cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 16:32:13
(permalink)
Put me down as someone who really enjoys ProChannel. I like having commonly used effects right there, without having to navigate the effects menu. Tweaking settings is so much easier too, since, with VST plugins, you have double click the plugin and deal with yet another window. Not so with ProChannel.
I certainly wouldn't mind splitting out the PC functionality into VST plugins so that I would have the option of putting them exactly where I want in the effects chain. However, 9 times out of 10, I wouldn't exercise that option, especially given ProChannel's ease of use. Given the choice between the current implementation and having them be VST-only, I would choose the current implementation in a heartbeat. If you made them VST-only, you'd really lose a lot of the advantage of PC, IMO.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 16:43:42
(permalink)
But no one has persuasively explained the advantage yet.
What advantage is there?
What do you mean by "right there"?
best regards,
mike
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 16:52:58
(permalink)
Mike,
I mean that when you click on the track, the effects are immediately accessible, and you don't have to right click on the effects bin and choose a VST from the menu. You can just begin tweaking immediately, like you can on a mixer. It saves several clicks, especially when your effects menu is as big as mine is. Furthermore, I dislike having a separate window come up when I'm ready to make a tweak to a VST. With the PC, everything's right there.
Those changes to workflow may not be important to a lot of people, but they're important to me. The fact that the plugins sound pretty dang good only make PC that much better, IMO.
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 16:54:49
(permalink)
I keep the inspector open all the time. Perhaps you don't? Maybe that's why you don't understand what I mean by the effects being "right there."
|
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:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 16:55:13
(permalink)
RogerH
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)
Sure, I'd love to not use it. Can you please tell me how to remove it so I don't have to keep checking whether or not it has enabled itself?
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:00:00
(permalink)
If I had the same problem you had Bub, I'd be really frustrated as well. I hope CW get that bug fixed in X1c.
|
Steve Jag
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 37
- Joined: 2005/10/17 08:10:55
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:00:11
(permalink)
Is one advantage of PC as an embedded vst that I can use the same midi cc# for the same controls but on different tracks? Because if it is, I'm interested. It'd be a much more efficient use of cc# numbers on a midi control device. (Although I suppose you can do away with the any embedded stuff and just have the same in the FX box)
post edited by Steve Jag - 2011/07/05 17:04:41
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:06:03
(permalink)
So, I had a strange PC issue that was associated with a particular VST synth plugin. I describe it here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2334008 I wonder how many of the PC issues are due to interactions with third party plug-ins? I'm not saying that makes the issues OK, or that CW shouldn't investigate them, just that that may be an angle to investigate for those that suffer from PC problems.
|
RogerH
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 608
- Joined: 2007/09/10 17:50:07
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:19:49
(permalink)
Bub
RogerH
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)
Sure, I'd love to not use it. Can you please tell me how to remove it so I don't have to keep checking whether or not it has enabled itself?
The problem with Pro Channel's "auto enable" is a bug. I don't like bugs, but I think the OP is debating the whole idea of the Pro Channel. When the bug is getting fixed, there will be very easy to not use the Pro Channel.
A song from my band: Terramater My soundcloud pageSonar Platinum Windows 7 Professional (SP1) 64Bit Intel Core i7 Quad Processor i7-2600K 3,4GHz MSI P67A-C45 (MOBO) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL9 (2x4GB) Seagate Barracuda® 7200.12 1TB Seagate Barracuda® XT 2TB
[font="arial, sans-se
|
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:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:36:10
(permalink)
RogerH
Bub
RogerH
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)
Sure, I'd love to not use it. Can you please tell me how to remove it so I don't have to keep checking whether or not it has enabled itself?
The problem with Pro Channel's "auto enable" is a bug. I don't like bugs, but I think the OP is debating the whole idea of the Pro Channel. When the bug is getting fixed, there will be very easy to not use the Pro Channel.
Hi Roger, thanks for responding. You're right about the OP, but it all kind of ties together. Let me give an example ... the Sonitus Delay plugin. Off and on over the last few years it's had a memory leak that could caused your system to crash. Depending on which version of Sonar you were using, you either got a working Sonitus Delay .DLL or you didn't, and it changed with different versions of Sonar even though the Sonitus Delay appeared to be the same on the outside. At least you had the option to not use the Sonitus Delay and you could dig out your SPE8.0 disc (iirc) and load the working .DLL, if it would have been embedded like the Pro Channel is, users we all would have been sunk. I like the sound of the Pro Channel Comp and I like the convenience of the lo/hi rolloff on the EQ. I just wish it was an optional VST so when it has it's Sonitus Delay memory leak moment, I could remove it, that's all I'm trying to say. You know it's going to happen eventually, it's happening right now with the on/off thing. I hope it gets fixed in the X1C patch and the fact that Brandon asked us to report it doesn't mean it's gone unattended. It's been happening since it was released in December. Thanks again, Bub.
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:43:11
(permalink)
cominginsecond
I keep the inspector open all the time. Perhaps you don't? Maybe that's why you don't understand what I mean by the effects being "right there."
Thank you for explaining!!! edit to add: So you click on a track and the inspector shows you Pro Channel. That's kinda how I do it. I click on a efx in the fxbin and a dialog window shows me the FX GUI. best, mike
post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/05 17:47:18
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:43:17
(permalink)
It sounds like the solution is to have an option that allows users to disable ProChannel, as well as, perhaps, making VST versions of the ProChannel. But I definitely don't want to give up the channel strip aspect of PC as currently implemented. That was my main attraction to it.
|
RogerH
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 608
- Joined: 2007/09/10 17:50:07
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:48:22
(permalink)
Bub
RogerH
Bub
RogerH
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)
Sure, I'd love to not use it. Can you please tell me how to remove it so I don't have to keep checking whether or not it has enabled itself?
The problem with Pro Channel's "auto enable" is a bug. I don't like bugs, but I think the OP is debating the whole idea of the Pro Channel. When the bug is getting fixed, there will be very easy to not use the Pro Channel.
Hi Roger, thanks for responding. You're right about the OP, but it all kind of ties together. Let me give an example ... the Sonitus Delay plugin. Off and on over the last few years it's had a memory leak that could caused your system to crash. Depending on which version of Sonar you were using, you either got a working Sonitus Delay .DLL or you didn't, and it changed with different versions of Sonar even though the Sonitus Delay appeared to be the same on the outside. At least you had the option to not use the Sonitus Delay and you could dig out your SPE8.0 disc (iirc) and load the working .DLL, if it would have been embedded like the Pro Channel is, users we all would have been sunk.
I like the sound of the Pro Channel Comp and I like the convenience of the lo/hi rolloff on the EQ. I just wish it was an optional VST so when it has it's Sonitus Delay memory leak moment, I could remove it, that's all I'm trying to say. You know it's going to happen eventually, it's happening right now with the on/off thing. I hope it gets fixed in the X1C patch and the fact that Brandon asked us to report it doesn't mean it's gone unattended. It's been happening since it was released in December.
Thanks again,
Bub.
I really hope X1c fix the problem. Then everybody who likes it can use it and be happy, and the guys who doesn't can ignore it. I like it a lot  peace and love and flowerpower and.....music !
A song from my band: Terramater My soundcloud pageSonar Platinum Windows 7 Professional (SP1) 64Bit Intel Core i7 Quad Processor i7-2600K 3,4GHz MSI P67A-C45 (MOBO) Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 8GB CL9 (2x4GB) Seagate Barracuda® 7200.12 1TB Seagate Barracuda® XT 2TB
[font="arial, sans-se
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 17:48:45
(permalink)
The fact that it looks like a strip?
Besides... the shuffle thing makes it much more than a strip.
It's almost like a FXbin.
|
subtlearts
Max Output Level: -53.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2200
- Joined: 2006/01/10 05:59:21
- Location: Berlin
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 18:19:51
(permalink)
mike_mccue
But no one has persuasively explained the advantage yet.
What advantage is there?
What do you mean by "right there"?
I thought Karyn put it rather well... http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2339085 You can open up multiple PC interfaces in the console. Mind you, you're going to need a pretty wide screen to see more than a few tracks at a time, but still.
|
ProjectM
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3941
- Joined: 2004/02/10 09:32:12
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 18:33:32
(permalink)
Hey Mike! What do you mean about convincing arguments about PC? As far as I can read there's been offered shedloads of arguments in favour of PC here, the most important being that people like using it and how it sounds. What are you requesting?
(Sonar Platinum - Win10 x64) - iMac and 13" MacBook - Logic Pro X ++ - UA Apollo Twin DUO - NI Maschine MKII - NI Komplete Kontrol S61 - Novation Nocturne - KRK Rokit 6 SoundcloudNegative Vibe Records
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 18:49:18
(permalink)
Hi ProjectM, I'm simply saying that I have yet to see any persuasive argument that makes me think that access to ProChannel is any easier than getting at any other FX in the FXbin. It doesn't matter how many times people make that claim... it's not persuasive. I've seen people claim that they probably wouldn't use a EQ if they had to go look for it the FXbin. I don't actually believe those claims. It is not persuasive. I've read of peoples interests in maintaining a sort of routing metaphor that they have enjoyed in the past. It's 2011... so while I respect where the opinion is coming from... it's not persuasive. I have read claims, made by people who know for a fact that ProChannel is messing with their mixes, that they very much enjoy ProChannel. That is not persuasive. All that tells me is that some people like ProChannel. I have yet to read of a solid technical reason why placing ProChannel on a dedicated "hidden" bus is uniquely useful or worth the trouble it seems to have brought to the Cakewalk QC team. I generally support other people's interests even if they aren't mine... that is why I have suggested the possibility of using the bus that ProChannel sits on as a second full service FX bus. This way everyone can have what they think is a solid solution... and no one has to load a .dll they don't want to mess with. very best, mike
post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/05 18:59:50
|
yorolpal
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13829
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:50:37
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 19:05:03
(permalink)
Well, the Earth is matter...stars are matter....heck you and I are matter...But does it matter? Really, the only thing that matters here I think is that the ProChannel will be staying in it's current configuration (hopefully fully and correctly functioning) no matter how much valiant yet totally quixotic windmill tilting is applied or attempted. Period. End of story. Nothing more to see here folks...move along. But I have to admit, I like the fireworks show as much as the next guy. So...by all means...carry on. I have a martini in hand.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 19:12:44
(permalink)
|
backwoods
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2571
- Joined: 2011/03/23 17:24:50
- Location: South Pacific
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 19:42:35
(permalink)
I'm not sure it was "so important" to implement Pro Channel the way it is, but I find it very convenient. Maybe it might make backwards compatibility a bit difficult if and when they decide to improve the Pro Channel algorithms.
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 19:56:14
(permalink)
It doesn't matter how many times people make that claim... it's not persuasive.
What if it's expressed in number of clicks? This assumes that the inspector is open. Adding an EQ VST (in my setup)
- Click on track.
- Right click on FX bin.
- Mouse over menu, click on Audio FX menu.
- Click on "Waves".
- Scroll down, click on "Renaissance EQ"
- Make changes.
- Close Renaissance EQ.
Adding an EQ with ProChannel
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled.
I don't understand why that's not persuasive. Number of clicks is a fairly standard way to measure ease of use in software. Edited to add: about half the time with PC, you need to click the ProChannel button, depending on what you did last. Still that's 3 steps compared to seven.
post edited by cominginsecond - 2011/07/05 19:57:51
|
Zuma
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 525
- Joined: 2006/01/13 17:56:03
- Location: SoCal...High and dry in LA
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:00:56
(permalink)
Yes, but even cooler would be a blank channel strip that you could link the EQ and compressor of your choice to. That would be the cat's anus.(oh I forgot the saturation mode, so throw that one in there too).
|
cominginsecond
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/02/27 17:10:29
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:14:20
(permalink)
Zuma
Yes, but even cooler would be a blank channel strip that you could link the EQ and compressor of your choice to. That would be the cat's anus.(oh I forgot the saturation mode, so throw that one in there too).
That would be very cool!
|
ProjectM
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3941
- Joined: 2004/02/10 09:32:12
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:28:49
(permalink)
Mike are you serious? Is that what you are after? Seriously my friend, I think hell freezes over and pigs starts farting ice cream before the majority of Sonar users will start considering the argument you're after, not to mention taking a stand on the topic. But hey, if this is hat you're after then why didn't you say so in the first post?  I'm not going to try to give you the answer you are after, because I seriously don't see the point so let's just leave it at that. If you want an extra bus or FX bin then why don't you place a feature request. Seriously, it's a good idea and I can imagine having two FX bins - as long as both doesn't have to be visible at the same time. I'm sure if they can create two, then they surely can implenet a third - two for your favourite VSTs and one for the PC My thoughts on why Cakewalk decided to "go throug all the pain" to implement and develop the Pro Channel is that they wanted to make a better, more convenient way for the user to create great mixes with great results and by that increase their annual revenue. Makes kind of sense, don't you think? This is without concidering any bugs that might be present because any person with their mind set straight understand that Cakewalk probably are more eager to fix any problems with the PC than any user is. And as long as most people replying to this thread are content with having PC as an option then I would say they did a pretty friggin' correct thing to implement it. Too bad with the bugs and if that's your argument for the whole thing to be a bad idea, then I say I think that's really short sighted. And when it comes to the practical part, well, that's up to the individual to argue. All I know is that if I open the PC tab in the Inspector then I select a track - adjust, next track - adjust, next track - adjust and so fort. Besides the knob twisting this let's me make crucial adjustments to my tracks using one single click per track and having two additional clicks to open and close the PC tab. The "Old Fashioned Way" required me to click to select the track - then double click the compressor VST - adjust - click to close the window, double click the EQ- adjust - click to close window, double click the saturation VST - adjust - click to close the window, then click the next track and do that procedure all over again for as many tracks as I need to do something to just to achieve what I much more easily and conveniently can do with Pro Channel. And that's even before the creative effects are considered and only if I've already placed the VSTs I want in the FXbin. Does what I say here sound convincing at all to you? I mean, the way you are arguing here is just weird to me. I could ask you why you use a cumbersome, unrealistic-to-play MIDI drum kit that requires a huge space in your studio/living room to record MIDI drums, only to edit the MIDI tracks afterwards when you with much less hassle can record it using a pad controller or an ordinary keyboard controller? Doesn't make a valid argument? Well, neither does this thread after all. I think you probably are the only person so hung up in this so I suggest you give one of the hard core developers a call and ask them personally because I'll be surprised if what you are demanding to know is of much interest to the larger part of the sonar community. and having said that, I realize that I better go to bed and leave this thread behind because it's seriously take a turn to the ridiculous Take care buddy and I'll see you 'round the corner
post edited by ProjectM - 2011/07/05 20:31:46
(Sonar Platinum - Win10 x64) - iMac and 13" MacBook - Logic Pro X ++ - UA Apollo Twin DUO - NI Maschine MKII - NI Komplete Kontrol S61 - Novation Nocturne - KRK Rokit 6 SoundcloudNegative Vibe Records
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:30:13
(permalink)
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:32:37
(permalink)
cominginsecond
It doesn't matter how many times people make that claim... it's not persuasive. What if it's expressed in number of clicks? This assumes that the inspector is open.
Adding an EQ VST (in my setup)
- Click on track.
- Right click on FX bin.
- Mouse over menu, click on Audio FX menu.
- Click on "Waves".
- Scroll down, click on "Renaissance EQ"
- Make changes.
- Close Renaissance EQ.
Adding an EQ with ProChannel
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled.
I don't understand why that's not persuasive. Number of clicks is a fairly standard way to measure ease of use in software.
Edited to add: about half the time with PC, you need to click the ProChannel button, depending on what you did last. Still that's 3 steps compared to seven.
Because you skipped a step. Load a Normal template preloaded with any of your favorite FX. Imagine ProChannel in the FXbin for example.
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled
This capability has been there since the day we got the FXbin.
|
ProjectM
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3941
- Joined: 2004/02/10 09:32:12
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:44:44
(permalink)
mike_mccue
Because you skipped a step.
Load a Normal template preloaded with any of your favorite FX. Imagine ProChannel in the FXbin for example.
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled
This capability has been there since the day we got the FXbin.
OK, one last reply, sorry  I'm just wondering if you could point me to the seting where all the VST windows pop up in front of me when I select a track so I don't have to double click every plug in to access the controlls?
(Sonar Platinum - Win10 x64) - iMac and 13" MacBook - Logic Pro X ++ - UA Apollo Twin DUO - NI Maschine MKII - NI Komplete Kontrol S61 - Novation Nocturne - KRK Rokit 6 SoundcloudNegative Vibe Records
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 20:54:41
(permalink)
Geez, I go away for a long weekend by the river w/ no internet and this thread is still going. Cool. A lot of good points, here's my recitation of mine -
I, too, like Prochannel as a, well, channel strip. It is easier to enable it, float it and tweak than find and insert other two other FX bin effects unless I want to use them. I have been trying to simplify my mixing and this works for me. I don't know how many others suffer from bin overload, but I'm sure a lot of begginners appreciate it, too, as learn to add the various other effects they collect.
Bud et al, sorry you guys have random on/off. I imagine Cake will fix this because (to answer Mike) PC is selling point and I think they are proud of it. If somebody doesn't get the selling point of it, go back and review the announcement of X1. PC was a big selling point. And as Brandon is saying they ain't going to drop it, well, they have to fix it. So send in your bug reports.
If you look at X1 it is an attempt to attract new customers. Simplified and less scary look, streamlined, blah blah blah. But PC is part of that, too. Just click and go (sort of like seat-belt laws). If you look at it from marketing it makes perfect sense. Of course, if it turns off on a new customer, they ain't going to be a customer for long.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
Karyn
Ma-Ma
- Total Posts : 9200
- Joined: 2009/01/30 08:03:10
- Location: Lincoln, England.
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 21:02:54
(permalink)
mike_mccue
cominginsecond
It doesn't matter how many times people make that claim... it's not persuasive.
What if it's expressed in number of clicks? This assumes that the inspector is open.
Adding an EQ VST (in my setup)
- Click on track.
- Right click on FX bin.
- Mouse over menu, click on Audio FX menu.
- Click on "Waves".
- Scroll down, click on "Renaissance EQ"
- Make changes.
- Close Renaissance EQ.
Adding an EQ with ProChannel
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled.
I don't understand why that's not persuasive. Number of clicks is a fairly standard way to measure ease of use in software.
Edited to add: about half the time with PC, you need to click the ProChannel button, depending on what you did last. Still that's 3 steps compared to seven.
Because you skipped a step.
Load a Normal template preloaded with any of your favorite FX. Imagine ProChannel in the FXbin for example.
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled
This capability has been there since the day we got the FXbin.
Mike, what you're missing from this scenario is... (Assume Sonitus EQ) 1. Open console 2. Double Sonitus EQ in fx bin to open it 3. Turn to second monitor where it decided to open.. 4. Make adjustment 5. repeat from 2. for all tracks. 6. repeat again from 2. for all tracks untill happy with eq 7. Click "Close" button on EQ 8. Repeat from 7. untill you can see the Track View again 9. Repeat from 2. because it's still not quite right... Or. 1. Open Console 2. Enable PC on channel 3. repeat 2. for each channel 4. Make any adjustments you like to EQ, compression, Tube sat with no further wasted mouse clicks or opening/closing windows or moving them around so you can see stuff underneath. 5. More changes? just make them. Everything is there for ya.
Mekashi Futo. Get 10% off all Waves plugins.Current DAW. i7-950, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, 12Gb RAM, 1Tb SSD, 2x2Tb HDD, nVidia GTX 260, Antec 1000W psu, Win7 64bit, Studio 192, Digimax FS, KRK RP8G2, Sonar Platinum
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?
2011/07/05 21:06:24
(permalink)
ProjectM
mike_mccue
Because you skipped a step.
Load a Normal template preloaded with any of your favorite FX. Imagine ProChannel in the FXbin for example.
- Click on track.
- Make changes. EQ is automatically enabled
This capability has been there since the day we got the FXbin.
OK, one last reply, sorry
I'm just wondering if you could point me to the seting where all the VST windows pop up in front of me when I select a track so I don't have to double click every plug in to access the controlls?
I have never stated that you can do this... I have only questioned those who have stated that you can do so with Pro Channel. I have suggested that there is only a click for click comparison. 1 click to select your track and view inspector vs 1 click to select your EFX and view the efx gui. all the best, mike
|