Anderton

Kamikaze

Anderton
Regardless of what it suggests to you, mixer channel strips are fairly well-defined. Look at some mixers, or plug-in emulations of mixer channel strips, to see what the term "mixer channel strip" suggests to the majority of real-world users. The customizable aspect of the original ProChannel was that you could change dynamics and distortion processors, as well as choose different filter curves and highpass/lowpass slopes. This allowed you to emulate the channel strips in different mixers.
 

 
AGAIN! The Pro Channels are catagorised into one of 8 catagories;
Distortion
Frequency
Dynamic
Imaging
Modulation
Simulation
Time
Analysis
 
These go beyond just console emulation, and shows an intent by the Engineers that it would be more tha just Console Emulation. It's baked in to the format already, no matter what the blurb says.

 
Again...it didn't start out that way. Introducing something later on in product development doesn't qualify as original design intention. Check out the SONAR X1 documentation. 

Really though, what does it matter what the "original intention" was when discussing what the ProChannel is now? You're talking about a tiny percentage of its overall life. It clear that whatever the original intention of the PC was (and I'm not convinced that their blurb wasn't largely marketing copy, like most blurb), that intention included inserting 3rd party plugins so near to the beginning of its life that we might as well forget about the brief period in which you couldn't. The blurb now says "designed to emulate the layout of a traditional console." That again sounds like marketing blurb. I don't know what it is about the PC that emulates the layout of a console. Is it because it's vertical? I don't know of any console which has modules that you move around and reorder. At its heart, the PC is nothing more than a signal path dressed up with graphics and given some marketing spin. In fact the only feature of it which seems like a console is the fact that the EQ is baked in. Everything else is removable and therefore optional. Let's face it. It's a fancy FX bin with a permanent EQ and optional modules that you can snap in. And it could be improved in some areas.

@kamikaze  Again, all I know about the original intention is what the ProChannel's developer told me, which I am relaying here. I have no reason to doubt what he said. Perhaps you know something about the ProChannel's development of which I am not aware.
 
The documentation I'm referring to is the X1 user manual. It spells out the rationale of the ProChannel. If you look at it you will see the PC has come a long way since its inception.
 
However, I still don't see what's so onerous about the current way the PC handles VSTs.
 
You can drag a single VST in from the browser. This automatically creates an FX Chain and opens the VST's GUI. One click minimizes the header while leaving the GUI open. The only optional addition to this process is renaming the FX Chain if you don't want it to display the default "FX Chain."
 

 
If you drag in an FX Chain, you can minimize the header so it doesn't take up space.
 

 
If you expand it, you can see a selection of "greatest hits" controls that you can specify and customize. Or not.
 

 
If you click the Effects button, you can see all the effects used in a chain, and open their GUI or GUIs, as well as collapse the header so it doesn't have to take up space in the PC.
 

 
I just don't get the angst surrounding these options. They certainly seem more than adequate to me. If there was going to be a ProChannel improvement, I think being able to put your modules in folders for easier selection would be more important to the average user than changing the current way of inserting VSTs.
 

Anderton
@kamikaze  Again, all I know about the original intention is what the ProChannel's developer told me, which I am relaying here. I have no reason to doubt what he said. Perhaps you know something about the ProChannel's development of which I am not aware.
 
The documentation I'm referring to is the X1 user manual. It spells out the rationale of the ProChannel. If you look at it you will see the PC has come a long way since its inception.
 
I just don't get the angst surrounding these options. They certainly seem more than adequate to me. If there was going to be a ProChannel improvement, I think being able to put your modules in folders for easier selection would be more important to the average user than changing the current way of inserting VSTs.
 

That's just anecdotal though, when they then create something with 8 catogories built in, and only half of them are console emulation. They created something with the scope to be more than console emulation from the start.
 
A person with a graphic design role created icons based on that plan, for thing that had nothing in the pipeline. That shows an intent and vision by Cakewalk. The manual isn't going to show the built in intentions by cakewalk. You'd need something like the developer specs for third parties to show that.
 
From you description, the FX chans were never part of the original developers plan, but once they were in you've done more than embrace that enhancement.
 
We've adopted their vision and are supporting it and are being positive about it, and are discussing ways that it could become even better from a user perspective and for some reason 3 hosts are trying to squash that enthusiasm.
 
I don't get it!
 
All I've asked for is just a header, that tells you both what the VST is, and opens the GUI in one click, simple and elegant. It's doable, because you can double click the FX chain, shows it is. I never understood why this wasn't the first option from the start and FX chains were added after. And there's no 'Angst' it's just not the answer some of us are looking for.
 
And for ProChannels to have the option to use the submenu architecture that is in place, to either show by Category or by Manufacturer, because 30 is too long for one menu. I had a registry fudge for this, and the updates would only reset this about every six months, now it seems every update undoes my fudge. We have this for VSTs why not ProChannels now they have a healthy number of them.
 

Anderton
@kamikaze  Again, all I know about the original intention is what the ProChannel's developer told me, which I am relaying here. I have no reason to doubt what he said. Perhaps you know something about the ProChannel's development of which I am not aware.
 
The documentation I'm referring to is the X1 user manual. It spells out the rationale of the ProChannel. If you look at it you will see the PC has come a long way since its inception.
 
However, I still don't see what's so onerous about the current way the PC handles VSTs.
 
You can drag a single VST in from the browser. This automatically creates an FX Chain and opens the VST's GUI. One click minimizes the header while leaving the GUI open. The only optional addition to this process is renaming the FX Chain if you don't want it to display the default "FX Chain."
 

 
If you drag in an FX Chain, you can minimize the header so it doesn't take up space.
 

 
If you expand it, you can see a selection of "greatest hits" controls that you can specify and customize. Or not.
 

 
If you click the Effects button, you can see all the effects used in a chain, and open their GUI or GUIs, as well as collapse the header so it doesn't have to take up space in the PC.
 

 
I just don't get the angst surrounding these options. They certainly seem more than adequate to me. If there was going to be a ProChannel improvement, I think being able to put your modules in folders for easier selection would be more important to the average user than changing the current way of inserting VSTs.
 

Perhaps because there is no angst surrounding those options? What you've heard from me however - and I've explained it clearly numerous times in my replies to scook - is that the current sole method of inserting a VST into a ProChannel is less than ideal because of the space an FX Chain module wastes unless its full. No, it's not convenient to have to keep expanding and collapsing FX Chain modules. No, it's not convenient to have to manually label an FX Chain module, especially if there is more than one plugin in there and you might be changing and/or reordering them during a mix. Yes, I do appreciate being able to see my entire signal flow on a track at a single glance without having to expand anything with a click. Yes, there does exist the potential for a far easier, tidier and more efficient way to insert a VST into a PC. Simply produce a module which is no larger than the size of a collapsed module but which holds one single VST. No expanding or collapsing necessary. Would still be able to move it around like any other module. Clicking on it opens the VST. 
 
FX Chain modules were designed with a particular purpose in mind. To give the user the chance to make, well, FX Chains, and to create custom controls for them. If you're grouping 3 or 4 effects into a chain, and you need to control them as one unit, then the FX Chain module is the best way of achieving that goal. If you're just looking to insert a single VST into the ProChannel, the FX Chain module is far from the best way of achieving that goal when y you consider other, simpler possibilities. 
 

sharke
I don't know what it is about the PC that emulates the layout of a console.

 
Here are the basics on console layouts. Most DAWs have something similar to SONAR's FX Rack, which correlates to the patch bays in hardware consoles. Companies like Waves and Universal Audio make Channel Strips that emulate specific mixers (e.g., SSL 4000), which can insert into these racks. However when open, unlike a conventional mixer the GUIs are not associated physically with the channel; they float over the DAW. If I open a Waves SSL emulation while your back is turned and you look at the screen, the only way you'll know the channel with which it's associated is if you look at the effect's header. Traditional VST effects in "bins" are very much like the rack processors in traditional studios that hooked into the mixer insert jacks via patch cords, connected to a patch bay.
 
If you want to create an a la carte channel strip for your software console channel instead of using something like an SSL emulation, matters get more complex. You can now have, for example, three different windows open for compression, equalization, and noise gate. There is no physical coherence or clues from their layout at to how they relate to a channel. how they relate to each other, or their signal flow.
 
With a console's channel strip, there are several distinguishing characteristics.
 

• The geometry matches that of the channels themselves (vertically in hardware, side-by-side in SONAR due to screen height limitations).
• The signal flow is obvious - from top to bottom.
• The processors are by definition in close physical proximity to each other and the channel's controls.
• You can see all parameters of a console channel strip's processors at the same time, right next to each other, as opposed to splitting your attention between whatever is in your console and whatever is plugged into your outboard rack, or splitting your attention among dissimilar plug-in windows and GUIs. (Note that SONAR added scrolling because if you're using lots of processors, they will not be all visible at the same time.)
• All the processors in a channel strip are treated as a single entity, unlike the a la carte approach mentioned above. This is mirrored in the ProChannel by how you can save a single preset that incorporates the settings and signal flow of all processors. This is convenient if you want, for example, SSL channel strips for the drums but Trident for the vocals.
• With SONAR's Quick Grouping, you can expand any number of channel strips to see the signal flow, processors, and parameter settings right next to the channel a strip processes. Granted this isn't strictly like a traditional console layout because the strip and channel are side-by-side rather than stacked, but this is only because a traditional console has fewer limitations on vertical space than a computer monitor. (However, using a monitor in portrait mode will let you see pretty much all the processors in the ProChannel unless you really go overboard on processors. This is why my "mixer" monitor is in portrait mode while my "tracking/editing" one is landscape.)

 
Of course, the big advantage of a "soft" channel strip compared to a hardware one is that it is not necessary to have switches to reorder signal flow. You said you're not aware of channel strips that do switching, but (for example) switching EQ pre- or post-dynamics is not uncommon (e.g., API).

sharke
Simply produce a module which is no larger than the size of a collapsed module but which holds one single VST. No expanding or collapsing necessary. Would still be able to move it around like any other module. Clicking on it opens the VST.

 
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't get it. When you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it creates a module and you're one click away from collapsing it to the size of a header. With your ideal module that holds a single VST, you're still going to have to expend some clicks and/or drags to put the module in the ProChannel and specify what effect it should hold. With the plug-in browser open, I can't envision a clickstream that would be simpler than the current option (click to select, drag to insert, click to minimize). Like I said, maybe I just don't get it but that seems pretty simple.
 
You can move and re-order the resulting module around like any other module so I don't see what about the current scheme doesn't allow "moving it around like any other module."
 
I see only two issues your approach addresses: opening the VST GUI with one click instead of two (although you don't need to click anything to open the VST if you drag it into the PC - the GUI opens automatically), and the module adopting the name of the VST. However if you insert a VST in the FX Rack, it takes only one click to open it, and the rack label adopts the name of the VST plug-in. So the functionality already exists, just not where you want it.
 
As far as I can tell the bottom line is you don't want to use the FX Rack, which does what you want, and instead do all your processing within the ProChannel, which would require that Cakewalk develop a specific module to duplicate the functionality already present in the FX Rack. In terms of a priority, I can't imagine that being more important than, for example, translating what audio Ripple Editing can do to MIDI Ripple editing, adding notation, or fixing bugs. But if not using the FX Rack is essential in order for you to make the kind of music you want to make, I can see why you would consider your request as really important.

Ok so in terms of the fact that the ProChannel is physically linked to the channel strip so that everything is there in front of you, in order, and instantly accessible, it resembles a console layout. I get that. But that's about as far as it goes.Yes I know you can reorder the signal flow of the EQ and compression on some consoles, but that's hardly the same as having complete freedom to drag and reorder effects. 
 
And in fact, you've given me another argument in favor of a simpler way to add single VST's. If we accept that one of the goals with the ProChannel was to provide some of the convenience of the layout and functionality of a console, then surely having to drill down into a VST by first expanding its module and then clicking on the VST would be further away from that goal than simply being able to click on an effect's name to open its GUI. 
 
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the ProChannel is marketed as, or even what its intended purpose was for the first 5 minutes of its life. The fact is that it's a signal path in which to insert effects to process audio, and Cakewalk are quite encouraging in their insistence that you can throw your own VST's in there. If you're the kind of person who frequently finds themselves experimenting with large, complex and often radical sound shaping effects chains, you're probably going to gravitate to the PC over FX Bins primarily because there is so much more room in them to maneuver. But they could still be improved with the addition of something so simple. 

Anderton
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still don't get it. When you drag a VST into the ProChannel, it creates a module and you're one click away from collapsing it to the size of a header. With your ideal module that holds a single VST, you're still going to have to expend some clicks and/or drags to put the module in the ProChannel and specify what effect it should hold. With the plug-in browser open, I can't envision a clickstream that would be simpler than the current option (click to select, drag to insert, click to minimize). Like I said, maybe I just don't get it but that seems pretty simple.
 
You can move and re-order the resulting module around like any other module so I don't see what about the current scheme doesn't allow "moving it around like any other module."

 
I've quite clearly stated that in my ideal world, we'd be simply dragging an effect onto the PC and it would immediately be given its own slot/module. Nowhere did I suggest that we'd first have to manually add a module separately and then add a VST to it. Let's just get this clear now so I don't have to write it again: all I'm suggesting is something that is like the current FX Chains, but which doesn't expand or collapse, only takes up the vertical room of one VST (unlike the vertical space wasted by the current FX Chains). You say you can't envision a clickstream that would be simpler than the current option, but at the same time you're talking about clicking to expand/collapse the FX Chain every time you want to access the VST within it (unless you don't mind all that vertical space being wasted in the cases where you only have 1 or 2 VST's in an FX Chain). That to me is a very unwelcome click, especially if I need to see at a glance how a track is being processed. 
 
Nor did I ever claim that the current scheme doesn't allow moving the modules around. I don't know where you're getting that from - I clearly wrote "would still be able to move it around like any other module." 
 

AndertonI see only two issues your approach addresses: opening the VST GUI with one click instead of two (although you don't need to click anything to open the VST if you drag it into the PC - the GUI opens automatically), and the module adopting the name of the VST. However if you insert a VST in the FX Rack, it takes only one click to open it, and the rack label adopts the name of the VST plug-in. So the functionality already exists, just not where you want it.

 
It's not just opening something with one click instead of two. It's being able to see exactly what's there without having to click to open. That makes all the difference. The fact that the GUI opens automatically when you first load the VST isn't really worth mentioning - it's not like that's the only time I'm going to want to access the GUI. 
 
I'm aware what the FX rack does. I don't want to use the FX rack. There are a few PC modules that I use, most notably the Quadcurve, and I'd like to be able to mix up my own effects with those modules in the same signal path. Also, if the FX rack contains that functionality, there's no reason why the PC shouldn't too. 
 

AndertonAs far as I can tell the bottom line is you don't want to use the FX Rack, which does what you want

 
No it doesn't. First of all, as already mentioned, I use the Quadcurve and a few other ProChannel modules. Also, the FX Rack is narrow and often doesn't show the full name of a plugin. That's sometimes a problem when you have multiple plugins whose names start identically. The situation is worse if you use narrow strips.
 
 

Andertonand instead do all your processing within the ProChannel, which would require that Cakewalk develop a specific module to duplicate the functionality already present in the FX Rack.

 
Not really, it would simply involve producing a vastly scaled down version of the FX Chain. There's no DSP or anything greatly complicated about it. 
 

AndertonIn terms of a priority, I can't imagine that being more important than, for example, translating what audio Ripple Editing can do to MIDI Ripple editing, adding notation, or fixing bugs.

 
I didn't say anything about prioritizing it over any other suggestion. Nobody's saying that it's more important than ripple editing or fixing bugs (depending on the bug). But you could in turn say that about any discussion or suggestion about Sonar, and effectively halt the discussion there and then on the basis that there was something more important. 
 

AndertonBut if not using the FX Rack is essential in order for you to make the kind of music you want to make, I can see why you would consider your request as really important.

Sentence ignored on the basis of it being nothing more than sarcasm/snark.
 
 

Quite frankly, I'm in utter disbelief there has been this much pushback over Shark's rather reasonable suggestion.

RSMCGUITAR
Quite frankly, I'm in utter disbelief there has been this much pushback over Shark's rather reasonable suggestion.

It's just two people really. But they both seem to be passionately invested in arguing that it's pointless idea and that my workflow is really the problem. I see this a lot on the forum - people arguing passionately about something in a way which suggests that they don't really understand how other people work.