Pro Channel, More than one compressor.

It is possible to have more than one of any PC plug-ins except the QuadCurve EQ, the PC76U-Type and PC4K S-Type Bus compressors. The QuadCurve EQ is the replacement for the original per-track EQ which pre-dates SONAR X-series and the two compressors were developed for the original X1 PC which did have a the limitation of one compressor per track. All of the add-on plug-ins are designed for the "modular" PC developed for X1 Producer Extended. All the newer version of SONAR with the PC use the "modular" design.

That is correct. While it would be nice to have these plug-ins updated, there are solutions available now in the form of add-on plug-ins and the FX Chain PC module.

This is getting away from the limitations of the original PC compressors. I would expect if there were a modular QCEQ, it would not be presented in the other views like the per-track EQ. A modular QCEQ would act like any of the other currently available PC EQs.

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?

sausy1981
I understand that I can put the fx chain module in but I would like to have the pc76 available in series.

I know this misses the obvious point, but you could send to a bus to add another. A silly constraint which I don't understand either but I wanted to put forth the work-around.

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.
 

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.

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.
 
@
 
 

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,
 
@

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. 
 
@
 

AT
 
 
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. 
 
 

Well, anyone who cares to can scroll back to th3e top of the thread and read it and see that's not what happened. Indeed, nobody mentioned sound at all. The thread was entirely about functionality up until we were all told we didn't know how to track by a chap who thinks serial processing is some bizarre fringe technique.
 
Myself, I don't care to be talked to like that, not even by people who do know what they're on about.

Anyhoooooo, Do we reckon the ability to be able to have more than one of the compressor modules available in the prochannel at one time is a good idea? And whats the chance of it happening.

Sausy, you can put more than one PC compressor in serial - I used to use the PC76 and Cake Opto emu all the time.  I just put both on a track to make sure that hadn't changed.  I just never realized you couldn't put more than one 76 in line before this thread since I never tried to do that. Cake designed it that way, so they must have not thunk it necessary to have 2 76s on one track.  They must have their reasons - funny.
 
But you should really try the Ca-2A comp from Cake.  Emulates the la2a, the other must-have hardware compressor which has a different tone and different slope than the 76.  The 1176 into an La2A has been pretty much the standard vocal chain since the 70s.  Of course, it takes some time to learn how they work together to make them sing, but when they do, it is a sound you will instantly recognize (esp. on older stuff where they used the hardware versions - most of the time that limited the number of units available so the most important tracks got that treatment [one reason old vocals and leads stand out from the rest of the tracks which didn't have that 1176/La2A magic]).
 
The Ca-2A is probably the favorite comp here on the forums from Cakewalk.  Trigger warning tho: I have colleagues who drop $100 on a compressor or $50 on a gate and the next month $125 on EQ.  Whatever is the latest thing.  After a year they've spent enough on software emus they could have bought a piece or two of high-quality hardware instead.  And if you've ever had a good guitarist play a nice instrument in a decent room into an 1176 and captured the tone that is heard on hundreds hits, you'll grow cautious about buying seemingly inexpensive plug-ins.  So I am perfectly happy using the 3 PC units 90% of the time (including the SSL buss comp, which is magic, well, on busses) for itb.  Get the opto and you will be pretty well set on software comps.
 
@
 

I never realized that before, scook, until you walked back through it.  It seems a long time ago.  I never tried to put 2 76s (or SSLs) on a single track, but I have many of the PC modules and never noticed they were missing from the drop down menu. 
 
I guess it is fair to say Cake didn't warrant it worthwhile to insert any kind of compressor into more than 2 spots at first.  And it isn't worth the extra programming hours today for now free products.  Which leaves the OP hoping against odds that it will get fixed, or buying another PC module to have compressors in 3 different spots in the chain.
 
@

Maybe we should lobby to have the ProChannel modules available in the fx bin. that would seem the easiest from a programing point of view and provide the most flexibility. all Pro Channel modules are VSTs just a bit of code that locks them inside the PC. Yes/No.