sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 15:01:57
(permalink)
pwalpwal
imo it's not opposition, it's rationalising why you don't need it so it doesn't get added to the already humongous "todo" list
It was more like "since I work differently and don't encounter this problem, I'm just going to deny it exists." I see a lot of opposition and hostility on this forum toward ideas or complaints on the basis that the opposing party can't see a need for it due to the fact that their workflow is different.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 15:23:40
(permalink)
There are quite a few functions that get shoehorned into sometimes complex workarounds. Rather than streamline a function during use (e.g., "This could really use some optimization"), the mindset of "oh that can be done with these 20 steps" prevails (e.g., "That can be done now"). That ends up dominating things and musicians get forced into learning a program rather than make music. Most folks I know do not enjoy the technical drama over their art, but some relish in it.
I have worked with many companies whose first reaction to a customer request is to point out a workaround or method to hide it. Very rarely is the first reaction to listen to understand. Ironically, in both cases paying customers fund the paychecks.
It is sometimes better to just let it go and move forward accordingly.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
kennywtelejazz
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7151
- Joined: 2005/10/22 06:27:02
- Location: The Planet Tele..X..
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 15:28:37
(permalink)
In all honesty maybe I'm missing something here . I'm not really all that sure what all the fuss and fighting is all about. If someone has a custom unique workflow and they want to use the Pro Channel while taking it to a whole other place. What is stopping them from using a3rd party VST wrapper along the lines of this in the link ... there is no need to be stuck using a Cakewalk style device chain when there are more versatile options available that can work inside the Pro Channel . https://www.bluecataudio....cts/Product_PatchWork/ In my previous post I used a Nomad Plug called The Magma inside the Pro Chanel ...it only took up one space when compressed The Magma comes with 65 plugs and every VST plug I have can also be wrapped inside The Magma in any order I want ... The amount of versatility that is currently available is astounding .... Having seen and read this whole thread I decided to try this approach out in the Pro Chanel ..it works flawlessly Heck , even T Racks works inside the Pro Chanel  What point have I missed ? Where am I off topic on this ? Kenny
post edited by kennywtelejazz - 2017/07/19 15:51:10
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 16:19:10
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby John 2017/07/19 17:10:41
sharke
Much of today's electronic music is produced with a combination of programmed and live techniques. Much of all music is done with a combination of programmed and live techniques, and I work in a totally non-linear fashion - that's the basis of my "Recording on the Fast Track" seminar. However the extent to which someone feels they need to tweak presets and sounds differs. I know the sounds I want, get them, and move on. I don't expect universal agreement on this, but I think the faster one commits to sounds and incorporates them into the music, the better the "feel." Or maybe I just have a short attention span  sharke
pwalpwal
imo it's not opposition, it's rationalising why you don't need it so it doesn't get added to the already humongous "todo" list
It was more like "since I work differently and don't encounter this problem, I'm just going to deny it exists." The following are general comments about forums and effectiveness. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to intuitively understand a specialized workflow they don't use, don't need, and have not experienced. IMO discussions about "improvements" (which are often in the eye of the beholder) are most meaningful if the person wanting a change can explain clearly and concisely why they want a change, give practical examples of the conditions under which it is beneficial, and refrain from introducing elements that aren't relevant. For example, when you said the ProChannel was all about marketing and made references to "marketing blurbs," I felt obligated to point out that the genesis of the ProChannel was engineering-driven to accomplish a very specific functionality - allow custom mixer architectures that would allow users to go way beyond the prevailing DAW options to simply show and hide mixer sections. SONAR's engineers are musicians and use the program. Marketing does not drive updates. I also don't recall many complaints about the FX Rack since improvements were made to it (I certainly don't have a problem with the FX Rack, or consider it "small and fiddly"). So I assume some people couldn't relate to your contention that using the FX Rack is problematic. It also complicates matters somewhat that you do not post examples of your music so when you try to explain why a particular workflow is vital to what you do, there's no musical frame of reference - if I heard several instruments with 5-10 effects, that would help make your point. I'm not exactly stupid but I had to wade through a lot of verbiage to understand the crux of what you wanted. I still don't think it's particularly important, but at least I now understand why you think it's important. Pwalpwal has a point, too. Ideally, people proposing changes need to be realistic about the needs of the user base. For example I could make a convincing argument that being able to move MP4 video files on the timeline would make my life a whole lot easier. However I get the sense that most people here don't really care that much about video. So I'm not going to contribute to the "noise" with a feature request that would benefit only a relatively small number of users, especially in a forum whose mission statement is "Discussion focused on the use of SONAR software." I take a few minutes to tidy up my studio as I convert an MP4 video to a WMV scratch track against which I can do the score, and then get on with the project. So I don't feel a need to add, as pwalpwal says, "to the already humongous 'todo' list."
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 19:02:56
(permalink)
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up. I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated. This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive. sharke holy crap make an album or something.  We spend a lot of time arguing the finer points of the tools. I mean no disrespect if it's that important to you, but I think the horse died a long time ago. A simple feature request will do.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 19:43:29
(permalink)
kennywtelejazz
In all honesty maybe I'm missing something here . I'm not really all that sure what all the fuss and fighting is all about.
If someone has a custom unique workflow and they want to use the Pro Channel while taking it to a whole other place. What is stopping them from using a3rd party VST wrapper along the lines of this in the link ...
there is no need to be stuck using a Cakewalk style device chain when there are more versatile options available that can work inside the Pro Channel .
https://www.bluecataudio....cts/Product_PatchWork/
In my previous post I used a Nomad Plug called The Magma inside the Pro Chanel ...it only took up one space when compressed
The Magma comes with 65 plugs and every VST plug I have can also be wrapped inside The Magma in any order I want ...
The amount of versatility that is currently available is astounding ....
Having seen and read this whole thread I decided to try this approach out in the Pro Chanel ..it works flawlessly
Heck , even T Racks works inside the Pro Chanel
What point have I missed ? Where am I off topic on this ?
Kenny
This ends up with the same problem as using a collapsed FX Chain module, namely that you can't see your effects chain "at a glance" and you have to make an extra click to open it. There are actually a few of these virtual effect racks available - I have ones made by Waves and Soundtoys - don't use either of them for the same reason.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 20:17:51
(permalink)
Anderton
Much of all music is done with a combination of programmed and live techniques, and I work in a totally non-linear fashion - that's the basis of my "Recording on the Fast Track" seminar. However the extent to which someone feels they need to tweak presets and sounds differs. I know the sounds I want, get them, and move on. I don't expect universal agreement on this, but I think the faster one commits to sounds and incorporates them into the music, the better the "feel." Or maybe I just have a short attention span
No I agree about the benefits of committing to sounds early on - but it doesn't always work out like that, and sometimes while you may commit to a synth sound early in the project (i.e. leave the synth controls a certain way without tweaking them), that doesn't mean that committing to EQ and compression settings for the track early on is realistic. Projects evolve. Tracks are added and removed, and other tracks processed differently to accommodate. My creative process is an ongoing affair in which parts are frequently swapped out, sounds rethought, arrangements modified and overhauled, and EQ settings completely changed as I might for example decide at some late stage to push something back in a mix whereas before it was up front. I'm far from the only person who works like this and find especially that those who work in kind of "out there" electronic or experimental styles report working exactly the same way. Other people work completely differently and might plan out and arrange the whole song from start to finish before even switching on the DAW. And of course, everything in between. It's the job of a good DAW to accommodate all of these working styles. AndertonThe following are general comments about forums and effectiveness.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to intuitively understand a specialized workflow they don't use, don't need, and have not experienced. IMO discussions about "improvements" (which are often in the eye of the beholder) are most meaningful if the person wanting a change can explain clearly and concisely why they want a change, give practical examples of the conditions under which it is beneficial, and refrain from introducing elements that aren't relevant. For example, when you said the ProChannel was all about marketing and made references to "marketing blurbs," I felt obligated to point out that the genesis of the ProChannel was engineering-driven to accomplish a very specific functionality - allow custom mixer architectures that would allow users to go way beyond the prevailing DAW options to simply show and hide mixer sections. SONAR's engineers are musicians and use the program. Marketing does not drive updates. My workflow is far from "specialized," it's just different from yours. And from the start, I've explained clearly and concisely my reasons for wanting the change. It actually started out very simple, but then I was driven into an almost philosophical debate on the issue by scook, who made a baffling attempt to make it look like I was talking through my hat in describing my reasons, by dishonestly accusing me of contradicting myself. The interesting thing is that most of the others chiming in seemed to understand what I meant without too much fuss. AndertonI also don't recall many complaints about the FX Rack since improvements were made to it (I certainly don't have a problem with the FX Rack, or consider it "small and fiddly"). So I assume some people couldn't relate to your contention that using the FX Rack is problematic. You assume a lot, and that's the problem. I've heard many people complain about the FX Rack and have called it small and fiddly. Sure it's an improvement that it now expands, but it's still very narrow and truncates plugin names (to the point of complete illegibility sometimes when using narrow strips). It's not as if legibility of labels has ever been considered an area of the program that has no room for improvement. Look at the very welcome addition of custom label fields in the automation lanes, which was in response to a few complaints (including mine) about losing track of automation lanes because of the inadequacy of the existing edit filter labels (they were also being truncated). I've heard lots of people on this forum say that they never use the FX racks and prefer the ProChannel. I've also heard people say they never "got" the ProChannel and never touch it. Both views are equally valid and should be accommodated. AndertonIt also complicates matters somewhat that you do not post examples of your music so when you try to explain why a particular workflow is vital to what you do, there's no musical frame of reference - if I heard several instruments with 5-10 effects, that would help make your point. I'm not exactly stupid but I had to wade through a lot of verbiage to understand the crux of what you wanted. I still don't think it's particularly important, but at least I now understand why you think it's important. This is a truly baffling comment to make. Not once have I ever heard someone claim that someone else's description of their workflow was "complicated" by the fact that they didn't post examples of their music. The end result of the music I create is irrelevant, and there is nothing in it which would suggest that I use one workflow over another. It sounds to me that you're almost skeptical of the descriptions of my workflow, and would like some kind of "proof" that I'm working with a particular kind of sound. By the way, there was no need whatsoever to "wade through a lot of verbiage" to understand my viewpoint. It was set out very clearly from the beginning. Any subsequent "verbiage" is the result of having to explain and clarify things over and over to scook and yourself, and having to repeatedly defend myself against misrepresentation. In other words, it was a very simple viewpoint that could have been noted and either agreed with, or met with something like "well I can't say I have the same workflow as you but I get what you're saying." AndertonPwalpwal has a point, too. Ideally, people proposing changes need to be realistic about the needs of the user base. For example I could make a convincing argument that being able to move MP4 video files on the timeline would make my life a whole lot easier. However I get the sense that most people here don't really care that much about video. So I'm not going to contribute to the "noise" with a feature request that would benefit only a relatively small number of users, especially in a forum whose mission statement is "Discussion focused on the use of SONAR software." I take a few minutes to tidy up my studio as I convert an MP4 video to a WMV scratch track against which I can do the score, and then get on with the project. So I don't feel a need to add, as pwalpwal says, "to the already humongous 'todo' list."
Thing is though, working with video in Sonar is an edge case. I suspect the vast majority of Sonar users don't. Working with audio effect chains, however, is almost universal. I suspect that if you took the subset of those people who use the ProChannel as their signal path, and said "would you like a method of inserting a single VST into the ProChannel without having to use an entire FX Chain module," most of them would say "sure, that's a welcome addition." In addition, I suspect that the vast majority of new users who investigate the ProChannel (it being one of Sonar's major selling points), will just presume that you could insert a single VST by dragging it, and will be surprised to learn that it has to rattle around in a big old FX Chain module by itself. Now whether or not it, as an idea, should be prioritized over other feature requests, is debatable. Every feature request is evaluated accordingly. But it should be remembered that I never intended the comment to be a feature request, it was simply a casual comment in a discussion about the ProChannel which got blown out of all proportion.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 20:22:55
(permalink)
Starise
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up.
I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated.
This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive.
What a truly bizarre thing to say. Nobody forced either scook or Anderton to take the interest in the thread that they did. And honestly, when I see a subject in the forum that I'm not interested in, I just scroll right on. Don't think I've ever taken to the thread to announce that it doesn't interest me - who's got time for that?  Starisesharke holy crap make an album or something. We spend a lot of time arguing the finer points of the tools. I mean no disrespect if it's that important to you, but I think the horse died a long time ago.
A simple feature request will do.
Once again, it was a passing comment that should have stayed that way. Unfortunately for some reason I was taken to task for it in ways that necessitated me defending myself, and I'll always chime back to answer any responses that I feel have misrepresented me or my views. That's just the way forums are. Again, just avoid any threads that irritate or bore you. There are plenty of looooong-ass threads on this forum that I avoid like the plague.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Zargg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10666
- Joined: 2014/09/28 04:20:14
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/19 21:23:00
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Kamikaze 2017/07/20 00:19:59
I'm just joining in (read it all) to say that I like the idea of being able to drag a vst to the PC as sharke suggests, That would be a nice evolution of the PC. Do I need it? No. Would I want it? Yep. All the best.
Ken Nilsen ZarggBBZWin 10 Pro X64, Cakewalk by Bandlab, SPlat X64, AMD AM3+ fx-8320, 16Gb RAM, RME Ucx (+ ARC), Tascam FW 1884, M-Audio Keystation 61es, *AKAI MPK Pro 25, *Softube Console1, Alesis DM6 USB, Maschine MkII Laptop setup: Win 10 X64, i5 2.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 320gb 7200 RPM HD, Focusrite Solo, + *
|
kennywtelejazz
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7151
- Joined: 2005/10/22 06:27:02
- Location: The Planet Tele..X..
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 08:32:34
(permalink)
sharke
kennywtelejazz
In all honesty maybe I'm missing something here . I'm not really all that sure what all the fuss and fighting is all about.
If someone has a custom unique workflow and they want to use the Pro Channel while taking it to a whole other place. What is stopping them from using a3rd party VST wrapper along the lines of this in the link ...
there is no need to be stuck using a Cakewalk style device chain when there are more versatile options available that can work inside the Pro Channel .
https://www.bluecataudio....cts/Product_PatchWork/
In my previous post I used a Nomad Plug called The Magma inside the Pro Chanel ...it only took up one space when compressed
The Magma comes with 65 plugs and every VST plug I have can also be wrapped inside The Magma in any order I want ...
The amount of versatility that is currently available is astounding ....
Having seen and read this whole thread I decided to try this approach out in the Pro Chanel ..it works flawlessly
Heck , even T Racks works inside the Pro Chanel
What point have I missed ? Where am I off topic on this ?
Kenny
This ends up with the same problem as using a collapsed FX Chain module, namely that you can't see your effects chain "at a glance" and you have to make an extra click to open it. There are actually a few of these virtual effect racks available - I have ones made by Waves and Soundtoys - don't use either of them for the same reason.
With all due respect sharke your logic here escapes my Feeble Genius Mind . In one breath you claim you want to be able to use the Pro Chanel , Yet in another breath you expect the Pro Chanel to exhibit a "quality of workflow " using other non Pro Chanel VST's in a way that the Pro Chanel does not even exhibit for its own self contained Pro Chanel moduals ...Are you serious ? Even when the Pro Chanel is populated with " SONAR Cakewalk only designed Pro Chanel moduals " , you still have to click to expand or collapse the the moduals themselves in order to make changes to the individual effects that you are using within the bone stock Pro Chanel that ships with SONAR Yes ? No? Kenny
|
ChazEd
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 121
- Joined: 2014/12/01 05:17:09
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 12:01:29
(permalink)
LOL
Sharke, don't waste your time with these archaic thinking people.
You see, they're stuck in the past. Can't do anything about that.
By the look of it, I think we can all agree that ProChannel is dead. No more development planned.
If you look elsewhere, you can see that even that the so called "console emulation workflow" is better than what's in ProChannel.
Look at Reason 9: best SSL workflow ever. you can scroll up and down to see the entire chain. Beautiful.
And now they accept VST's! (You see, better late than never).
Another way archaic thinking is making Sonar worst: Ripple Editing.
Ableton Live 8 was launched in 2009, and back them, a better way to handle what Ripple Editing does, was already there. Can't say about earlier versions of Live.
Cakewalk maybe borrowed Ripple Editing from Sony Vegas (works the same way). Even Sony dumped it's entire Sonic Foundry software line to Magix. Maybe because there's nothing you can do with archaic code? Who knows?
Why Cakewalk didn't borrowed from better implementations? Archaic thinking? Or archaic code?
To all Cakewalk Knights (hosts or not) with their shields and swords: don't get me wrong. There's a lot of features I can't live without in Sonar, but still there's a lot of "better way of doing things" to catch up from other DAW's.
I really hope Sonar doesn't stuck in the past, like some people in this forum.
Ableton Live 10 Suite x64 Korg Legacy Collection, FXpansion Tremor, Z3ta+ 2 & Rapture Pro Win 10 x64 (Still knocking on wood...) i7 4770, GA-H97-D3H, 16 GB, 7200 1TB + 2TB, RX 580, CX600V2 UA-101 (Thank you, Roland, for the Windows 10 driver!), SM57, MG10/2, MicroKey 37
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 15:23:45
(permalink)
sharke
Starise
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up.
I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated.
This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive.
What a truly bizarre thing to say. Nobody forced either scook or Anderton to take the interest in the thread that they did. This is true, I choose the threads in which I want to participate. However I am always looking for ways in which SONAR can be improved, and will look at any thread where there's a major discussion going on about features. There seemed to be a lot of passion on both sides which of course made it of greater interest. However for whatever reason, it was not initially clear to me what the issue was. I did not argue with anyone. I a) tried to suggest ways to accomplish what was desired using the existing tools (my default position - if something will do most of what's wanted, then that can hold people over until they get what they want), and b) constantly sought clarification because I just didn't "get" why it was so important to host VSTs in a ProChannel using something other than the existing method of just dragging a VST into it, or using FX Chains. As someone who uses SONAR literally every day on jobs that include remixes, audio-for-video, songwriting, sample library development, editing narration, loop library creation, prepping files for use in my Live act, mastering, and more, the people at Cakewalk take my opinions into account when I think something would really improve the program for a large segment of the user base. I have advocated for many things people have mentioned in the forum, and some of them have come to pass. Monitoring this forum is also what gives me ideas for the "Friday's Tip of the Week" and my SONAR column in Sound on Sound. Finally, I monitor this forum to "take the pulse" as to whether something catches on with the user base as a whole. Some topics really do have universal appeal, while others don't. As you might expect, the ideal update is one that: - Appeals to, and applies to, a large segment of the user base
- Prioritizes people's needs over people's wants
- Can be implemented easily
- Doesn't "touch" other areas of the program that could cause unexpected consequences
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 15:42:58
(permalink)
kennywtelejazz
With all due respect sharke your logic here escapes my Feeble Genius Mind .
In one breath you claim you want to be able to use the Pro Chanel , Yet in another breath you expect the Pro Chanel to exhibit a "quality of workflow " using other non Pro Chanel VST's in a way that the Pro Chanel does not even exhibit for its own self contained Pro Chanel moduals ...Are you serious ?
Even when the Pro Chanel is populated with " SONAR Cakewalk only designed Pro Chanel moduals " , you still have to click to expand or collapse the the moduals themselves in order to make changes to the individual effects that you are using within the bone stock Pro Chanel that ships with SONAR
Yes ? No?
Kenny
I don't know where you're getting any of that from... I just want to be able to drag VST's into the ProChannel (as you can now) but without them having to rattle around inside an FX Chain module which is 5 or 6 times too big for a single VST. The in's and out's of why, and why the suggested "workarounds" are inadequate, are all outlined above numerous times. It really is simple.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 15:49:52
(permalink)
Anderton
sharke
Starise
OK I'll admit my brain fogged over about 20 posts up.
I like the way the PC is. I would like to see the ability to convert vst to PC. If I can't have that, the second best thing is the rack in PC as Kenny has demonstrated.
This all seems like a bunch of wasted energy to me. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why not let these guys Craig and scook all actually work at doing something constructive. This is all counter productive.
What a truly bizarre thing to say. Nobody forced either scook or Anderton to take the interest in the thread that they did.
This is true, I choose the threads in which I want to participate. However I am always looking for ways in which SONAR can be improved, and will look at any thread where there's a major discussion going on about features. There seemed to be a lot of passion on both sides which of course made it of greater interest. However for whatever reason, it was not initially clear to me what the issue was. I did not argue with anyone. I a) tried to suggest ways to accomplish what was desired using the existing tools (my default position - if something will do most of what's wanted, then that can hold people over until they get what they want), and b) constantly sought clarification because I just didn't "get" why it was so important to host VSTs in a ProChannel using something other than the existing method of just dragging a VST into it, or using FX Chains.
As someone who uses SONAR literally every day on jobs that include remixes, audio-for-video, songwriting, sample library development, editing narration, loop library creation, prepping files for use in my Live act, mastering, and more, the people at Cakewalk take my opinions into account when I think something would really improve the program for a large segment of the user base. I have advocated for many things people have mentioned in the forum, and some of them have come to pass.
Monitoring this forum is also what gives me ideas for the "Friday's Tip of the Week" and my SONAR column in Sound on Sound.
Finally, I monitor this forum to "take the pulse" as to whether something catches on with the user base as a whole. Some topics really do have universal appeal, while others don't. As you might expect, the ideal update is one that:
- Appeals to, and applies to, a large segment of the user base
- Prioritizes people's needs over people's wants
- Can be implemented easily
- Doesn't "touch" other areas of the program that could cause unexpected consequence
There have been a ton of small improvements in Sonar over the last couple of years, and not all of them fit that criteria. A good example is the one I brought up earlier - custom labels for automation lanes. You won't have seen very much at all in the way of requests for that, but the Bakers implemented it anyway, because it was obviously a good idea and something of a no brainer. The only requests I ever saw for it were the ones I posted, and while I got a couple of "good idea" comments, nothing indicated that it was a hugely popular.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 16:31:11
(permalink)
I'll go way back to when the PC was first introduced. I'll admit it seemed like a few motives may have been involved. This was back when Mike was coming around. He made a good point then. The PC modules are vst's written to fit inside the PC shell. He inferred at that time it may have also been a marketing decision. I frankly, didn't have an opinion about it then. I could see the reasons for thinking that way. As far as I know, no one else had anything like the PC. efx racks, yes. Reason was basically built on the idea of racks. Nothing had quite the approach to it that PC had though. It was a quick way to access all the main things you might need on any channel quickly. The ease that you could use the PC made my workflows better, even using vst's. If a person had a bunch of similar projects you could save those into the project or save only the PC scenes you like. This negated the workflow issues for lots of people. Simply load a PC preset or mix scene and go about mixing your song.
This is why I can't understand the comments by the OP saying it is archaic and behind in some way. It really isn't unless either you've never used it or don't fully understand the capabilities. Screen real estate has always been an issue and no matter what you do it always will be. We can minimize it. You can customize it, but chances are something you wanted to see might get occasionally covered and need to be dragged or relocated. If you have a 100 track mix anything you do will bump the tracks over and you might need to do some toggling. FWIW I think the skylight interface made it better than it ever was. I challenge you to find a daw that has that perfected. Hot keys for the PC would be helpful in maybe making quick on the fly changes to the graphics.
What I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. And PLEASE any comparison to Reason as a cutting edge technology is laughable. They just allowed vst 2.4. Reason id a great program but there are so many things you CAN'T do in it.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 16:36:42
(permalink)
Starise
I'll go way back to when the PC was first introduced. I'll admit it seemed like a few motives may have been involved. This was back when Mike was coming around. He made a good point then. The PC modules are vst's written to fit inside the PC shell. He inferred at that time it may have also been a marketing decision. I frankly, didn't have an opinion about it then. I could see the reasons for thinking that way. As far as I know, no one else had anything like the PC. efx racks, yes. Reason was basically built on the idea of racks. Nothing had quite the approach to it that PC had though. It was a quick way to access all the main things you might need on any channel quickly. The ease that you could use the PC made my workflows better, even using vst's. If a person had a bunch of similar projects you could save those into the project or save only the PC scenes you like. This negated the workflow issues for lots of people. Simply load a PC preset or mix scene and go about mixing your song.
This is why I can't understand the comments by the OP saying it is archaic and behind in some way. It really isn't unless either you've never used it or don't fully understand the capabilities. Screen real estate has always been an issue and no matter what you do it always will be. We can minimize it. You can customize it, but chances are something you wanted to see might get occasionally covered and need to be dragged or relocated. If you have a 100 track mix anything you do will bump the tracks over and you might need to do some toggling. FWIW I think the skylight interface made it better than it ever was. I challenge you to find a daw that has that perfected. Hot keys for the PC would be helpful in maybe making quick on the fly changes to the graphics.
What I'm saying is you can't have it both ways. And PLEASE any comparison to Reason as a cutting edge technology is laughable. They just allowed vst 2.4. Reason id a great program but there are so many things you CAN'T do in it.
Screen estate will always be an issue, which is why any small improvements to maximize it or make things more efficient space wise will always be welcome. Allowing single-sized VSTs to be dragged into the PC would be having it both ways. It's very simple. I'm the OP and I didn't say anything about the ProChannel being archaic or behind. Don't know where you're getting that from.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 16:42:42
(permalink)
ChazEd
Cakewalk maybe borrowed Ripple Editing from Sony Vegas (works the same way). Even Sony dumped it's entire Sonic Foundry software line to Magix. Maybe because there's nothing you can do with archaic code? Who knows? The music software business is too small for a company like Sony, and the software included technology that fit perfectly into where Magix wants to take its products. With one check, Magix got the additional developers and code they needed to take their products to another level, and Sony got rid of something that didn't really help their portfolio. Why Cakewalk didn't borrowed from better implementations? Archaic thinking? Or archaic code? Ripple Editing was a major request from the user base. But it also touched on other aspects, like arranging and getting rid of annoyances like the "delete hole" issues. Ripple Editing as implemented in SONAR is a well-defined concept with which people are familiar. However, Ripple Editing will continue to evolve, much like how comping and the PRV have continued to evolve. To all Cakewalk Knights (hosts or not) with their shields and swords: don't get me wrong. There's a lot of features I can't live without in Sonar, but still there's a lot of "better way of doing things" to catch up from other DAW's. Unfortunately there always will be, because no DAW will be able to duplicate all other desirable features in other DAWs. Realistically, there are ways in which many other DAWs need to catch up with SONAR: - ARA integration
- Microsoft pen and dial support
- Ability to edit time/pitch-stretchable files
- Low-latency laptop operation with WASAPI
- Plug-in load balancing
- MIDI Transform tool
- Bluetooth MIDI
- Matrix View (BTW Ableton wasn't upset when Cakewalk did this, they felt it added legitimacy to the concept)
- Full Softube 1 Console support
- Theme editing
- Smart Swipe
- etc.
So why don't all other DAWs implement these features? Time and resources...the same constraints under which SONAR operates. ALL software companies want to make their products better, but they're working in an industry where (for example) people complain that $199 for lifetime updates is too much money, and where software theft is rampant. If everyone who used their software paid for their software, I believe this industry would see an explosion of innovation and lower costs. People simply don't realize how small this industry is - and the market is flat at best, so there is no growth to fuel these companies. Any features a company adds have to navigate the difficult path of satisfying the existing user base that constantly wants more, and newcomers who are already intimidated by existing features - look at how many people can't even get sound to come through an audio interface. Apple decimated several Mac music software companies when it reduced the price of Logic to $199. If something similar happened on Windows, music software as a healthy, competitive genre could disappear...so enjoy it while you can. This is not being an apologist for Cakewalk. Over the years I've consulted to Ableton, PreSonus, Steinberg, Native Instruments, Avid, Sony, Mixcraft, Samplitude, M-Audio, and others. No company will ever have the resources to produce the DAW they want to produce. ALL companies have a seemingly endless list of things they want to do, but are resigned to picking a very small percentage of items from that list - and hoping they make the right choices. The only option for consumers is to choose the DAW that comes closest to meeting their needs, or learn more than one program. Software companies are no longer living in the golden days of the 90s and early 2000s. It remains to be seen whether those kind of market conditions could ever return; it would help if there was an EDM phenomenon that could stimulate the music software market on the same level that the Beatles stimulated band instruments. However with EDM representing about a 5% US market share of music consumption (according to Neilsen; that includes physical media, downloadable media, and streaming), we have a ways to go. So the bottom line when contemplating new features (or further developing older features) is they would ideally accomplish three things: - Satisfy a large percentage of the existing user base to encourage customer retention
- Be sufficiently compelling that it causes people to switch DAWs
- Be sufficiently unique and important to cause new users to get on board with the program
I say this only to give background so there's a better understanding of why companies do, or do not, implement features their competitors have. The digital revolution has been great in so many ways, but it has devalued intellectual property and that has consequences for software companies. The way most companies have compensated is by adding hardware products (e.g., Push, audio interfaces, Console 1, Artist Series) which can't be downloaded from torrents. This is not to argue with anyone. I just hope that some people find the background information interesting.
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 17:09:57
(permalink)
James I was referencing comments by Chazed. On how "archaic" he seems to think Sonar is. The blanket statements lead nowhere. Yes Cakewalk has been around for 30 years and that's a good thing. He apparently thinks almost everything else is better...or he's just having a bad day.Whatever the case, universal statements like that mean nothing to me, especially when no real details are given.
To say the PC is dead is also in fact probably a lie. I hate to be that blatant, but seriously Cake can add two modules next week or change it up in some way at any time. Many people use this thing that he says is dead, to even make that statement overlooks just about everything I know about Cakewalk.
Maybe they will add a feature to drag a vst into the PC. I think it's a good idea overall. To do that you would need to write a program that translates to PC on the fly and adjusts the graphics. Probably no small feat. OTOH if you can do that, no one will need to invest in PC modules any more because they can simply load anything they want into it. Then you might run into optimization issues and warranty issues etc etc. It's more work to load tools that are already there as basic working plugs in the PC.
So I'm not saying it's impossible or that it isn't at some point feasible. I'm saying that solving one issue might bring up a host of other issues. It gets complicated really fast.
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm happy with the current setup. Improvements can always be made. It just seems we are working this from the wrong end in how it's going down.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 17:24:20
(permalink)
I tried to reply and my post went away. I wasn't referencing you James. I was referencing ChazED.
To make some changes could possibly cause other complications. Think about it. Maybe your answer is different than mine.I have no problem with your suggestion. It just seems we are typing reams about something simple :)
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 17:49:34
(permalink)
Starise
James I was referencing comments by Chazed. On how "archaic" he seems to think Sonar is. The blanket statements lead nowhere. Yes Cakewalk has been around for 30 years and that's a good thing. He apparently thinks almost everything else is better...or he's just having a bad day.Whatever the case, universal statements like that mean nothing to me, especially when no real details are given.
To say the PC is dead is also in fact probably a lie. I hate to be that blatant, but seriously Cake can add two modules next week or change it up in some way at any time. Many people use this thing that he says is dead, to even make that statement overlooks just about everything I know about Cakewalk.
Maybe they will add a feature to drag a vst into the PC. I think it's a good idea overall. To do that you would need to write a program that translates to PC on the fly and adjusts the graphics. Probably no small feat. OTOH if you can do that, no one will need to invest in PC modules any more because they can simply load anything they want into it. Then you might run into optimization issues and warranty issues etc etc. It's more work to load tools that are already there as basic working plugs in the PC.
So I'm not saying it's impossible or that it isn't at some point feasible. I'm saying that solving one issue might bring up a host of other issues. It gets complicated really fast.
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm happy with the current setup. Improvements can always be made. It just seems we are working this from the wrong end in how it's going down.
You misunderstand what I meant about dragging a VST into the ProChannel. I didn't suggest a means of having the VST automatically morph its controls into a PC module format. I just said it would be nice to be able to drag a VST into the ProChannel and have it sit on its own without needing a full FX Chain module. So basically, we need a module which houses one single VST and takes up no more room than that. I have no doubt the Bakers could implement this very easily.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 18:37:33
(permalink)
I only maybe misunderstood part of it. I would think to get the maximum effect from the change you would want it to be compact in the PC JMOP. Like I said, my brain glazed over about 2/3 of the way into this. That started when it became apparent we were going in circles.
It might boil down to how much integration is needed. If you had this feature would you still use the vst box? Would you put a few vst's into the PC and then use the PC as yet another vst holder? Would you go post or pre? If you drag a vst into an effects chain in the PC don't you have similar experience?
This now seems more about the vst's and not the PC. I would like to see the PC more functional, maybe see the idea expanded to more PC modules that would minimize the need for vst. Cake has made allowances for vst in the PC. The whole idea behind the PC as I see it is to have a bin of well made plugs with easy access. The plugs for PC are well optimized. I have more capability than I really need now in terms of functionality and connectivity, but that's me and might not apply to you.
Maybe what some want is really more of a glorified vst rack. As with many of these things we have plenty of choices.In my case, I probably have too many choices.
Good luck with it!
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 18:51:15
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby RSMCGUITAR 2017/07/21 04:56:15
Once again: - I find the FX Racks to be too narrow and fiddly and they drastically truncate plugin names, especially when using narrow strips
- so I use the ProChannel as my sole track processing chain - it's bigger and wider and more conducive to working with large, complex effect chains, and I also like the hands-on convenience of the Quadcurve and use a couple of other of the PC modules
- Currently the only way to use a normal VST effect in the PC is by adding it to an FX Chain module. These are way too big for just one VST, because they also have custom controls on them. They're made for an explicit purpose - building custom effect chaining modules with controls to manipulate them as a single unit. They're essentially a "black box" for building custom effects. For hosting one VST, they're overkill and a waste of space.
- Therefore a highly pared down version of the FX Chain module, which houses just one VST and takes up no more room than is necessary, would be very welcome.
That's all there is to it, for future reference. If you use the PC as your sole processing path and you insert your own VST's in it (as many do), it's an improvement. That's it.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
kennywtelejazz
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7151
- Joined: 2005/10/22 06:27:02
- Location: The Planet Tele..X..
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 19:05:49
(permalink)
sharke
Starise
James I was referencing comments by Chazed. On how "archaic" he seems to think Sonar is. The blanket statements lead nowhere. Yes Cakewalk has been around for 30 years and that's a good thing. He apparently thinks almost everything else is better...or he's just having a bad day.Whatever the case, universal statements like that mean nothing to me, especially when no real details are given.
To say the PC is dead is also in fact probably a lie. I hate to be that blatant, but seriously Cake can add two modules next week or change it up in some way at any time. Many people use this thing that he says is dead, to even make that statement overlooks just about everything I know about Cakewalk.
Maybe they will add a feature to drag a vst into the PC. I think it's a good idea overall. To do that you would need to write a program that translates to PC on the fly and adjusts the graphics. Probably no small feat. OTOH if you can do that, no one will need to invest in PC modules any more because they can simply load anything they want into it. Then you might run into optimization issues and warranty issues etc etc. It's more work to load tools that are already there as basic working plugs in the PC.
So I'm not saying it's impossible or that it isn't at some point feasible. I'm saying that solving one issue might bring up a host of other issues. It gets complicated really fast.
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm happy with the current setup. Improvements can always be made. It just seems we are working this from the wrong end in how it's going down.
You misunderstand what I meant about dragging a VST into the ProChannel. I didn't suggest a means of having the VST automatically morph its controls into a PC module format. I just said it would be nice to be able to drag a VST into the ProChannel and have it sit on its own without needing a full FX Chain module. So basically, we need a module which houses one single VST and takes up no more room than that. I have no doubt the Bakers could implement this very easily.
OK that clears a few things up .... I get it to a degree I would like to see Cakewalk morph a few concepts they already have in play and come up with a New Hybrid approach to The Pro Chanel and Consul View ... As an augmentation to what already exists ....not necessarily a replacement  I'm on 15 inch lap tops by choice. Screen real estate is really very important to me right now . FWIW, I do love the way the Consul and Pro Chanel look after I've done all my hard work and I'm just kicking back listening to how the tune is progressing ... Folks please bare with me on this ....I'm just thinking out loud , Yet I have given this a lot of thought in my spare time ... What would happen if Cakewalk took the existing Matrix View and revamped it to become a revamped consul / pro channel mixing / environment where a person can choose the levels of what they want to be able to edit on the fly ? Instead of using loops , samples and one shots as per the current Matrix View a person could pre determine what pro channel or 3rd party VST content they want do display within each of the pre determined cells within a Matrix. Then they could set up a custom view and style environment specifically for their individualized workflows using Pro Channel style effects and or 3rd party VST's ... ex , In SONAR's current Matrix View you can set up a cell to play a loop , a one shot , or any number of other starting and stopping points within a cell using midi and or audio . In a Hybrid Mixing Pro Channel /VST effects Matrix View Cell you can set any layer of chosen effects you want to bring to the forefront ... ex , Lets say you already have a set Pro channel setting you are happy with yet you want to be able to adjust on the fly your effects within the effects bin , you can recall the effects bin setting within the Matrix Cell .. Or for that matter you can even have the whole cell populated yet have it set up where you can recall the one effect you would like to experiment with and have that one only show when you call up the chosen cell Possible Matrix cell attributes that can be recalled and set can range from Pro Channel only , Pro Channel w effects bin , effects bin only , wrapped in Pro Channel 3rd party VST , unwrapped individual VST effect ... These recall-able attributes can be set by right clicking on the cell .... Taking it a step further A Hybrid Mixing style Matrix View can also contain the typical things such as the vol control , pan control, and sends , but not on the scale of what the current consul view shows . They can be a simple as what SONAR has within the consul View as per the sends sliders .These controls can also be hidden if not needed or desired .... Now some of may think I don't know what I'm talking about ...trust me I do Know what the eff I'm talking about 1, In the Traditional Consul View you can only do one thing at a time . 2, In the current Tradition SONAR Matrix View you can do multiple things at a time IN REAL TIME .. 3, In the Hybrid Mixing Pro Channel / VST effects Matrix View Cell View I'm proposing here with you all right now it is only natural that you would be able to do multiple things at a time IN REAL TIME ON THE FLY ... Just click a cell then the cell becomes enlarged and you can edit the chosen effects or chosen synth Thank you for listening , Kenny
post edited by kennywtelejazz - 2017/07/20 19:51:43
|
ampfixer
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5508
- Joined: 2010/12/12 20:11:50
- Location: Ontario
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 22:28:38
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby sharke 2017/07/20 23:02:59
SO, if I'm tracking this correctly, Sharke wants VST's without the "gift wrap" of the effects chain. Craig thinks Sonar is wonderful and meets all requirements of the broader user base, while Kenny wants the Millennium Falcon.
Is that about it?
Regards, John I want to make it clear that I am an Eedjit. I have no direct, or indirect, knowledge of business, the music industry, forum threads or the meaning of life. I know about amps. WIN 10 Pro X64, I7-3770k 16 gigs, ASUS Z77 pro, AMD 7950 3 gig, Steinberg UR44, A-Pro 500, Sonar Platinum, KRK Rokit 6
|
ChazEd
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 121
- Joined: 2014/12/01 05:17:09
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/20 23:39:13
(permalink)
Oh dear... Here we go: @Starise I'm sorry but you just misunderstand almost everything in this thread. Yet jumped in and make the most of your freedom to type. Fine by me, but don't you think you need at least understand what's the thread is all about? That said, all of this makes your opinion less relevant than mine? Absolute not, but I think for us to discuss, we need to understand each other. Don't you agree? Just one example: I was comparing "console emulation workflow" between Sonar and Reason, you assumed it was a complete comparison between DAW's . Don't you agree you missed the point by a mile? The ProChannel Is Dead! And here's why I think (I said I think) so: - When was the last time you saw a new ProChannel Module? Of course Cakewalk could make all the PC's we ever need, but I think is a dead end (I said I think).
- From a business point (no expertise here), I think makes more sense to Cakewalk just let it go and sell all PC's as a VST's. Aren't they emulations of hardware? There's a market for it and Cakewalk should make the most of it. This way some extra money could help make Sonar a better DAW than it already is. And of course all people who already own those PC's will get the VST versions for free. I don't know if the PC's are faithful to the source of emulation. All I know is that they sound great, which is enough for me.
- They're already doing it! Can't you people see the trend? First L-Phase Plugins, then A. Limiter. Can't be just me thinking out loud. That said, I'm really excited to see what's next.
Of course all this is pure speculation from me. Cakewalk could just do nothing and move on. Fine by me too. For now. I said archaic thinking, and form me archaic thinking is sticking with a concept that's not better than what's out there and yet implementing it without even considering the better approach. And really: how can you find something laughable, if you didn't understand the joke? LOL. @Craig I can't say I knew everything you said, but I'm not surprised, except for the EDM info. I was looking at the wrong lists of top hits. Some of those points you make that are Sonar highlights can be done in other DAW's, but don't get me wrong, Sonar has a nice set of unique features (you forgot Plugin Upsampling, which I'm glad Sonar has). And I think Sonar could smash the competition not by copying other DAW's features, but by copying and making it better than them. But I understand that there's a lot more to it than "wishing things", as you already explained. Yet I'll still chime in every time I feel I have to. Does not matter if is a feature request, a bug or whatever. Don't you think all of this discussion is a free consulting session for Cakewalk? As long as people are not punching each other in the face, all discussion is relevant, no matter the subject. @Sharke I'm sorry I hijacked your thread. I'll make sure this does not happen again. And, believe or not, I don't even agree with you about the PC. Will I be happy if Cakewalk does what you want? Of course! But I still think that making PC's available as VST's is a better future for Cakewalk.
Ableton Live 10 Suite x64 Korg Legacy Collection, FXpansion Tremor, Z3ta+ 2 & Rapture Pro Win 10 x64 (Still knocking on wood...) i7 4770, GA-H97-D3H, 16 GB, 7200 1TB + 2TB, RX 580, CX600V2 UA-101 (Thank you, Roland, for the Windows 10 driver!), SM57, MG10/2, MicroKey 37
|
RSMCGUITAR
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1318
- Joined: 2014/12/27 02:33:15
- Location: Toronto
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/21 01:45:58
(permalink)
|
Kamikaze
Max Output Level: -45 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3013
- Joined: 2015/01/15 21:38:59
- Location: Da Nang, Vietnam
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/21 04:45:48
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby RSMCGUITAR 2017/07/21 04:55:12
ChazEd
The ProChannel Is Dead!
And here's why I think (I said I think) so:
- When was the last time you saw a new ProChannel Module? Of course Cakewalk could make all the PC's we ever need, but I think is a dead end (I said I think).
- From a business point (no expertise here), I think makes more sense to Cakewalk just let it go and sell all PC's as a VST's. Aren't they emulations of hardware? There's a market for it and Cakewalk should make the most of it. This way some extra money could help make Sonar a better DAW than it already is. And of course all people who already own those PC's will get the VST versions for free. I don't know if the PC's are faithful to the source of emulation. All I know is that they sound great, which is enough for me.
- They're already doing it! Can't you people see the trend? First L-Phase Plugins, then A. Limiter. Can't be just me thinking out loud. That said, I'm really excited to see what's next.
Of course all this is pure speculation from me. Cakewalk could just do nothing and move on. Fine by me too. For now.
I don't feel the PC is dead at all, because I still thinks it's has great integration into the console, which makes it great for me on a Hd Laptop, with a concise layout. From a mixing stand points covers everything very well. I have two very good character EQ's from Boz and a I think the Quad EQ is perfect for cleaner cuts and precision work (that would take the Pro Q to really better for that work), and a variety of good compressors in the +10, CA2A, PC 76, PC4K that cover all my compressor basses, an a very good limiter in the Concrete. There are a range of 3 saturation options and a console emulation. All this makes for a great mixing set up. Anything extar here is just icing on a cake. Although there are more available in the Softube pack (Which I don't have for iLok reasons, but I hear the focusing EQ is great and the FET Comp makes a comparable exchange for the PC76). I like the Re-Matrix and BreVerb options, I use the former mainly. (And TSAR reverb is well rated) It's true though I think the Hoser was the last PC made, about 18 months ago (If I recall correctly. So things have gone quiet and although the mix range is quite well covered, it's the more creative tools that are lacking, The VKFX are a nice additions, but these so far have been the only creative range. The problems with more creative stuff is it often need a bigger GUI, but companies like Plug&Mix would fit their range perfectly, some have been out a while now, but they are still adding to it (5 new one recently) They have about 50 all in the same format, so converting them would become pretty much batch work after the first have been done. This would add value to the older ones in their range. But I do think the onus is on Cakewalk to entice companies to do this. http://www.plugandmix.com/products/software My latest JRR email showed these    Which would fit well as well (though they are not my sort of thing), so its not just Plug&Mix, that don't require a large GUI to use. As I stated in the first page of this thread, Cakewalk have a relationship with XLN, and although I passed on the RC-20 is basically 6 modules, which could be broken down to 6 PCs in the same way the VKFX was. And of the Mixing tools, there is no transient designer, and the DS-10 would fit well. One of the companies (guy) that receives constant praise on this forum, and constantly appears in the recommended VST threads is Klanghelm. Also ne of the most requested PC to be developed is a VU meter. and the most recommended VU meter seems to be his. With such a small developer, I think cakewalk would need to be more involved, but would be well received by users. When you want to push the distortions and have more control than the current saturation provided in PC allow, the SSDR is really rated. And this being available in the IVGI format would be well suited to PC. I would love to see an IVGI in the PC, that would fly out to be the SSDR when you wanted further access. The same (Although I don't have these) for the DC8C/DC1A and MJUC/MJUC Jr. for those who are looking for more compressor options. The other one PC which I have seen repeatedly requests is a Low and High pass fllter (although there is a Boz High pass) which makes sense to me when you want to place it in the chain and use the QuadEQ elsewhere in the chain. This I think Cakewalk could easily create So I don't think PC is dead, and I don't even feel the word stale would fit becuase I am still very happy with my PC options, they cover the bulk of my needs. I do think it's been to long and too quiet on the PC front especially as before the Hoser it was a while before the previous was made. In the meantime; With 30 PC available and the requests for it to be integrated into the Plugin manager, 'Submenu by Type/Manufacturer' would be an easy fix. Providing a tidier way to integrate the VST than having an FX chain. Which for something as simple as putting the Klanghelm VU meter at the bottom of my chain, proceeded by a just the Quad EQ an a PC compressor, mean that I have to open the FX chain, click to open the VST Gui, which then hides my compressor, so I have to close my FX chain to see the PC compressor again which has a big impact of the VU result. It's just unnecessarily clumsy. Would make ProChannels just a little fresher than before. Dead, maybe for you, but not for ma at all. I think it's a brilliant format, and everytime I open a VST that needless takes up half my screen space I'm glad the rest of the chain can be left compact, concise and accesable to the side of it.
post edited by Kamikaze - 2017/07/21 05:25:49
|
Kamikaze
Max Output Level: -45 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3013
- Joined: 2015/01/15 21:38:59
- Location: Da Nang, Vietnam
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/21 05:18:48
(permalink)
After a registry edit, here is my ProChannel list from last year. I colour the icons for each category differently so it's easier to see.  But as these registry edits now undo themselves, more frequently, I have given up. Now you can see the catagories are all over the places as the Prochannels are sorted by name alpahbetically, so PCs such as BreVerb and ReMatrix separate out. 
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/21 19:10:46
(permalink)
Kamikaze I really like your ideas here!! Great graphic ideas man! People get into deep water and they throw the stick back at you. I just don't have the time for it or care enough to come back at them. You can't be cutting edge and archaic at the same time. There really is no in between. I totally got the statements in question. The truth is usually somewhere in between.Cake is making cutting edge better.Just because a software change isn't immediate or doesn't go your way doesn't put them in the dark ages.This is what I was talking about before, lets stay away from extremes. Like saying someone with a different opinion is extreme and it's compared to politics and religion. Really? This is a friggin software program. I could show you some really upsetting stuff. This is like wrestling kittens. How about this- We have a good thing with the PC. It could be a better thing . We could add new modules to it. We could even drag a vst into it without a shell possibly.We could save 1/2" of screen real estate maybe. Maybe this is the safest way to get rid of pent up stuff. No one got hurt. Ampfixer- " Is that about it" Probably not.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
kennywtelejazz
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7151
- Joined: 2005/10/22 06:27:02
- Location: The Planet Tele..X..
- Status: offline
Re: Are ProChannel modules still being developed?
2017/07/21 19:24:42
(permalink)
ampfixer
Kenny wants the Millennium Falcon.
Is that about it?
Sure as long as my online buddy Wookiee comes with the ship I have always admired his choices in synths Kenny
|