Vastman
I see NOTHING wrong with in-app purchases... that's been the Pro Channel way since day one... "I'm done"????  No one forces anyone to buy them.  I would love the option and it's a valuable revenue stream to support Cake's new business model.  I too dream of a money free future but Trek ain't here YET!
 

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me, "in-app purchases" are done "through" the software, which means you would see ads and offers for products to buy inside SONAR.
 
I'm all for new ProChannel modules and other VST(i)s made by Cakewalk, but I prefer to have these things separated from my workspace.
 
If it would be an option like "Would you like to see in-app purchase offers?" in Preferences to enable/disable,
I'm all in. 
 

I just thought it was worth pointing out that this thread has over 30 posts and not one of them contain a single word about how these plug and mix processors actually sound. Not one word. 

JohanSebatianGremlin
I just thought it was worth pointing out that this thread has over 30 posts and not one of them contain a single word about how these plug and mix processors actually sound. Not one word. 

I use some PC on virtually all tracks.  They are up in the izotope/FF class or close... I use all three while most of the $1000s of dollars in plugs I've acquired over the years are gathering dust. Personally I'd like high quality PC modules, like the original bakers offered... don't really use the one knobbers so can't really comment on the newer stuff, although the mastering mods are VERY nice...

Vastman
OK... I see how ur defining it... like a cell phone!  makes sense... we're just talkin semantics here and I agree that would suck
 

this is the commonly accepted definition of "in-app purchase" - i think Anderton should clarify what he meant
 

Anderton... lifetime updates, lots of new users, and in-app purchases ...

Klaus
Klanghelm's VU-Meter as a ProChannel module would be really great.
And most probably quite affordable... 
 

That's the ONLY suggestion so far I've seen that seems applicable to ProChannel as it's mastering oriented.
All of the others sugested above I'd never use on a ProChannel.

Kamikaze
 
wanted to;
Draw attention to the fact that suppliers are not making Prochannels.

And who can blame them? Just about every DAW on the planet, including Sonar, supports VST. If I make a really high quality plugin in VST, people who use Sonar will buy it along with people who use all kinds of other DAW's. Why then, after I've already sold to the Sonar segment of the market, would I eat into profit margin by sinking money into developing a version of my software that ultimately will only be purchased by those who could and likely would just buy the VST version if I did nothing?
 
 

Show some products would suit the prochannel format with the smallest tweaking (The DS-10 and all of P&M stuff VIP collection).

I'm going to assume you are speculating here. I'm also going to assume you are referring to the GUI only. But lets face it, a VST and its GUI is kind of like a NASCAR frame and the body that goes over it. Want your NASCAR to look like a Pontiac GTO instead of a Ford Mustang? Pull the first body off, bolt the second one on, start in the morning and have it ready by lunch. Same car as it always was but it looks like a Pontiac now. 

I'm simplifying obviously but that point is the same. The GUI really isn't where any of the heavy lifting happens when it comes to building world class compressor or EQ software. At least that's my understanding of it. 


So really when we get right down to brass tacks, its likely it would be very easy to almost every VST maker to convert their products if they wanted to. But again, why would they want to? How much more sales revenue would that development/ongoing support expenditure really generate? Because remember for their perspective, the Sonar kids can and do already buy their product as is. So how many MORE sales would they really get?

And also while we're on the subject its worth asking, will Cakewalk want a piece of every one of those sales in exchange for access to the API (or whatever other protocol) which allows one to port their product over to Pro Channel format?
 
 
 
 

It seems perfect for pro channel

http://sonimus.com/home/e...or-is-coming-soon.html

I really don't know what the extra development work entails. The GUI redesign in some cases is simple. Theme editor has taught me that. How much goes into making a VST sit ina PC I don't know. How much Cakewalk provide in facilitating this I don't know.
 
But regards your question, it's been answered a few times in the thread. If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me. Others have said if the Plug and MIx was available as a PC option they would buy it in a shot.
 
Some of us value the PC format.
 
I'd be interested in some input into exactly how consuming making somethi8ng that works in a VST would be in a PC, from someone who knows. It's not developing a new product, but modifying and existing one.
 

Kamikaze
]If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me.

 Out of curiosity would you buy a PC option over a similar priced VST alternative if the VST version worked better and/or sounded better?

I get that you prefer a PC option to a VST all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal. So I guess what I'm asking is, just how much do you prefer a PC option? Do you prefer it enough that its more important than sound quality?

pwalpwal
if there's little to no development work, then why aren't there many to choose from? what else would prevent a dev doing the little to no extra work for a "new format"?

Being that I didn't say that, I'm going to make the assumption you're not responding to my post.

JohanSebatianGremlin

Kamikaze
]If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me.

 Out of curiosity would you buy a PC option over a similar priced VST alternative if the VST version worked better and/or sounded better?

I get that you prefer a PC option to a VST all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal. So I guess what I'm asking is, just how much do you prefer a PC option? Do you prefer it enough that its more important than sound quality?

I not sure I can answer that question, its too hypothetical. I'm not anti VST. My last purchase was Saturn, prrvious to that, MarkBass, these aren't things I'd use on many tracks at a time and don't suit PC format, they require more space to use the feature. But the simpler interfaced VST, I feel I'll throw them in and experiment more more if they were PC format
 
Are you not a fan of the PC format?
 
I really don't see the problem in telling suppliers you'd be interested more if they provided a PC format. And trying to encourage cake to build some bridges with othere developers?
 
 
 
 

JohanSebatianGremlin

Bristol_Jonesey
In coding terms, they should be equal, so one could not sound "better" than the other.

Correct, if you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand X PC compressor. But that wasn't my question.
What about when you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand Y PC compressor? Two different competing products so not equal code anymore. That's my question. Would you buy the brand Y PC compressor if the brand X VST compressor cost the same and sounded better?

There would have to be a clearly demonstrable improvement in order to make that sort of decision.
 
In the real world, the differences between different flavours of vst's are fairly negligible and all bets are off once you subject your signal to futrther sonic mayhem further down the chain.

Ok, just thought of an example that fits your hypothetical questions. I bought the VKFX bundle, without comparing its phaser to any other phaser, it's tremelo to any other tremelo. It was a bundle of nice simple PC modules from a supplier whose quailty I trust, and had good reviews.
 
I'm no GAS head, my plugs are pretty streamlined. The majority oif extras from Cakewalk aren't installed and are hidden in CCC

JohanSebatianGremlin

Bristol_Jonesey
 
There would have to be a clearly demonstrable improvement in order to make that sort of decision.
 
In the real world, the differences between different flavours of vst's are fairly negligible and all bets are off once you subject your signal to futrther sonic mayhem further down the chain.

Well taste is subjective to be sure. But IME when it comes to things like compression and EQ, there ARE differences that can be heard. Same with reverb. Things like delay, phase, flange or leslie sim are more difficult to identify in blind hearing tests. But with each of those, feature set and usability of that feature set can make a big difference.
 
Other than being in a different location and looking cool in the rack, I haven't noticed too much difference in terms of usability between the two so far. But it stands to reason that the smaller footprint could lead to limits on how many controls/features can reasonably be crammed in. With things like delay, that could end up being a factor IMO.

This could be an issue for sure. But it is possible for a developer to incorporate tabbed views for complex gui's, another alternative could be for utilising a flyout, much like the Quadcurve
 

Hi Tim
 
Currently I'm quite happy to insert whatever VST I need into the PC via an FX Chain.
This gives me all the flexibility I need and comes with the added bonus of separate sliders for IO volume/gain, and you can of course add as many vst's into a FX Chain as you like, all collapsed to a minimised state by a single click