Helpful ReplyDefault Pro Channel Routing.

Author
stevee9c6
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 464
  • Joined: 2005/06/22 15:45:14
  • Location: Far NW Houston-Cypress
  • Status: offline
2017/01/31 15:50:49 (permalink)

Default Pro Channel Routing.

I know I've seen this discussed here before but I can't locate it.  I did a class at Berklee Online last year and had to produce a A/V presentation for an assignment on the routing in Sonar.  Why doesn't the preamp/channel module default to the first position? That is the first/top slot and not the current bottom slot. To obtain the most accurate channel simulation, this is the defacto standard in every other plug of this nature I work with. For example, the Slate folks really stress placing the channel strip as the first VST.  IF I recall, the bakers previously agreed with this approach.  I simply move it when I set it up but I guess I just don't understand why that is not the default setting.   Thanks folks!

Steve 
www.stevestallingsmusic.com
#1
ralf
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 205
  • Joined: 2010/11/27 05:36:43
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/01/31 22:01:46 (permalink)
You can set any order and configuration you like for the Pro Channel modules as default from the Pro Channel context menu.
#2
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/01/31 22:14:07 (permalink)
Waves suggest using their NLS console emulator either last fx in a track to simulate a summing console that's receiving audio from a recorder followed by processing then hitting the summing mixer, or first to simulate a mixer used in tracking.

I suppose the most console and tape like system is to put the emulator first, then fx then tape emulation then more processors as desired ending with another console emulator to simulate the mixer->fx->tape recording process and the tape->fx>summer mixing process in a single go.

Or set up for "tracking", bounce all the tracks down with fx etc. applied then use the bounced audio as if it were coming from a tape and run it through processors andconsole emulation again.

If you were inclined to emulate a console and old-fashioned pre-DAW practices to the Nth degree that seems to me to be how to do it.

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#3
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13146
  • Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 06:47:42 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby meh 2017/02/01 10:07:00
as Ralf said:

To specify the default ProChannel configuration
Insert and arrange the ProChannel modules in the desired order. Do one of the following:

To specify the default configuration for tracks. Right-click any empty space in a track’s ProChannel and select Set Modules as Default for Tracks on the pop-up menu.

To specify the default configuration for tracks. Right-click any empty space in a bus’ ProChannel and select Set Modules as Default for Buses on the pop-up menu.
 
You can also change the placement of the pc to be post or pre as shown below:

 
Don't get to caught up in module order, just go by what your ear tells you is best and what sounds best.
Check your meters to make sure your within specs and roll with it. I typically EQ > Compress (so im not boosting those offending frequency's. There are other times I switch it around. Remember sometimes you don't want to send offending frequency's / EQ in to the pre amp. So you can experiment with EQ before pre amp. thus allowing stronger signal without boosting low end or harsh bands.
 
Logic tells us, sure don't put a potato before the compressor but in my travels I have found the best results were born out of trying new things. Dare to be different (without sounding like crap of course). you will stumble on to better ideas as well.
My way of mixing/routing vocals is a bit unorthodox but Vocals is my strong point and sound the best in my mixes.
My guitars however could use work .
 
There is book smart and then there is street smart. Be both.
post edited by chuckebaby - 2017/02/01 07:12:30

Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64
Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GB
Focusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
   
#4
RSMCGUITAR
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1318
  • Joined: 2014/12/27 02:33:15
  • Location: Toronto
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 10:11:16 (permalink)
Wouldn't the channel emulator just be adding some EQ and Saturation? Wouldn't it therefore not really matter where it was placed?
#5
berlymahn
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 257
  • Joined: 2007/11/28 08:48:13
  • Location: Northern VA
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 12:31:20 (permalink)
@chuckebaby - thank you.

Jim Wim  
On Soundcloud as: Dammit Eugene / Scenic Mental Detours / Narrow Now
https://soundcloud.com/dammit-eugene/tracks
#6
stevee9c6
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 464
  • Joined: 2005/06/22 15:45:14
  • Location: Far NW Houston-Cypress
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 13:24:31 (permalink)
Thanks for the replies. I use saved templates that I created that include my usual workflow.  Of course the channel emulator is adding EQ and saturation.  The concept of true simulation (oxymoron ;) ) requires that the signal be treated as closely as possible to the actual hardware in real life.  The effect is minimal on an individual channel. The sum effect when multiple instances are used is more apparent.   I own channel strip emulations from Cake, Slate, UAD, and Softube. It's interesting to see and hear the difference in a mix by using the different flavors.  
 
I guess my original question remains.  Of course it is possible to change the default settings. My point remains, why not set up in what is widely considered the correct signal path from the get go?  Trivial I guess to most.  While Cake is by far my favorite  DAW and used by myself 90% of the time, I actually prefer the Slate Channel and Buss strip version a tiny bit.  The DAW that seems to color and impact my mixes the most is Harrison Mixbuss.  PT seems a bit sterile to me and more than a little awkward to use as a primary DAW. I would surmise that I'm just too use to the Bakers and too old to change! ;)
Thanks for the cordial discussion. Steve
Chief Bottle Washer and Cook    Cypress Creek Audio   (Yeah, that's my control/workspace in my avatar)

Steve 
www.stevestallingsmusic.com
#7
rsinger
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 387
  • Joined: 2007/08/25 14:34:57
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 15:17:28 (permalink)
The Sonar Console Emulator - Just like an analog console, the overall sound character is the sum of all the separate processing stages. It seems to me you have the sum of all the separate processing stages at the end of the signal chain, not the beginning, so the default makes sense to me.

Sonar Platinum, 64 bit, win 7 pro - 64 bit 
Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz, 16 Gb Ram, 480Gb + 256Gb SSDs, 1 Tb Velociraptor, Echo AudioFire4

#8
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 21:28:06 (permalink)
RSMCGUITAR
Wouldn't the channel emulator just be adding some EQ and Saturation? Wouldn't it therefore not really matter where it was placed?


Where eq and saturation/distortion is placed and in what order is pretty important, at least for me.

The "overdrive before or after fuzz, eq the distortion or vice versa?" question is as relevant for hardware and well-written software processors as it is for guitar pedals.

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#9
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/01 21:39:28 (permalink)
For console emulations which really add a distinctive colour try the Waves Abbey Road consoles. It's remarkable how many excellent recordings were made using such primitive (by todays standards) consoles.

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#10
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2946
  • Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/02 05:15:18 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby chuckebaby 2017/02/02 08:49:33
Softibe, who designed the CE, IIRC, suggest putting it last. That's good enough for me.

There was a massive debate about this when it came out, I will try to find the thread, if I have time. Craig did some very interesting tests on the different emulations.

One train of thought was that the effects would be exaggerated if put before compressors, etc.

As to trying to emulate the "real world":
In the good/bad old days, we would often record direct to tape to get as clean a signal as possible, and then bring it into the console for mixing. The inserts (compressors, etc.), would come first in the chain and then pass through the rest of the desk. So maybe putting it last would be more realistic.

Obviously, this wasn't the only way to work, so I guess there is no hard and fast rule - just like the analog days.

Finally, Seth P, Brandon, Noel, Softube etc seemed to recommend using it last, so make of that what you will.

 Sonar Platinum
#11
RSMCGUITAR
Max Output Level: -64 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1318
  • Joined: 2014/12/27 02:33:15
  • Location: Toronto
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/02 08:01:40 (permalink)
tlw
The "overdrive before or after fuzz, eq the distortion or vice versa?" question is as relevant for hardware and well-written software processors as it is for guitar pedals.


I totally get that, but it's fair to say that these are very subtle compared to a fuzz pedal.
#12
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13146
  • Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/02 08:48:05 (permalink)
stevee9c6
My point remains, why not set up in what is widely considered the correct signal path from the get go?  



Because what might be good for you, isn't good for someone else.
By having the option to choose your default routing, it gives the opportunity for all to be happy, not just some
 
berlymahn
@chuckebaby - thank you.

 
No problem Rodger

Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64
Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GB
Focusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
   
#13
rebel007
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 926
  • Joined: 2013/07/17 11:24:29
  • Location: Victoria, Australia
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/02 08:48:38 (permalink)
I do agree it's a matter of taste as to where the Console Emulator is placed. I seem to remember Cakewalk initially suggested it was put first in the chain, so the effects following would work on the sound as it might appear coming through a real Console.
 
Not long after, it seemed the consensus was to place it after any effects in the Pro Channel, I "assume" to make sure said effects worked on a clean signal and the Emulator would work its magic, as an effect, on the sound at the end.
 
Myself, I almost always use the Console Emulator first, and my project templates reflect that, as this seems (to my mind if not my ears) to give the tracks more of the effect I want. Of course this could mean I just can't hear very well and need to have more of the effect in order to hear any appreciable difference.
 
But, I do really like this effect and I tend to use it in spades. I often find I have to dial it back towards the end of the mix because I've overdone it.
 
As to which Console I prefer.......no that's another thread.

Home Built Desktop Computer: Intel Core i5 750: 4Mb RAM: NVidia 210 Silent: Windows 10 32bit: Sonar Platinum: Roland OctaCapture
Presario CQ41 Laptop: Intel Core i5 760: 4Mb RAM: Windows 10 32bit: Sonar Platinum (Retired)
CbB on HP Pavilion Laptop 64bit: GeForce Video Card: Intel 8550: 256GB SSD 1TB Data Drive: Windows10 64bit
#14
stevee9c6
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 464
  • Joined: 2005/06/22 15:45:14
  • Location: Far NW Houston-Cypress
  • Status: offline
Re: Default Pro Channel Routing. 2017/02/02 15:02:07 (permalink)
"Because what might be good for you, isn't good for someone else.
By having the option to choose your default routing, it gives the opportunity for all to be happy, not just some "
 
"As to trying to emulate the "real world":
In the good/bad old days, we would often record direct to tape to get as clean a signal as possible, and then bring it into the console for mixing. The inserts (compressors, etc.), would come first in the chain and then pass through the rest of the desk. So maybe putting it last would be more realistic."
 
 
Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that it be placed in a fixed fashion.  Whatever works for folks is what works for them.
At this point reading some of the comments, I am beginning to feel like I must have somehow misinterpreted my Berklee class as well as the past thread that the Bakers joined in on. In the thread I recall, the channel emulation was suggested as the first effect in the chain. This was specifically stated by one of the Bakers.  Maybe I am just senile at this point!  Regarding the comment about recording direct to tape for the cleanest signal... hmm, been at this since the mid 60's. I guess I must have missed that technique.  I have always recorded via the console using the direct outs going to tape/digital media.  I have not used a large format console for about 8 years now as I now work primarily with songwriters recording one or two tracks at a time.  Again, thanks to all for the cordiality and pleasant discussion. 

Steve 
www.stevestallingsmusic.com
#15
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1