n0rd



Nobody is forcing you to reply to these threads.

Oh the irony. Look at the point the guy is actually making. He's saying that it's difficult to resist using features you don't like. This is absolute twaddle.

For ONCE an actual explanation!!!

[edit] I did not see this post what with all the bickerfesting going on here.{/edit]

Hey Mike and Bub – and everyone else for that matter
 
I for one don’t quite see the problem you’re having with the PC being embedded on every track in X1. But hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I won’t argue against your dislike of it being there. Having said that, I don’t think there’s a right or wrong opinion about this either. It comes down to taste – and I need better explanation on how it’s in the way for your workflow, how it’s slowing down and whatever the arguments are, because I sincerely don’t understand it. If I don’t need or want to see the Pro Channel in a project, then I actually don’t have a problem with it being in the way, because when it’s hidden, it’s out of sight. I don’t understand how it could possibly bother you there. And I even have a template set up with a couple dozen tracks, all fitted with other VSTs of my own choosing. And I use it a lot depending on what I want to do as well as compatibility issues with other studios.
 
However, I am in favor of having the PC implemented the way it is. Of course, it could be offered as a VST for inserting into the FX bin as well, but to me, there’s no need but I understand that it would be a nice option. After all, there’s no lacking in the dynamics, EQ and exciter department in my plug-in folder so when I need an insert, I have one. But like when they implemented the Sonitus EQ on every track back in the day, I was thrilled to see that this solution was updated. Not that I don’t like the Sonitus plugs, but I happen to welcome a change from time to time. And the Pro Channel is a nice sounding addition, for bread and butter channel adjustments. It’s not unusual that a DAW has hardwired effects on their channels – just look at Cubendo, which I also know very well. Both products have an EQ implemented on every channel and have had it for years. It’s not a very good one but for adjusting the frequencies, it does the job. Same goes for the Pro Channel – IMO. And doesn’t Studio One also have channel effects on every channel?
 
What I like is that it is a convenient way to get good results in my mixes. One can argue that we get a “Sonar-Sound” to what we do, but that’s been the nature of mixing consoles since the dawn of time. You used a Neve to get the Neve sound, you used an SSL to get an SSL sound. No one was complaining about that and in fact, it was the strength of any decent studio if they had a high end console – because of its EQ and pre amps. However, if something else was desirable, you could easily patch it in. Today we do things in the box without a high end console – it’s been moved inside the box as well, and therefore, a dynamic module, an EQ module and an exciter on every channel is to me, a natural addition to any serious DAW. It happens in most related products as we speak.
 
I work with live sound as well and many of the venues I work with are having a digital console installed, mainly the Soundcraft VI6 here in Norway. It has the same as Sonar does, complete channel strips with effects. In the case of the VI6, EQ and dynamics as well as 12 Reverb/Delay units right there within the box. However, when I work on these I tend to patch in an external box for reverb to the lead vocals and some better compressors for kick and vocals for example – if available. And for channels where I do that, I simply don’t switch on the integrated processors.
 
Maybe because I am used to this approach I don’t mind the Pro Channel being on every channel. Or maybe it just fits my way of working. I don’t know. All I can tell you is that I absolutely love having these controls directly on the channels within Sonar and before this became a part of my favorite DAW, I really missed it, especially after the first time I tried Cubase with that dodgy little EQ implemented on every channel. It wasn’t a Neve or SSL, but it did a job. So sorry, I don’t quite see your argument here but at least I’ve tried to explain why I like the PC and why I think it should be there and how it defends its position. I have noticed some weird on/off behavior but as I explained in an earlier post, it was because of an orphaned envelope in a project that was started in S8.5PE 32-bit and another time where I couldn’t be bothered to find out why and moved on, using something else. What’s most important to me is that when I switch it off to use something else, it stays off. But you don’t have to agree with me on this – and honestly, I don’t think you will. I’m aware of its issues but it hasn’t been troublesome and I’ve used it a lot since X1 came out. And I will continue to do so.
 
And please don’t serve any of this “you’re not paying attention” or “you’re not a pro” or “you darn fanboi” crap. Seriously, I make a living of this, I have been for years. You asked for an opinion and here you have it


Just wanted to quote Karyn on this - because it's so well said:

"When mixing there are two distinct processes going on. Sound creation and sound balancing.
Creation is adding external FX to the fx bin to make an instrument sound the way you want.
Balancing is level matching the sounds of each channel, both overall and at specific frequencies, and takes place within the confines of the console.
PC is a part of the balancing process, providing control over dynamics and frequency content just as the fader controls volume and the pan controls stereo possition and thus should be a part of the channel strip and not an external effect."

+ a dozen

Karyn


Why I like PC embeded in the console - by Karyn (age 46), (well, almost 47 but I'm in denial).

I cut my teeth in the '80s on analogue consoles of all shapes and sizes. While there were numerous differences between them, mostly in layout and routing options, the main thing they had in common was the definition that EQ was not an outboard effect but a built in resource available everywhere.
High end consoles would also include gating and compression in the channel strip. I thought this was fantastic. No patching in external compressors, or swearing because I wanted to use five but the studio only had 4... etc.

Now I realise this is all irrelevent in a DAW, you can run as many instances of whatever your computer is capable of running. You could put a reverb plug in the FX bin of every track, each set to the same patch and settings, but nearly everyone here would argue that you should be putting it on a bus and using a sends to feed it.
Likewise to me, the FX bin is for choruses, flangers, echos, distortion, etc.  Anything that may be unique to a channel/instrument, whereas compression/eq is a console wide resource that you put on everything independently.

When mixing there are two distinct processes going on.  Sound creation and sound balancing.
  Creation is adding external FX to the fx bin to make an instrument sound the way you want.
  Balancing is level matching the sounds of each channel, both overall and at specific frequencies, and takes place within the confines of the console.
  PC is a part of the balancing process, providing control over dynamics and frequency content just as the fader controls volume and the pan controls stereo possition and thus should be a part of the channel strip and not an external effect.

Karyn, I hope you already know that I have the highest respect for you and think of you as a valued friend.

After reading your post 3 times I must admit, I do not see that you actually offered a reason why anyone is better served with ProChannel embedded into SONAR.

I do acknowledge that you consider the FXbin as suitable for certain effects rather than others, that does seem like a reason... but it seems rather arbitrary rather than being based on a technical engineering consideration. I think I understand and appreciate the nature of your preference and the perspective you are sharing.




As I'm sure you know, one can use a template where every single track is preloaded with the efx one deems necessary for instant availability. That fact addresses and nullifies any benefits attributed to ease of access with ProChannel.




Let me take a moment and address your preference for the location of ProChannel as independent of the fxbin.

Can that be accomplished with the availability of a second fx bin?

Noel B. describes the FXbin as hidden stereo bus. Noel B. also describes the ProChannel as sitting on a hidden stereo bus.

So essentially we have two adjacent buses on every single track. Additionally the bus that ProChannel is on can be placed before or after the bus that the fxbin is sitting on.

So we encounter two fx buses on each track that serve as inserts... Noel has described them numerous times as "hidden"... but of course they are right there and rather obvious.

One of those fx buses is totally flexible and can be left completely empty.

The other fx bus is infested with what seems to be a VST that doesn't work right and we can't delete the darn thing.

If we are going to have two hidden buses on every single track (and bus) I'd prefer two universal fx bins that I can keep totally empty. I'd certainly prefer that to the current situation where one of the buses is exclusive to ProChannel.

Do you think you could enjoy your preference for workflow and routing if we had two FXbins on each track (and bus)?

If you can enjoy working like that for a while... do you think that at some point you might possibly come to have the opinion that the second fxbin is superfluous?





moving on...

If I had a buggy VST efx sitting in my traditional fxbin I'd delete the rascal. I would not settle for simply turning it off.

If the forum community was trying to help me troubleshoot something and it found out that I had a buggy efx in my efx bin, and that I stubbornly refused to delete it on the basis that I had already "turned it off", I would be ridiculed for not removing the cancerous component.

Why can't I delete Pro Channel?



My reasoning for preferring not to have a VST permanently embedded into SONAR is that it opens an opportunity for problems to occur. I make this estimation based on the abstract... it's just a coincidence that there actually IS a problem with Pro Channel.



Imagine if LP64 had been embedded into SONAR... who knows what would have happened?

Yikes... Cakewalk has never figured out how to tame LP64 glitches.




anyways,

I am still wondering if there is a compelling reason to embed Pro Channel on a hidden fxbus.



all the very best,
mike



 




  edit spelling and grammar

mike_mccue

ProjectM


Hey Mike and Bub ....

PC is a part of the balancing process, providing control over dynamics and frequency content just as the fader controls volume and the pan controls stereo possition and thus should be a part of the channel strip and not an external effect."

+ a dozen

Hi ProjectM, I shortened your quote for brevity... not out of disrespect! :-)

No worries. Funny tho, what you left in is what Karyn wrote

I wanted to share with you the idea that, since the announcement of ProChannel, I have repeatedly suggested that the only good reason I can imagine for ProChannel being embedded is as a preparation for a ROLAND brand SONAR based digital mixer in a full fledged hardware console footprint.

I am predicting that ProChannel will be the EFX bin for the digital mixer Roland who owns Cakewalk will be announcing any day now.

Hmmmm.... that's interesting. Would that be such a bad thing, tho? I always thought they wanted something like that for use with the physical dials on the V-700 console. But it turns out there's too few dials and they're up side down or something compared with the Pro Channel UI. Either way, we are left with a smooth sounding channel strip when mixing down our music/soundtracks/whatever

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your insights about digital mixers even if I do not agree with your conclusions as to what something should be called and where it should be arbitrarily placed.

Fair enough. You asked for a point of view and that's mine To be honest, I have no idea what you see as a problem with hidden buses etc. Isn't that a technical under the hood thing? I never care how, as long as it works. And the PC has never crashed anything for me. Does it introduce problems for you (not thinking of the on/off issue)?

all the very best,
mike

Back at ya

I grew up with consoles... big ones where every channel had two or three cards and you couldn't actually reach both ends of the rascals without shifting your body sideways.

I've worked on so many consoles I find them boring... or at least I have grown to take them for granted... like my favorite hammer or screwdriver.

I tend to see all my patches and routing as part of a global schematic. I see a big schematic of the console and all the sources and peripherals while I work. I imagine a big global network.

So, please... let's not assume that there is some rift caused by a lack of awareness and appreciation for what one may encounter on a console.

As Project M has demonstrated... channel strips on digital consoles have pretty much become a place where anything goes these days.

Consoles have always been about providing convenience... digital consoles are creating new possibilities and even more conveniences.


I'm just trying to explain that I feel that an awareness of use of a console is not the cause of a disagreement about where Pro Channel should be inserted.

I'll bet all the other people here who have stated that they will prefer ProChannel as an independent free standing VST know how to use a console as well.

all the best,
mike



edit spelling grammar and few sentences for clarity

"My experience and workflow may be different than yours, but they are valid."

+1

subtlearts


So the problem with the switching bug is not the same as the argument for built-in or not-built-in, and it would be great if we could keep those two things separate. I really don't think that anyone is saying they should not fix the bugs. 

Yes, precisely.

Mike, Sorry if my replies came across as undermining your knowledge of mixing consoles. I'm well aware that you have great knowledge about these things and if I recall correctly, I think we've even discussed analogue vs digital ones before

But I am growing increasingly curious about the reasons you want the Pro Channel thrown out of Sonar. Is it because there's something hidden bus because of it? You'd like an extra FX bin? Or is it more serious, is it crashing Sonar for you? PROCHANNEL.dll errors?`I have a hard time following this thread although I appreciate the under-the-hood info you've psoted. If there's a good and valid reason for removing Pro Channel that concerns everyone then I'm not going to sit and just be happy with it for the sake of being happy.

ProjectM

subtlearts


On the other hand I can see good logic in this:

"If I had a buggy VST efx sitting in my traditional fxbin I'd delete the rascal. I would not settle for simply turning it off. "

Yes, that is a good point. I failed to notice it earlier

That is a good reason for not having it at all, assuming the bug can't be fixed.
But assuming the thing works as intended, I see no reason it should be removed from the console and replaced with a VST version.
 
To me it is a part of a high end console that was always missing from Sonar.  If we're to have a "virtual console" at all, then why not make it emulate a Neve or SSL by having high end dynamics controls by default on every channel?
 
The FX bin is fine for adding one off effects, but when I'm mixing I jump from track to track to track tweeking an eq here, a fader there, minor touch on a pan pot, back to eq on another track.  You can't do that with dozens of VST windows scattered randomly across two screens, most being hidden by the last one you 'touched'. 
You CAN do it with your EQs, faders, pans and dynamics laid out neatly as a virtual console.
 
There,  a reason for PC to be integrate in the console.

Rothchild

I think this id's the root of this general disagreement, for me the idea of a 'virtual studio' stuck behind the window of my monitor is outmoded and annoying.

I completely respect that point of view, and obviously different people like to work in different ways, that's completely understood.

The thing is, the fundamental design of the thing is that it's an entirely optional approach. By default, all this stuff is inactive and hidden, but it's within easy reach for anyone who does want it. Best of all possible options, that, surely? And not mutually exclusive in the least.

Karyn

ProjectM

subtlearts


On the other hand I can see good logic in this:

"If I had a buggy VST efx sitting in my traditional fxbin I'd delete the rascal. I would not settle for simply turning it off. "

Yes, that is a good point. I failed to notice it earlier

That is a good reason for not having it at all, assuming the bug can't be fixed.
But assuming the thing works as intended, I see no reason it should be removed from the console and replaced with a VST version.
 
To me it is a part of a high end console that was always missing from Sonar.  If we're to have a "virtual console" at all, then why not make it emulate a Neve or SSL by having high end dynamics controls by default on every channel?
 
The FX bin is fine for adding one off effects, but when I'm mixing I jump from track to track to track tweeking an eq here, a fader there, minor touch on a pan pot, back to eq on another track.  You can't do that with dozens of VST windows scattered randomly across two screens, most being hidden by the last one you 'touched'. 
You CAN do it with your EQs, faders, pans and dynamics laid out neatly as a virtual console.
 
There,  a reason for PC to be integrate in the console.

I am totally with you on this one Karyn. I am pretty sure Cake will fix whatever is wrong with the Pro Channel (although, I've failed to notice any severe problems with it - others seem to have) so my stance on the PC is unchanged, despite that I agree on the millions of VST window issue and that has been annoying to me. PC is removing a lot of it.

You make some really good points here today

mike_mccue


Karyn,

Here's is a photo of a high end mini console that you'll probably recognize:



We can see that each "module" is installed with a few screws... and all can be removed as well as upgraded at the discretion of the owner.

That's all I am asking for.

:-)



all the best,
mike

That's a good one Mike. But remember that the selection of replacement components are limited for these things. Severly so at times. The Pro Channel actually contains different models of each processor, and you don't need a screwdriver to use them.

2X compressor models
3X EQ version + Gloss
2X Tube Saturator.


That's pretty good in my book.

And I would guess that any Pro Channel bug is on top of Cakewalks priority list so whatever's wrong with it will probably be fixed real soon.

I sensed that.

:-)

Rothchild


Hey John, I can't argue with your logic and if it were the case in reality I wouldn't be complaining (ie that adding these features takes nothing away from those who don't want them).
 
But the fact of the matter is that in the process of improving the software for people who want a 'virtual studio' approach a number of features, of great importance to those of us who don't think like that, have been broken or degraded.

What's been degraded?