John T


Of course, but that's a bit counter-factual, isn't it? What's happened with this program, through around 20 years worth of incarnations is that with each update, some stuff gets added, some stuff gets improved, and only very, very rarely is something actually removed or deprecated.

So yeah, if X2 turned out to be a word processor, that would kind of be a weird one. But since there is basically zero chance of it having "all features you don't want and none that you do", then it's just silly internet forum pedantry to detain ourselves with such daft questions.

Dude no, i meant all NEW features you don't want and none you do. I wasn't saying they turn it into a word processor. Get a grip.

Notecrusher

John T


Of course, but that's a bit counter-factual, isn't it? What's happened with this program, through around 20 years worth of incarnations is that with each update, some stuff gets added, some stuff gets improved, and only very, very rarely is something actually removed or deprecated.

So yeah, if X2 turned out to be a word processor, that would kind of be a weird one. But since there is basically zero chance of it having "all features you don't want and none that you do", then it's just silly internet forum pedantry to detain ourselves with such daft questions.

Dude no, i meant all NEW features you don't want and none you do. I wasn't saying they turn it into a word processor. Get a grip.

Right. Well, no, I wouldn't be "disappointed". If a release of something appears that doesn't have anything I want or need, I don't buy it. Never got Sound Forge 10, never bought Traktor 3, skipped Windows Vista. Not "disappointed" by any of this.

I was referring to the argument that the Pro Channel was "a complete waste of development time". My point being that everything is f subjective value. I've got no use for the Matrix, so in a subjective sense, I could say the matrix was a waste of development time. But the program isn't being specifically tailored just for me, so I'm not upset about this.

   >Whenever a new release comes out, the board is flooded with posts from people who are disappointed in the "direction the product is taking"

Yeah, I know. God, it's tedious.

"Marketing gimmick" is one of those meaningless phrases people throw out when they don't have a coherent criticism of something beyond "don't like it".

In what sense is it a "marketing gimmick"? It's a channel strip in a DAW. In what sense is this a "gimmick"? In what sense can a functioning channel strip - basically a collection of the most core bread-and-butter elements of mixing - be claimed to be purely "marketing"? You can compress with it, you can EQ with it. It's not a flashy advert, it's not a slick box design, it's a functional component.

    I won't repeat my argument here, they're made above.

I've had a quick look, and I've not spotted any arguments you've actually made on this point in this thread. You say it's a waste of time; that's not an argument, that's a position.

Alas, I can't come up with links, but like Mike I believe to remember Cake staff has mentioned that PC's integration into the audio engine is more or less VST tech. Which would mean that the integration into Sonar is merely an UI thing, not an engine thing. I doubt that the sound would be any different when PC was just added in an FX bin as opposed to being restricted to a single instance on a track/channel. But what do I know.

I think it's convenient to have the easy access there is now (iow, I'm not with Mike on that one) and I like how the EQ section can sound (so I'm also not with Notecrusher there), but I do think all 3 modules should be available as separate plugins in FX bins as well to give people the full potential.

Notecrusher

John T


  >Whenever a new release comes out, the board is flooded with posts from people who are disappointed in the "direction the product is taking"

Yeah, I know. God, it's tedious.

The point is EVERYBODY is disappointed when a Sonar version comes out that has nothing for them. You're no different.

Really, I am not disappointed when new versions of things come out that don't contain something I'd like. I'm completely indifferent about it. I buy tools that look useful to me, that's it.

You're happy w/ ProChannel so you're happy they chose to spend development time on it. I'm not so I'm not. Simple as.

Well, yes, exactly. It's necessarily subjective, as to what's worthwhile.

However, as I already said, the thing isn't made bespoke for individuals. Slagging something off as a "complete waste of time" when the only argument to back that up is the entirely subjective one is frankly some childish nonsense.

Bunch of bog standard knobs and a few square buttons is a flashy UI now?

Your argument's daft.

For a start, "gimmick" means something that's meant to superficially attract attention, but is of little relevance or use. The suggestion that a channel strip is of little relevance or use in a DAW is a pretty bizarre claim.

The fact that you can't use it in other hosts might be kind of annoying, but it hardly makes the thing useless or irrelevant.

The restrictions on how it can be chained might be kind of annoying, but they hardly make it useless or irrelevant.

It seems to me to just be typical forum bellyacher style: this constantly whiny, bratty overstating of the case. You guys seem to get upset about not being taken seriously about this stuff; the problem is you're not acting like people one can take seriously.

Glad I am no longer in the software development business.

Supercomp, if you think it's a gimmick don't use it. Buy really cool alternatives that cost a fortune. Based on your system specs you can afford whatever you want, so why fly in and talk smack.

There are some issues with Pro Channel but it's use is completely discretionary. I am not forced to use it, nor are you.

To the OP, I ask what is this secret buss business all about?? Do you have any documentation on this or some insider info, or is it a theory?? I can't find anything on the program architecture and would really like to check it out.

In my opinion, no VST should ever be embedded in to your DAW. I think it's a sneaky underhanded way to force people to keep using your product.

And what happens 5 ~ 6 years from now when they decide to do away with it like they did with some things going from 8.5 to X1? If it was a stand alone plugin you could load it in the next version from your old install discs.

sykodelic

I've never used ProChannel. And I will never use ist. I use plugins from Waves. I hope the ProChannel is not stealing cpu-performance.

THambrecht


Dude this cracks me up....Why do you just use waves plugins.  There are plenty of great vst's out there from other manufacturers also. Waves is good stuff but you should really broaden your horizons. .  

+1
Prochannel are really great!
Waves? LOL 
I wounder if he say the samething with cars?
 
"I've never used BMW, Mercedes or a Ferrari and I will never use it. I use Trabant from Trabant only. I hope the other cars are not better so they steal the Show?
 

*sItTiNg CrOsS lEgGeD oN ThE fLoOr RoCkInG bAcK aNd FoRtH cHaNtInG*

"I love X1. X1 is great. I love X1. X1 is great."



Project ... 1 track (nothing recorded), 1 synth, 1 VST.

Tool bar icons vanished ... EQ came on ...

X1b Build 255.

Would be great to upgrade and get a sort of remote controller layout (something cheap like the KORG NANO series) (And something fancy like the Mackie C4) wich only does controll a channel of the Prochannel. So one channel layout and a up and down button...

Price..... 300 euro?

I didn't need yet another commercial, really.

I didn't ask for having PC open for other DAWs, but accessible in the insert slots of a track, so they can be chained as the user likes it, or a PC EQ  (or compressor) could be used twice in serial on the same track.
I don't care much what Cubase does, why would I? And how is that an argument for it being the best solution, when it restricts people from certain useful routings while an implementation as ordinary plugin FX allows those routings?

Ordinary plugins can use CUDA as well if they want to. Still I doubt that PC actually does so. Please provide a link to back up that claim. I believe I remember you tried to spread this same info before and were corrected by Cake staff saying that this isn't the case.

Which system is used doesn't account at all to this discussion. Nothing related changes whether I use AMD or Intel Tech. The same accounts for 64/32bit and the choice of operating system. No matter which is used, PC's restrictions are exactly the same on both.

Huge letters and commercial pics don't make you be right in what you say.