Kamikaze

mudgel

Recently we've had some Cakewalk updates and releases of 3 high end plugins for the PC so clearly Cakewalk don't see PC as a dead standard.

What were they? (or do you mean the VSTs?)

Sorry Scott. My bad. I was just referring to the new plugins which aren't for the PC at all.

No worries, thought I'd missed something for a moment (kind of hoped I had too)
 
I believe the the Hoser EQ was the last PC made.

I think Pro Channel is a great innovation and would love to see other third party developers use it, especially for Channel Emulations like REDD. Conceptually it seems logical and elegant.
 
What is unclear to me is how much effort is involved from a developers perspective to support Pro Channel. I'm guessing that if it was really easy we would have seen a lot more plugins offering the option.

The image in msg 36 is not using the PC to its best advantage. Having only one VST in the FX chains and no custom UI there is no reason to leave the FX chains expanded. When collapsed there is still plenty of unused space in the PC. Here are three examples, two based on the image above and a third showing an even more extreme example of FX Chain > PC Module > FX chain > PC Module > FX Chain > PC Module. All using the same resolution as the image above. In the rightmost example I used the compact QCEQ too.

 

pwalpwal
yeah but now you're trying to find a way to shoe-horn your VST collection into the PC because you have (PC-only i assume) a handful of PC-only-plugins
but yeah, i argued against the PC right from the start, seeing it only as a "lock in" business strategy
ymmv of course ;-)

I'm with pwalpwal on this matter.
 
I still use ProChannel plugins because I like the sound that come out of them, and not because they emulate some hardware UI or workflow.
 
No offense but, if you want a hardware UI/workflow, them buy the real one! Why fool yourself with a photoshoped version?
 
Anyway, I want the other way around: bring all the ProChannel plugins to VST2 & VST3!
 
I'll be happy even if they only work with Sonar, no problemo!
 
I guess I'll hide somewhere for now.
 
(runs for cover...)

scook
The image in msg 36 is not using the PC to its best advantage. Having only one VST in the FX chains and no custom UI there is no reason to leave the FX chains expanded. When collapsed there is still plenty of unused space in the PC. Here are three examples, two based on the image above and a third showing an even more extreme example of FX Chain > PC Module > FX chain > PC Module > FX Chain > PC Module. All using the same resolution as the image above. In the rightmost example I used the compact QCEQ too.

 

There is a reason to leave it expanded, to launch the UI for the VST. What do you mean about custom UI, it just needs to be the VST UI that already exists as mentioned before.

Without a custom FX Chain UI, there is no need to leave the FX Chain expanded. The only time the FX Chain needs to be expanded is when launching the VST UI. Up until now, the discussion was all about real estate. The solution to the real estate issue is don't leave FX chain expanded.
 
Since real estate is not an issue we are left counting mouse clicks. From a collapsed state to VST UI launch is one more click in the same area of the screen. Should real estate become an issue again collapsed the FX chain with an additional click. Even the additional clicks could be scripted away with a little effort using autohotkey or the like binding something like CTRL+click to perform the expand Fx Chain/launch VST UI/collapse FX chain.

scook
Without a custom FX Chain UI, there is no need to leave the FX Chain expanded. The only time the FX Chain needs to be expanded is when launching the VST UI. Up until now, the discussion was all about real estate. The solution to the real estate issue is don't leave FX chain expanded.
 

That's not entirely true. It's problematic to make statements about what people need or don't need when you have no real insight into their mind and their workflow. Everyone's different. Personally, I find it helpful to be able to view my effect chain in full when making sound shaping or mixing decisions. I might typically have 5-10 effects in a chain sometimes, and when you have the FX Chain modules closed, you cannot see what effects are in them or their order. Not only do I like to be able to see what effects I have on a track at a glance, but I also like to be able to shuffle them around on a whim to see how order affects the sound.
 
It's also probably worth pointing out that if I'm looking at the ProChannel, then chances are that I'm adjusting or experimenting with plugins. That means I need to have everything expanded and visible. The only time I don't need everything accessible is when I'm not looking at the ProChannel, in which case it really doesn't matter how much real estate the effects use and collapsing the modules is of no benefit. When I'm playing with a signal chain in the ProChannel, that's the point at which real estate is important, and that's the point at which an expanded FX Chain module with only one VST in it feels like a waste of space. 

sharke

scook
Without a custom FX Chain UI, there is no need to leave the FX Chain expanded. The only time the FX Chain needs to be expanded is when launching the VST UI. Up until now, the discussion was all about real estate. The solution to the real estate issue is don't leave FX chain expanded.

That's not entirely true. It's problematic to make statements about what people need or don't need when you have no real insight into their mind and their workflow. Everyone's different. Personally, I find it helpful to be able to view my effect chain in full when making sound shaping or mixing decisions. I might typically have 5-10 effects in a chain sometimes, and when you have the FX Chain modules closed, you cannot see what effects are in them or their order.

I was specifically addressing the problem of one VST plug-in in the FX Chain. That was presented as the worst case scenario because of the real estate needed for the FX Chain. In the case where 5 to 10 plug-ins are in the chain there is no real estate issue. In fact, FX chains are real estate saving in that case. FYI, you can name the FX Chain label on the fly. But again, when the chain is mostly full, real estate (the problem I was addressing) is not an issue.

 

sharke
Not only do I like to be able to see what effects I have on a track at a glance, but I also like to be able to shuffle them around on a whim to see how order affects the sound.

Of course.
 

sharke
It's also probably worth pointing out that if I'm looking at the ProChannel, then chances are that I'm adjusting or experimenting with plugins. That means I need to have everything expanded and visible. The only time I don't need everything accessible is when I'm not looking at the ProChannel, in which case it really doesn't matter how much real estate the effects use and collapsing the modules is of no benefit. When I'm playing with a signal chain in the ProChannel, that's the point at which real estate is important, and that's the point at which an expanded FX Chain module with only one VST in it feels like a waste of space. 

It is still not clear why the FX Chain with one module must be open when there is no custom UI. The only functions is in the expanded UI are the gain and launch UI. The FX Chain label can be as specific as you want. What is in a collapsed FX chain does not have to be a mystery.

scook
 

sharke
 

scook
Without a custom FX Chain UI, there is no need to leave the FX Chain expanded. The only time the FX Chain needs to be expanded is when launching the VST UI. Up until now, the discussion was all about real estate. The solution to the real estate issue is don't leave FX chain expanded.
 

That's not entirely true. It's problematic to make statements about what people need or don't need when you have no real insight into their mind and their workflow. Everyone's different. Personally, I find it helpful to be able to view my effect chain in full when making sound shaping or mixing decisions. I might typically have 5-10 effects in a chain sometimes, and when you have the FX Chain modules closed, you cannot see what effects are in them or their order.

I was specifically addressing the problem of one VST plug-in in the FX Chain. That was presented as the worst case scenario because of the real estate needed for the FX Chain. In the case where 5 to 10 plug-ins are in the chain there is no real estate issue. In fact, FX chains are real estate saving in that case. FYI, you can name the FX Chain label on the fly. But again, when the chain is mostly full, real estate (the problem I was addressing) is not an issue.

 

scook 

sharke
Not only do I like to be able to see what effects I have on a track at a glance, but I also like to be able to shuffle them around on a whim to see how order affects the sound.

Of course.
 

sharke
It's also probably worth pointing out that if I'm looking at the ProChannel, then chances are that I'm adjusting or experimenting with plugins. That means I need to have everything expanded and visible. The only time I don't need everything accessible is when I'm not looking at the ProChannel, in which case it really doesn't matter how much real estate the effects use and collapsing the modules is of no benefit. When I'm playing with a signal chain in the ProChannel, that's the point at which real estate is important, and that's the point at which an expanded FX Chain module with only one VST in it feels like a waste of space. 

 
It is still not clear why the FX Chain with one module must be open when there is no custom UI. The only functions is in the expanded UI are the gain and launch UI. The FX Chain label can be as specific as you want. What is in a collapsed FX chain does not have to be a mystery.

You're forgetting that people sometimes mix up VST's in FX Chains with ProChannel modules. They're not necessarily putting their entire signal path through one FX Chain. They might have one or two VST's in an FX Chain, followed by the Quadcurve, followed by another FX Chain with one VST, followed by the Saturation knob....and so on. In these scenarios (in which I often find myself), the waste of screen estate is glaring. It's also a pain to have to keep collapsing and uncollapsing FX Chains in order to access the plugins within them, versus one click on the VST name to open it when the module is expanded. When you're mixing or on a creative roll, your train of thought is fast and you have a ton of things going on at once and you're making hundreds of gestures and actions in the DAW in response. You're opening plugins one after the other and adjusting them at the speed of thought. Little things like opening and closing PC modules to access the plugins behind them is an unwelcome step in such a fluid process. 
 
And you're also missing the point that people like to look at their whole signal chain at a glance and see what's there. There is every reason to keep an FX Chain with one VST in it open - so you can see what's in it while assessing the track in the mix and making decisions about what to add, what to take out, what to rearrange in the signal path. It is simply not practical or convenient to indicate a list of VST's in the FX Chain label. A basic VST holder that expanded and contracted to the number of VST's in it would be a perfect solution and really streamline things in the ProChannel.