Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:10:12
(permalink)
Still why compare any plugins VS original SSL or API? Why? I mean plugins sounds different to the original. I must say many times it sounds much better then orignal hardware. Pro Channel comp are good example that beat the original SSL or UAD hardware comps. Here is a good example Pro Channel sounds better------------------> http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=2388
post edited by Freddie H - 2011/01/10 11:13:21
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:10:42
(permalink)
Amps are better all the way around. I had my simulator period but in the end, all my simulator tracks sounded like they were coming out of a plastic DI with bad or cloned fx which, once I thought about it, is exactly what they were. For the price of of a VST instrument plugin you can pick up a Vox AC15C1, Used PrincetonRI , Used Deluxe ReverbRI and few pedals and have authentic sounding guitar tracks. Getting off track on the ProChannel so I will steer the conversation back. A lot of people are complaining about the interface and not being able to see what frequency they are using in the graph. I think it's an advantage really because it forces you to use your ears, (remember those?), instead of relying on your eyes. That said, for a beginner, it is difficult to know what you're doing but for anyone that has done this awhile, it's actually a blessing in disguise which makes you focus on the sonics.
post edited by Middleman - 2011/01/10 11:25:59
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:18:58
(permalink)
I personally think the lack of digital readout is a huge downside to Pro Channel.
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
I personally think the idea that somehow having numbers available discourages one from using their ears is a non sequitar. All you have to do is listen. When numbers are available for 24/7 view it's very easy to recall the settings that you think sound best.
I personally think having numbers available 24/7 encourages one to experiment more freely simply because it is so simple to return to any settings that you determine you prefer listening too.
best regards,
mike
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:26:40
(permalink)
I personally think you think a lot.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:34:13
(permalink)
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:38:14
(permalink)
 Digits wouldn't hurt... Great input Mike
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:39:15
(permalink)
here's a simple anecdote: I did lighting and camera assist for the past 3 days. On day one we were outside on a beautiful cloudless day and the DP asked me to hold up a white card for balance. I joked and said "6100k"... the camera guy scowled and said "more like 5300k the sky is clear and the sun is at high noon". Then he took the reading and said "6100k????" The point is I was already 3 steps ahead with regards to thinking about what filters to use... and I had lots of extra time to get all arty and such. It's not that hard to combine technology and art. :-) best regards, mike edited typos
post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/01/10 11:49:55
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:41:00
(permalink)
"Digits wouldn't hurt... Great input Mike"
Thanks Freddie!
Maybe there could be a global switch so that people that do not want to see the numbers may work that way as well.
best regards,
mike
|
sven450
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 945
- Joined: 2004/03/16 08:11:49
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:44:27
(permalink)
I personally think the lack of digital readout is a huge downside to Pro Channel.
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
I personally think the idea that somehow having numbers available discourages one from using their ears is a non sequitar. All you have to do is listen. When numbers are available for 24/7 view it's very easy to recall the settings that you think sound best.
I personally think having numbers available 24/7 encourages one to experiment more freely simply because it is so simple to return to any settings that you determine you prefer listening too. I just taught anaphora to my AP English students. Might have to use this as an example! Good stuff. Who ever said reading forums during the workday was a waste of time??
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:47:36
(permalink)
sven450
I personally think the lack of digital readout is a huge downside to Pro Channel.
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
I personally think the idea that somehow having numbers available discourages one from using their ears is a non sequitar. All you have to do is listen. When numbers are available for 24/7 view it's very easy to recall the settings that you think sound best.
I personally think having numbers available 24/7 encourages one to experiment more freely simply because it is so simple to return to any settings that you determine you prefer listening too.
I just taught anaphora to my AP English students. Might have to use this as an example! Good stuff. Who ever said reading forums during the workday was a waste of time??
I never heard of that before... thanks for sharing. I hope it's evident that my emphasis was intended to make it clear that my post expressed only one persons opinion. very best, mike
|
mikespitzer
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 300
- Joined: 2009/05/30 11:58:33
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 11:48:56
(permalink)
In general, I feel it is easier for digital simulations to handle jobs like
Compression
EQ adjustment
Limiting
Leveling
than it is for them to accurately CREATE authentic sounds like
Guitars
Flutes
Violins
Drums
etc....
Now true, many people will point to software like BFD Drums to dispute this point, but even then ........ those are actually real drums recorded and sampled in the studio and triggered by your Midi PRV.
So that is not really the digital CREATING the sound of a drum.
You are still listening to the sound a real recorded drum.
Yes, technology has gotten better, and in some cases it is very close -------- especially if you don't have an A/B to compare to.
So to say my final word ....
Yes, I think many plug-in SIGNAL PROCESSING tools stand up to the dedicated hardware units they are meant to copy.
|
stratman70
Max Output Level: -45 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3044
- Joined: 2006/09/12 20:34:12
- Location: Earth
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 12:21:45
(permalink)
Hey Mike
Nah, fizz or whomp-but not right out of the box-takes some work and familiarity. But wrong thread for this. Perhaps another thread
:-)
|
stratman70
Max Output Level: -45 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3044
- Joined: 2006/09/12 20:34:12
- Location: Earth
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/10 12:44:34
(permalink)
Being a guitar player all my life and at this late time in my life learning the recording side (mostly from this forum-although I have owned CW since CWPA 6) I really have no reference point to judge if the pro channel or any soft comp, eq, etc sounds as good.
I mentioned the Ultra because it is my only true reference. I pretty much listen to what the forum has to say about things like this and usually can understand.
Point being to me they sound good. From most info here in the past years-not just good enough but good.
Which makes feel a bit more comfortable with my recording results
|
don4777
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 264
- Joined: 2004/06/06 17:21:38
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2011/01/12 17:42:49
(permalink)
Psychobillybob
Just a short reply about my own question on external insert, got it working and up in like 5 minutes once I remembered Lynx's archaic software nomenclature...seems to work quite well which was a bug in the 8 release that they mostly ironed out...
Hey Psychobillybob, I just saw this. I was surprised that External Insert is working for you. Are you running with the X1a patch and the hotfix for Lynx ASIO drivers? External Insert was working perfectly for me with the original X1 release but stopped performing the Delay Offset calculation after the patch and hotfix. If I put in the delay offset value calculated in 8.5.3 or the original X1 release it works perfectly. After the patch and hotfix there is no recalculation of the offset even though there is an asterisk next to the delay value indicating that the External Insert function is aware it needs to do the recalc. I submitted an official problem report but haven't heard anything back. Can you confirm that you are running with the X1a patch and the hotfix - and that you are seeing a recalc for the delay offset value? THANKS! Don
|
Rockabilly69
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8
- Joined: 2012/10/12 14:26:10
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/10 12:48:28
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby siordanescu 2016/11/10 13:41:50
I found this thread while looking for some opinions of WAVES and Sonar plugs, so I thought I could contribute to it with my experience. Like others here I have been using Cakewalk products for quite a while, so I have used many of their packaged FX, but recently I've been following the sales at the Waves site and have been building up my supply of software plugs. Recently I've picked up all of the SSL, API, Neve, and Abby Road plug-ins. Well as you can imagine, with all of that choice, I have quite a hard time choosing between what channel strip - preamp - EQ - compressors, I should use. So I promised myself that I would only use one of them for each mix to really learn each of the plug-in characteristics as if I was actually using the hardware. Well I liked each of them for they brought to the table, and I found them all pretty good sounding and easy to use once I spent some time with them. Of them all I found the SSL channel strips to have the most complete set of tools to use for the way I work. But recently I loaded Sonar X3 on another newer computer and I didn't have all of my WAVES licenses on it so I was forced to mix with just the Pro-Channel. Guess what, with just the Prochannel compression/eq/board-emulations/stauration, and the bundled Breverb reverb and delays, I found I got as good as a mix as I would ever need to have professional results. The 1176 on the Pro-channel really gets the job done, and man, the EQ is about as easy to dial in a good tone as any EQ I've worked with yet. To qualify my statements, I own some really nice microphones and preamps (Neumann u87, u89, m147, tlm 103, km184, Blue Cactus, Kiwi, Blueberry, Dragonfly, Violet Flamingo, Peluso 22 47, Rode Classic II, Shure Sm7 Sennheiser 421, etc) and for preamps (Manley Voxbox, Sebatron VMP4000e, Presonus ADL600, Drawmer 1960, Langevin DVC, etc). All in all, I can say the Pro Channel is extremely powerful, and if you take the time to learn the various tools in it, it is fully capable of bringing results equal to any of the various plug-ins available from other manufacturers.
post edited by Rockabilly69 - 2016/11/10 15:20:29
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/10 13:58:17
(permalink)
Agree 100%. I think one of the issues is people don't fully understand how to choose which curve of the QuadCurve EQ for their projects, which is why I did a tip in "Friday's Tip of the Week" on how to evaluate the different curves using noise, and the way they affect the sound. The Pro Channel is always where I start with plug-ins, and I rarely have to go much further, other than FX Chains made for my own use.
|
Brian Walton
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 584
- Joined: 2014/10/24 22:20:18
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 13:15:46
(permalink)
Caa2
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want. 
|
pwalpwal
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3249
- Joined: 2015/01/17 03:52:50
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 13:21:01
(permalink)
Brian Walton
Caa2
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.
i thought the pro channel was digital?
|
Brian Walton
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 584
- Joined: 2014/10/24 22:20:18
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 13:34:07
(permalink)
pwalpwal
Brian Walton
Caa2
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.
i thought the pro channel was digital?
It is, but to call it a "toy" is laughable. Would anyone call the UA 1167 a toy? I completely understand the value of being able to quickly input values, but you can't do that with hardware which is considered the industry standard and not "toys"
|
pwalpwal
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3249
- Joined: 2015/01/17 03:52:50
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 13:40:14
(permalink)
Brian Walton
pwalpwal
Brian Walton
Caa2
I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.
Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.
i thought the pro channel was digital?
It is, but to call it a "toy" is laughable. Would anyone call the UA 1167 a toy?
I completely understand the value of being able to quickly input values, but you can't do that with hardware which is considered the industry standard and not "toys"
would be nice if exact values could be input :-) (agree that "toy" is inappropriate)
|
...wicked
Max Output Level: -1.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7360
- Joined: 2003/12/18 01:00:56
- Location: Seattle
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 13:49:52
(permalink)
I think the original post was "how is the Pro-Channel"? It didn't specify a specific module so in that regard I'd say: It's amazing. You can create complex channel strips and save them as presets and also include 3rd party plugins in it. What's not to like?
As for individual modules, hopefully you go the CA-2A when it was recently offered for free. It's bloody amazing. I ponied up for the Concrete Limiter and pretty much use it for all my limiting/mastering needs save for complex mastering projects. The Softtube Saturation Knob is another go-to for me. EQ: works great for me. With the architecture of the pro-channel I can create a fantastic chain with EQ pre and post compression, and make simple control knobs for the whole chain so it's easy to dial in a sound using six or more processors with just a few knobs. It's one of SONAR's greatest features. If they eventually add a robust delay I will hardly use the fx bin anymore. :-)
=========== The Fog People =========== Intel i7-4790 16GB RAM ASUS Z97 Roland OctaCapture Win10/64 SONAR Platinum 64-bit billions VSTs, some of which work
|
tzzsmk
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 103
- Joined: 2016/03/22 08:32:35
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 14:00:22
(permalink)
"How good is the pro channel? Can it replace something like the SSL plugin series by waves, or would you still be better off using that?" to be honest, whole Pro Channel is just a useless eyecandy, and I can tell you why - it's not possible to import/export/copy/paste prochannel across tracks or projects, so let's say you create a perfect EQ on one track, good luck manually adjusting rest of the album because it's not possible to just copy it (unlike FX VSTs which you can just drag and drop across projects freely!) another problem is the modules get toggled randomly by themselves, happened to me plenty times, random modules on random tracks, definitely not a "user error" although at first I thought I could have just pressed something wrong EDIT: according to this documentation it appears to be possible to save entire prochannel stuff, but no sign of individual module settings saving
Core i7-5820K, ASUS X99-S, Kingston 32GB DDR4, EVGA GTX980Ti Classified, Samsung 850 EVO 500GBRME HDSPe AIO, RME Fireface 802, RME Octamic D, Seaboard RISE49, Presonus Eris E8, AKG K240 MKII, DELL U2713HM
|
pwalpwal
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3249
- Joined: 2015/01/17 03:52:50
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 14:30:42
(permalink)
tzzsmk
"How good is the pro channel? Can it replace something like the SSL plugin series by waves, or would you still be better off using that?"
to be honest, whole Pro Channel is just a useless eyecandy, and I can tell you why - it's not possible to import/export/copy/paste prochannel across tracks or projects, so let's say you create a perfect EQ on one track, good luck manually adjusting rest of the album because it's not possible to just copy it (unlike FX VSTs which you can just drag and drop across projects freely!)
another problem is the modules get toggled randomly by themselves, happened to me plenty times, random modules on random tracks, definitely not a "user error" although at first I thought I could have just pressed something wrong
EDIT: according to this documentation it appears to be possible to save entire prochannel stuff, but no sign of individual module settings saving
feature request?
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 14:47:01
(permalink)
Personally I think the Pro Channel is the neatest thing since plugins. Low CPU use. Powerful modules with easy to use GUIs. And fully customizable. Plus you still have the FX bin. I was for it from the start but I saw it as a sleeper that over time would gain a huge following. Those that adopted to it were rewarded with outstanding modules. However those that ignored it failed to see just how good it is.
It does what CW said it would do. Its sort of the secret weapon we Sonar users have.
|
tzzsmk
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 103
- Joined: 2016/03/22 08:32:35
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 15:07:10
(permalink)
"feature request?" not really because I think the whole concept is wrong as it is now...
as John mentions pro channel potential, I really liked it in the beginning too, it does basic things without need for additional plugins, but once you start treating things seriously, having multiple projects, lots of tracks etc.. the prochannel weaknesses pop out really harshly,
and for ex. there is no multiband compressor, volume/gain rider, gate+comp, metering/measuring tools and so on,
potential of pro channel is to be wasted as it's CW own "platform", so not many third-party devs will make modules for it, which as a result leaves sonar users choice of either using pro channel or VSTs, and usually people choose the more convenient way
Core i7-5820K, ASUS X99-S, Kingston 32GB DDR4, EVGA GTX980Ti Classified, Samsung 850 EVO 500GBRME HDSPe AIO, RME Fireface 802, RME Octamic D, Seaboard RISE49, Presonus Eris E8, AKG K240 MKII, DELL U2713HM
|
rodreb
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 915
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:59:42
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/11 21:54:35
(permalink)
I love the Pro Channel and use it for almost everything. I do still resort to separate FX plugins for certain things (delay for sure, and a few other special plugs). Overall the PC is very good although, I do wish you could save presets for the individual FX in it. Yeah, I know you can save chains and stuff but, that's less convenient IMHO. I would still love to see more 3rd party Pro Channel FX from some of the big guns!
|
Sidroe
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1954
- Joined: 2010/11/10 18:59:43
- Location: Macon,Georgia
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/12 07:38:07
(permalink)
Everyone in the DAW world of recording makes the same mistake of forgetting how many classic alltime live-forever recordings were made on overworked beatup running on a prayer gear! The endless choices that we have in plugins really stymies the creative ends. We all spend hours sweating bullets over which compressor, gate, EQ, etc.... to use. I think we all forget that when you walked into a certain studio in the OLD days, they had one console and you were lucky to have a few choices of outboard compressors and really lucky to have a gate. Heck, some of this stuff wasn't even invented yet.
When we bought FX pedals back in 19 hundred and LOL! we weren't interested in what the pedal was designed to do. We were interested in what we could MAKE it do!
My point is some of the best music in the history of recording was made in a very limited box of tools. While it is nice to have 27 Eqs to choose from, you really only need 1 or 2. The end result which is the song will come together much quicker and much more enjoyable by just using a few but carefully picked plugs. Whether it's Prochannel, which I do love, or something else.
If the song is good the tools won't matter!!!!
Sonar Platinum, Sonar X3e, Sonar X2a , Sonar X1 Expanded and 8.5.3 (32 and 64 bit), Windows 10 on a Toshiba P75-A7200 Laptop with i7 @ 2.4 quad and 8 gigs of RAM and secondary WD 1 Tb drive, Windows 10 desktop, Asus i5 @ 3.2 quad, 12 gigs RAM, 1 Tb drive, 1 500 gig drive, MOTU 24io, 2 Roland Studio Captures, Saffire 6 USB for laptop, Soundtracs Topaz Project 8 mixer, Alesis Monitor 2s, Event BAS 20/20s, Roland Micro-Monitor BA-8s, and 45 years worth of collecting FX, Mics, Amps, Guitars, and Keyboards!
|
tzzsmk
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 103
- Joined: 2016/03/22 08:32:35
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/12 07:50:40
(permalink)
Sidroe you're totally right, but I'd say this doesn't have much to do with the original question of the thread creator ;)
Core i7-5820K, ASUS X99-S, Kingston 32GB DDR4, EVGA GTX980Ti Classified, Samsung 850 EVO 500GBRME HDSPe AIO, RME Fireface 802, RME Octamic D, Seaboard RISE49, Presonus Eris E8, AKG K240 MKII, DELL U2713HM
|
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3873
- Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/12 08:02:49
(permalink)
I think many PC units are quite good. I don't personally like the 1176 but CA2A is great, the QC would be suitable for 90 percent of my EQ needs if I didn't own/prefer ProQ2, Concrete Limiter is good and straight forward and the SSL bus thing is good. The main thing I really don't like about PC is the interface jumble it creates. But I'm in the minority there. It'd be better if I could retain gain/send/pan/level controls in the inspector with PC open but I also understand why I can't.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:How good is the pro channel?
2016/11/12 08:34:18
(permalink)
Sander if you have a dual monitor you can have the prochannel open in the CV and the Inspector view in TV.
|