Funkybot

FastBikerBoy


I have and just remembered why I don't use them any more unless I have to....

I'm currently working on a project where I need to use the Sonitus Compressor on several tracks and I've just proven that my own theory on the PC ergonomics is correct. I'm trying to tame the peaks on a guitar track and wondering why on earth the compressor isn't working.

In desperation I start to reduce the threshold all the way down and hear the drums being squashed down to nothing. Yep...... I've got the wrong Compressor window in focus.

Back to the nice convenient prochannel as soon as possible for me.

I think this is more indicative of an area where Sonar should improve, rather than showing where it excels at something. What I mean by that is: Studio One and Logic both have excellent plugin menus that 1) tell you what track your on and 2) allow you to navigate from effect to effect from the plugin menu. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure you can even navigate to different tracks. That means you can do all your navigating without ever having to look at the Console or Track views just from plugin menus. That'd be a huge plus to Sonar.


Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

Hi,i completely desagree.
There are many forums on the web with many UAD users that compare 1176 and ssl Buss comp and LA2A with PC emu.
Their judgment is excellent especially on the PC LA2A emu.
I'm a Pro and if i think to job with a DAW that give me a completely professional tools to finish my job is a huge save of money/time.

However i use a very Pro mastering limiter (Voxengo Elephant) because it still is not included.
I did a recording session with 12 tracks and on the voices i used LA2A emulation with no delay at a latency of 3 ms.
The singer and back vocals were amazed by the quality of their monitoring.

The last i have not any single prob with Sonar X2.
It's only my exp.
Best.

Roby

GIM Productions

Hi,i completely desagree. 

There are many forums on the web with many UAD users that compare 1176 and ssl Buss comp and LA2A with PC emu.
Their judgment is excellent especially on the PC LA2A emu.
I'm a Pro and if i think to job with a DAW that give me a completely professional tools to finish my job is a huge save of money/time.

However i use a very Pro mastering limiter (Voxengo Elephant) because it still is not included.
I did a recording session with 12 tracks and on the voices i used LA2A emulation with no delay at a latency of 3 ms.
The singer and back vocals were amazed by the quality of their monitoring.

The last i have not any single prob with Sonar X2.
It's only my exp.
Best.

Roby

I haven't tried the PC LA2A yet. I've also heard good things about it, but again, haven't tried that one yet (hence why it wasn't referenced in my original post). That said...


Regarding the 1176...remember how good everyone thought the UAD 1176LN was? Then Softube put out the FET Compressor, and other 1176's came out (Waves, IK), and suddenly there were a bunch of UAD users clamoring for an 1176 Mk II plugin to compete with the newer offerings. Then UA listened and put out the 1176 Collection, which is excellent, and the best of the bunch IMO.


Now, the 1176 in Pro Channel might be on par with that original UA 1176, but it's got nothing on the newer offerings. Sorry. Just compress some drums with a super fast attack time and release in all buttons mode and compare a few plugins and you'll hear how tame the PC 1176 is in comparison to the UA 1176 Collection, IK Black 76, and Waves CLA-76. It's not the same ballpark.


Do the same comparing The Glue, which is an excellent SSL comp, with the PC Buss Compressor. Listen to Slate's VCC compared to the PC Console Emu. The Sonar plugins sound a generation or two behind the better, newer plugins (like Slate, like the newer UA offerings, IK, etc.). It doesn't make the plugins horrible, or unusable, but they're definitely not the best.

Also, it's been confirmed that UA is working on a MK II version of the LA-2A. Do you think the Pro Channel version will still hold up to comparison after that one is out? It might...but opinions change quickly on the internet once the newest, shiniest, new thing is released. Where Pro Channel will always beat the UA plugins though is latency, I'll concede that, but that point doesn't hold true when comparing PC plugins to native plugins.

Is there any way I can demo the PC LA2A? If not, I'll add the lack of demos as 5th reason not to use Pro Channel.

Funkybot

FastBikerBoy


I have and just remembered why I don't use them any more unless I have to....

I'm currently working on a project where I need to use the Sonitus Compressor on several tracks and I've just proven that my own theory on the PC ergonomics is correct. I'm trying to tame the peaks on a guitar track and wondering why on earth the compressor isn't working.

In desperation I start to reduce the threshold all the way down and hear the drums being squashed down to nothing. Yep...... I've got the wrong Compressor window in focus.

Back to the nice convenient prochannel as soon as possible for me.

I think this is more indicative of an area where Sonar should improve, rather than showing where it excels at something. What I mean by that is: Studio One and Logic both have excellent plugin menus that 1) tell you what track your on and 2) allow you to navigate from effect to effect from the plugin menu. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure you can even navigate to different tracks. That means you can do all your navigating without ever having to look at the Console or Track views just from plugin menus. That'd be a huge plus to Sonar.


Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

I wasn't comparing it to other vendors, I was comparing it to the FX bin. Until such time that Sonar fails to do what I need it to do I personally have no need to use other software. Of course I appreciate that others do but the PC isn't compulsory. If a user has no use for it then they don't have to use it, they don't even need to know it's there and if it's existence is a problem there's always the studio edition.

I can only comment on my workflow, the way I work it is impossible (or at least I've never done it) to accidentally change the wrong track or buss effect. I have a floating inspector in all views and obviously in the CV the PC is attached to the track. In the TV, PRV or any other view, click on a track and the GUI is there. I don't see how it could get much easier.

With even a modest project of 30 tracks and 15 or so busses, if most of them have a compressor, that's 45 GUIs to manage and keep track of straight away. Start adding EQs, reverbs and everything else and it's a window management nightmare. I can't see how a system could be much more ergonomic than the PC. It doesn't need menus for managing the GUI, just a click. Sure it's not perfect but what is?

YMMV of course.

No... they do not display correctly.

I've created a FX chain GUI for every single VST that I use regularly and just load that. There's not many FX that I use that need more than six knobs and buttons.

It only has to be done once per plug, the only pain is the adjustment figure is in percentage rather than the actual value but even then most of the time I'm adjusting by ear and if I really need it I can still open the GUI.

John


I think Funkybot misunderstood your post Karl.

I would say that calling the PC modules mediocre is at best an inability to appreciate  their unique qualities and what they offer.  

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. The wrong one of course but each to their own.

Just recently been working on projects that I put off in X1.  After upgrading to X2, I had some crash issues but is doing better now.  Just been going thru older projects, replacing comps and eqs with pro channel modules.  Haven't really started inserting fx vsts into pro channel, but definitely will start doing it on new projects... clicking the fx button is a hard habit to break.  
I was hoping using Sonar would offer good quality vsts in one daw, instead of bouncing around using reaper and reason... the statement above is right, that ALL daws have their own unique vst fx.  Looks like a couple of years using Sonar and Pro channel as primary until something beats it.

vintagevibe

Funkybot

Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

#1:  I totally disagree.  I have Waves, UAD, IK etc...  PC Channel plugs are as good - just different flavors.
#2: All DAW's built in plugs work that way.  Ever tried using Logic plugs in Pro Tools?
#3: All DAW do have unique plug in formats for the ones that come with them.
#4: Agreed.  The quickfix solved most of my problems but it still seems a bit quirky.  That might be user error.

#1: That's fine, you're entitled to disagree as to whether or not you like it. I still believe some characteristics are measurable, but you can see my last post for more as to why.
#2: These aren't just built in plugins - this is a built in plugin format that integrates directly into the DAW. Not quite the same. The argument about portability doesn't change though, so yeah, another reason against using any DAW exclusive plugins. Better to stick to open formats where you can take your plugins wherever you want. 
#3: Again, an argument against using any closed plugins. Stick to VST's in the effect bin and you can take your projects anywhere.
#4: It's still buggy, but there's definitely something to be said for being able to assign a single knob to multiple plugin paramaters. It's definitely cool, and flexible...as long as you work exclusively to Sonar and never need to use another DAW.

And no one's answered...is it possible to demo PC plugins? I'd like to checkout the LA2A.

And look...the way I see it, Pro Channel is just another option. It's a usable EQ, and some usable compressors, with a good reverb and some cool modular options that you can't do in a single plugin. I prefer not to use the PC for the reasons outlined above, but it's just another opinion. If it suits your workflow, then by all means use it.

You can love it and use it everywhere, I can choose not to use it and ignore it. That's what's great about having options. We all work differently. 

John, is it possible for me to demo the PC LA2A? I'd love to try it for myself.

FastBikerBoy

The one I use least is the 4K channel compressor - anyone sensible have any comments on this one?

It's probably fair to say that's the one I use least but I have recently started to use it more recently. I find it works well on clean 'jangly' type guitars where before where I may have used the PC2A.

It's definitely growing on me.

I prefer The Glue, but they're both SSL compressor emulations so try it out on a drum buss or even the entire mix with a 30 ms attack time (10ms works great too) and the fastest release. I love that sound on drums and on a mix. You can also try to experiment with the auto release. SSL's sound great when you're getting .5-3db's of reduction. It's a cool sound that glues things together quickly. If you want some pumping, slow down the release time some. If you want more of a thwack on the transients, start experimenting with faster attack times and deeper thresholds.


Don't just try it on busses, you can also try it on electric bass, vocals, guitars, etc. But busses are really where it shines. 

Funkybot

FastBikerBoy

The one I use least is the 4K channel compressor - anyone sensible have any comments on this one?

It's probably fair to say that's the one I use least but I have recently started to use it more recently. I find it works well on clean 'jangly' type guitars where before where I may have used the PC2A.

It's definitely growing on me.

I prefer The Glue, but they're both SSL compressor emulations so try it out on a drum buss or even the entire mix with a 30 ms attack time (10ms works great too) and the fastest release. I love that sound on drums and on a mix. You can also try to experiment with the auto release. SSL's sound great when you're getting .5-3db's of reduction. It's a cool sound that glues things together quickly. If you want some pumping, slow down the release time some. If you want more of a thwack on the transients, start experimenting with faster attack times and deeper thresholds.


Don't just try it on busses, you can also try it on electric bass, vocals, guitars, etc. But busses are really where it shines. 

Prior to the PC I was using various T-racks processors. The PC ergonomics are what keeps me using that, as well as their quality obviously. I wouldn't use it if it was handy and crap. Can't remember the last time I loaded the T-racks stuff.

thats with 20 db + gr, so it must add it subtley

Got it Steve. The button called 'Display'/then Module Options. I had no idea that button (outside of the PC block) had anything to do with it! Many thanks!

 
No problem!  

Chregg


the pro channel pc76 seems to add a harmonic every octave, this is a pure sine Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The nature of compression is that the effects adds harmonics when gain reduction is occurring. All compressors will do this no matter how good or bad. I can see by the GR meters in your image that there's quite a bit of GR going on, so the test isn't valid as all compressors will do that.


The question is whether or not it adds harmonics when NO gain reduction is occurring. If so, then that's step one to knowing you have a complex model. Other things to look for: does changing input/output gain alter the frequency response, or is there any stereo crosstalk going on. Those three are usually the best indicators that a plugin has more going on than just modelling the compression behavior.

i mean i love all these emulators, but they have nuthin on the hardware, when ever i listen to an 1176 plug-in emu, then go process vox through a real 1176 (h revision), i shudder lol