This is more of a Sonar inquiry question rather than a problem question.
 
I have always used the EQ in prochannel. I find it to have little CPU usage and it simply does the job very well. (I would never use an EQ without an analyzer built in.)
 
In the back of my mind I have wanted to switch it out with the LP EQ because it seems to be a much better and fully featured device.
 
I have not done so in the past because with it set on full power it uses a ton of CPU. Now that I have a 12 core (24 threads), CPU power really isn't much of a problem with load balancing on all 12 of the cores barely even registering on my most CPU intensive projects.
 
What exactly are the benefits if I were to switch the Prochannel EQ out for the LP EQ.
 
Is it more precise? Does it have better fidelity? What kind of analogy would you use to compare the two EQs?
 
Also, convolution reverb? That is CPU intensive also. 
 
Is it really going to change the track that much to use convolution verbs? 
 
I am reading online that Breverb has convolution reverbs, is that the stock like "large hall reverb" or do you have to set it a specific way to use them?
 
Just a few questions I hope it does not seem naive me asking them here.
 
Thanks for any responses in advance. :)

The LP EQ is designed for mastering, and it can be problematic when tracking. because it tends to create latency or other timing discrepancies. 
IIRC it's due to the look-ahead function it uses.

With regard to EQ;
 
The LP stands for Linear Phase, which means as you cut or boost frequencies there will be no phase/harmonic distortion introduced and the surrounding frequencies remain unaffected.  So as you said, more precise.
 
The ProChannel EQ is not Linear phase, which means any cuts or boosts will introduce phase/harmonic distortion and affect the surrounding frequencies.  This is often referred to as a character or colourful EQ.
 
Think of it like this:  LP for precision (surgical), non-LP for colour/character (creative).
 

Is it really going to change the track that much to use convolution verbs?

As Einstein say, its all relative and its true.
1) It depends what you think to much is
2) It depends on what type of reverb you select
3) It depends on the sound you want for it
4) It depends on the settings you set for the reverb
5) It depends on ALL the other track in the project
6) It just depends!!!
 
Changing any effect for another effect that is kinda the same can change the sound. Its all relative though.

Rematrix Solo is a good convolution reverb PC module that doesn't use a ton of CPU power.  I don't know what version of Sonar you have, Rex, but it's in mine.

Convolution reverbs can do something that algorithmic reverbs cannot, namely recreate an actual physical space (or emulate a classic hardware reverb sound). However, they also have a couple drawbacks: high CPU usage and limited control for sculpting their sound.
 
I use convolution reverb whenever the reverb itself is going to be prominently featured in the mix. But if the reverb is only there for subtle thickening (as is the case for most tracks), then I prefer an algorithmic reverb.
 
As for LP-EQ, I'd recommend only using it on the master bus. If there is any way to drag even a 12-core machine to its knees, it'll be throwing linear phase equalizers on each of 40 tracks.
 
Once upon a time, LP EQs were all the rage - especially back when all EQs were hardware and LP types were rare and expensive. I think the appeal was more about mystique than any concrete benefit. Later, when LP EQs became available as plugins, they were instantly popular. Over time, though, users began to realize that linear-phase was mostly hype and only beneficial in very specific circumstances.
 
Truth is, digital filters mimic analog filters, and phase shifts are intrinsic to both. We're accustomed to what that sounds like, whether we're talking about the tone knob on your guitar, the crossover control on a subwoofer, or the graphic equalizer in your car's stereo. The audible effect is extremely subtle - unless you're doing extreme and narrow low-frequency boosts. And you shouldn't be doing that anyway on the master bus, which is where most people apply LP EQs.
 
But do some experiments to satisfy your own curiosity. Duplicate a track (vocal, synth, guitar) and insert a minimum-phase EQ on one and a linear-phase EQ on the other. Use identical settings on both and match levels. Then use exclusive-solo to bounce between them. Ideally, use an EQ such as Fabfilter Pro-Q that supports both modes and have someone else do the soloing while you listen without looking at the screen. IF you can reliably tell the difference, and if one definitely sounds better than the other, then you have your answer (for that particular track, anyway). 

Is there a way to get the rematrix solo library to show up in rematrix player? I got rematrix player from overloud but there is no library in it?

"drag & drop the file REmatrix+SOLO.rematrix over the REmatrix Player window. The library will be installed and you will be prompted to authorize it as well."
 
Can read more at this link from Overloud.

Thanks for the replies Cakewalk peeps! Once again you have all given me a lot to think about.
 
I am assuming the eq's are sometimes difernetiated by the words analogue and digital. Digital meaning the LP and analogue meaning the prochannel EQ.
 
Is a digital EQ parametric? Or is that a whole different thing? I know that is probably a naive question. 
 
The prochannel EQ seems like a parametric EQ but it has Q so that confuses me I know Q widens and narrows the band.
 
I pretty much just know what tracks to use a HPF on and how much to usually cut out of my bass and bass drum.
 
It seems using a linear phase EQ to cut out bass frequencies below 20Hz on bass guitar would be precise and not allow rumbles below that frequency to rattle tiny car stereo speakers. But I seem to get the done alright with using a HPF on prochannel EQ too.
 
It seems one is direct while the other is after the signal thus the CPU overhead.
 
The LP EQ would also have latency issues then. I wonder if freezing tracks with LP EQ effect in the mix would cut down on overhead and latency but still benefit from the precision?
 
That is worth a try I think.
 
Any thoughts on that?
 
I would think freezing tracks with convolution would also benefit in the same way? And if there is inherent latency with these effects it seems that is the only way to really tell how they are actually going to sound in the mix is to freeze them with effect in the freeze.
 
It seems the same would go for guitar effects.
 
As for compressors...
 
Is the prochannel compressor analogue too?
What is the digital equivalent to the Prochannel compressor in Sonar Platinum?
 
 

Where do I get the redeem code for the library from my Platinum installation of rematrix+solo?