Very oldskool!
Might be. I started with this in the early 70's with analog synths and later tracking with FastTracker on a Dos-machine. So . .
But this is not a matter of being traditional or so. I just learned from the reality that different functions in the process can be performed the best if they are separate, dedicated, hardware or software.
I don't like apps that claim to do anything.
An editor can have a final mixing routine to make it a stereo output, ok, nice to have a monitor.
But "hear how he really sounds when you equing it" ? Not in my case. The final sounds are defined already.
The following step of a channel-mixdown is used to "finetune" the song. It's the production-stage.
For example setting positions in the final panorama, 2C, 4C or multichannel.
Remember: a tracker used to be a music tool for small songs that can be distributed.
A basic reference imho
MPT should be treated more like an instrument itself and less like a production studio
A nice expression to support my point.
would be removing the channels, not in the editor obviously, but nothing would be channel specific
I tend to be against such type of change. The channels are a very specific property of a tracker, with its own options.