Anderton

SergeQ
prochannel = console emulation, not FX bin

I agree. The way I always explained it in seminars was that the ProChannel allowed users to create their own console architecture. I felt this was a definite improvement over other DAWs, where the traditional console customizing options were simply to show or hide sections of the console. 

It's not true correct though, with ProChannels there are currently


3 reverbs
1 delay
1 phaser
1 wah
1 chorus
1 amp simulator
1 Tremelo
 
These are not Console emulators, they are FX
 
Even within the ProChannel format, they are categorised into 8 types;
Distortion
Frequency
Dynamic
Imaging
Modulation
Simulation
Time
Analysis
 
So FX are part of the intention by cakewalk. Modules haven't been created for Analysis yet, but there is a category for it.
 
 

ampfixer
I wouldn't actually care, but lately they seem to making changes just so they will have changes to announce each month. There's not usually a mention of why, or how one change relates to a bigger picture. I'd like to think I'm wrong but there's no way to tell. 

The "why" for the big issues in the past few months is clearly in response to a significant number of user requests for improvements:
 

• Comping with Region FX clips
• Improvements to the MIDI PRV (e.g., velocity change audition not limited to note pane)
• Ripple Editing
• More flexible MIDI editing in response to advances in virtual instruments (i.e., Transform tool)
• Re-introduction of the monthly eZine (now accessible on any platform, anywhere)
• Comping enhancements
• Chase MIDI notes
• Fix Matrix View issues
• Improved touch response

 
The rest are to take advantage of technological advances (don't knock 'em 'til you've tried them):
 

• Microsoft Pen and Dial support 
• Support for wireless MIDI
• Extremely low latency for laptop sound chips

 
Then there are things that no one asked for specifically (mastering-quality limiter, 30 QuadCurve presets, 30 Modulation FX Chains), but if you look at the forum response, they're appreciated.
 
If these are "changes just so they will have changes to announce each month," all I can say is...I hope they keep announcing these kind of changes each month.
 
In the bigger picture, all this shows is that if a feature doesn't matter to someone, they're dismissed. But if you're one of the people who has wanted better MIDI editing, does mastering in SONAR, needs ripple editing for arranging (or got tired of the delete hole workaround), or wanted better comping...they're considered valuable.
 
Is it a priority for users that Cakewalk re-design the ProChannel so people who require doing lots of tweaking can do so in an environment they like better than dividing effects into two types, or who don't relate to the concept of a console? Is that more important to them than MIDI, comping, or arranging? I don't know. But based on following these forums, I tend to think not.
 
The bottom line is I believe that at Cakewalk, the features many people say they need are prioritized over features some people say they want.
 

Anderton
You said "Differentiating between utilitarian and creative processor functionality is a matter of user choice, not something which is 'baked in' to the functionality and intent of the ProChannel." 
 
The intent now remains the same; however, it has been modified over the years in response to user requests. I was simply correcting you because contrary to your contention, a particular intent and function was indeed baked into the ProChannel. The original design of anything often influences the degree to which it can be changed or adapted to other uses. 

 
I can't find anything in Cakewalk's blurb, past or present, which signifies that they intended the ProChannel to be used for a particular kind of processing ('bread and butter' FX or anything else) but to me the fact that they not only provided an FX Chain module for hosting your own effects, as well as various sound shaping (i.e. non-bread and butter) modules suggests that they at least partially envisioned it as a straight ahead processing channel. The whole idea of it being "baked in" as a console strip was surely marketing. Regardless of the ways in which DAWs attempt to emulate the look and feel of consoles (channel strips, 3D faders and knobs etc), it's clearly being done with the idea in mind that a software platform is more flexible and customizable than a real console. I have no doubt that the Bakers knew from the get go that many people would be using the ProChannel as their sole processing path. 
 

AndertonThe ProChannel has met the goals that Cakewalk intended for it to have. With hindsight, you are welcome to think those goals weren't ambitious enough. But at this point, it was designed for a specific functionality and has probably gone as far as it can based on the original design and intention. To re-do the PC from the ground up to serve a different purpose would likely be less important to people than something like Ripple Editing or a mastering-quality limiter, but of course, I have no way of knowing that.

 
I hardly think that adding the ability to drag single VST's into the ProChannel and have them hosted in narrow modules that are no higher than the label of an FX Chain is "ambitious," nor would it require a re-do from the ground up (or at all). It would just require a new, simple module that was just a scaled down FX Chain without any of the customizable functionality.

sharke
I can't find anything in Cakewalk's blurb, past or present, which signifies that they intended the ProChannel to be used for a particular kind of processing ('bread and butter' FX or anything else) but to me the fact that they not only provided an FX Chain module for hosting your own effects, as well as various sound shaping (i.e. non-bread and butter) modules suggests that they at least partially envisioned it as a straight ahead processing channel. The whole idea of it being "baked in" as a console strip was surely marketing.

 
You can choose to believe whatever you want. However what I say is based on what the engineer who was the ProChannel’s designer said, as well as Cakewalk itself after the ProChannel was released. Nor did I have to look too hard to find that others understood what the ProChannel design was about. As Lynda.com explains about the ProChannel, “Sonar X2 Producer ships with a feature called Prochannel, which is a collection of audio processing modules that have been designed to emulate 3 classic real world mixing consoles. Each audio track, instrument track, and bus track has its own Prochannel, making it easy to quickly process your audio with the built-in modules.”
 
As Cakewalk says on Steam, ”Experience that big analog sound - and even create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips in SONAR Professional and Platinum.” Mixer architecture…channel strips…
 
Before X1 Expanded, Dynamics defaulted to preceding EQ, like most consoles. And as mentioned in Sound on Sound when discussing the change that allowed re-ordering modules, “Although the ProChannel effects ordering is pretty flexible, remember that ProChannel's goal is to mimic the workflow of a traditional mixing console as opposed to, for example, a modular synthesizer where anything can go anywhere. However, you can place ProChannel before or after the FX bin, which opens up additional possibilities.”
 
In announcing the introduction of the +10 dB Compressor as a ProChannel plug-in, Cakewalk’s press release from January 2015 said “SONAR’s ProChannel was a feature that was introduced in SONAR X1 Producer, and has continued to evolve. This analog-style channel strip offers SONAR customers the ability to create their own mixer architecture, with customizable mixer channel strips.”
 
The ProChannel couldn’t even scroll until X1 Expanded. I’m pretty sure you couldn’t insert FX Chains until X2. Basically, the ProChannel became a victim of its own success, where users wanted it to go beyond what was originally presented in X1.  
 

I have no doubt that the Bakers knew from the get go that many people would be using the ProChannel as their sole processing path.

 
See above. Your assumption is incorrect.
 
As to how difficult it would be to turn the PC into an FX Rack, I don't know code so can't comment. But I have seen that what people might think "would take only a few lines of code" can have unforeseen ramifications and consequences. I know that Cakewalk found it challenging to make the changes that evidenced themselves in later versions of SONAR beyond the original X1 release, because of limitations in the original design.

The ProChannel format are categorised into 8 types;
Distortion
Frequency
Dynamic
Imaging
Modulation
Simulation
Time
Analysis
 
This list goes beyond console emulation. It covers all bases of FX plug ins. An engineer came up with these, and still one remains to have anything developed for it (Analysis), so clearly they've sat down and thought it further than just a Console Emulator.
 

Anderton
 
You can choose to believe whatever you want. However what I say is based on what the engineer who was the ProChannel’s designer said, as well as Cakewalk itself after the ProChannel was released.
 
Note: The opinions expressed in this post were written by Craig Anderton in his personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cakewalk Inc

Anderton
You can choose to believe whatever you want. However what I say is based on what the engineer who was the ProChannel’s designer said, as well as Cakewalk itself after the ProChannel was released. Nor did I have to look too hard to find that others understood what the ProChannel design was about. As Lynda.com explains about the ProChannel, “Sonar X2 Producer ships with a feature called Prochannel, which is a collection of audio processing modules that have been designed to emulate 3 classic real world mixing consoles. Each audio track, instrument track, and bus track has its own Prochannel, making it easy to quickly process your audio with the built-in modules.”
 
As Cakewalk says on Steam, ”Experience that big analog sound - and even create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips in SONAR Professional and Platinum.” Mixer architecture…channel strips…

 
"...and create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips..." this to me suggests the idea of a strip which was designed to feel like a console strip (aesthetics) but which is fully customizable (functionality). Terms like "big analog sound" are clearly just marketing. Lynda.com called the X2 ProChannel "a collection of modules" to "emulate...mixing consoles" but by X2 it was certainly possible to mix and match VST's with modules and the ProChannel was everything it is now. 
 

AndertonBefore X1 Expanded, Dynamics defaulted to preceding EQ, like most consoles. And as mentioned in Sound on Sound when discussing the change that allowed re-ordering modules, “Although the ProChannel effects ordering is pretty flexible, remember that ProChannel's goal is to mimic the workflow of a traditional mixing console as opposed to, for example, a modular synthesizer where anything can go anywhere. However, you can place ProChannel before or after the FX bin, which opens up additional possibilities.”
 
In announcing the introduction of the +10 dB Compressor as a ProChannel plug-in, Cakewalk’s press release from January 2015 said “SONAR’s ProChannel was a feature that was introduced in SONAR X1 Producer, and has continued to evolve. This analog-style channel strip offers SONAR customers the ability to create their own mixer architecture, with customizable mixer channel strips.”
 
The ProChannel couldn’t even scroll until X1 Expanded. I’m pretty sure you couldn’t insert FX Chains until X2. Basically, the ProChannel became a victim of its own success, where users wanted it to go beyond what was originally presented in X1.  

 
You're quoting from your own article above. Not sure if that's allowed 
 
And besides, your article contradicts the idea that you couldn't insert FX Chains until X2. It clearly talks about them being available in X1. I remember that they were, because I came to Sonar during X1 and FX Chains were fully operational in the ProChannel when I started using it. I went straight to using the ProChannel for everything and never used an FX Bin once. 
 

Anderton

I have no doubt that the Bakers knew from the get go that many people would be using the ProChannel as their sole processing path.

 
See above. Your assumption is incorrect.

 
It really isn't a stretch to imagine that, regardless of how the ProChannel was originally marketed, the Bakers contemplated the VST compatibility from the start. I can't imagine that they wouldn't - it seems like a completely unnecessary limitation. 
 

AndertonAs to how difficult it would be to turn the PC into an FX Rack, I don't know code so can't comment. But I have seen that what people might think "would take only a few lines of code" can have unforeseen ramifications and consequences. I know that Cakewalk found it challenging to make the changes that evidenced themselves in later versions of SONAR beyond the original X1 release, because of limitations in the original design.

 
Once again - nobody has suggested anything so radical as "turning the ProChannel into an FX rack." All I'm talking about is adding a new module which accepts one VST and only takes up that amount of space. They already have a module which accepts VST's (and has some other functionality). All it would take would be to modify that existing module into something which looks different and has some of the superfluous functionality taken away. You wouldn't be changing any of the core design of the ProChannel at all, merely customizing some existing functionality. 

sharke
"...and create your own mixer architecture - with customizable channel strips..." this to me suggests the idea of a strip which was designed to feel like a console strip (aesthetics) but which is fully customizable (functionality).

 
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.
 

You're quoting from your own article above. Not sure if that's allowed

 
Of course it is...when the source of what's said comes directly from Cakewalk, and articles are fact-checked with the manufacturer prior to publication. Besides, it seems disingenuous to question what I said when the quotes that aren't from me say the same thing. These are all contemporaneous accounts. I didn't travel backward in time and change what I said to support my point in the present day.
 

And besides, your article contradicts the idea that you couldn't insert FX Chains until X2. It clearly talks about them being available in X1.

 
There is no contradiction. There's a difference between the availability of FX Chains, and the ability to insert them in the Pro Channel. Here is the link to the X1 documentation. As it says, "FX Chain presets can be used in track, clip and bus effects bins." Period. There is no mention of inserting them in the ProChannel in either the section on FX Chains or the section on the ProChannel. However, using FX Chains with the ProChannel is mentioned clearly in the X2 documentation.

sharke
It just occurred to me that I haven't seen any new ProChannel modules in a long time, either from Cakewalk or 3rd party developers. Perhaps I'm just out of the loop. Has interest waned, or are there some I just don't know about? 

I've enjoyed the premise of your thread and don't understand the sharke attack (sorry but that was begging me to type). The title of the thread is misleading and perhaps even the location of the thread. But it didn't bother me once I begin reading the discussion. Lot's of people jump to read a post like this versus "how to get sonar 7 to see my realtek".  :) 
 
I use the PC for just about everything fx. Primary reason is I like the simplicity of routing the order of my fx in one area.  I do occasionally drop an fx in the bin. But since X1, I've been ~90% PC. I think along with fx chains, I have everything I need or want in the PC fx. I'm waiting to be able to save PC Module presets. Yes, I have submitted a feature request in the past and have full confidence it has been reviewed. Hopefully the developers agreed with needing that feature. If not, I'll still continue to use the PC almost exclusively for a fx container / manager. 
 
 

^^^ this is exactly how I see it and work the same way.

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.

I think the whole meat and potatoes of this particular argument is whether or not Cakewalk "originally" intended the ProChannel to accept VST plugins or not. And it really is moot, because the period during which you could not insert a VST in the PC probably represents less than 5% of its history. So then you could ask "did Cakewalk plan the VST compatibility from the outset, or did the idea not occur to them until later?" Neither of us know that for sure, but I would hazard a guess that the idea was floated and put on a to-do list for development in the near future. And the initial history of the ProChannel becomes even less relevant when you consider that what it is now is what they intended it to be.

Anderton
There is no contradiction. There's a difference between the availability of FX Chains, and the ability to insert them in the Pro Channel. Here is the link to the X1 documentation. As it says, "FX Chain presets can be used in track, clip and bus effects bins." Period. There is no mention of inserting them in the ProChannel in either the section on FX Chains or the section on the ProChannel. However, using FX Chains with the ProChannel is mentioned clearly in the X2

Regardless of any of that, the fact remains that the ProChannel was always meant as a "fantasy" channel strip rather than an accurate emulation of a real channel strip, and that VST capability was up and running not long after it came out. The only reason we're talking about history to begin with is in the context of a discussion about whether it would be a good idea to improve things for VST insertion in the PC, and no amount of history is going to change the fact that Cakewalk clearly intend the PC to be used as a free for all signal path in which dedicated processing modules coexist with regular plugins. The very fact that FX Chains exist at all in the PC means that any talk of improving or adding to their functionality is perfectly reasonable.