Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/19 16:21:36
(permalink)
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
Jonbouy
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
SvenArne
dontletmedrown
Im trying to understand...
Why would a 3rd Party Dev want to program a PC module when they could program a VST that could be inserted anywhere in the chain?
A lot of people actually like the ProChannel, and sincerely believe that having plugs with slim, standardized GUIs sitting in the Track Inspector is the best thing ever! I know cause I'm one of em! Some plugs I consistently use I'd actually pay (not big bucks, but still) to have repackaged as PC modules!
I'm honest, I swear!
I'm one of them too. I reach for the ProChannel first. If it won't do what I want, then I go for the giant stash of VSTplugs. I didn't consciously start working this way - it just kind of happened. I just feel like I work faster this way.
And being able to open up the console or Inspector and just see what's patched, how it's set, and now, how it's routed at a glance is somehow very comforting to me.
Yes and you can confirm of course that PC isn't some new magic, these new modules will be VST 2.4 plugins customised to fit into the style of Pro-Channel.
Again I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all and see the benefits of the additional modules instantly available on all tracks, (just like a modular channel strip on a hardware desk.)
Looking through this thread there is confusion from some contributers as to what these modules actually comprise of, which is in fact to my mind just standard VST's specifically integrated into Pro Channel's GUI and thereby limited to exclusive for use in Sonar, yes?
As has been confirmed previously on this forum, ProChannel modules use the VST format in order to function. They are modified to work within the ProChannel framework.
To be clear, it is not a new plugin format, but instead dictates how a plugin manifests itself and how it is accessed. I guess one could say it's a "UI standard for specific VST-compliant plugins".
Hi Brandon... Is the UI standard referred to open to 3rd party developers via license or free? How likely is it that a wrapper of some kind be made? Thanks for all the info and helping straighten things out... I look forward to the new wares... Keni
|
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1722
- Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
- Location: Camarillo, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/19 18:13:34
(permalink)
mattox82
I hope they open this up for instruments as well; enabling us to make 'mega-patches'
You can already do that. That's what makes the whole "module expansion" a bit pointless to me. I'm still not seeing the benefit aside from "exclusive plugins" that can only be used in Sonar... thought I'm not sure that would be considered a benefit.
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/19 20:06:51
(permalink)
The only benefit I really see is that it leaves these modules "immediately" avaialbe... You don't have to select them from a lit... Oh wait.... Now that there are more than can be displayed, you do have to select them from a list...
OK... I talked myself out of that one... How 'bout...
The graphics standard is
1) more robust?
2) more efficient?
If the only difference from vst-standard is the graphics (from what we've now been told), what other benefit is there???
So I guess it's just that inserting a module into your PC does so for all tracks at once (whether they're used or not)?
I'll buy it anyway... I'm always looking for a better gate! ;-)
Keni
|
tsbol
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 82
- Joined: 2006/05/21 20:24:53
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/19 21:24:02
(permalink)
Ill stick with X1c
No need for pro channel ,, and those plugins. thx
|
TabSel
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 284
- Joined: 2011/02/15 04:32:33
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 01:53:15
(permalink)
Can we please have bugs ironed out first and essential things overhauled? ACT is buggy and unflexible. I guess it will be buggy and unflexible with Pro Channel, too.
|
candlesayshi
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 694
- Joined: 2008/02/01 00:00:55
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 02:02:04
(permalink)
chilldanny
A Channel Tools type module would be another great addition to the Pro Channel,
This! Why isn't this a ProChannel module already!? 
|
superbirch
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 160
- Joined: 2007/03/15 17:55:20
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 03:36:57
(permalink)
candlesayshi
chilldanny
A Channel Tools type module would be another great addition to the Pro Channel,
This! Why isn't this a ProChannel module already!?
Personally I'd rather not load up PC with additional plugins as to date it restricted to usage in Sonar X1. I like to have all the plugins I pay for available in all of my apps. sb
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 11:29:00
(permalink)
Keni
Hi Brandon...
Is the UI standard referred to open to 3rd party developers via license or free? How likely is it that a wrapper of some kind be made?
Thanks for all the info and helping straighten things out... I look forward to the new wares...
Keni
Hi Keni, The ProChannel API is free for developers. We don't charge any licensing fees. Not sure about a wrapper, but I could see the process becoming ever easier and more open as things progress.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
Keni
Max Output Level: -17.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5769
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:42:15
- Location: Willits, CA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 18:11:40
(permalink)
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
Keni
Hi Brandon...
Is the UI standard referred to open to 3rd party developers via license or free? How likely is it that a wrapper of some kind be made?
Thanks for all the info and helping straighten things out... I look forward to the new wares...
Keni
Hi Keni,
The ProChannel API is free for developers. We don't charge any licensing fees. Not sure about a wrapper, but I could see the process becoming ever easier and more open as things progress.
Thanks Brandon... Can I arrange to see the API? I'm far from a commercial coder and havn't written a line of code in... Well... Let's just say a v e r y long time.... But I'm thinking this might be something I can handle...? I'm becoming more comfortable with the PC itself and find myself going to it more often, but there are one or two things that would be very handy to have across the board as I use them so often (Channel Tools comes to mind for me here too)... I'm looking forward to Expanded, the new gate and whatever bug fixes are in there... Thanks again... Keni
|
bitman
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4105
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:11:54
- Location: Keystone Colorado
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 18:51:06
(permalink)
I was just about to release a multiunit bcr2000 plug for the prochannel on you all but now it's going to have to wait until I get a hold of expanded and see what has been done. - So you can blame CW for the delay  BTW: I beseeched Noel about any changes to the controlsurface.idl and or .h files and he seems to have dropped of the face of the earth. Is he still working there?
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 20:19:50
(permalink)
The whole ProChannel couldn't be more underwhelming. I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that you can only insert one instance of each effect. Of course 3rd party devs are not going to rush to build plugs for PC, DXi anyone? And if this is going to be the focus of CW developer time going forward, isn't that just great. The Matrix View and automation are screaming for help as are many other areas of the software. (Edited because the forum s/w is completely buggered in Firefox 6)
post edited by Notecrusher - 2011/09/20 20:23:43
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 21:02:11
(permalink)
If you view the PC in X1 like a channel strip on a quality hardware mixer you wouldn't ask this. Unlike a hardware mixer X1 has unlimited buses and auxs. This gives one the ability to have as many PCs per track as one may want, Notcrusher.
Use Firefox 5 and it will work fine on this forum.
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 21:12:43
(permalink)
Why would you compare PC to a h/w mixer? VST effects and instruments can be inserted anywhere in the signal chain. There are millions of them, many superb ones are free. Now that Evernote, Firebug and everything else AFAIK works w/ FF6 I upgraded. I'm not going to downgrade b/c Cakewalk's forum s/w is broken.
|
Bub 
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 21:17:34
(permalink)
Notecrusher
The whole ProChannel couldn't be more underwhelming. I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that you can only insert one instance of each effect.
Yes, I've noticed someone from Cake stated only one instance can be loaded as well. It's a huge limitation. I suppose you could waste your time routing a track to a bus, then that bus to other buses based on how many instances of Pro Channel you need ... but why do that when you can just use a normal plug-in and put as many instances of it in the FX bin as you want? (Edited because the forum s/w is completely buggered in Firefox 6)
Yeah, the forum software does not work properly with Firefox 6 and other browsers as well. It's ridiculous that we have to use multiple browsers just to navigate this forum when there is a free update that could be applied to make it work ...
post edited by Bub - 2011/09/20 21:19:45
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 21:24:33
(permalink)
Notecrusher
Why would you compare PC to a h/w mixer? VST effects and instruments can be inserted anywhere in the signal chain. There are millions of them, many superb ones are free. Now that Evernote, Firebug and everything else AFAIK works w/ FF6 I upgraded. I'm not going to downgrade b/c Cakewalk's forum s/w is broken.
Why, because thats the paradigm its based on.
|
backwoods
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2571
- Joined: 2011/03/23 17:24:50
- Location: South Pacific
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 22:11:55
(permalink)
Yes, I've noticed someone from Cake stated only one instance can be loaded as well. It's a huge limitation. I suppose you could waste your time routing a track to a bus, then that bus to other buses based on how many instances of Pro Channel you need ... but why do that when you can just use a normal plug-in and put as many instances of it in the FX bin as you want?
This might be a big deal for others but not for me. The fx bin may still be used and those new fx chains (with 100 presets) look pretty useful. And hey- we already know you will be able to use two tube saturators on the PC!
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 22:22:48
(permalink)
Yes, I've noticed someone from Cake stated only one instance can be loaded as well. It's a huge limitation.
So how did you work before there was Pro Channel? I am not seeing a problem here. Huge limitation in what way? As pointed out with buses you can have as many PCs on a track as you want. But why?
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 23:32:25
(permalink)
It's not a limitation to DAWs. Any DAW that supports VSTs is as flexible as its signal routing allows b/c you can put VSTs anywhere in the signal chain. It's a limitation of PC. That was the point from the beginning. It's a more limited version of existing functionality.
post edited by Notecrusher - 2011/09/20 23:34:08
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/20 23:57:17
(permalink)
Notecrusher
It's not a limitation to DAWs. Any DAW that supports VSTs is as flexible as its signal routing allows b/c you can put VSTs anywhere in the signal chain. It's a limitation of PC. That was the point from the beginning. It's a more limited version of existing functionality.
You are joking right? How is any VST not able to be used in X1? PC is meant to be a quick and convenient way to use the plugins most often used. It was and is not a replacement to the FX bin.
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:00:58
(permalink)
Bub
Notecrusher
The whole ProChannel couldn't be more underwhelming. I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that you can only insert one instance of each effect.
Yes, I've noticed someone from Cake stated only one instance can be loaded as well. It's a huge limitation. I suppose you could waste your time routing a track to a bus, then that bus to other buses based on how many instances of Pro Channel you need ... but why do that when you can just use a normal plug-in and put as many instances of it in the FX bin as you want?
How often are some of you putting multiple EQ's and compressors of the same type on a track? Or gates? It's a current "limitation" for some plugs (i.e. the two existing comps and the EQ), but I have trouble seeing this as a huge limitation when 1) I would rarely if ever put a track comp and a bus comp on the same channel and 2) you can just drop n effect in the FX bin if you need a second EQ or something.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:08:40
(permalink)
Notecrusher
It's not a limitation to DAWs. Any DAW that supports VSTs is as flexible as its signal routing allows b/c you can put VSTs anywhere in the signal chain. It's a limitation of PC. That was the point from the beginning. It's a more limited version of existing functionality.
It's only more limited because you are basing it on your own definition of usability. To me it offers faster and better functionality because it's "right there", gives visual feedback built right-in to the console, isn't a bunch of floating windows with disparate UIs, etc. If you don't see the "the point" or the inherent ergonomics and usability of the ProChannel after using it for a bit, or if don't find yourself reaching for it almost instinctively, then it's probably not for you. And that's fine. For me I just use it without thinking. People can tell me it's less useful, limited, etc until they're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that I, and other like-minded folks (on the subject), quite like it and find it extremely handy. And I only expect it to get better as it evolves.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:11:18
(permalink)
I all see is a very weak attempt to find fault.
CW announces a customizable Pro Channel and this is the result? I thought people wanted more customization.
I don't see this as a limitation but a neat way to improve a tool that is at present darn good. This can only make it better.
Then it seems that some forget that CW added FX chain modules for those that need 20 EQs on a single track plus 40 comprossors.
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:12:12
(permalink)
Notecrusher
The whole ProChannel couldn't be more underwhelming. I'm surprised no one's commented on the fact that you can only insert one instance of each effect. Of course 3rd party devs are not going to rush to build plugs for PC, DXi anyone? And if this is going to be the focus of CW developer time going forward, isn't that just great. The Matrix View and automation are screaming for help as are many other areas of the software. (Edited because the forum s/w is completely buggered in Firefox 6)
Creating something for the ProChannel is nothing like writing a DX plugin or for a completely different format. It's nothing of that magnitude.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:14:41
(permalink)
John
I all see is a very weak attempt to find fault.
CW announces a customizable Pro Channel and this is the result? I thought people wanted more customization.
I don't see this as a limitation but a neat way to improve a tool that is at present darn good. This can only make it better.
Then it seems that some forget that CW added FX chain modules for those that need 20 EQs on a single track plus 40 comprossors.
It's a good point John. When you combine the ProChannel with FX Chains 2.0 you have a powerful, "at hand", and quite customizable effect framework. And it will only get better.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
trimph1
Max Output Level: -12 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6348
- Joined: 2010/09/07 19:20:06
- Location: London ON
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 00:22:50
(permalink)
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
John
I all see is a very weak attempt to find fault.
CW announces a customizable Pro Channel and this is the result? I thought people wanted more customization.
I don't see this as a limitation but a neat way to improve a tool that is at present darn good. This can only make it better.
Then it seems that some forget that CW added FX chain modules for those that need 20 EQs on a single track plus 40 comprossors.
It's a good point John. When you combine the ProChannel with FX Chains 2.0 you have a powerful, "at hand", and quite customizable effect framework. And it will only get better.
I guess people need to understand how PC works then.... I only use it with a compressor and an EQ...plus maybe phasers and such on a few channels... I like what it can do....
The space you have will always be exceeded in direct proportion to the amount of stuff you have...Thornton's Postulate. Bushpianos
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 01:29:20
(permalink)
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk] said: "It's only more limited because you are basing it on your own definition of usability. To me it offers faster and better functionality because it's "right there", gives visual feedback built right-in to the console, isn't a bunch of floating windows with disparate UIs, etc." //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// No, it isn't "right there", it's not where I need FX: on tracks and clips. And it's not the FX I need. Where's WOW filter? Where's Effectrix? Where's Orange Vocoder? Where's the hundreds of thousands of other amazing FX that support the VST standard? Now you're reduced to saying, "well PC isn't for you and VST is still there" AS IF ANYONE DOESN'T KNOW THAT. The point is, if you would read my original post, I would like to see Cakewalk's finite resources dedicated to other priorities -- and I gave actual examples: Matrix view and automation. Many others have expressed similar sentiments - in particular calls for stability and the reintegration of toolbar and context menu features from 8.x. At the end of the day, all your uses are simply clamoring for their priorities (or course!) and naturally when they see development effort going into things they don't care about instead, they are frustrated.
post edited by Notecrusher - 2011/09/21 01:33:23
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 01:36:36
(permalink)
Oh, and yes I also put all sorts of wacky FX on busses. I'm crazy like that.
|
SF_Green
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1403
- Joined: 2005/09/13 20:37:55
- Location: San Francisco
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 01:39:38
(permalink)
AMD FX-8370, Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3, Win7x64 SP1, 16Gb CorsairDDR3-1600, GeForce GTX 950 (390.65), SSD 525Gb (OS), SATA 3 & 1.5Tb, MOTU microlite, RME FireFace 800 (D 3.124, fw 2.77), UAD-2Q, Adam A7X, A-800 PRO, CC121 Cubase Pro 10.0.5, SonarPt- 2017.10 (x64), Reason10.2, Live 10.0.5 Suite, Wavelab Elements 9.5.40, Komplete10Ult, POD Farm2.5, Omnisphere2.5, BFD3, Alesis QS7.1, Arturia BeatStep Pro, POD HD500, Alesis ControlPad, ARP Omni, many things with strings. GrSltz My Studio
|
TabSel
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 284
- Joined: 2011/02/15 04:32:33
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 02:20:10
(permalink)
Talking about ergonomics, I'd rather see an ACT/remote control overhaul and bug fixing at least as essential for ergonomics as PC, and I am stunned that these things don't get more development ressources.
|
Notecrusher
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 579
- Joined: 2004/02/17 00:32:14
- Status: offline
Re:Sonar X1 Expanded
2011/09/21 02:20:55
(permalink)
@SF_Green HAHA google ads put up "automatic hair removal" on top of that
post edited by Notecrusher - 2011/09/21 02:22:05
|