Then that way maybe isn’t good enough anymore in today’s day and age? Processes and workflows should be looked at from time to time to see if there’s a quicker solution using today’s technology. To me, clip effects seem like a more efficient solution for certain (of course not all) tasks.
My goal actually is to reduce tracks, and thus project complexity, and I think Clip Effects could help me with that. Not sure why you think it would increase tracks. Besides, it would not be an either Clip Effects / or Automation. If you automate, you could continue working the way you want. No harm done. Clip Effects are an option, not a replacement.
You could say that to people who died climbing mountains: My advice is, buy ropes that don’t snap, only step where there’s solid ground, and hold tight to the rock wall, don’t let go. Fact is, people multitask, they think about many things simultaneously, get distracted, they do make errors and don’t always remember to press every button in a multi-step choreographed shortcut dance. Good software design should try to prevent most of the common pitfalls from happening. If there’s an easier way to do a certain, common task, it’s worth exploring and thinking about supporting that way.
@Lemix: I found the macro idea from the other thread quite good and efficient for EQ automation. Doing what you suggested would also work, but to me, adjusting settings, then doing RIP, manage the new tracks etc. seems like a longer workaround. I know you said it’s not much longer. But when doing this several times a day I think it would add up, just my opinion though. I’m gonna try the Macro way for now.