prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

SergeQ
prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

I agree. The way I always explained it in seminars was that the ProChannel allowed users to create their own console architecture. I felt this was a definite improvement over other DAWs, where the traditional console customizing options were simply to show or hide sections of the console. 

sharke
I think the salient point here, is that it is indeed a person's choice how they work.

If you choose to make it hard on yourself, so be it. All anyone can do is suggest how to use the existing software. I suppose your other options are: file a feature request and hope for the future, develop a different workflow or try other software.
 

sharke

scook
it is unlikely one would swap out a compressor for a delay.

Why so? I often rethink entire processing chains.

Let's put that back in context. I was posting about the label describing the plug-in in the FX chain. If I have an FX chain labeled COMPRESSOR it is unlikely the plug-in in the container is a delay.
 
 
Just like this thread, it appears to me you enjoy the hard road. I believe there is an easier way but the choice is yours.

Anderton

sharke
Differentiating between utilitarian and creative processor functionality is a matter of user choice...

 
That's why I said it "makes sense to me," and I explained why. I'm just not into endless ProChannel tweaking. I get the sound I want, collapse the PC, and if I need to get into heavy processor tweaking, move on to the FX Rack processors (and often open their GUIs in a separate window). 

 
But surely, in the context of a discussion about what would or wouldn't make the ProChannel easier and more convenient to use, we should be focused on the full spectrum of utility, not on how some people restrict its use. I think a lot of how people view the ProChannel is based upon their history with Sonar. I notice this on the forums sometimes. You have people who had used Sonar for years before the ProChannel was introduced, and to a lot of them, the PC is nothing more than a "gimmick" that they can't imagine using over the FX Bins. Whereas for people like me who bought into Sonar at the time the ProChannel was introduced and who don't know any other Sonar, the ProChannel is quite obviously a more powerful and flexible version of the FX Bin - it has dedicated modules some of which are useful, it allows your own effects, and you have a lot more room to work than the tiny FX Bins. I think if you did a survey you'd find a lot of people (especially newer users) who see the ProChannel as their one and only effect chain, ignoring the FX Bins. Not everyone of course, but a significant amount. 
 
 

Anderton

...not something which is "baked in" to the functionality and intent of the ProChannel. 

I was told the ProChannel's intent when X1 was being developed so I know whereof I speak, and yes, the workflow was baked in. It took several re-writes to the original concept to add more flexibility over the evolution of the X-series and get the PC where it is today compared to when it was introduced. 
 
I was careful to frame what I said in subjective terms. I don't claim that my workflow is universal, but I did offer what I had hoped would be useful insights on how to get the most out of the program the way it exists today. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has to finish a project (in my case, a 30-second radio commercial) so it's in someone's inbox tomorrow morning.

So regardless of its original intent, the fact that it had several re-writes to add flexibility suggests that the original intent is somewhat irrelevant in considering what the ProChannel and its intent actually is now. I think we're also way past the stage in which we can hope for plugin manufacturers to be developing dedicated ProChannel modules, and it's quite clear Cakewalk aren't going to be churning them out on a regular basis. So we have to start looking upon the ProChannel not as a place for dedicated modules and not as a place to encourage a "console style" workflow but as a sort of FX Bin-on-steroids. 
 
I don't doubt that your workflow is common, however I believe my workflow is common too, especially among people who work with electronic styles and who incorporate heavy sound shaping experiments into their music. I think the concept of promoting a "console workflow" is problematic in marketing terms, because it only really makes sense to those people who actually have experience with a real console. For many users, especially the younger ones, it makes no sense. 

Sounds to me like the Summer doldrums are upon us and the kids are getting restless. When will we get there??? I DON'T want sprinkles on mine!
 
So many issues, so little time to carp. I really feel the pain, but I've come to the realization that nobody with the ability to affect change really gives a toss. Like most things I've seen in the last couple years, the Pro Channel was something that came out to great fanfare, wasn't fully developed, and then left behind so new, shiny things could be invented.
 
I wouldn't actually care, but lately they seem to making changes just so they will have changes to announce each month. There's not usually a mention of why, or how one change relates to a bigger picture. I'd like to think I'm wrong but there's no way to tell. 
 
With regard to this one issue, I put all VST's in the effects bin and use the PC for the EQ. Use the options in whatever way you feel comfortable, but don't expect Cake to revisit the issue.

sharke
The original post was about the possibility of other ProChannel modules being developed, it wasn't a feature request. This whole discussion on FX Chains just developed naturally as a spin off from the original OP, which of course happens all the time. 

But it did not have to do so. The feature request could have been placed in the appropriate area and the discussion about the request could have happened there. There is always a possibility of new ProChannel modules being developed. To date the development has been slow. I was surprised when Boz Digital released their PC plug-ins.
 

sharke
Regardless, that does not change the fact that to get to the point where you have that plugin sitting there and labeled, you have to first insert an FX Chain, then insert the VST, then label the FX Chain, then collapse it. Versus simply dragging the VST onto the ProChannel and have it sit there, fully visible and clickable all the time. 

Inserting an FX chain preset is no more work than inserted a VST. The work to needed to create an FX Chain preset is a one-time thing.
 

sharke
I don't enjoy the hard road at all - indeed it was you who took some simple arguments regarding the advantages of a simpler way to add VST plugins to a ProChannel and picked them apart to the point of absurdity. You even made a half hearted attempt to expose my arguments as contradictory, which of course they weren't. And it hardly seems necessary to point out, once again, that what I am describing is an easier way than using FX Chains.

You must, no one is forcing you to use anything or do anything. It is your choice. No one here can provide the solution you are seeking. All I did was suggest some ways that may work using the existing architecture and point you to the appropriate area to make a feature request.

Absolutely and is probably one reason why the Ideas area permits discussion. It also allows users to vote on ideas unlike this area.

scook

sharke
The original post was about the possibility of other ProChannel modules being developed, it wasn't a feature request. This whole discussion on FX Chains just developed naturally as a spin off from the original OP, which of course happens all the time. 

But it did not have to do so. The feature request could have been placed in the appropriate area and the discussion about the request could have happened there. There is always a possibility of new ProChannel modules being developed. To date the development has been slow. I was surprised when Boz Digital released their PC plug-ins.
 

sharke
Regardless, that does not change the fact that to get to the point where you have that plugin sitting there and labeled, you have to first insert an FX Chain, then insert the VST, then label the FX Chain, then collapse it. Versus simply dragging the VST onto the ProChannel and have it sit there, fully visible and clickable all the time. 

Inserting an FX chain preset is no more work than inserted a VST. The work to needed to create an FX Chain preset is a one-time thing.
 

sharke
I don't enjoy the hard road at all - indeed it was you who took some simple arguments regarding the advantages of a simpler way to add VST plugins to a ProChannel and picked them apart to the point of absurdity. You even made a half hearted attempt to expose my arguments as contradictory, which of course they weren't. And it hardly seems necessary to point out, once again, that what I am describing is an easier way than using FX Chains.

You must, no one is forcing you to use anything or do anything. It is your choice. No one here can provide the solution you are seeking. All I did was suggest some ways that may work using the existing architecture and point you to the appropriate area to make a feature request.

Like I said, it wasn't a feature request. It was just the natural progression of a discussion - in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of threads around here go off track at times. Just look at the mammoth one about the staff view. It's not a huge problem. 
 
FX Chain presets are great, for those times when you want to use a preset. I never use effect chain presets and have no use for them. 
 
Also, just to clarify, I am not here "looking for a solution" or making an official feature request. It was just a remark in a discussion. You then set about furiously trying to pick it apart, mainly on the basis that your workflow is different to mine. In the process you also attempted to discredit me as "contradictory"  in a dishonest way which was intended to make it look as though I was talking through my hat. 

scook

sharke
FX Chain presets are great, for those times when you want to use a preset. I never use effect chain presets and have no use for them. 

And here lies part of the problem. This could be part of a solution.

 
Part of the problem is that I "don't use presets"? Erm.....ok then....
 
For the last time - I do not find signal chain presets to be helpful in my workflow or approach to mixing. They just aren't. I've tried doing things with presets. Didn't work out for me. 
 

scook

sharke
Also, just to clarify, I am not here "looking for a solution" or making an official feature request. It was just a remark in a discussion.

And my comments were suggestions based on the existing architecture. I now understand you are looking for help or expect anything to come of this. It has all been a lot of talk.

 
That's generally what a discussion is, yes. 

sharke
Yet there is currently a big 'ole thread, started by Craig, asking "what would make DAW's easier to use?" and absolutely chock full of suggestions and feature requests. I don't see any forum hosts complaining that it is "not appropriate for this forum" or that it would be better suited to another forum. 

Well, it wasn't really appropriate for this forum. However, this was an appropriate place to ask a general question about DAWs because most users here are quite knowledgeable. There is no other forum that would be more appropriate because it was not about problems, specific feature requests, hardware, etc. 

ampfixer
I wouldn't actually care, but lately they seem to making changes just so they will have changes to announce each month. There's not usually a mention of why, or how one change relates to a bigger picture. I'd like to think I'm wrong but there's no way to tell. 

The "why" for the big issues in the past few months is clearly in response to a significant number of user requests for improvements:
 

• Comping with Region FX clips
• Improvements to the MIDI PRV (e.g., velocity change audition not limited to note pane)
• Ripple Editing
• More flexible MIDI editing in response to advances in virtual instruments (i.e., Transform tool)
• Re-introduction of the monthly eZine (now accessible on any platform, anywhere)
• Comping enhancements
• Chase MIDI notes
• Fix Matrix View issues
• Improved touch response

 
The rest are to take advantage of technological advances (don't knock 'em 'til you've tried them):
 

• Microsoft Pen and Dial support 
• Support for wireless MIDI
• Extremely low latency for laptop sound chips

 
Then there are things that no one asked for specifically (mastering-quality limiter, 30 QuadCurve presets, 30 Modulation FX Chains), but if you look at the forum response, they're appreciated.
 
If these are "changes just so they will have changes to announce each month," all I can say is...I hope they keep announcing these kind of changes each month.
 
In the bigger picture, all this shows is that if a feature doesn't matter to someone, they're dismissed. But if you're one of the people who has wanted better MIDI editing, does mastering in SONAR, needs ripple editing for arranging (or got tired of the delete hole workaround), or wanted better comping...they're considered valuable.
 
Is it a priority for users that Cakewalk re-design the ProChannel so people who require doing lots of tweaking can do so in an environment they like better than dividing effects into two types, or who don't relate to the concept of a console? Is that more important to them than MIDI, comping, or arranging? I don't know. But based on following these forums, I tend to think not.
 
The bottom line is I believe that at Cakewalk, the features many people say they need are prioritized over features some people say they want.
 

sharke
I can't find anything in Cakewalk's blurb, past or present, which signifies that they intended the ProChannel to be used for a particular kind of processing ('bread and butter' FX or anything else) but to me the fact that they not only provided an FX Chain module for hosting your own effects, as well as various sound shaping (i.e. non-bread and butter) modules suggests that they at least partially envisioned it as a straight ahead processing channel. The whole idea of it being "baked in" as a console strip was surely marketing.

 
You can choose to believe whatever you want. However what I say is based on what the engineer who was the ProChannel’s designer said, as well as Cakewalk itself after the ProChannel was released. Nor did I have to look too hard to find that others understood what the ProChannel design was about. As Lynda.com explains about the ProChannel, “Sonar X2 Producer ships with a feature called Prochannel, which is a collection of audio processing modules that have been designed to emulate 3 classic real world mixing consoles. Each audio track, instrument track, and bus track has its own Prochannel, making it easy to quickly process your audio with the built-in modules.”
 
As Cakewalk says on Steam, ”Experience that big analog sound - and even create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips in SONAR Professional and Platinum.” Mixer architecture…channel strips…
 
Before X1 Expanded, Dynamics defaulted to preceding EQ, like most consoles. And as mentioned in Sound on Sound when discussing the change that allowed re-ordering modules, “Although the ProChannel effects ordering is pretty flexible, remember that ProChannel's goal is to mimic the workflow of a traditional mixing console as opposed to, for example, a modular synthesizer where anything can go anywhere. However, you can place ProChannel before or after the FX bin, which opens up additional possibilities.”
 
In announcing the introduction of the +10 dB Compressor as a ProChannel plug-in, Cakewalk’s press release from January 2015 said “SONAR’s ProChannel was a feature that was introduced in SONAR X1 Producer, and has continued to evolve. This analog-style channel strip offers SONAR customers the ability to create their own mixer architecture, with customizable mixer channel strips.”
 
The ProChannel couldn’t even scroll until X1 Expanded. I’m pretty sure you couldn’t insert FX Chains until X2. Basically, the ProChannel became a victim of its own success, where users wanted it to go beyond what was originally presented in X1.  
 

I have no doubt that the Bakers knew from the get go that many people would be using the ProChannel as their sole processing path.

 
See above. Your assumption is incorrect.
 
As to how difficult it would be to turn the PC into an FX Rack, I don't know code so can't comment. But I have seen that what people might think "would take only a few lines of code" can have unforeseen ramifications and consequences. I know that Cakewalk found it challenging to make the changes that evidenced themselves in later versions of SONAR beyond the original X1 release, because of limitations in the original design.

Anderton
You can choose to believe whatever you want. However what I say is based on what the engineer who was the ProChannel’s designer said, as well as Cakewalk itself after the ProChannel was released. Nor did I have to look too hard to find that others understood what the ProChannel design was about. As Lynda.com explains about the ProChannel, “Sonar X2 Producer ships with a feature called Prochannel, which is a collection of audio processing modules that have been designed to emulate 3 classic real world mixing consoles. Each audio track, instrument track, and bus track has its own Prochannel, making it easy to quickly process your audio with the built-in modules.”
 
As Cakewalk says on Steam, ”Experience that big analog sound - and even create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips in SONAR Professional and Platinum.” Mixer architecture…channel strips…

 
"...and create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips..." this to me suggests the idea of a strip which was designed to feel like a console strip (aesthetics) but which is fully customizable (functionality). Terms like "big analog sound" are clearly just marketing. Lynda.com called the X2 ProChannel "a collection of modules" to "emulate...mixing consoles" but by X2 it was certainly possible to mix and match VST's with modules and the ProChannel was everything it is now. 
 

AndertonBefore X1 Expanded, Dynamics defaulted to preceding EQ, like most consoles. And as mentioned in Sound on Sound when discussing the change that allowed re-ordering modules, “Although the ProChannel effects ordering is pretty flexible, remember that ProChannel's goal is to mimic the workflow of a traditional mixing console as opposed to, for example, a modular synthesizer where anything can go anywhere. However, you can place ProChannel before or after the FX bin, which opens up additional possibilities.”
 
In announcing the introduction of the +10 dB Compressor as a ProChannel plug-in, Cakewalk’s press release from January 2015 said “SONAR’s ProChannel was a feature that was introduced in SONAR X1 Producer, and has continued to evolve. This analog-style channel strip offers SONAR customers the ability to create their own mixer architecture, with customizable mixer channel strips.”
 
The ProChannel couldn’t even scroll until X1 Expanded. I’m pretty sure you couldn’t insert FX Chains until X2. Basically, the ProChannel became a victim of its own success, where users wanted it to go beyond what was originally presented in X1.  

 
You're quoting from your own article above. Not sure if that's allowed 
 
And besides, your article contradicts the idea that you couldn't insert FX Chains until X2. It clearly talks about them being available in X1. I remember that they were, because I came to Sonar during X1 and FX Chains were fully operational in the ProChannel when I started using it. I went straight to using the ProChannel for everything and never used an FX Bin once. 
 

Anderton

I have no doubt that the Bakers knew from the get go that many people would be using the ProChannel as their sole processing path.

 
See above. Your assumption is incorrect.

 
It really isn't a stretch to imagine that, regardless of how the ProChannel was originally marketed, the Bakers contemplated the VST compatibility from the start. I can't imagine that they wouldn't - it seems like a completely unnecessary limitation. 
 

AndertonAs to how difficult it would be to turn the PC into an FX Rack, I don't know code so can't comment. But I have seen that what people might think "would take only a few lines of code" can have unforeseen ramifications and consequences. I know that Cakewalk found it challenging to make the changes that evidenced themselves in later versions of SONAR beyond the original X1 release, because of limitations in the original design.

 
Once again - nobody has suggested anything so radical as "turning the ProChannel into an FX rack." All I'm talking about is adding a new module which accepts one VST and only takes up that amount of space. They already have a module which accepts VST's (and has some other functionality). All it would take would be to modify that existing module into something which looks different and has some of the superfluous functionality taken away. You wouldn't be changing any of the core design of the ProChannel at all, merely customizing some existing functionality. 

sharke
It just occurred to me that I haven't seen any new ProChannel modules in a long time, either from Cakewalk or 3rd party developers. Perhaps I'm just out of the loop. Has interest waned, or are there some I just don't know about? 

I've enjoyed the premise of your thread and don't understand the sharke attack (sorry but that was begging me to type). The title of the thread is misleading and perhaps even the location of the thread. But it didn't bother me once I begin reading the discussion. Lot's of people jump to read a post like this versus "how to get sonar 7 to see my realtek".  :) 
 
I use the PC for just about everything fx. Primary reason is I like the simplicity of routing the order of my fx in one area.  I do occasionally drop an fx in the bin. But since X1, I've been ~90% PC. I think along with fx chains, I have everything I need or want in the PC fx. I'm waiting to be able to save PC Module presets. Yes, I have submitted a feature request in the past and have full confidence it has been reviewed. Hopefully the developers agreed with needing that feature. If not, I'll still continue to use the PC almost exclusively for a fx container / manager. 
 
 

Anderton
Regardless of what it suggests to you, mixer channel strips are fairly well-defined. Look at some mixers, or plug-in emulations of mixer channel strips, to see what the term "mixer channel strip" suggests to the majority of real-world users. The customizable aspect of the original ProChannel was that you could change dynamics and distortion processors, as well as choose different filter curves and highpass/lowpass slopes. This allowed you to emulate the channel strips in different mixers.

I think the whole meat and potatoes of this particular argument is whether or not Cakewalk "originally" intended the ProChannel to accept VST plugins or not. And it really is moot, because the period during which you could not insert a VST in the PC probably represents less than 5% of its history. So then you could ask "did Cakewalk plan the VST compatibility from the outset, or did the idea not occur to them until later?" Neither of us know that for sure, but I would hazard a guess that the idea was floated and put on a to-do list for development in the near future. And the initial history of the ProChannel becomes even less relevant when you consider that what it is now is what they intended it to be.

Anderton
There is no contradiction. There's a difference between the availability of FX Chains, and the ability to insert them in the Pro Channel. Here is the link to the X1 documentation. As it says, "FX Chain presets can be used in track, clip and bus effects bins." Period. There is no mention of inserting them in the ProChannel in either the section on FX Chains or the section on the ProChannel. However, using FX Chains with the ProChannel is mentioned clearly in the X2

Regardless of any of that, the fact remains that the ProChannel was always meant as a "fantasy" channel strip rather than an accurate emulation of a real channel strip, and that VST capability was up and running not long after it came out. The only reason we're talking about history to begin with is in the context of a discussion about whether it would be a good idea to improve things for VST insertion in the PC, and no amount of history is going to change the fact that Cakewalk clearly intend the PC to be used as a free for all signal path in which dedicated processing modules coexist with regular plugins. The very fact that FX Chains exist at all in the PC means that any talk of improving or adding to their functionality is perfectly reasonable.