FWIW: I mix into the CE's and when I turn them off, my mix loses some oomph. Super generally speaking, to me, the CE's add low mid impact, but it's probably all about what you select and how you set them. I definitely don't feel I lose any sparkle or clarity when using them.
 
As for the quality of the processors etc. If anyone knows of a better sounding LA-2A emulation I'd like to hear it. To my ears the CA-2A stands up to or even bests the others that are available on the market currently. As for the EQ, while one can argue about UI ergonomics, IMO it sounds about as good as it gets for this style of transparent EQ.

That is exactly the way that I use the CEs, Brandon.  I put them on every bus and track, add just a touch and let them do a cumulative effect.  The effect could be as you describe, a subtle low mid impact, I have n't listened that closely to them all turned on then all turned off, an A/B so to speak.  I remember you showing an easy way to do that, in one of your sessions, but lost track of it.  For me, it seemed that it was more of a "glue" that was jelling everything together.  I don't hear any loss in highs or any degradation of the audio.

Beepster
I would definitely prefer hardware solutions to get my "lo-fi" stain on things but I don't have the money, room or patience for much of that. I could probably get better results recording everything through my old Mackie console but I don't think it would have the same effect as the pres and consoles being discussed here. Next big round of actual tracking I do I will likely be doing just that but then what of my soft synths and stuff? I'm certainly not going to route out and back in again (I tried this on my old set up and... well that did not work very well, lol).
 
I guess it depends on the type of music I'm doing too. Like if I'm doing some kind of dance groove or industrial synthy stuff I'd go for the ultra clarity and leave the CEs out of it. If I'm mixing my old punk/metal bands... well then that's where the "haze" starts becoming appealing to me (and likely the other band members and/or listeners). One of my favorite old bands was the Dead Kennedies. Their earlier work was recorded HORRENDOUSLY but there is just something about the feel of those albums that's just awesome to me. Once they started dumping more money into production I lost interest. Too cold sounding. Or look at Iggy Pop's Raw Power... Raw indeed. Old rock/blues recordings from the sixties. Love that sound.
 
I totally get what you guys are saying that after chasing the clarity dragon for so many years that after you finally get him by the tail you don't understand wanting to let go. I don't have that because I've mainly been a listener and a live player so the grit on the recordings and the overloud and distorted sound coming out of subpar club boards is what I'm used to and like. Add to that I just really don't listen to or like much modern music. I mean there are some great metal bands that I dig but the kick being reduced to a little "click", the solos sounding like they came out of a some kind of tone generator, everything completely isolated, EQd and squashed so there's no interaction of the instruments and don't even get me started on the vocals (those are vocals... lol). Now not every band is doing this. The stuff I've heard from Nile seems to avoid all that crap while still sounding ultra clear. Not sure who produced that stuff but he earned his money. Another band that has taken advantage of the newer clarity available without losing the warmth is Slayer (RIP Jeff).
 
It's that raw edge/warmth I'm after. The saturation plug option that was mentioned is something I've been using even back on Nuendo but those plugs only seem to go so far without crapping out like the signal is being ripped apart. On one of the Groove3 vids about production the guy is running things through the fancy big studio pre amps and he did an example of "smashing" the pre on some signals and it was the same kind of effect and totally undesirable (which he pointed out). So once that limit is hit on the saturation there isn't really anywhere else to go. The CA2A was a great purchase for me because it gets some more of that warmth/edge. Don't ask me how but it does but again it starts being undesirable after a certain level.
 
So in comes the CE. If I'm having a hard time getting where I want with those other options I try the CE on the track and start again. It seems that the CE will respond to those sat knobs and compressors and give me more of what I want from them. I rarely even tough the drive knob on the CEs. I just let them sit or I'll even turn the drive knob down more often than not. Sometimes I'll mix and match the different CE types on different channels so it's like using a different board for different instruments. That's pretty cool. Then I'll try it out on some of the busses where I think it's sounding a little too sterile. Less often I'll put it on the master because there are some things that I just don't think benefit from the CE like my BFD drum samples.
 
As always definitely not arguing and I totally get what you guys mean by reintroducing something that you spent ages trying to get rid of but I think it's a neat tool if you don't have any hardware or want an older kind of sound. I've had complaints from band members and fans about some of my earlier works (before Sonar) that it was just too clean and polished sounding. Gutter punks and pit monsters, as with many other things in their lives, seem to prefer a thin layer of grime and grit on their music. When I'm in that headspace I tend to agree.
 
Just some morning blathering to start the day but that's why I like having them around over not having them at all. I doubt I'll use them on the jazz stuff I intend to put together soon but they do serve me well in certain situations. Cheers.

Who do you think you are with that post, me?! LOL!! Good stuff beeps as usual. There's no arguing about any of it really. If something works for a person, they use it. The next plugin that comes out should be called the "you can hear what I hear" plug. This way, I can hear all the stuff people hear that I can't, and then they can use the DD preset that allows them to hear what I hear...as well as what I do NOT hear. :)
 
See now, the way you are using the CE's...to me, it's just another slug in the signal path. I personally cannot hear one bit of difference unless I turn up a gain knob on those. Don't get me wrong, in times when I need a little of that sizzle they add, I go for them. A band needed a bass with a bit of drive on it...we used the Sonar CE for it and it was awesome. Just a bit of grit. For the modern type stuff, yeah it's good to have.
 
But to me, it's not a CE...it should be called "The Sizzler" because that's all I hear. If I recorded your guitar tone through your amp with a mic and ran it to tape, you'd hear a different compression/saturation thing going on. If we ran your sound through a tube pre or a pre that was made for smashing a bit, you'd hear that the drive you get from that is a completely different animal.
 
The good drive you get from tape and pre-amps does not sound like digital clipping. It softens the highs and gives you meat in all the right areas. It's not even sizzle...I like to call it "goirth" as I say here in NJ (real word is girth of course lol) as it rounds things out and doesn't even give you a hint of what I would call sizzle or even distortion. Tube pre's and tape saturate and compress a bit. CE's do not which is why this is not something I'd want to use on every track and bus. I actually like the Sonar versions better than Waves because the Sonar versions don't give you too much drive. But Waves wins on the other side for the channels they give you per instance. Neither are really of any use to me other than specialty situations.
 
If warmth is what you're after, you have two choices. You invest in tube pre's or you start compressing a bit more and low passing further. That's all warmth is....a lack of piercing high end. Can we not achieve this with any good eq? I think we can...and we have. Start low passing all the way down to 5k and see how things warm up. then increase to 7 k and listen to the difference...than 9k. It's amazing how we can warm things up just by low passing the right freqs. You don't need a tube pre unless you are after the saturated, slightly compressed sound that it gives you. Example....Angus Young's guitar sound....that's not distortion, that's saturation and output tubes glowing due to volume. That is the sort of sound you get from smashing a pre. You'll get pregnant and make millions of dollars as the first man to poo out a kid before a CE will do that. LOL!
 
At the end of the day brother, I sometimes sound like I have all the answers when in reality, I really do not. I'm not the be all end all of engineers....but I'll tell you something, I hear quite a lot of crap being produced today and many of our Sonar users are blowing top notch engineers and producers into the dust. Yeah, some of the pro guys have more consistency on some of their instruments, but if we had million dollar facilities instead of bed room studios, (or at least properly set up bedrooms) we'd obliterate those guys. Their new techniques haven't shown me anything other than we are going backwards production wise by at least 75% and just about everything is overkill.
 
It doesn't even pay to have a nice REAL stereo system anymore because people gear everything towards ear buds. The loudness wars suck....trying to resurrect old analog gear in the digital age sucks...trying to sell saturation when tube modeling is still pretty far off sucks, hype that these pieces of software make things easier sucks because engineers are not learning, are not bettering themselves and are relying on presets.....everything is a no no today when you show forth a little true talent. You just have to sound like everyone else to be accepted it seems.
 
Artistic creativity has to sound weird and well, pretty terrible for people to like it where talented people that actually play will have a hard time even being accepted as art. If that's how the industry wishes to be, so be it. I sure will not join the ranks and am perfectly happy just the way I am. Change for the better is acceptable. Change for the sake of hype or for our new word "unique" (which seems to have replaced "great" in the 2000's) is BS to me. Record good sounds, mix them, compress and pan them, use a few special effects, move on. Keep it simple unless you are going for something extreme where it's needed. Haven't you heard enough music that sounds like it was created by robots? Thank the evolution of software for that and how it's been marketed. However, and this is the purpose of the thread....the PC has indeed made a difference for the better and is easier to use in a good way. It's old school but new. Back in the day, you twisted a few knobs on your console and you moved on. I think just about everyone likes that type of work ethic unless you need a super tight eq for special things or something like a Sonitus or a Roger Nichols custom eq. Whatever works. :)
 
-Danny

@Brandon... I love the CA2A. I can't use it on everything but I sure end up using it more than the other comps. Even if I'm using the other comps using the CA2A lightly further in the chain or on the buss just adds some sweetness to stuff.

@Danny... Not gonna use the quote button because our epic posts will take over the whole page... lol. I know you (and the forum in general) haven't had much access to what I do and attempt sonically because... well there just isn't anything there worth putting forward yet. Mostly just half finished test tracks or more often than not me just taking stuff and playing around with all the goodies and scrapping it. Not because it's bad but just because I was seeing what does what. I feel ya as far as frustration with the current status quo of production and music in general. In fact I've always hated it. I've never actually lived in a time period where people were being adventurous as far as music production. The sixties and 70s were probably about it as far as mainstream music using the current tech to go wild on stuff. In the 80s it's like everyone decided to start following specific procedures for specific styles and creative production started taking a backseat again. I blame the labels.
 
Anyway... I don't good god damn about any of that really. I want to learn the methods in case someone ever wants to ever offer me a bunch of money to do that type of work or perhaps if I'm trying to parody something. I like what I like and others seem to like what I like as well. I think I hear things differently and my brain processes what's going on in a bizarre way. I was always the guy tweaking everyone's amp settings and pedals before the shows. Even for the other bands sometimes because their sound was whack and I knew it could be so much better (at their behest obviously but dudes knew if I was walking up and messing with their amps there was a reason). I didn't know WHY or HOW it was working but it did. That's kind of how I'm trying to approach all this fancy DAW stuff but I'm also now trying pad that intuition with some fundamentals so I actually can compare what I've been doing all along to the hows and whys. So it's not really about following the rules so much as knowing the rules to know how to break them (or follow them) more effectively. That is kind of how I feel about the CE. I've read the numerous posts of yours and others on the subject and I totally get it. It just ain't the real deal and really as with all the software based stuff I never expect it to be. All I can do is take what I have and screw around with it until it does something that appeals to me and hopefully my listeners. I really really don't like the results of recommended consistent CEs from beginning to end while mixing. In fact it doesn't even make sense to me.
 
Actually I think this requires a new paragraph for emphasis... Of COURSE it's gonna sound worse if you mix into it then turn it off. You've been mixing into it. That's be like mixing into a compressor on your master buss then turning it off. If you hadn't been mixing into it you'd be getting a difference result. That's why I use it as a more specific effect on tracks that I think it helps. As I said for some stuff it makes things sound more how I want. Whether it's just adding some fuzz, hi end, mid range, etc... doesn't matter to me. It only matters that it's helping the track. To me it adds something interesting to guitars. Don't know why, don't know how. I just like it. It's hit or miss with vocals and bass. I don't really like it on my drum samples but it might be cool on recorded drums. It's like the Sat knobs or different compressor. I just don't know what it's going to sound good on until I try it. Really though I might be the only one that hears these kinds of differences. I've seen more than a few people here that seem to not notice the difference at all or describe a totally different sound than I'm hearing but I am not driving them hard or anything. Quite the opposite actually... so something is up.
 
One thing is for sure though... I do not like the idea of mixing into any kind of effect across the board like they recommend for the CE because I want to be getting my raw tracks to stand on their own as best as possible. Once I'm there and I feel that a track or buss could benefit from the CE then I'll check it out. That however could be above and beyond the CE modules I've inserted on a track by track basis for effect like you would with the Gloss button or the sat knob.
 
So yeah... just more tools for a sick mind to throw at its sick conjurings.
 
Good lord I hope it cools off here. I could be doing much more productive things than making ya'll suffer through my ramblings.
 
;-)
 

Oh and thanks for tips on creating warmth. They are noted. There is another element to my use of certain plugs like the CE to achieve things. They are what has worked with relative ease. With more knowledge using better methods and tools I tend to shift in those directions or at least keep them in mind.
 
So there's one reason why I torture myself learning all those pesky rules and protocols as much as they grind against my basic nature. I view that type of thing as basically free tools for my kit. Who needs to spend money when you can manipulate what you have to bend to your will, right? Isn't that how albums like Sgt. Peppers and Dark Side were made possible?
 
:-p

Beepster

rmorter
I agree w/ Beepster's comments above - I'm recording stuff that is more like 70's rock and consequently like the sound that I got from using X2 (with N-type CE on all channels and busses). I've also had the belief in the past that the digital / CD sound compared to vinyl was not necessarily better, but different. You can hear some cool things digitally that you couldn't do on vinyl due to the physical limitations of a needle having to track without jumping out of the groove.
 
But for what I'm recording now, the closer I can sonically get to Bridge of Sighs on vinyl, the happier I am! I wish I had the vision to take the equipment and make it sound innovative and cool, but for me, for now, I'm happy if I can get a recording where when I listen to it I can concentrate more on the music than on the recording technique (or lack of it).
 
And, I'd be REALLY happy to provide my raw tracks to someone to see if it can be made to sound better with different mix or plugin choices! ;) Especially if you can tell me how I can improve! (And I've been doing this a lot of years myself, whether it sounds like it or not)

Danny offers analyses of mixes for reasonable prices. I have not taken advantage of his services yet but many have posted gushing reviews of how he's helped them improve their mixing abilities and really just reading his posts is an education and a half. Great guy and great engineer.
 
Cheers.

Thanks for that Beeps. :) One thing you mentioned that stuck out to me...
 
"It just ain't the real deal and really as with all the software based stuff I never expect it to be."
 
Please keep in mind, (and I apologize if I've confused you) I never meant to make it sound like I was comparing them to the real deal. My point was simply, when you plug into/mic into a NEVE or a SSL, you get quality. You don't just get a gain knob that gives you drive. You also don't plug into consoles like those in real life and crank the gain until it distorts to hear a difference. It would sound horrible.
 
Those pre's in those consoles were not designed for that type of use. People use special pre's for that sort of sound. I never read anywhere that anyone bragged that they slammed a NEVE or SSL to the point of drive. That's not to say it hasn't been done, but I can't recollect anything worth mentioning. They use Manley stuff, UA, Drawmer, pre's they have custom built, other gizmo's that give them the right amount of sound and drive/color...but to literally drive a console?
 
Can you see where the marketing has skewered things? If it works for you and others, that's fine....I'm happy for anyone that has found things that work for them to make recording easier and more fun...seriously I am. I just think the name "Console Emulation" is the furthest from the truth and to me they degrade the sound more than they emulate anything that resembles a professional console. Now with the Waves CE's, you literally get channels to choose. Channels 7 and 23 (I think it's 7 and 23...or 9 and 32...something like that) for example, sound way different than any other channel.
 
You don't even have to do much. Just changing the channel number alters the sound showing a little character and color. Neat but still nothing I feel is worth the money. I like that Sonar gave us the CE's included with X2. Cool when you need something like that. I personally think you and others will be surprised when you don't use them if you try a mix without some day. You of course can't just turn them off/on and compare that way, you'd need two different mixes. Anyway....I'll let it rest and say...if a person is having problems with mixing, which is what I hear a lot of on these forums, stuff like this will not make it better in my opinion....for whatever my opinion may be worth to anyone.
 
-Danny

Interested parties in this thread should also go over to Software and read the two Harrison Mixbus threads over there. You owe it to yourself to check them out.
 
I had very similar views to many here until I started using Mixbus. The concept is simple. They have built a special DAW for mixing in and it really does sound good. My opinions on a lot of this emulation stuff has changed a lot since using it.
 
Danny you seriously need to get his right now too because it is still on special at $149 and even at that it is very good value. You should do a project right up to the mix stage in your fave DAW but at the last minute export stems and tracks accordingly. Drag into Mixbus and try a mix there. I am finding that it does also sound very good. You may alter how you do things once you try this as well.
 
It is like taking you mix to a great mixdown facility and mixing your stuff on a Harrison console. And it seems to really sound like it too. I have used a real one for a while and this definitely has a Harrison vibe all over it.
 
It is probably better to continue any Mixbus discussion over on those threads. There is some interesting detail in that thread.
 
But it does go to show there is something (good) in this emulation stuff and Pro Channel is obviously no exception. I am sure it contributes in a very positive way if like all these things you handle it with care. There are built in options but also some interesting external/third party options too.

Personally, I'm pretty damned impressed with all the PC modules, including the Console Emulators. They just plain work, and sound good to me. 

I like CE. Because it glues my mixes. I use lots of virtual instruments. CE interestingly makes them sounds like recorded at the same place with same equipment. But i almost never touch the parameters. Just put end of the chain and give a little bit drive like max 0.8dB.

 So No one talked about PC Tube Saturation. I put it end of every chain too. And i'm sure it is one of the most effective tool that gives my mixes "unique dimension". But you shouldn't hear "saturated" sound, it should only "bend" signal just a little bit.  
 
Other Softube saturation module, Saturation Knob can not do same thing for me. I use it only for specific saturation effect. But I use Tube Saturation for "dimension" and to make things sound natural.
 
** Also sorry for my Englis :)

@Makeshift... OT but did you end up buying that Scarlett ( I forget if you told me). If so, how you liking it? Have you tried the plugins that came with it? I keep forgetting to install them.

Yeah, the pres are really great aren't they? Totally blew away the pres on my much more expensive Echo unit. I'd really like to pick up one of the Octopres (or whatever they're called) at some point.
 
And I am certainly happy with the PC and stock plugs with Sonar. I'm just cheap (well broke actually) so I figured maybe those Focusrite plugs might be some neat free tools for my set up. Gotta get around to downloading the Melda Suite at some point too. What I REALLY want though is some of the Izotope stuff but that ain't gonna happen for a while.
 
Cheers.

The way I look at plug-ins and Emulation is this: They are what they are and nothing else. Case in point, if you emulate an "N" console from a studio in Brooklyn, channel 3 on a Tuesday of July when the weather is hot, during the day when power is noisiest, or at night, when the building is practically empty, you get not what the console provides, but rather what the tools capture. Is this a failure of any kind? Not at all, unless your intention is to duplicate 100% what the console will do in any situation. I don't believe anybody has been able to do that.
 
In the case of the CA-2A from Cakewalk, from what I've heard played through it, I believe it to be very well done (albeit, I don't own it). It may be even better than the Waves plug. I typically use the CLA-2A from Waves, but is this any better or worse than the CA-2A? That's for all of us to decide. But I don't think of them in terms of perfect, close, or not close to the original units. I look at them as two plug-ins that sound great. Go get both of them and use which one you like most. That's what's so exciting about all this stuff.
 
I a total plug-in geek, and I can say I'm tremendously happy with any of this stuff. If I hadn't already invested in my 3rd-party plug-ins that I use, and other than the small UIs of the PC, I'd use the PC. Unfortunately, for me, I found the PC EQ a little too small. Nothing else against it, save from not being able to use it with another DAW, but that's why it's included with Sonar Producer.

Danny I am with you all the way. I totally agree. I track sounds really well at the source as well. I am totally into the digital transparent thing too. The fact that it does not add anything I also really like as well. I am able to produce very nice mixes from my current DAW. It is not like me to rave about something like this but this software does sound really excellent.
 
I found the GUI really easy to get into and not only that it is fast. Faster than mixing on a standard DAW for some reason. Everything is there. Busses are already made. You just switch a track to them and away you go. The channel strips built in EQ and dynamics are very good. Bus EQ and dynamics are also very good. I have compared mixes done on both and I sort of prefer the Harrison sound a little better now.
 
You don't have to use the tape saturation at all or very little. The idea is that if you do, you use so little of it that you cannot hear it (individually anyway) But it does add up in a very subtle way and then things do sound a little better.
 
For me it is not a case of fixing something or improving something that is not quite right. It is not about that although I am sure it can do that anyway. It is about making an already great sounding track or buss sounding a little nicer after it passes through this thing.
 
Get your engineer guy to keep on with it. At first I thought the same thing but after working with it for a while the light bulb went on and I totally got it. It is actually the nicest DAW mixer I have seen and used. Also I have used a real Harrison too. I taught sound engineering on a real one for a couple of years before they eventually got rid of it (Idiots!) The real mixer is very nice and the EQ's are super smooth. You will never get a nasty sound out of a real Harrison. This software feels and sounds very close to the real thing.  The EQ's behave the same way. They have got this lush smooth sound and feel to them.
 
Also if you only want part of your mix to go through it you can still do that too. Just export the relevant tracks or busses and apply the Harrison sound to them only and bring them back into your DAW. That works a treat too. But lately I have found it is nicer to leave the whole thing go through the Harrison Mixbus instead.

Jeff Evans
Danny I am with you all the way. I totally agree. I track sounds really well at the source as well. I am totally into the digital transparent thing too. The fact that it does not add anything I also really like as well. I am able to produce very nice mixes from my current DAW. It is not like me to rave about something like this but this software does sound really excellent.
 
I found the GUI really easy to get into and not only that it is fast. Faster than mixing on a standard DAW for some reason. Everything is there. Busses are already made. You just switch a track to them and away you go. The channel strips built in EQ and dynamics are very good. Bus EQ and dynamics are also very good. I have compared mixes done on both and I sort of prefer the Harrison sound a little better now.
 
You don't have to use the tape saturation at all or very little. The idea is that if you do, you use so little of it that you cannot hear it (individually anyway) But it does add up in a very subtle way and then things do sound a little better.
 
For me it is not a case of fixing something or improving something that is not quite right. It is not about that although I am sure it can do that anyway. It is about making an already great sounding track or buss sounding a little nicer after it passes through this thing.
 
Get your engineer guy to keep on with it. At first I thought the same thing but after working with it for a while the light bulb went on and I totally got it. It is actually the nicest DAW mixer I have seen and used. Also I have used a real Harrison too. I taught sound engineering on a real one for a couple of years before they eventually got rid of it (Idiots!) The real mixer is very nice and the EQ's are super smooth. You will never get a nasty sound out of a real Harrison. This software feels and sounds very close to the real thing.  The EQ's behave the same way. They have got this lush smooth sound and feel to them.
 
Also if you only want part of your mix to go through it you can still do that too. Just export the relevant tracks or busses and apply the Harrison sound to them only and bring them back into your DAW. That works a treat too. But lately I have found it is nicer to leave the whole thing go through the Harrison Mixbus instead.

No worries Jeff, I'm definitely going to try it based on your recommendation. It seems that I always end up feeling the same way as my engineer Joey. Most times I tell him "don't tell me if you like something or not...let me find out for myself because you can easily paint a false picture for me darn it!" But he was really pumped up about this and I guess was so let down, he had to tell me about it. I'll be there tomorrow and Thursday so I should be able to check it out then. I know you and I seem to agree on the majority of things....so your opinion is definitely held in high regard. Thanks. :)
 
rabeach: thanks! Certain plugs definitely make a difference in my opinion...I just always (thank God) seem to get what I want without using much. Other times, they truly make a difference for the better. I just haven't had that happen with CE's or any of the super hype drive plugs other than the UAD stuff.
 
-Danny