Console Emulator - Why Only A PC Module?

It would certainly be more versatile, but the ProChannel was originally conceived as a mixer-style channel strip, which traditionally was the last part of the signal chain. The PC modules occupy that traditional space, (i.e., reverb, compression, EQ, etc.). As you suggest, one option is to add an EQ in the FX bin itself. The other is to feed a bus, so you can have a ProChannel before and after the FX bin. 

If you use track templates it seems to be first.

Anderton
It would certainly be more versatile, but the ProChannel was originally conceived as a mixer-style channel strip, which traditionally was the last part of the signal chain. The PC modules occupy that traditional space, (i.e., reverb, compression, EQ, etc.). As you suggest, one option is to add an EQ in the FX bin itself. The other is to feed a bus, so you can have a ProChannel before and after the FX bin. 

Thanks.  Yeah, I thought about using a bus too....

tlw
I stopped using the track fx bin ages ago, and just put everything in the pro-channel using fx chains to load vst's. The only exception being when I want some fx pre fader and some post when the two locations for "insert" fx are useful, but even then the post fader fx can be put on a bus which the track is routed to. Which was the situation pre pro-channel when there was only the fx bins.

The pro-channel really makes the channel/bus fx bins redundant other than for ease of loading old projects that did use them.

As keni says, the biggest limitation in Sonar regarding fx/processing now is the restriction to only one quad-curve eq per audio track/bus.

Thanks.  I'm sure glad I asked the question.  I skipped right over some of this documentation in the Power Book and so on.  Just read through it.  I know there are new Fx Chains available, but until now I haven't been curious enough about them or maybe experienced enough to consider what they can do.

Keni

olemon

tlw
I stopped using the track fx bin ages ago, and just put everything in the pro-channel using fx chains to load vst's. The only exception being when I want some fx pre fader and some post when the two locations for "insert" fx are useful, but even then the post fader fx can be put on a bus which the track is routed to. Which was the situation pre pro-channel when there was only the fx bins.

The pro-channel really makes the channel/bus fx bins redundant other than for ease of loading old projects that did use them.

As keni says, the biggest limitation in Sonar regarding fx/processing now is the restriction to only one quad-curve eq per audio track/bus.

Thanks.  I'm sure glad I asked the question.  I skipped right over some of this documentation in the Power Book and so on.  Just read through it.  I know there are new Fx Chains available, but until now I haven't been curious enough about them or maybe experienced enough to consider what they can do.

In their most simple use, it's an easy way to place standard vst plugin's anywhere in the PC chain... You can use many chains within a single PC with 1 or many devices in each instance.

In practice, it eliminated the need for the fx bin, but it's often handy to place devices in the bin and have Tthe PC pre/post ...

So for me all that remains desireabke would be the ability to have more than one instance of the quad curve in a single PC.... Maybe soon? I really like working with the quad curve!

Keni

There is the added bonus of having many "ready to roll" presets, a lot of which were specifically written by Craig Anderton.
 
I find myself turning to them quite often for all kinds of applications. The most important parameters are exposed for tweaking and they can be placed anywhere within the Pro Channel, or in the Fx bin

Is there a walk through for creating these FX chains so we can see how it's done?

Anderton

ampfixer
Is there a walk through for creating these FX chains so we can see how it's done?

That's a really good idea!!! Just don't tell Andrew, he'll expect me to do a video about it tonight.
 
Is there any particular one for which you'd like to see a walkthrough? I mean, if you're giving free consulting, I'm going to take advantage of it...

Sorry, I don't get this bit. I'm happy to see the process applied to any non PC plug-in, particularly the bit about controlling multiple parameters with one control. Could I create a control that would allow me to put a Waves CLA2 in the PC and have a single knob that would increase input gain and peak reduction at the same time?
 
I assumed those of the sorts of controls you use on your FX chains.

simultanwously
 
There I go making up new werds again. I kinda like that one. lol

By all means, feel free to dissect any of your FX chains, I'm sure to learn a lot and I think there's lots of others out there that would benefit.

It would sure be nice to have the PC modules expose their controls to control surfaces though. Is there an active FR for this?

Anderton

subtlearts
It would sure be nice to have the PC modules expose their controls to control surfaces though. Is there an active FR for this?

FWIW controls for some PC modules are exposed to MIDI learn: QuadCurve EQ, Tube, S-Type Bus Compressor, and PC-76 U-Type Compressor. The others can be automated, but aren't exposed to controllers...but I would think if some modules could expose their controls, others could too.

Okay... this kind of explains a MASSIVE frustration I had a while back when I was going through my first round of learning (during the X2 release). I chalked it up to me being too stupid to breathe (in a digital production sense) but if there are certain controls that refuse to map to MIDI controllers then, well I gotta say that is kind of screwed up and confusing as fartballs.
 
Essentially back then I was trying my best to set up my controller (just a small keyboard controller and a pad controller but both of which have assignable knobs/faders/etc) to adjust things... all following the directions in the manual. It was all very hit or miss and I got frustrated and because of that have only recently started going back down that rabbit hole (where I am discovering other quirks and limitations).
 
I kind of figured that ANYTHING that can be tweaked should be able to be mapped/MIDI learned. Especially something so crucial and "designed for convenience" like the ProChannel strip. This does indeed explain why some things would provide MIDI learn (and work) while other things wouldn't.
 
I guess as a novice that is kind of disheartening and frustrating. As someone who is now getting into these more advanced type of external control functions I gotta say... why the heck is this NOT the standard?
 
Perhaps MIDI control stuff is one of the things the Bakers should start fixing up/improving now that the program is fully matured. I was poking around at some of the mapping on the "cheap" DAW and was blown away at how easy and through it was. I attempted some of the same stuff in Sonar but all that seemed to be available was basic transport and it was really quite strange and convoluted. Now knowing that MIDI learn is a "maybe/maybe not" type situation... well that could certainly all be fixed and perhaps make the platform even more desirable.
 
Not freaking out (mostly) but that does seem like a serious limitation in this day and age. I've heard tell of Cake more focusing on "touch" as opposed to MIDI control but really that helps me not one whit... nor does it help the folks who spent enormous piles of cash on those fancy, Sonar specific control surfaces.
 
Okay, that is a little ranty and freaky but seriously... not p*ssed and it is one thing I accept about Sonar however it really REALLY would be something nice to get worked on. It would be good for the product and coax some of the live on the fly tweakers to consider Sonar as viable.
 
Seriously not yelling or angry. Just befuddled really.
 
Peace.

Beepster

Anderton

subtlearts
It would sure be nice to have the PC modules expose their controls to control surfaces though. Is there an active FR for this?

FWIW controls for some PC modules are exposed to MIDI learn: QuadCurve EQ, Tube, S-Type Bus Compressor, and PC-76 U-Type Compressor. The others can be automated, but aren't exposed to controllers...but I would think if some modules could expose their controls, others could too.

Okay... this kind of explains a MASSIVE frustration I had a while back when I was going through my first round of learning (during the X2 release). I chalked it up to me being too stupid to breathe (in a digital production sense) but if there are certain controls that refuse to map to MIDI controllers then, well I gotta say that is kind of screwed up and confusing as fartballs.
 
Essentially back then I was trying my best to set up my controller (just a small keyboard controller and a pad controller but both of which have assignable knobs/faders/etc) to adjust things... all following the directions in the manual. It was all very hit or miss and I got frustrated and because of that have only recently started going back down that rabbit hole (where I am discovering other quirks and limitations).
 
I kind of figured that ANYTHING that can be tweaked should be able to be mapped/MIDI learned. Especially something so crucial and "designed for convenience" like the ProChannel strip. This does indeed explain why some things would provide MIDI learn (and work) while other things wouldn't.
 
I guess as a novice that is kind of disheartening and frustrating. As someone who is now getting into these more advanced type of external control functions I gotta say... why the heck is this NOT the standard?
 
Perhaps MIDI control stuff is one of the things the Bakers should start fixing up/improving now that the program is fully matured. I was poking around at some of the mapping on the "cheap" DAW and was blown away at how easy and through it was. I attempted some of the same stuff in Sonar but all that seemed to be available was basic transport and it was really quite strange and convoluted. Now knowing that MIDI learn is a "maybe/maybe not" type situation... well that could certainly all be fixed and perhaps make the platform even more desirable.
 
Not freaking out (mostly) but that does seem like a serious limitation in this day and age. I've heard tell of Cake more focusing on "touch" as opposed to MIDI control but really that helps me not one whit... nor does it help the folks who spent enormous piles of cash on those fancy, Sonar specific control surfaces.
 
Okay, that is a little ranty and freaky but seriously... not p*ssed and it is one thing I accept about Sonar however it really REALLY would be something nice to get worked on. It would be good for the product and coax some of the live on the fly tweakers to consider Sonar as viable.
 
Seriously not yelling or angry. Just befuddled really.
 
Peace.

Automaton and MIDI control of everything should be super easy to set up on the fly and shouldn't have to involve anything like the horrors of ACT. The way Sonar handles MIDI learn is just awful and I've never really gotten the hang of it. Other DAWs sure seem to have made it a lot easier. I'm not even looking to turn my controller into a full blown mixing desk, most of the time all I want is to map a couple of rotary knobs to a couple of effect parameters and record some twiddling on a track. This is NOT user friendly in Sonar and it should be. Oftentimes it's downright impossible. I've said it before, but Sonar should be able to map any MIDI controller to any envelope. If we can control something with an envelope, we should be able to map a controller to that envelope. I'll never be fully happy with the program until that happens.

Beepster
simultanwously
 
There I go making up new werds again. I kinda like that one. lol

That's the Welsh spelling...;-)

The console emulators really offer nothing that I can hear or sense.  Subtle is too obvious a way to describe it.  I use them sometimes but I can't say I get it.