Can Aux sends be faders?

[bayswater]

So if I put the aux tracks in a folder they'd all have to be contiguous right?

They will be once you put them in a folder. One thing I didn't try is grouping. You can select Show/Hide as the action in a group. So you could assign all the Auxes to a group and select only that option. Hide one and they all hide. The limitation of course is the use of other grouping options which may not matter in this case.

addendum:
Something hit me after I wrote the above. What if one did a send as usual (not using the above mentioned method), put the effect as post-fader and then used a trim plugin after the effect? Would this accomplish the same thing? Seems too simple of a remedy.

I thought you wanted to use the fader to control the send level to another channel with the effect on it as an insert. It's difficult to think through all the things that might happen if you just put the effect post fader on the first channel. For example, if there is anything in the pre-fader inserts, wouldn't that affect what hits the post fader effect, and be different from what would hit the effect on another channel via a send? Seems to me the chain is parallel in one case and serial in the other.

[musicman691]

So if I put the aux tracks in a folder they'd all have to be contiguous right?

They will be once you put them in a folder. One thing I didn't try is grouping. You can select Show/Hide as the action in a group. So you could assign all the Auxes to a group and select only that option. Hide one and they all hide. The limitation of course is the use of other grouping options which may not matter in this case.

addendum:
Something hit me after I wrote the above. What if one did a send as usual (not using the above mentioned method), put the effect as post-fader and then used a trim plugin after the effect? Would this accomplish the same thing? Seems too simple of a remedy.

I thought you wanted to use the fader to control the send level to another channel with the effect on it as an insert. It's difficult to think through all the things that might happen if you just put the effect post fader on the first channel. For example, if there is anything in the pre-fader inserts, wouldn't that affect what hits the post fader effect, and be different from what would hit the effect on another channel via a send? Seems to me the chain is parallel in one case and serial in the other.

I thought about grouping but I'd have to be very specific about what's used in the group and would DP allow what I want.

As to the second paragraph I should have been clearer. I still want to use the send from the originating channel like I originally wrote. The path would be: originating channel with a send to a bus to an aux track; the effect (say reverb) would be post fader on that aux track and a trim plugin after the reverb on the aux track.

[bayswater]

I thought about grouping but I'd have to be very specific about what's used in the group and would DP allow what I want.

You can turn off everything except Show/Hide.

As to the second paragraph I should have been clearer. I still want to use the send from the originating channel like I originally wrote. The path would be: originating channel with a send to a bus to an aux track; the effect (say reverb) would be post fader on that aux track and a trim plugin after the reverb on the aux track.

I see. Seems that would work, but you still have the proliferation of tracks,particularly if you have multiple effects, although that's not really an issue if you can easily hide them.

[musicman691]

I thought about grouping but I'd have to be very specific about what's used in the group and would DP allow what I want.

You can turn off everything except Show/Hide.

As to the second paragraph I should have been clearer. I still want to use the send from the originating channel like I originally wrote. The path would be: originating channel with a send to a bus to an aux track; the effect (say reverb) would be post fader on that aux track and a trim plugin after the reverb on the aux track.

I see. Seems that would work, but you still have the proliferation of tracks,particularly if you have multiple effects, although that's not really an issue if you can easily hide them.

Wouldn't have anymore tracks then one does now using sends without worrying about/using fader flip. Actually it would be less tracks than what's mentioned earlier in this thread with the intervening aux track between the originating track and the track with the effect. Still not as convenient as fader flip.

I didn't want to get into daw comparison but here it goes: ProTools actually has two ways of showing send controls. You can have something similar to what DP does (as an option in the originating track send) and at the same time PT by default generates a floating fader when you create a path from a track send to another track. That fader can be shown or hid as one wants. No fader flip function needed.

[bayswater]

PT by default generates a floating fader when you create a path from a track send to another track.

Yes, I remember that. It's a nice feature. One of those things that reminds you that PT started as an audio app, while DP, Logic, Cubase started as MIDI apps.