Well, depends on the way you stick things into your head. (For your use anyway)
Why do you think of a VCA fader as a sort of “master” fader which controls other faders?
Would’nt it work in the same way if the VCA fader was part of that group?
And why do you think you have to select one of the linked faders to activate something, while you can as easily create an extra dummy which is suppose to control the rest?
If I were you, I would create a folder or, or an area, where I put a bunch of dummy faders -or isolated faders- that control different functions. And name them accordingly. “Rec arm drums” “volume harmonies” “breaks mute”
Quick overview, no hassle, and virtually unlimited linking optIons(what to link and what not).
Wouldn’t that give you more, and easier options than VCA’s?
Don’t get me wrong, I am not discussing for the sake of having an argument, I just think that:
A) there are more convenient options to achieve what you want to do
B) i am very found of the idea to totally separate the functioning of VCA’s from grouping or linking, because most of the people already have a hard time understaning what the difference is between grouping/linking and VCA’s. There is absolutely no relationship between both functions, so IMO, anything, any function that in some way suggests that it is a sort of linking, should be avoided.
A VCA sort of “trims” the volume of any fader within that VCA group, and any fader which is part if that group can be controlled individually without affecting any other fader within that VCA group, or the “master VCA fader”. Entering or leaving a VCA group has no effect whatsoever to that or any other fader.
That is the basic philiosophy of VCA’s.
But again, this is my personal opinion.
And I can see, and understand, your point of view.
We just have different opinions. And don’t worry, I have no influence on the decisionmakers.