chuckebaby
I happen to be a big fan of the pro channel and I am insulted !
I quit smoking about a month ago but this is too much, I need a cigarette.
 

You better not have one! You got it beat brother....don't look back. I quit on March 12...December 12 will be 9 months for me after smoking for 34 years. I feel fantastic and can't believe I had that nasty addiction. Congrats Charlie....people don't know what a huge win this is until they beat some form of addiction. I just hope I didn't do any damage to myself. You know how it goes...you quit, feel great, then find out in 3 months you're stage 4...uggh! Ok, back on topic...sorry...
 
Hellogoodbye: I wouldn't attempt to remove it permanently. Just make sure your starting templates have the main power button on each instance turned off, and when you press "I" for inspector, just don't click on the pro-channel tab and you won't even know it's there. The way I have one of my screensets set up, it looks pretty much like Sonar 8.5.
 
For example, on that screenset if I press *I* for inspector, this is what I see. If I press *I* again, the whole thing goes away and you don't even know anything is there.
 

 
Hope that helps, but I don't think it will because it doesn't remove it...lol...sorry.
 
-Danny

For a newb like me, Sonar X is rather overwhelming, there are so many plugins to choose from, and I completely ignored the Pro Channel.  But, on my last project I decided to experiment with the PC modules.  And that's the way I plan to mix from now on, with PC modules up front in the chain.   

Anderton

Sanderxpander
While the visuals are nice, most of the included fx are nothing remarkable and would certainly not be preferred over top of the line third party stuff in a professional environment.

Try identical settings with the PC EQ and an EQ from another manufacturer, flip phase and do a null test, tweak the settings to get as close to a null as possible, then switch between the two EQs and see if anyone can notice a difference. It's instructive. I've done this on sessions to give the client the chance to choose whatever EQ they like best, and very few hear any difference at all. Of those who do, there's no real consistency to their choices.



One aspect I like about the PC is that I don't have to load different EQs for different colorations (or lack thereof), given the four possible modes. Also, I use the 48dB/octave high and low pass filters all the time. Before the PC EQ came along, I'd load in the Waves LinEQ filter. It's fine, of course, but it's more convenient to have everything in one place.



As a historical footnote, several years ago I did tests of the Sonitus vs the LP64 when it first came out. The LP64 hadn't been fixed so it was a real PITA to adjust, and much more time-consuming than the Sonitus. But when you compared the two, it was clear the LP64 had a more transparent high end. Pretty much anyone could hear the difference.

As I said, I actually like the EQ, and a standard per-channel EQ is common among DAWs and nice to have. Even if I need more bands from my Q10, or want to use my Waves Pulltec stuff for something specific, you can use it to roll off lows or something. But we had this before ProChannel already.
By the way, I don't care if my clients can't hear the difference between various EQs, since they're paying me to worry about that stuff. Again though, PC EQ is fine, even if stuck inside PC.
 
 Even a simple console emulator would be ok (if NLS weren't a lot better). But my 3rd party compressors, reverbs, limiters, transient designers, delays, whatever, kick the ass of anything in the PC. CA2A is good but there's a VST version of that. I do appreciate how "quick" it works, but if the sound quality of the provided plugs is worse than what I have already, I'm still not going to use it. And yes, I hear the difference, easily. Not to mention PC isn't actually quicker if you have a long chain or need to use even one 3rd party plug in a PC bin.



In addition, I think inventing yet another standard is counter productive. I might buy your point about stability if three big issues of the latest releases hadn't been the tape sim building up hiss, the CE buzzing and the EQ spectograph failing.




Sorry, I think the PC is mostly flashy fluff. That said, it's not really "in my way" very much.

Because the PC can be turned off this thread is going on pointlessly. 

The same thing could be said of the FX bin Steve. Still it seems to not have prevented anyone from using Sonar even with an intrusive FX bin. As for removing it versus not turning it on, it is effectively the same thing. Unless of course it can't be re-implemented. But then what idiot would want that?  
 
 

It takes up no screen space. You have to switch to it to see it. If it is something one isn't using there is no reason what so ever to have it displayed. This is true of the TV as well as the CV. 
 
I'll bet that a new user may not even know that it is there. 
 
 
The notion that the PC takes up too much space for people that say they don't use it is not unlike the fellow that goes to the doctor and complains that his head hurts. The doctor says to him you must stop banging your head against the wall. 

If you don't have ProChannel you still get Sonitus EQ on every channel. As far as the SSL emulators go- I have SSL Duende channel/bus so that's better. I think IKMultimedia and Native Instruments do better versions too from what I've read.  Have Satin which beats PC TapeSim. etc Have Cakewalk LA-2A as a VST so that's a draw.
 
Plus have a host of precision VSTs which have no ProChannel equals- Izotope Advanced/ fabfilter/ brainworx etc.
 
For me- ProChannel slowed me down.
 
 

Edited because another reply came in between

there have also been very few extra PC modules - just overloud & softube so far - is it offering enough return for 3rd party devs to add yet another format?

@Sanderxpander I still agree with you that if you want the Pro Channel off you should be able to turn it off in preferences (I will leave mine on, but each to their own).... however in regards to your points....

a) Do you have access to Cake's codebase? I thought not. Therefore you are making wild assumptions about cause and effect.

b) Every software house creates features and standards. Don't expect Cakewalk to bow down to the almighty Steinberg every time it breathes.

c) Don't buy pro channel plugins then. Simple if you don't wish Cakewalk to succeed through another revenue channel don't spend your money. At the end of  the day the consumers will decide not your sole opinion.

I appreciate in the nice to have world, it would be great if everybody innovated and followed the standards at the same time, but that simply doesn't happen. Check out the w3c standards for the internet for instance, they are always playing catchup.

Fair points, all of them.
A) No, I don't have access to Cake's code base. You could say I'm assuming there, but the fact is they have to spend a significant amount of time now to fixing features I don't even like. I know, they're not making Sonar for just me and the sun will rise tomorrow, I'm just saying anything they implement in the code base creates potential for screw ups, and it feels extra annoying when it's a feature I personally don't find worth the time.
B) I don't need them to bow down to Steinberg, and I think ARA, which Steinberg doesn't have, is a new standard with great potential. But the PC format is duplicating already existent features, and locking in features that used to be more universal. There are severe limitations within the PC concept that prevent it from ever becoming truly universal (or at least I hope so, I really don't want to have to adjust Izotope in there), so that means they're creating an extra standard to do the same thing. That means we get some plugs that only work in PC, and most plugs that DON'T work in it (or only through the point-defeating bin). It creates clutter and confusion and it, again, requires resources from Cake and plugin manufacturers that I wish they would spend differently.
C) Very true. I won't, anymore. The ones I like, apart from the EQ, are available as VST anyway. Hope FabFilter does Black Friday too, can't wait to get my hands on Pro Q!

John
A, I have no evidence of memory being use with a non active PC any more than a non active FX bin. B, Until CW fixes the problem we don't know where the problem lays. C, The PC has FX chains to allow inserting non PC modules in the PC signal path where you want it to be. Plus the PC can be post FX bin or pre. The notion that CW has plugins that can't used in other DAWs is not a new one and very normal in the DAW industry. A new standard, perhaps that relies  on VST.   The other thing that I see in posts is quality concerns. With various tests that have been done plus just careful listening this to me is an incorrect view. Third parties may charge more but that is no proof of higher quality.  If one does their homework and reads up on the CW's development of the PC modules what they promise they deliver. No different from other developers. The care that was taken is impressive to me.  Dismissing them because of prejudiced against a plugin coming from CW instead of some one else is only hurting oneself. Its both snobbish and foolish and wrong.

A) PC is loaded into memory whenever you boot Sonar. Otherwise it wouldn't be available for you to turn on. You're probably thinking of CPU power, but memory usage is kind of a given. Probably not a lot though, but still.
B) True, even though I think it's kind of a stretch to say "we have no idea" when ONLY the PC modules exhibit issues.
C) I don't mind modules being locked into CW. I mind that we can't use them outside of PC, forcing me to use PC fx bin or make the routing more convoluted. We can also only have one EQ in the chain. What if I want it pre dynamics and then after distortion? I appreciate that these are things that can be "worked with" or "worked around" but we're talking about how using PC should be better than not using it. For me, it's not, and that makes it fluff. Nice looking fluff, but still fluff.

I'm not dissing the modules because they came from CW btw. I really like CA2A, the Concrete Limiter has its uses and I like the QC EQ too. I don't think the console emulation is as good as NLS and I really dislike the other compressors from PC. I would not like to use them even if I didn't have other stuff to replace them with. This is personal preference of course. I just resent your implied insult about being "both" foolish and snobbish and wrong.

John

It is a brilliant idea that has been perfected in the latest X3 incarnation. I don't believe it is a development that shouldn't invoke a little wonder. It is what makes the X series a sonic masterpiece.         

I know John said this four days, but couldn't have been said any better.

Grem

John

It is a brilliant idea that has been perfected in the latest X3 incarnation. I don't believe it is a development that shouldn't invoke a little wonder. It is what makes the X series a sonic masterpiece.         

I know John said this four days, but couldn't have been said any better.

It looks nice when you take out the sentence where he called everyone who disagrees malevolent or ignorant.

Fair enough, sorry to misinterpret. It seemed to fit with the rest of our conversation. My bad.