Originally Posted by LeopoldStotch
The advantage is that you can mute / unmute in the window you're in instead of having to hunt down the place where the sound is muted.
Say you have three monitors - rack, sequencer, mixer. You mute a track while you're working in the sequencer view, change a few things, then head over to the mixer to adjust levels. If you want to hear the muted track right now you have to interrupt the flow of your work and go back over to the sequencer screen.
With them linked in preference you can mute and unmute in whatever window you're working in - you keep working instead of hunting down the original mute.
The way it's set up right now is like a three way light switch where you can turn off the light at either switch, but if you want to turn the light back on you have to waste your time and walk back over to the other switch.
A simple preference tickbox for this would harm no one that does it the original way but would benefit those who don't want to deal with multiple muting permutations.
I would say that it's not like a three way light switch, and that this is the common point of confusion IMO. A three way light switch controls a SINGLE light source. But in Reason, you are controlling TWO separate functions.
And you are ignoring the reasons why this would not be consistent when splitting instruments to separate mixer channels. In my ReDrum example above, which track would mute in the mixer when muting the sequencer track? And if you're in the mixer, and you mute ONE of the ReDrum tracks, it would ALSO mute the sequencer track, thus muting ALL of your tracks. This odd behavior would cause more problems than it cures IMO.
You would have to create this feature to be simpler, not more complex, than the current options IMO. I haven't yet heard of how to make linked mutes/solos actually work in all situations, and still believe that logically speaking it would be impossible. Anyone? :-)