Steve_Karl

Klaus
Klanghelm's VU-Meter as a ProChannel module would be really great.
And most probably quite affordable... 
 

That's the ONLY suggestion so far I've seen that seems applicable to ProChannel as it's mastering oriented.
All of the others sugested above I'd never use on a ProChannel.

If you email them, and suggest it, I'll add it to the first post. Let us know the email?

Kamikaze
 
wanted to;
Draw attention to the fact that suppliers are not making Prochannels.

And who can blame them? Just about every DAW on the planet, including Sonar, supports VST. If I make a really high quality plugin in VST, people who use Sonar will buy it along with people who use all kinds of other DAW's. Why then, after I've already sold to the Sonar segment of the market, would I eat into profit margin by sinking money into developing a version of my software that ultimately will only be purchased by those who could and likely would just buy the VST version if I did nothing?
 
 

Show some products would suit the prochannel format with the smallest tweaking (The DS-10 and all of P&M stuff VIP collection).

I'm going to assume you are speculating here. I'm also going to assume you are referring to the GUI only. But lets face it, a VST and its GUI is kind of like a NASCAR frame and the body that goes over it. Want your NASCAR to look like a Pontiac GTO instead of a Ford Mustang? Pull the first body off, bolt the second one on, start in the morning and have it ready by lunch. Same car as it always was but it looks like a Pontiac now. 

I'm simplifying obviously but that point is the same. The GUI really isn't where any of the heavy lifting happens when it comes to building world class compressor or EQ software. At least that's my understanding of it. 


So really when we get right down to brass tacks, its likely it would be very easy to almost every VST maker to convert their products if they wanted to. But again, why would they want to? How much more sales revenue would that development/ongoing support expenditure really generate? Because remember for their perspective, the Sonar kids can and do already buy their product as is. So how many MORE sales would they really get?

And also while we're on the subject its worth asking, will Cakewalk want a piece of every one of those sales in exchange for access to the API (or whatever other protocol) which allows one to port their product over to Pro Channel format?
 
 
 
 

The GUI is the easy part, I get that.
Then pro channel has the same engine as the VST, why would that need modifying, it just has a different shell to a standard VST. It's just how it connects that different.
 
In the case of the Plug and mix, they are the same steps for all the plugs in the VIP, because the lay outs are fixed, so it's repeating the same style of graphic edits, and realigning where the mouse corresponds too. The shell would be the same shell. No one as a far as I'm aware has posted that they have and the Plug and Mix stuff, but some have said they would getbthem if it did. So for Plug and Mix, that have a collection of 40 plugs that often are on sale, and a few a little older now, would expanded the saleability. You say why would they want to sell to people that already have the VST, but people don't.
 
Regards the XLN Transient Designer. I would like a get 3rd party transient desiner, if it was in PC, then I'd probably choose it over the competition.
 
 

It seems perfect for pro channel

http://sonimus.com/home/e...or-is-coming-soon.html

fwiw,i think the question is: why should the dev do extra work to make a pc version when vst2/3 is already supported?

I really don't know what the extra development work entails. The GUI redesign in some cases is simple. Theme editor has taught me that. How much goes into making a VST sit ina PC I don't know. How much Cakewalk provide in facilitating this I don't know.
 
But regards your question, it's been answered a few times in the thread. If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me. Others have said if the Plug and MIx was available as a PC option they would buy it in a shot.
 
Some of us value the PC format.
 
I'd be interested in some input into exactly how consuming making somethi8ng that works in a VST would be in a PC, from someone who knows. It's not developing a new product, but modifying and existing one.
 

if there's little to no development work, then why aren't there many to choose from? what else would prevent a dev doing the little to no extra work for a "new format"?

Kamikaze
]If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me.

 Out of curiosity would you buy a PC option over a similar priced VST alternative if the VST version worked better and/or sounded better?

I get that you prefer a PC option to a VST all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal. So I guess what I'm asking is, just how much do you prefer a PC option? Do you prefer it enough that its more important than sound quality?

In coding terms, they should be equal, so one could not sound "better" than the other.

pwalpwal
if there's little to no development work, then why aren't there many to choose from? what else would prevent a dev doing the little to no extra work for a "new format"?

Being that I didn't say that, I'm going to make the assumption you're not responding to my post.