I'll give you my take, Mike. Ever use those consoles that had onboard effects? Sometimes they were cool because they were there. Most times if you owned a console that had that stuff in it, you probably didn't own good effects or you'd not own a board like that because most of them were inexpensive. LOL!

Anyway, I like PC being embedded, however, I wish there was an option to create what I want to be there "onboard". Yeah I know, with templates we can just insert our own effects in the bins...but it's kinda nice to just see something without double clicking to open it up...or you think you double clicked and the plug doesn't open etc. Yeah, still a lame excuse I know...

However, I think PC really makes a difference in how Sonar sounds when you use it. It's "different" and there's just something about it that I can't put my finger on. I recorded a test project in 8.5 using one of my templates and then recorded the same test project over again in X1 using PC. Is it better? Well, that would be in the ears of the beholder, but it IS different sounding using similar eq curves and compression settings.

That said, the auto-turning off is, well, a complete turn off because there are times where I want and like that sound...yet, I can't trust it. I'm constantly fixing tracks when it shuts down or turns on. That definitely needs to be fixed.

Now, the next thing I'd like to ask is...and I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet, (and I will test this today) but if PC is just turned on without any changes, does it make any difference to the audio....add anything even though nothing has been touched? That's what we really have to worry about. If the thing is turning on and off on its own and you don't want it on, yet it seems to be doing "something", I'd call that a major bug. Heck, even if you want to use it...it's something that came with the software that you have to be conscious of at all times in the event it just turns itself off. When we mix, sometimes we are listening to different instruments and may not think "hmmmI gotta check to see if PC is turned on for all these tracks before I export!" That's something that I can't allow to slide by.

But the thing does work rather well. My biggest pet peeve with it is the EQ because it doesn't allow me to type in the frequencies of my choice. I don't like being stuck with something....I like to have pinpoint accuracy or at least have the option to double click on a frequency and type in the exact one I'd like to edit. This has been my reason for not using the eq all the time as well as the auto-turn off/on issue. It's a good eq, but not for everything. The compressors are quite good and could be used for just about anything. I have my personal favorites, but these work reall well, I can't deny that. I like having this type of power enbedded, but again, I'd also like the choice to have the Sonitus back as my default IF I want it to...or heck, have something else put in there that just "shows up" instead of double clicking it.

I don't feel it's a gimmick at all and I'm not upset that it's embedded. I just wish we had more choices and a bit more control. Hopefully the bugs in it get fixed in the next patch...but when the thing works, I've had some really good results with it and it has definitely made things sound different for me where I KNOW I did something in X1 just by the sound. I probably haven't answered you questions, but this is the best way I can explain my particular experience with it. :)

-Danny

Hi Project M,

That's a good point about the screw driver.

:-)




I just want to respond to the "3X EQ version" phrase.

It's stretch to say ProChannel offers 3 different EQs. It is just 3 variations of how Q width is handled... which is to say that any single dsp EQ with an adjustable Q will do the very same thing.

The 3 EQ choices provide a quick way to get a global Q characteristic. With Pro Channel you get to decide on a global Q characteristic before you start tweaking.

On the old fashioned hi-tech dsp EQs you simply have full control over Q characteristics on each and every pole. It's like having more than 3 EQs.



I guess I should also add that the so called characteristics of the "2X compressor models" are defined by limitations to access of parameters in the math that is running underneath the hood.

In other words, an old fashioned hi-tech dsp Compressor (like Sonitus compressor) can do anything either of the PC compressors can do and even more. That's like having even more than 2 compressors.


all the best,
mike

John T

Rothchild Note that the studio and producer versions are the same price

Eh? They're not the same price. EDIT: Here in the UK, Producer is about double the price of Studio.

The upgrade for both is £89  
 
Degraded elements include: making all the TV controls blue and unresponsive to color (sic) settings (unless that's been fixed in a hotfix?), limiting the width of the tv track name box, removing the phase and interleave controls from the tv (and therefore insisting on the use of a 'virtual studio' metaphor - something that ideally should be available to those who want to use it but not to those who don't (I think we're agreed on that?)), replacing the IO drop down text with gibberish, making the fx bin even narrower, I'm sure there are more but I think that's a pretty good start.  
 
Child

Rothchild

John T

Rothchild Note that the studio and producer versions are the same price

Eh? They're not the same price. EDIT: Here in the UK, Producer is about double the price of Studio.

The upgrade for both is £89  
 
Degraded elements include: making all the TV controls blue and unresponsive to color (sic) settings (unless that's been fixed in a hotfix?), limiting the width of the tv track name box, removing the phase and interleave controls from the tv (and therefore insisting on the use of a 'virtual studio' metaphor - something that ideally should be available to those who want to use it but not to those who don't (I think we're agreed on that?)), replacing the IO drop down text with gibberish, making the fx bin even narrower, I'm sure there are more but I think that's a pretty good start.  
 
Child

Well... they may well be changes that people don't like, sure. What I'm not understanding is how the virtual studio metaphor you're referring to is the cause of those changes.

Rothchild

The upgrade for both is £89  
 

Hmm... sure, if you're going from like to like. It costs that to get from Studio to Studio, or from Producer to Producer, but you've already, somewhere along the line, paid the price differential between the two grades. And to get from Studio to Producer costs more than that.

It takes some fairly tortured reasoning to get to your conclusion that this means Cakewalk think the Producer extras are worthless.

mike_mccue


Bub, I think the fact that you and I have made our livings as maintenance technicians predisposes us to think carefully about the ramifications of design decisions and the implications for future operability.

What seems obvious to us can be easily ignored by guys that are free from a responsibility to be helpful.

Isn't it ironic... here we are, a couple of old blue (I hope you don't mind me including you in that description) collar maintenance guys, and we can make it through a whole conversation without calling people stupid, morons, and idiotic.


best regards,
mike

Hi Mike,

No offense taken on the blue collar assessment. It's 100% accurate.

I didn't like it, but I learned to live with the Pro Channel being embedded when X1 first came out. But when I started having problems with it and realized I had no option to get rid of the problem, well that's when I realized just how much of a bad decision it was to embed it.

Take a look at Cakewalk's track record on VST's and it's clear there's a real chance this won't be fixed for years and that's scary.

Bub

John T

Danny Danzi

Have you looked into this by chance?

Yeah, I had a mess around with it all a couple of days ago. I've only actually seen this bug twice myself, but as people were talking about it a lot, I thought I'd try to work how much of a practical problem it could really turn out to be. Flat EQ, as far as I can discern, really is completely flat.

The other point is, when it's enabled, it's using up some CPU. So, whether there's an audible difference or not ... it does have an effect on your system ...

sykodelic 

Bub  

Again, I don't see how anyone could like the fact that a proprietary VST is embedded in to their DAW?  

Even if you say 'don't use it', well you know that isn't going to happen. Eventually everyone is going to use this thing staring them in the face on every single track just to save the extra steps of loading an EQ or compressor in to the FX bin, and once you do ... you are locked in to Sonar forever. It's sales/marketing 101.  

So you are seriously telling me you find yourself incapable of not using things you don't want to use? The gorgon-like gaze of the marketing occultists at Cakewalk inevitably overcomes your will?  

What absolute rubbish.  

John t 

@John T ... When you have something like that embedded right in your face you are much more likely to use it, and once you do, your project is 100% locked in to Sonar X1. I don't like that. 

+1... there are a few users here that like to complain about everything.  no matter what the post is about they somehow chime in with their dislike of this or that feature.  getting pretty old. 

sykodelic 

@sykodelic ... It's clear that a lot of people here are ok with using broken software. I'm not one of them. When you take my money and give me something that's half working, it pisses me off and you're gonna hear about it. 

If people like me didn't express their discontent you wouldn't have your Quick Fix program now, or the extended upgrade cycle. 

Your welcome. 


I also have complained about issues on here the prochannel being one.  My problem is with people basically hijacking threads to complain endlessly about the loss of features or something that is broken.  I have no issue when someone complains about anything with sonar in a related thread or starts a new thread about the issue.  it's when they do it on a completely unrelated thread.  Yes it is annoying and is getting old to read the same complaints by the same people in almost every thread. 

mike_mccue


In other words, an old fashioned hi-tech dsp Compressor (like Sonitus compressor) can do anything either of the PC compressors can do and even more. That's like having even more than 2 compressors.


all the best,
mike

So one only needs one versatile compressor then? When you say "can do the same", do you also mean to imply that they "can sound the same" as well?

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

mike_mccue


In other words, an old fashioned hi-tech dsp Compressor (like Sonitus compressor) can do anything either of the PC compressors can do and even more. That's like having even more than 2 compressors.


all the best,
mike

So one only needs one versatile compressor then? When you say "can do the same", do you also mean to imply that they "can sound the same" as well?

Come on my friend....

Until someone at Cakewalk tells us that it put something special in there I'm gonna stick with my theory that the math is the math. It's a compressor. And most modern dsp compressors that have not been purposefully *anachronized* can run circles around the limited settings available in PC.

When you start with the "sound" stuff you sound like a 1970's stereo salesman rather than a representative of a company that I assume holds a membership in the AES.

Cakewalk is at liberty to explain how ProChannel might be able to sound different... and Cakewalk has declined to do so.

The ball is in Cakewalk's court. Let's see the white paper.

I have been wondering if Cakewalk will ever dare to place a IR on the PC bus. It seems like adding IR latency on a bus that can be placed before or after another bus with possible latency issues (due to look ahead, convolution, or any other reason) will be a real juggling act for any sequencer.

I'd enjoy learning why I may expect that PC's compressors might sound different. If they do... there's a reason.

very best regards,
mike




edited some spelling

sykodelic

sykodelic 

Bub  

Again, I don't see how anyone could like the fact that a proprietary VST is embedded in to their DAW?  

Even if you say 'don't use it', well you know that isn't going to happen. Eventually everyone is going to use this thing staring them in the face on every single track just to save the extra steps of loading an EQ or compressor in to the FX bin, and once you do ... you are locked in to Sonar forever. It's sales/marketing 101.  

So you are seriously telling me you find yourself incapable of not using things you don't want to use? The gorgon-like gaze of the marketing occultists at Cakewalk inevitably overcomes your will?  

What absolute rubbish.  

John t 

@John T ... When you have something like that embedded right in your face you are much more likely to use it, and once you do, your project is 100% locked in to Sonar X1. I don't like that. 

+1... there are a few users here that like to complain about everything.  no matter what the post is about they somehow chime in with their dislike of this or that feature.  getting pretty old. 

sykodelic 

@sykodelic ... It's clear that a lot of people here are ok with using broken software. I'm not one of them. When you take my money and give me something that's half working, it pisses me off and you're gonna hear about it. 

If people like me didn't express their discontent you wouldn't have your Quick Fix program now, or the extended upgrade cycle. 

Your welcome. 


My problem is with people basically hijacking threads to complain endlessly about the loss of features or something that is broken.  I have no issue when someone complains about anything with sonar in a related thread or starts a new thread about the issue.  it's when they do it on a completely unrelated thread.  Yes it is annoying and is getting old to read the same complaints by the same people in almost every thread. 

What's this "completely unrelated thread" stuff you're talking about? I've been 100% on topic with the original post right down to my screenshot I posted.

I'm getting tired of the same people telling me over and over again that I should be happy paying for a product that doesn't work the way it was advertised to work. That gets old too.

And for the record ... you just got off topic from the original post ... If you have a problem with threads being hijacked, I suggest you start your own thread stating your discontent rather than do it in the middle of a discussion about the Pro Channel. LOL! :)

I gotta go guys. Thanks for the entertainment. I'll check back later for updates. :)

Thanks,

Bub

mike_mccue

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

mike_mccue


In other words, an old fashioned hi-tech dsp Compressor (like Sonitus compressor) can do anything either of the PC compressors can do and even more. That's like having even more than 2 compressors.


all the best,
mike

So one only needs one versatile compressor then? When you say "can do the same", do you also mean to imply that they "can sound the same" as well?

Come on my friend....

Until someone at Cakewalk tells us that it put something special in there I'm gonna stick with my theory that the math is the math. It's a compressor. And most modern dsp compressors that have not been purposefully *anachronized* can run circles around the limited settings available in PC.

When you start with the "sound" stuff you sound like a 1970's stereo salesman rather than a representative of a company that I assume holds a membership in the AES.

Cakewalk is at liberty to explain how ProChannel might be able to sound different... and Cakewalk has declined to do so.

The ball is in Cakewalk's court. Let's see the white paper.

I have been wondering if Cakewalk will ever dare to place a IR on the PC bus. It seems like adding IR latency on a bus that can be placed before or after another bus with possible latency issues (due to look ahead, convolution, or any other reason) will be a real juggling act for any sequencer.

I'd enjoy learning why I may expect that PC's compressors might sound different. If they do... there's a reason.

very best regards,
mike




edited some spelling

Math is indeed math - and there are an infinite number of mathematical outcomes depending on the numerical factors involved in that math.

You can't be telling me the Sonitus compressor and PC4k sound the same to you. It seems counter intuitive that there would be so may compressors on the market if they all sound the same. I think many hardware and DSP developers would find this notion very puzzling.

Does this apply to distortion, reverb, delays...what else? Different compressors have different sounds and different results depending on what characteristics they possess. Depending on the scenario, this can be user interface control, analog components, or mathematical representations of any of the aforementioned.

To say all compressors sound the same is just totally counter to what my own ears tell me about various compressors, both hardware and software. (of course I realize subjective opinions are prone to all kinds of interference)

The compressors in the PC are modeled to work and sound like the compressors they emulate. Why in Cakewalk obligated to release a white paper on why the compressors sound the way they do? Are all companies obligated to release white-papers on their core technologies?

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, why not just not use it if you don't like it? We've been debating this for months now...

Hi Brandon,

"You can't be telling me the Sonitus compressor and PC4k sound the same to you"

What I am saying is that I wouldn't use my ears as the first method of comparison... I'd prefer to use knowledge. Also, I am likely to find something useful with either so quickly that I wouldn't care to go further.

I'd like to share with you the fact that I regret what I just said in the previous post... the lack of info about PC is a pet peeve of mine but it is a distraction to my original intent of discussion... and I feel my attempt to force an answer was uncalled for and as I say, regrettable.

"why not just not use it if you don't like it? We've been debating this for months now... "

Please allow me to point out that this isn't just a one on one discussion. If you will discourage people from calling other people names like "morons", "stupid", "idiotic" and even "tortured" you may find that the dozen or more Cakewalk customers who, in this thread, have reminded you of their preference that ProChannel might be a free standing VST may be joined by even more people who share our opinion.

Many of your customers have taken great lengths to explain why they feel this way... at the risk of being summarily described as a vocal minority, or even worse.


all the best,
mike

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

At the risk of sounding unintentionally flippant, why not just not use it if you don't like it? We've been debating this for months now...
 
 

+1 (or maybe 2)

it's sounding better every day :-)