Pro Channel authenticity

I like the sound of this, and the option of three different emulations, nice! Plus the Tape and EQ and compression emulations, gorgeous!
But i was wondering what other Sonar users think about the pro-channel in regard to its 'sound', not its actual displayed characteristics as achieved by Cakewalk/Gibson, but its 'authenticity', does it achieve accuracy in the emulations of each particular analog desk that it aims to emulate.
I have noticed that Slate-Digital pulled no punches, and the consensus is that Slate-Digital nailed-it, nigh on impossible to tell the difference between their plugins and the real-world counterparts, warts and all; so, i was wondering if i would need to get some of Slate-Digital's plugins or do users here think that the pro-channel has actually achieved absolute authenticity, is it up to Slate-Digital and UAD standards or just merely in the ballpark? 
 
Can anyone point me to any readily available info as to how Cakewalk/Gibson went-about emulating these desks and the extent they went to in order to achieve this?

I would say all of them are "ballpark" ones when you're up at the highest level where you can actually choose between the real hardware or a plug. I also don't think it matters, ultimately. Plenty of good mixes have been made with and without any of them, hardware or software. Use your ears and decide if it sounds good. Most products have a reasonable demo time.

One thing I will say is that often these plugs are tested the wrong way - by inserting them on channels and busses and then switching them out for another version to see which sounds "better". That's useless. The point of them is to mix an entire project with the emulations on and see how it affects your mixing.

No two analog consoles were exactly the same...they were analog. 

When I first started recording with CWPA9, it was much better than anything I used before.

It's only gotten better in the last 15yrs.

tlw, I have an old Boogie mkII B that doesn't sound fantastic till that sucka is turned up, way up!!

Amp Sims are close, but still don't have it in the end.

I spent most of my playing career standing in front of 1 and sometimes 2 Marshall Super Lead 100 watt stacks. As stated before, playing auditoriums, ball parks, etc. with no mic in the p.a.. Pure brutal volume. You had to stand off to the side a little to escape the ear-bleeding pressure levels!
No, amp sims are not going to re-create that hurricane of sound! But, that's not what it is supposed to do. It's not to take the place of those stacks. It is to try to give you the general impression of a MICED cab. No amp sounds as big in the studio as it does out in the trenches. You play a 4X12 bottom? They mostly cram an SM 56,57, or 58 in to one speaker as close as they can get it. And if you were lucky enough to be in a big enough studio, you might get a mic across the room for distance to fill out the sound. Those huge guitar tracks you hear on most recordings are overdubbed to heck and back! Read some articles on how many guitar tracks Def Leppards guitar slingers had to lay down to get that sound. How about Brian May's world reknowned guitar orchestrations. Reverend Billy Gibbons built a small room out of guitar amps, even with amps pointing down to the floor like a roof for Eliminator! Many tracks with different amps and different guitars is how you arrive at that destination.
I had a hard time with amp sims because I have always been an amp guy. What I found was I had to change my thinking. What I learned was you can take the right amp sim in the right song and by the time you pile on drums, keys, vox, bass, strings, horns, and 3 girls in the background singing "O-O-O-Oh"! no one will hardly ever know the difference. It mimics, not perfectly but most times very well, the sound of 1 or 2 mics on a cab. To get that aura of sound you hear standing in front of the full rig you would have to have 3 dimensional recording techniques coupled with surround sound technology that just is not there today. Maybe in the future. And at the end of the day it made my job easier and faster.
That being said, I'm having a blast going out and sitting in with my buddys. I plug the laptop in to the P.A. or I bring in my HD500. They're still loading gear at the end of the night. It took me all of 5 minutes to pack and I'm already in the car and gone!

i always like the pro channel, but now that i have console emulation, tape emulation, and the Ca2a, my recordings have never sounded so analog.  I have never worked so little to get things sounding great.  My waves plugins are feeling very neglected these days.  I can't comment on how authentic they are, but as several have pointed out, the originals all sound a little different anyway.    

LA2A
Going by all the replies, the consensus seems to be that "NO! The Pro channel is not an 'accurate' emulation".
 
But i must say that Slate Digital had the original hardware in front of them, the 'original' hardware was in their possession, it had to be, in order for them to model it, and extensive A/B comparisons were done to certify the end result as being nigh-on identical to the original hardware - crosstalk, transformers, distortion, harmonics, everything; side by side it is impossible in a blind test to tell them apart, but it appears that this is not the case for the pro-channel, which is a little disappointing, seeing as how Cakewalk/Gibson touts the pro channel as being an emulation of the 'big three' analog classics. What's the point of having an emulation if they don't sound identical to the hardware they seek to emulate? Cakewalk/Gibson should just state that the pro channel merely sets-out to give the 'typical' sound of an expensive analog mixing desk. Has Cakewalk/Gibson ever sought to provide us with info where we might investigate what they did and what extent they went to in order to arrive at their claims of emulating three 'big-name' analog giants of yore?

And there we have it. Feigning genuine curiosity at first then coming back to promote competing products while taking a dig at Cakewalk.
 
You don't even own any Cake products, do you?
 
And no... the trial version doesn't count.
 
Do you have any actual questions about operating the software? Because that's what this sub forum is for. If you want to disguise yourself as a legitimate user I'd suggest a less conspicuous approach.
 
kthxbye

Sidroe
No, amp sims are not going to re-create that hurricane of sound!

 
My personal biggest difficulty with them is that they're generally weakest for clean sounds and the region where break up is controllable by picking and guitar volume. As you say, they give an "impression" only, though that impression has got better over time. I also just happen to find it easiest to get a good guitar sound by micing a low wattage class A amp or even plugging in a Sansamp than spending ages tweaking the gain staging of an interface/Sonar channel/amp-sim chain. I also generally like hardware synths in preference to software ones. A pity really as doing everything in the box would be much cheaper and require far less stuff cluttering the place up. But that's just me, and what works for me probably almost certainly wouldn't for someone else.
 
For whatever reason I find many digital effects, particularly compressors, eq, delays and reverbs perfectly usable, though not in all circumstances. Again, that's just me.
 
My more general point though was that digital simulations are perhaps best regarded as instruments/processors in their own right first and how deadly accurate they are as a model of particular hardware is really a secondary matter. Also many, probably most, of the people offering opinions on how good or bad an emulator is probably have no or very little personal experience of the original hardware being modelled and the more high-end or scarce hardware is the fewer people will have that experience.
 
In the end what matters is the sound.

The PC modules that are modeled after hardware are very accurate to the hardware. This has been discussed before.
 
Foe an example see this http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/CA-2A

I would think if you own Sonar X3 producer, you would know how they sound. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KUj9MUODEU

LA2A
Going by all the replies, the consensus seems to be that "NO! The Pro channel is not an 'accurate' emulation".

 
No one in this thread has claimed that they ABed the ProChannel emulations with "the real thing." So the statement you're making is not accurate, and misrepresents any so-called "consensus." (I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees the irony of being disingenuous while complaining about an assumed lack of accuracy...)
 
Before Cakewalk became a part of Gibson, I tested the Console Emulator because I was skeptical. I specifically tested the ProChannel emulations against the characteristics of input transformers, as I feel that was a significant element in the "sound" of vintage analog consoles. I didn't test against "Jensen Transformer serial number #1100745 as used in channel 9 of a console that recorded the kick drum in 'Waterloo Sunset' and has rusted slightly over the years" but against what makes transformers desirable for some sound sources - low-end linearities, frequency-dependent distortion, and frequency response anomalies. The Console Emulations in Sonar accurately convey the qualities of input transformers when considered as signal processors. Educate yourself to understand how the Console Emulators process sound, and check out the waveforms at the end of the article. I did more research than was published due to word count limitations, but the article does present the conclusions.
 
I haven't tested the non-linearities between channels (which gives the extra sense of space and definition) against "legendary" consoles because I'm not going to have a frickin' console shipped here just to see if Cakewalk came within 80% or 95% or 97.32456% of "a real thing." I say "a real thing," not "the real thing," because analog gear differs. It's not just a question of manufacturing tolerances, but also, production runs of components didn't always extend across the production life of a console.
 

But i must say that Slate Digital had the original hardware in front of them, the 'original' hardware was in their possession, it had to be, in order for them to model it, and extensive A/B comparisons were done to certify the end result as being nigh-on identical to the original hardware - crosstalk, transformers, distortion, harmonics, everything; side by side it is impossible in a blind test to tell them apart

 
Can you provide details on the test procedure you used to do a blind A/B test that allowed you to decide it was impossible to tell the difference?
 

But it appears that this is not the case for the pro-channel, which is a little disappointing, seeing as how Cakewalk/Gibson touts the pro channel as being an emulation of the 'big three' analog classics. What's the point of having an emulation if they don't sound identical to the hardware they seek to emulate?

 
If you don't have a basis for your assertion they don't sound identical, then your question is meaningless. Besides, no emulation of an analog device will ever be 100% the same; there are too many variables. For example, analog component values can be affected by heat or become microphonic over time. If those characteristics aren't being emulated, it's not 100% accurate. Manufacturers make decisions about what they consider the most important characteristics to emulate.
 

Cakewalk/Gibson should just state that the pro channel merely sets-out to give the 'typical' sound of an expensive analog mixing desk. Has Cakewalk/Gibson ever sought to provide us with info where we might investigate what they did and what extent they went to in order to arrive at their claims of emulating three 'big-name' analog giants of yore?

No. It is up to the third-party designers of the Console Emulators to decide if they want to provide a recipe for how to do Console Emulation. I believe "what they did and the extent they went to" would constitute IP. Based on my experience in this industry, if Cakewalk or Gibson divulged that IP, they would likely be violating a non-disclosure agreement.
 
I've designed analog mixers. I mixed an album through one that I hand-built, and mastering engineer Randy Kling (look under 1989) thought that, based on the sound, I was using a well-known mixer that cost $250K. I know what Jensen transformers sound like. I know the characteristics analog mixers can impart to a sound. I reviewed the VCC and gave it a favorable review precisely because I know these things. I did not compare VCC to particular consoles nor did I care to; I wanted the "signature" of analog consoles, VCC provided them, that's all I cared about. The Console Emulators also emulate those qualities that I consider "signatures" of analog consoles.
 
Slate produces quality products and has some extremely talented people like Fabrice working for them. Their drum sounds are excellent. It is a disservice to the company to make vague assumptions about comparisons which you give no indication you have ever actually experienced. If I were working for Slate, I would be sending you a PM politely asking you to please refrain from making these kinds of posts, lest people think Slate was behind them.
 
There are many emulations that aim to capture the most salient characteristics of analog devices. If that has been accomplished, then those products provide a useful function in the process of making music. If those sounds have been inspired by the signatures of vintage pieces of gear, that's wonderful and if they're really, really close, so much the better. Then again, I don't always want exact emulations. The first thing I did with Waves' Aphex plug-in was switch off the noise emulation, and I'm very glad IK gives you the choice of a beat-up Mellotron or a "perfect" Mellotron - I always pick the perfect one. That setting doesn't emulate a "real" Mellotron. So what? I think a plug-in should be designed to please my ears, not my test equipment.

I believe Mr. Anderton has ended this discussion.

Then you could have asked the question without hyping up a competitor then falsely stating that the "consensus" in this thread was that the PC emus were not accurate models. Also your first thread used the same tactics except you were hyping up other DAWs while carefully praising Sonar hoping we'd ignore your other statements... except not carefully enough because you made many errors in regards to content and the history of the program indicating you aren't as familiar with Sonar as you claim to be.
 
At first I wasn't sure if you were a paid shill or a concern troll but now after your followup acting aghast and hurt anyone would accuse you of such shenanigans yet still beat the same drum (which is classic concern troll tactics) it's pretty clear you are the latter and perhaps an alt account just trying to stir the pot.
 
So, yeah... you got some bites but this is all very unoriginal and obvious.
 
*yawn*

LA2A
I simply started the thread to ask if any Sonar user knew 'how authentic' the pro channel is compared to the desks they are purported to emulate, meaning, if Cakewalk had indulged us and revealed such things in relation to this. Have i done something wrong by asking that question?

 
We like people who ask questions. We like to give answers. Unfortunately, you paid no attention to the answers, instead choosing to declare a "consensus" that was disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. Nor did you bother to do any research before asking your question, or you would have found links like this:
 
http://www.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR%20X3&language=3&help=ProChannel.08.html
 
And this:
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Pro-Channel-Tape-Sim-Console-emulator-analyzed-Audio-geekery-alert-m2899028.aspx#2899395
 
So, click on the links, as well as the link I provided previously, and educate yourself.
 

Lets start again shall we, quite simple really, if anyone here knew or had a pointer to any info regarding Cakewalks pro channel emulations; nothing sinister about that question is there? Exactly what are my motives for asking this question? Passionate music making and simple curiosity...

 
Most community members are considerate enough to try to find answers for themselves before asking people here to do their work for them. You didn't have enough curiosity to search and find multiple links to comments, blog posts, documentation, articles, and videos about the Console Emulator. That is probably why people question your motives as being something other than simple curiosity.
 

How did a sincere simple question get morphed into the baddest horror movie to be released this year? LOL. Why don't we keep it simple, there is no bank robbery in progress here people.

 
I will concede that you have a firm understanding of hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum.

 

Anyway, I would like you to know that you have not done your research regarding Slate Digital's plugins

 
I apparently did enough research on Slate's VCC that when I submitted a pre-publication version of the review to Slate for fact-check, they found no technical errors or inaccuracies. I will take Slate's opinion of the accuracy of my evaluation of their product, and thoroughness of my research, over yours.
 

Mr Anderton essentially says that Slate Digital should be upbraiding me or admonishing me for revealing their adamant position in relation to the accuracy of their emulations...

 
Again, you are being disingenuous. Here is what I said:
 
"If I were working for Slate, I would be sending you a PM politely asking you to please refrain from making these kinds of posts, lest people think Slate was behind them."
 
Quoting advertising copy or press releases is not exactly "revealing" anything.
 
On the other hand, the links I've referenced above are quite revealing. And there are plenty more sources of information for those who truly are curious.
 

Need i say anything more?

I hope not.

dubdisciple
Bet he doubles down on the shock of being accused of being disingenuous.

Tough call. He also seems to favor the "look over there!" approach that doesn't actually address anyone's points, so it's hard to say which option he'll pursue.