    But then I’m not about to tell the developers they need to change the such and such to work like the such in such in the other Daw. That’s because it probably only me who thought  it was better.  

So it’s not that your idea sucks, It's yet another good idea and lots of other people might like that.  it’s just that obviously we are all happy to use what is available already. And we compromise and adjust our workflow to do things the way the developers have decided we will do things.  

I recommend you download and try the demo’s of all the 15+  other Daw’s or better yet just google the question “ Does daw X have a way to do x?” 
That’s what I’ve been doing. 
And when I find out the answer is usually no. I return to Sonar which the answer is most always yes. For me since X1 Sonar was a tad unstable. This new release is a milestone in stability and I say don't touch it! 
 

 

Edited Monday at 01:23 AM by Sock Monkey

[David Baay]

2 hours ago, murat k. said:

[Stability] is not something that gets broken by newly added features.

Seriously? Where do you suppose bugs/instability come from if not from adding new code/features?

[sjoens]

Mostly from poorly written code or code that's incompatible with other code inside or outside it's immediate realm, as has recently been reported.

But anyway, this is a request/report forum. Users can request/report whatever they want.

A better requesting approach would be to use a Yay or Ney Poll which few if any have tried yet.  This would avoid needless backfeed and show the devs how popular the idea is.

Why THIS forum lacks a Star Rate Number Voting system when it should have one... and the Q&A forum has one but isn't used or needed... is a mystery. 

 

Edited Monday at 07:30 PM by sjoens

[David Baay]

11 hours ago, sjoens said:

Mostly from poorly written code or code that's incompatible with other code

a.k.a. "new code". In an application as complex asa DAW, even the best coders will occasionally produce problematic code that fails to anticipate some use case or set of conditions that leads to bad/unexpected behavior and even the best beta-testing process can miss things. The point is simply that all code changes are potential sources of regression and instability. Obviously there's no avoiding this if the software is to be enhanced, and some changes are riskier than others. In this particular case, I would say the risk is relatively low except that adding new tracks is one of the most fundamental and frequently-used functions in a DAW so any breakage would have a big impact. In any case, I never expressed any particular objection to it; I simply suggested that track templates largely address the need.

IIRC, the old forum did have a voting system for feature requests. Here, the 'Like' option should suffice. But the level of participation in the forum these days is so low, I'm not sure how useful any voting system would be.

[Sock Monkey]

Definitely participation is way down. At lot of long time users have moved on to other Daw’s since the announcement in June 2023.  
  
I’ve only got one foot in the exit door. I just noticed that the title of this sub forum hasn’t been updated. It’s little things like that I find depressing about what has happened. 
But what can you do when your favourite Daw is in trouble? Or is it? Hard to say. 
 

And there is already a vote system here. 

Edited Monday at 05:14 PM by Sock Monkey

[sjoens]

2 hours ago, Sock Monkey said:

And there is already a vote system here. 

Oooops!  I meant number voting system.

[sjoens]

3 hours ago, David Baay said:

a.k.a. "new code". In an application as complex asa DAW, even the best coders will occasionally produce problematic code that fails to anticipate some use case or set of conditions that leads to bad/unexpected behavior and even the best beta-testing process can miss things.

I was going to include that exact sentiment but cut out a lot to keep it shorter.  Old and new code sometimes don't play well together, not that anything is wrong with either one.

[David Baay]

17 minutes ago, sjoens said:

I was going to include that exact sentiment but cut out a lot to keep it shorter.

Understood. I often do that, and sometime regret it when someone later posts that I overlooked something. ;^)

[sjoens]

Chalk it up to "bad coding"