pwalpwal

John T this is now a bit overdue. Mutliple EQs in a strip is another obvious use case.

frankly bizarre that they were implemented originally as single-use in the first place - what other plugin does this?

Well, if you recall the original implementation, they weren't plug ins in that sense. The PC was a fixed channel strip where you could change 1/ the order of modules and 2/ which of two compressors you wanted to use.
 
It was quite a nice idea, but very rapidly evolved into something else. I think it's now time for it to lose its vestigial organs.

John T
 
...It was quite a nice idea, but very rapidly evolved into something else. I think it's now time for it to lose its vestigial organs.

I think that is a good point - how it started may have made sense at the time, but it truly has evolved in many ways since X1.
 

Just how much EQ or compression does one need?  If 4 parametric bands, 2 filters and a strappable VST of choice isn't enough to fix what your are tracking, perhaps that is the problem lies.
 
@

Not really. There are all kinds of good uses for having multiple processors in series. One good use case it EQ both before and after compression, as a compressor will tend to counteract EQ boosts. So - just as a rough rule of thumb - cuts on the first EQ and boosts on the second, with the compressor in between, can do remarkable things sometimes.
 
Also, compressors in series can be very powerful. Give each compressor less work to do than one would on its own, with slightly different things going on for different levels. I'm oversimplifying, but it's not some clueless amateur technique.

AT
Just how much EQ or compression does one need?  If 4 parametric bands, 2 filters and a strappable VST of choice isn't enough to fix what your are tracking, perhaps that is the problem lies.
 
@

Compression in series is a common technique and can result in more transparent compression, I like the PC76 and would love to use it in series.

There are exceptions to rules, such as EQ before and after comp, parallel comp (serial comp is an age old and standard technique). In fact, parallel comp is closing in as a standard form of compression these days, esp. w/ so many soft (and even hardware units!) compressors having it built in.  And it can be a ton of fun to obsess over a mix and try everything.  But you still have the rules, and exceptions to the rules.  If you use good quality hardware in a decent room you don't need to use exceptional mixing techniques as a matter of course (although parallel comp is closing in on mainstream these days). 
 
Not to go on to a hardware rant (again) in a software forum, but if you love the PC76 beg, borrow or steal a Warm Audio 76 hardware unit long enough to learn to use it going in.  I almost never use the PC76 (or FET Comp which I also have) since the saturation they provide on top of the analog just gets too spitty.  Adding a virtual dose to the real thing only seems to cloud up the sound.  Even w/ non-1176 style hardware compressors the 76 emulations can cloud up the sound.  I would think 2 PC76s would do the same thing, but I've never tried it.  And everybody's ears are different, so you may find my taste not spicy enough.
 
I love the simplicity of the PC but you are right, there is no reason it can't be as flexible as needed.  One should be able to hook in multiple non-PC components anywhere into the strip, while keeping the fundamental channel strip nature of the PC intact.
 
@
 
 

 
 

AT
There are exceptions to rules, such as EQ before and after comp, parallel comp (serial comp is an age old and standard technique). In fact, parallel comp is closing in as a standard form of compression these days, esp. w/ so many soft (and even hardware units!) compressors having it built in. And it can be a ton of fun to obsess over a mix and try everything.  But you still have the rules, and exceptions to the rules.  If you use good quality hardware in a decent room you don't need to use exceptional mixing techniques as a matter of course (although parallel comp is closing in on mainstream these days).

Parallel compression is as old as the hills. They were doing it at Motown at least as far back as the early 70s and possibly further. It's been an absolutely conventional and widely known technique for decades. It's not "closing in" at all, and it's not some fringe "exception to the rules".
 
I wouldn't normally nit-pick like this, but since you came in with a "huh, you guys clearly don't know what you're talking about" point, well...

Well, John T, one point I was trying to make was that parallel compression is becoming more readily available as a home technique since it is built-in to many compressors these days.   It isn't that hard to do at home but certainly ain't as simple as in a studio w/ a nice big board.  So maybe ubiquitous would have been a better word?
 
As we've both been on the forum for a long time I thought you'd know my tone is usually light and informative - or at least I try.  Sorry if I failed to meet that standard - maybe I'm having a day off.  Or maybe not.  Hard for me to judge.
 
As you state, parallel and serial compression are old hat - tho not the first thing home engineers learn.   But I was more interested in serial EQ.  Of course you want that, but as a matter of course ...   I just find it ... awkward, to have a track that needs more than a couple of bands of EQ, as long as I have filters (love me them filters, but, you really can't use more than 2).  The best solution I've found in that circumstance is to rerecord, not fix it in the mix.  That sounds like long hours.  You can get a really nice front end cheap these days, and I feel that does make a difference.   I thought that stating solutions and opinions about a problem is the essence of this forum, even if I was less than politic.  I was just offering another view.
 
If nothing else, I'm sure there are some that didn't know your history lesson and are the wiser for it.
 
cordially,
 
@

You're assuming that using multiple EQs is about having more bands. It's not, or not necessarily. It's about where in the chain you want things to happen. In my pre-and post compression example, EQ 1 and EQ 2 could quite easily be using only one band each.
 
You're also assuming - and this is the assumption that I take exception at - that there's something wrong with what's tracked simply based on people having different methods than yours. And following that, you're assuming that the only reason for said methods is to "fix" things.
 
It's really not. I'd agree with you that re-recording is quicker than mauling with a bad source track. But even quicker, of course, is just not making bad source tracks in the first place. And there's nothing in this thread to indicate that people have that problem.
 
For me, stacking processors is about doing less to the signal, not more. You can - in many cases - work in a more subtle way. It's got nothing to do with "fixing".
 
 

Dear John, (sorry, I've always wanted to use that),
 
I'm not assuming anything.  Not even that altering a recorded sound using EQ, for whatever reason, is fixing the sound.  Just changing it.  Fine.  If there was no problem before, there certainly isn't now.  And there is nothing wrong with using that method instead of re-recording the sound, not better, not fixed, but changed.  I'll use your semantics.
 
I read the thread, I understand what it was about.  But after 10 or 12 posts about using how to make the sound better by using effects I went to the old line of recording more like you wish the sound to be.  I'm sorry you took offence to that suggestion. Perhaps I was a little sharp, but I didn't think I was mean-spirited or tedious, and tedious and small is how I find your replies, belaboring points.
 
So like the letter named after you, I'm going to break off my end of this conversation, now.  I know I'm not getting anything out of it and I doubt any third party is either. 
 
@