v4 just uploaded - a few corrections re. track sources. Measured h/phones and it does drop 3dB at each end, but using dB here doesn’t seem right as the phones have their own uncalibrated vol control, so have used simple ‘main only’, ‘main+cue’, ‘cue only’ labels.
If the diagram is right, neighbor machines route their inputs direct to their amp vol control - they don’t have a src vol. All controls from the preceding track will affect the signal routed to its neighbor.
I was talking about the preceding THRU track SRC/AMP VOL parameters. 
Btw Neighbor Amp settings are not active.
haha you’re right! The level controls are also switched.
Preceding track - level inactive, amp active
Neighbor track - level active, amp inactive
I guess if you have more neighbors, only the last level control is active… arrrgh. Maybe this is why there are no block diagrams anywhere! I think I’ll just stick to basic levels on this diagram without trying too hard to document the flow.
@eangman don’t you think @philtipping’s diagram could make it to the manual?
Thank your, much appreciated! 
Yes I saw this diagram. Impressive work! I’ll have a talk to the engineers about this one. It needs to get their stamp of aproval when it comes to every itty bitty detail in it. No promises, but I´ll look in to it 
IIRC, on the preceding track amp vol and track level can be set. So basically you can mix both in parallel.
On the Neighbour track I’m not sure if we have amp vol or not, I never go to the amp page on a Neighbour track, but track level is certainly there.
I confirm this. Preceding track Level can be set, but has no effect. Neighbor behaves as if it was recording preceding track (when you record a track with SRC3, Level don’t change recording level). I think it is serial, not parallel.
v5 uploaded. No changes re. levels, just corrections re. links feeding back into tracks. Have also darkened all connection lines so they print better.
On a neighbor track the DCA (amp) has no effect on the sample (which is not read by that track).
without neighbor track:
track sample =>DCA (incl amp vol)=>FX=>(cue tap)=>mixer (incl track lvl and mute)
with neighbor track:
track sample =>DCA (incl amp vol)=>FX=>(cue tap)=>neighbor FX=> (cue tap)=>neighbor mixer (incl track lvl and mute)
What still bothers me is Static / Flex samples unity :
If you play a sample at 0db with VOL = 0, Attributes GAIN = +12, it doesn’t distort.
If you record a track internally with VOL=0, it is recorded 12 db lower.
So I think Flex / Samples need VOL =+63 or Attributes GAIN = +12 db to be played at their original level.
This is great, thank you!
Just wanted to add a precision about Amp vol vs Track level: the Amp vol determines how hard you drive the effects, not the track level. It’s important to remember this. For instance, if you have a compressor or an overdrive in the chain, don’t use amp vol for mixing or xvol for crossfading scenes unless you know exactly what you’re doing because it will dramatically alter the sound when changing that value. Resonating filters are impacted by the incoming level as well. You can go creative of course, once you are aware of this.
Could you do a little test for me?
Enable studio mode, zero the main outs level for both the neighbour machine track and preceeding track. Set a low cue outs level for the neighbour track and raise the track level for the preceeding track. Serial or parallel?
Tapped.
It didn’t do anything. Cue sends work for preceeding and neighbor track.
v7 just uploaded. Have reverted to using -12dB stages as I think it’s clearer, and is consistent with the -4dB stages for input cue signals. Have clarified usage in the notes at bottom of diagram.
What about preview level ?
I’m not sure that I fully agree that the inputs are somehow attenuated by 12dB or that this is a helpful conceptual idea to perpetuate without some certainty
afaicr - there is no analog gain reduction at the inputs and anything heard via the OT is subject to A/D>D/A or D/A - the digitizing is happening at the doorstep
If the inputs are attenuated (therefore presumably digitally) then it wouldn’t be possible to record un-gained hot inputs close to FS digital
Using the device as prescribed by thinking in terms of unity positions is possibly good practice, but is it a true reflection of the stages where gain is applied and the digital representation is modified from source capture
it’s something I too would appreciate some clarification on - so I’d be careful about printed documents without caveats, it sorta perpetuates ideas that aren’t 100% proven
