[Carl Kolchak]

Keeping the drums in the group does the same thing but the point is that it will generate many playlists that are more difficult to identify when you are trying to manage unused playlists.

Yes, as I mentioned, it creates a lot of play lists, but I don't personally have a problem with this so long as they are named rationally for each grouped take, and that sufficient accurate notes have been taken as to which ones are "keepers" - another use for memory locations.

Naming is not the problem here. We are very particular about the way that the tracks are named

Then perhaps I'm missing something as to why it's difficult to keep track of the play lists?

That is fine with the simple example you mention, but try to do this when you have a grouped playlist with say 24 tracks of orchestra and you will see that your solution is unworkable.

I'm not sure if you mean unworkable in terms of exceeding the maximum number of available voices - in which case plan the order and number in which you duplicate tracks, and how your going to deactivate / re-activate them. Or if you mean the amount of time the process takes - them's the breaks at the moment I'm afraid.

What would be great would be if PT included it's own "takes" window that was specifically design for the task, where you could write extensive notes for individual play lists (even on the same track) that included a check box where you could tag play lists as "keepers" (or what ever vernacular they choose).

Then when you come to "Delete unused play lists" you could filter the visible lists to not include any that you had designated as "keepers"

what do you reckon?