Upgrading to X1 - Audio Quality rather than workflow

Oh man, are they some loaded questions. It's pretty much a love/hate relationship.

PC - COMP ... It's good, but it's not the end all be all to compressors. There really is no such thing in my opinion. It's different than the Sonitus Compressor, but I wouldn't say it's better by any stretch.

PC-EQ ... I could live without it. It's too hard to manipulate the frequencies in such a small window that is stuck on the far left or right side of your screen. Plus, it really doesn't sound any different than any other EQ I've used. I do like the lo/hi roll off, but the same can be achieved with the Sonitus EQ and a multitude of others.

PC-Saturation ... Again, I could live without it. We already have the TL-64 plug which has many more settings to tweak and sounds closer to real Tube Saturation in my opinion. Nothings going to replace the real thing so each Tube Sat plug is going to sound a little different, just like the choice of tubes you use in an analog unit.

PC-EQ-GLOSS ... It's nice when used properly. But you gotta ask, why would you add 'gloss' to a mix you should have already EQ'd properly to begin with? I do use it ... but I mainly on bass guitar, kick drum, things of that nature. It makes them stand out a little in the mix. So, it is nice for some things, but I don't use it for what I think it was intended for.

You're going to be hard pressed to find a suite of effects like Sonitus without spending some serious cash IMO. They are rock solid, still sound great after all these years, and are free with Sonar! My mixing and mastering has never been limited by what Sonitus offers and the Pro Channel is just another tool in that arsenal. I personally would have liked it if they would have put a quality limiter in the Pro Channel rather than Tube Saturation. Or both, there's still a little room at the top of the Pro Channel strip they could have crammed it in to.

Pro's (as I see them) ... You'll have some very colorful characters to help you out here in the forums when you have trouble with X1. The smart tool does make some things easier, but it takes some getting used to. They are listening more than ever to forum input because this is their newborn baby and they want it to grow up to be the biggest kid on the block.

Con's (as I see them) ... No toolbar customization (what you don't see is all you get). No color customization. Things have been moved around a lot compared to 8.5 and older so there is a bigger learning curve. It's still very buggy for some people (not all).

I don't think upgrading would be a bad decision, X1 is where Sonar is going so you might as well jump on board now. We're multiple patches in and they have fixed some major issues. I wish I would have waited for X2 so they had more of the bugs worked out, but, I have a lot of faith in X1C that is due to come out in a few weeks. It's free to registered users.

chuckebaby
 
by the way..comgrats bud on gold status bro.  :)

Wow! When did that happen!? :) I didn't even notice. I knew I was feeling different that last few days, that must be it!

would 10 instances of pro channel strip eq demand the same CPU power as 10 instances of the old Sonitus eq?

Good question, I'm surprised no one's asked it before.

It's easy enough to test. I'll check it out. I'll have to create a test project, as I rarely use the Sonitus EQ. My prediction: if you just use the EQ portion of ProChannel, CPU consumption will be comparable to the Sonitus EQ. I'll be surprised if it turns out to be noticeably better or worse in terms of CPU efficiency.

Speaking as someone who really likes X1: I don't think there are any significant changes to what's fundamentally sonically achievable.

Bristol_Jonesey


I'm really looking forward to doing vocals in X1.

All of our recent vocal tracking has been done in 8.5 (for obvious reasons)

Bristol, what is it in particular about X1 that you are looking forward to for recording vocals? There must be something that has excited you into believing that the experience will somehow be better than before? Can you specify?
 
 

Good of you to put it to the lab test Bitflipper. Thanks for that.
Seems that no ones driven to inspire me to plunge into the new world of X1. I guess it’s an old worn out topic by now for most. I only became interested again because Cakewalk just sent me one of those revved up Special Upgrade Discount emails that make you believe that audio paradise is just a click of the Add To Cart button away.

To each is own, but I find the new interface much more efficient.  (Not what you asked--just my thought.)

I can tell you as someone who makes a living playing, producing, and engineering. I have used Pro Tools, Samplitude, Logic down thru the years. The studio that I first went to work in was based around Cakewalk. Since that first day I have always gravitated more to Cakewalk than any other DAW. The sound quality has been enough to lure other clients from the other studios locally to my place. They all have commented on not being able to get the quality sound at the other places. I was not too happy to find all the major changes in X1,but, the learning curve is definitely worth going thru. As all DAW users know, every software has it's own issues. I would not hesitate to tell you, JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET! I used 8.5.3 until I was comfortable using X1 in a real session. Since that day I have not even opened 8.5.3! I hope this helps you in your choice. Just remeber that what works for one, does not work for all. As for me, I am sold on X1!

Thank you all - John T, konradh, AT, Sidroe and mudgel - for your helpful comments.

I'll give ya my take Dilaco. :)
 
But I am more interested in the sound quality of one of the biggest selling points: the pro channel strip.
 
I think it sounds really good. Different than the Sonitus, but good.
 
Are the compressors and EQs in the pro channel strip up there with the very best?
 
This will always be a matter of opinion. The comps and eq work well. I'm not a fan of the 76, so it doesn't get much use. I like the 4k comp. The eq is good for some things, but I don't like that we can't input the frequencies of our choice in there. You're stuck with what they give you. It does work though...it's just to ME, not an eq you can do "pinpointing" with.
 
Can we, in most situations, forget about third party EQs and compressors in the league of, say, the Waves series?
 
Absolutely not. However, if you asked me "could you do a project using Pro Channel exclusively and would you be happy with it?" My answer would be yes. I can make anything work and get decent results. LOL that sounds ego...I don't mean it that way, honest. It's mostly in the ears, how good your monitors are and if a plug is even decent, you should be able to get good results from it. Would I say in the league of Waves? That depends if I like Waves or not. Waves stuff to me, though some plugs are VERY good, are also a bit over-rated and over-priced. Take that from a dope that probably has 15k wrapped up in their plugs over the years. I'd say the compressors in X1 are comparable but I prefer a parametric eq. I'd put the Sonitus eq up against any of the Waves Q series eq's though.
 
Is the sound quality of all the channel strip tools better than the old Cakewalk VC-64 Vintage Channel?
 
That really depends on if you like Vintage channel or not. I've never been a fan of it, though it's a pretty good plug. I'd prefer to use Pro Channel over the Vintage Channel myself. I'm assuming you meant pro channel instead of channel strip tools?
 
Or better than the bundled Sonitus stuff?
 
I dunno, I'm a man that has always loved the Sonitus stuff and has felt it was very under-rated. It just works and it's been rare when something Sonitus didn't work for me. Sure, there are others that will give you something "different" but it's been rare that something comes along that's way better than the Sonitus stuff. The only issue I have with *some* of the Sonitus stuff is, you have to really jump on it at times to hear a difference. With other pro plugs I use..like say from UAD, one slight movement of a knob brings on an entirely different sound. I like the ability to have a wide array of options with slight turns of a knob as opposed to really jumping on something to hear a difference.
 
Yes the channel looks nice and seems convenient, but do the pros go to it for a polished finished product?
 
Well since I'm really the only pro here, (LOL I'm soo kidding, just laugh with me...Im in a silly mood this morning) I'd say sometimes yes, sometimes no. The weird thing about X1 so far for me is, I can tell every project I've done using X1. It's not that it sounds better than what I can do in 8.5, it just sounds different. So Pro Channel is definitely making a difference in how things are sounding on my end. When I use X1, I try to use pro channel and it has made a difference, but there are times I haven't. But again, it's different, not better or worse for me. It DOES seem to give X1 an identity though. In an instant of listening to something, I know exactly what version of Sonar I used.
 
I had a listen to the demos on the CW site – the dry versions compared to the channel strip processed versions – and I have to say that in half the cases the audio already sounded okay, and may to some ears even have sounded better, before going through the channel strip. The acoustic guitar demo, for example, seemed mainly to demonstrate the undesirable addition of an overt noise floor when put through the channel.
 
I have learned over time to NEVER trust a demo of anything. Most times, those demo's showcase what is being sold to the extreme and most times the people creating these video's are really missing the boat showing people how to use them. I so wish Sonar or UAD would hire me to show the differences in how this stuff REALLY works. UAD likes to boost everything with volume to simulate their sales pitch or use examples to the extreme where you either hear a horrible difference, or there is just a volume boost...Sonar....well, I'm on their forum and they've been really good to me so I'll shut my mouth. I still think I'd do a way better job selling the stuff they have that really works and give much better examples of it working and non-working. :) As for the audio already sounding ok, that's the way it's supposed to be. You don't print something horrible and try to polish a turd with a processor. There's no magical plug that can remedy that issue.

And what about the Gloss button? Is it any good or is it just a gimmick?
 
No, it's not a gimmick at all. However, I do not see the need for it. It adds a bit of high end to the eq, that's all. Makes it a bit brighter. For example, last night I was working on a guitar track. Nice heavy distortion sound using a tube pre-amp. The tone sounded great with nothing on it. However, I felt the need to curb the high end a tad using the low pass feature. I curbed the high end at 8k. Enabling the gloss button made it sound like I bypassed the low pass completely and I was back to the exact same sound I was trying to edit. I guess it could be useful for some things, but for the life of me, it's not something I'll ever use because most of my stuff does not need that type of eq sound to it. I'd rather use the eq straight the way it is without extra high end sheen being brought into the scheme of things. If I want a bit more high end, I'll raise it without having this "auto-brightness" jumping on my track. But it's definitely not a scam...some people may find it useful, but I don't. Hope that answers everything....best of luck!
 
-Danny