Helpful ReplyWhy was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus?

Page: << < ..678910.. > >> Showing page 9 of 17
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
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 21:07:38 (permalink)
Or if you could link your choice of EQ and compressor to said channel strip you could do the same... just sayin'...

http://zumajunction.bandcamp.com/

"the bus came by and I got on that's when it all began. There was cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never ever land."_



#241
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 21:08:37 (permalink)
This is another major problem with Pro Channel besides turning on/off ... sometimes the controls are unresponsive as well until you turn on Saturation. Once you do that everything starts working. This has been happening since X1 was released before any patches.

Here's a video with sound.

I'll send in a bug report with link to video.



"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
#242
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 21:09:16 (permalink)
Karyn


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)
  1. Click on track.
  2. Right click on FX bin.
  3. Mouse over menu, click on Audio FX menu.
  4. Click on "Waves".
  5. Scroll down, click on "Renaissance EQ"
  6. Make changes.
  7. Close Renaissance EQ.

Adding an EQ with ProChannel
  1. Click on track.
  2. 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.
  1. Click on track.
  2. 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.


You lost me on open console view.

:-)




#243
DeveryH
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 780
  • Joined: 2004/12/01 21:27:43
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/05 21:14:34 (permalink)
Such a fitting song don't you think folks?

Warning: a little bad language if you eschew that sort of thing. :)

My musical contribution...
#244
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 22:33:59 (permalink)
Not all of us old men are sh***y. And Green Day is a terrible band... nice goin', you killed the thread.

http://zumajunction.bandcamp.com/

"the bus came by and I got on that's when it all began. There was cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never ever land."_



#245
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 23:24:07 (permalink)
Green Day? Honestly? LOL!
post edited by Bub - 2011/07/05 23:28:59

"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
#246
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 23:29:58 (permalink)
I didn't listen to the music...it's too late here.  But I quite liked the lyrics.  Was it an hommage to moi???

https://soundcloud.com/doghouse-riley/tracks 
https://doghouseriley1.bandcamp.com 
Where you come from is gone...where you thought you were goin to weren't never there...and where you are ain't no good unless you can get away from it.
 
SPLAT 64 bit running on a Studio Cat Pro System Win 10 64bit 2.8ghz Core i7 with 24 gigs ram. MOTU Audio Express.
#247
Danny Danzi
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 5810
  • Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
  • Location: DanziLand, NJ
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 00:28:08 (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).


+1000! That's what I've been talking about as well. :)

My Site
Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
#248
sdpate67
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 344
  • Joined: 2008/03/09 09:59:21
  • Location: Charlottetown, PEI
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 00:37:20 (permalink)
I like using PC on rough mixes to compress and EQ. It helps to get the sound centered and roughly where I like it. For mixing, I swap out PC for UAD-2 plugins or not depending on the sound I want. PC is so easy to use because it's in the strip all the time.


Asus i7-760 Win 8.1/ Sonar Platinum / Lynx Aurora 16 AES16 / Mackie MCU Pro XT C4 / Millennia Media STT1 x 2 TD-1/ UAD-2 Quad x 2 / Neumann O-300 O-810 U87 KM184 x 2 / Shure 57/58
Reverbnation

NJN Network
#249
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? 2011/07/06 01:01:51 (permalink)
Danny Danzi


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).


+1000! That's what I've been talking about as well. :)


Would be sweet, wouldn't it? And what I'd also like to see, as with some of the Lexicon hardware, the ability to use a hardware EQ or Compressor as a plugin within the host. Imagine the sweetness of that? I first saw this when looking at the Lexicon reverb units and it struck me as a brilliant idea. I really had forgotten all about it until just now... how in hell do they pull that off? Anybody tried one?

http://zumajunction.bandcamp.com/

"the bus came by and I got on that's when it all began. There was cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never ever land."_



#250
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 31112
  • Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
  • Location: Worcester, England.
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 03:52:44 (permalink)
 
(Slightly OT so apologies in advance)
 
Personally I like the Pro Channel a lot, but I do acknowledge Mike's original point - again, it seems to be down to having yet another 'choice' 'removed' in my opinion.
 
  1. My major beef with the Pro Channel is the lack of a vertical scroll bar in the Track View if your screen resolution is set too low to display all of it. My poor old eyesight struggles with my 24" monitor's highest resolution of 1920 x 1080 so I set it to 1600 x 900 which works fine for everything apart from X1 and playing Blu-Rays.

    So to view all of the Pro Channel I either have to switch screen resolution (which really strains my eyes) or keep changing over to the Console View.

    A built in vertical scroll-bar for the Pro Channel in the Track View would be a godsend for me.
  2. Where's John?
  3. And what's wrong with (excellent) Green Day?
 
 

 Music:     The Coffee House Band | VeRy MeTaL

#251
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? 2011/07/06 04:48:29 (permalink)
Bub


This is another major problem with Pro Channel besides turning on/off ... sometimes the controls are unresponsive as well until you turn on Saturation. Once you do that everything starts working. This has been happening since X1 was released before any patches.

Here's a video with sound.

I'll send in a bug report with link to video.


Wow! Never noticed that one Bub. Will research it my self and send in a report if I can recreate it. Wonder why the saturator "wakes it up".

That was a pretty good video BTW

(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#252
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? 2011/07/06 05:03:03 (permalink)
mike_mccue


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.
  1. Click on track.
  2. 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


Whaaaaat? At least three people have answered to this, explaining how you save click with the Pro Channel compared to your VST-readied template, it's hard to argue that this isn't a decent technical justification of Pro Channels implementation in the Software. Give the method a try and you can see for your self. I assume you own a copy of X1? Are you just not willing to take it in? If so, let us know

And how on earth can you open a VST window with just one click? AFAIK you need to double click them to open the window. Seriously, what you are explaining here already require an additional click assuming your VST have a compressor, EQ and a saturator all in one. On 40 tracks that require 40 additional clicks, another 40 if you have to click on the track to reveal the fx bin in the inspector because of minimized tracks. If not, add scrolling to the process. And if you want to close the windows so your display won't get too cluttered to work - another 40 clicks with a mouse. Please explain to me how this can be wrong. Post a video or something showing us how you use the same amount of clicks with any vst inserts compared to using the PC. Please enlighten us


BTW and FYI: You still haven't made a reply my previous lengthy post and the ones that other users have posted of a similar nature


EDIT: Too many typos...
post edited by ProjectM - 2011/07/06 05:52:33

(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#253
DeveryH
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 780
  • Joined: 2004/12/01 21:27:43
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 07:21:54 (permalink)
Zuma


Not all of us old men are sh***y. And Green Day is a terrible band... nice goin', you killed the thread.


Sorry, I couldn't help myself. That song comes to my head often while I browse on these forums. And I killed the thread? The thread was dead a long time ago and continues to go in circles.


Bub


Green Day? Honestly? LOL!




I take it you've offered something better than they have? Lol!


yorolpal


I didn't listen to the music...it's too late here.  But I quite liked the lyrics.  Was it an hommage to moi???




You weren't even in my thoughts. You still have that spark, that spontaneity, that craziness!


ProjectM



Whaaaaat? At least three people have answered to this...

And you'll continue to go around and around in circles. No matter what you say nothing is going to appease the guy.

My musical contribution...
#254
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? 2011/07/06 07:40:14 (permalink)
spanky


ProjectM



Whaaaaat? At least three people have answered to this...

And you'll continue to go around and around in circles. No matter what you say nothing is going to appease the guy.

Yeah, you're probably right. I get sucked in to discussions with these people from time to time. It's hopeless when they chicken out like this. Man, I miss the old days....

Anyway, nice touch with the Green Day song



(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#255
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? 2011/07/06 07:43:05 (permalink)
ProjectM


mike_mccue


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.
  1. Click on track.
  2. 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


Whaaaaat? At least three people have answered to this, explaining how you save click with the Pro Channel compared to your VST-readied template, it's hard to argue that this isn't a decent technical justification of Pro Channels implementation in the Software. Give the method a try and you can see for your self. I assume you own a copy of X1? Are you just not willing to take it in? If so, let us know

And how on earth can you open a VST window with just one click? AFAIK you need to double click them to open the window. Seriously, what you are explaining here already require an additional click assuming your VST have a compressor, EQ and a saturator all in one. On 40 tracks that require 40 additional clicks, another 40 if you have to click on the track to reveal the fx bin in the inspector because of minimized tracks. If not, add scrolling to the process. And if you want to close the windows so your display won't get too cluttered to work - another 40 clicks with a mouse. Please explain to me how this can be wrong. Post a video or something showing us how you use the same amount of clicks with any vst inserts compared to using the PC. Please enlighten us


BTW and FYI: You still haven't made a reply my previous lengthy post and the ones that other users have posted of a similar nature


EDIT: Too many typos...


Ah I see that I misread your post.

I thought you were asking me how to view each and every VST all at once with one key stroke.

And I was saying that I have been questioning those who seem to imply that you can do this with Pro Channel.


So to clarify; I think you are asking how I can open a EQ, Compressor and Saturator all at once in FXbin? I guess the idea is that you want to open something equal to ProChannel with the single click.


The answer is simple... if it's a channel strip you are after... make sure you have a channel strip in there.

I am advocating for choices... so in my scenario you have the choice of each and every channel strip DSP that is available. There are dozens on the market.

You get two channel strips, and arguably a third, simply by installing SONAR. All the other VST companies seem to make one as well.

As I have repeated often... if ProChannel was a free standing channel strip VST... you'd simply click on it in the FXbin and POW it would open right up... Just like if you click I for inspector... or just like you clicked or hot keyed and expanded your console strip.


I didn't think I would have to explain this... to this old blue collar maintenance technician... it just seems sort of obvious.



I want to delete ProChannel and make it go away.... When I suggest that ProChannel's bus become open and free I am proposing a way where I can do that... and anyone else can keep ProChannel right where they think it is.








As an aside, if you look at this hardware unit:




This is a brand new available to buy today console. One of it's features is that you may purchase one of dozens on EQ modules from dozens of manufacturers and replace the EQ. Replaceable EQ modules are a listed feature in the catalog.

This is a mini console. With full size consoles there is a whole industry of maintenance, upgrade, and replacement services and it is all supported with full documentation by the console manufacturer.

People are rebuilding modules for consoles all the time these days... well they always have been actually.

All the actual pro grade manufacturers provide full tech specs and schematics and service docs with gear like this.


Curiously, now a days there are a few vendors making console frames dedicated 100% to the API 500 format... so you can buy a bare frame and populate it with any combination of line level gear you can dream up. You can source your modeuls from dozens of fabricators. I would say that this is super cool... but it's just sort of real life. It's what I expect in the working pro market circa 2011.






So, here it is 2011... and we have software companies selling us goofy paradigms with arbitrary restrictions imposed upon us with a technology that doesn't know restrictions.

I'm left scratching my head.



all the very best,
mike


post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/06 07:47:54


#256
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5449
  • Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
  • Location: SE Florida
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 08:04:03 (permalink)
Bub


This is another major problem with Pro Channel besides turning on/off ... sometimes the controls are unresponsive as well until you turn on Saturation. Once you do that everything starts working. This has been happening since X1 was released before any patches.

Here's a video with sound.

I'll send in a bug report with link to video.

Thanks Bub. I think that's the first video I've seen that actually shows PC in action (even though it doesn't work) and I can actually see the names and functions of the controls. Even heard a teeny tiny bit of the saturation. (I don't have X1). 

ASUS P8P67, i7-2600K, CORSAIR 16GB, HIS 5450, 3 Samsung SSD 850, Win7 64, RME AIO.
 
https://timbowman.bandcamp.com/releases
 
#257
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? 2011/07/06 08:06:39 (permalink)

"BTW and FYI: You still haven't made a reply my previous lengthy post and the ones that other users have posted of a similar nature "


What are you talking about?

For one thing... you may try to hold me responsible to answer every question asked of me... I will only answer when I wish.

For another thing... where in that post did you request a reply? You lectured to me a little, you made some estimation of the value of my argument and you said good night.

And I DID reply... I read your complete post and I replied:  "Take Care!!!"

Which I thought was a nice way to respond to a lecture and a salutation... and I meant it. You are always welcome to comment... and I wish you well.

Take Care!!!

best,
mike
post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/06 08:07:43


#258
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 6783
  • Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 08:10:41 (permalink)
I suppose, if you're more interested in talking about screwdrivers than using them to fix things, it's useful to have as a key complaint about your screwdrivers something that you can be confident isn't going to change. To use a maintenance engineering metaphor.

http://johntatlockaudio.com/
Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
#259
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? 2011/07/06 08:18:11 (permalink)
Bub


This is another major problem with Pro Channel besides turning on/off ... sometimes the controls are unresponsive as well until you turn on Saturation. Once you do that everything starts working. This has been happening since X1 was released before any patches.

Here's a video with sound.

I'll send in a bug report with link to video.



Nice work Bub,

I have observed the very same circumstance.

The terrific irony is that I wouldn't let the sound of the make believe tube saturation any where near my sound... but it has become the gate keeper to the EQ and dynamics.


I am guessing the bug has something to do with the efx order shuffle feature.

I think the buttons and the slots must be getting mixed up in the database underneath.

It's probably a real simple fix, but I don't expect it to get fixed any faster than Cakewalk's track record has demonstrated in the past.

The fun is over and the success has been noted.

I sure wish I could just delete ProChannel and move on.

That delete ProChannel function is probably a real be an easy feature to add.... heck if I could delete ProChannel... I wouldn't care if it ever got fixed.

Then everybody could be happy.


:-)


all the best,
mike
 
post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/06 08:24:39


#260
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 6783
  • Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 08:21:39 (permalink)
mike_mccue

That delete ProChannel function is probably a real be an easy feature to add.... heck if I could delete ProChannel... I wouldn't care if it ever got fixed.

Then everybody could be happy.
Mudgel appears to have already found a simple way of doing this, which he describes on page four of this thread. Why not give that a try?

http://johntatlockaudio.com/
Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
#261
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? 2011/07/06 08:22:42 (permalink)
John T


I suppose, if you're more interested in talking about screwdrivers than using them to fix things, it's useful to have as a key complaint about your screwdrivers something that you can be confident isn't going to change. To use a maintenance engineering metaphor.


Everyone knows a good maintenance technician has lots of free time.




Well, I guess almost everyone knows.


#262
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? 2011/07/06 08:36:19 (permalink)
Mike, I understand what you’re saying – but it doesn’t make sense. You wanted technical reasons for why the PC is a good thing. You received some suggestions. This was eventually narrowed down to amount of clicks – which someone pointed out is a good way to measure efficiency in use of software. You still propose a scenario where the number of clicks increases without any explanation of why you find this to be more efficient. I get your idea of wanting a second FXbin and I am sure that you could put in a feature request for it. And I’m guessing that Cakewalk can implement that with no problems at all. I can’t say for sure because software coding really isn’t my strong side, but you pointed out that there are two there already.
 
What most of us have been trying to tell you, if you open the Pro Channel tab, it stays open while remaining out of the way, it doesn’t cover anything else in the UI and when a different track is selected you see the PC for that channel. If you do that in the Console View it stays open for each track and you can see more of them at the same time. Even with a single Channel Strip VST in the FXbin, the number of clicks increases significantly regardless of which view you’re in. And please educate me, can you open an effects window in the FXbin with a single click? And does it close by magic? I need to double click it to open the VST window, and click that little x in the upper right corner to close it so I can see what’s behind it, and can’t for the life of me figure out what you mean.
 
I do get your advocacy for choices but choices have been a significantly strong side of Sonar, and remains so to this day. You can choose to use something else. Does this make PC redundant? Don’t think so. Does it take away the good reasons for having PC in there? Nope, it doesn’t. Does the PC limit your options with third party VSTs? Not at all! If you want to be able to integrate a VST of your choice in the same way PC is implemented, then request that feature, my friend – and you have plenty of other participants in this thread to back you up, including me. And guess what, Sonar would be the first software in the world to have this feature. IMO, we are lucky to have a good channel strip implemented so we don’t necessarily have to resort to other stuff unless we want to. Even though, nothing is different from before.
 
I have a question – what exactly in your workflow makes you want to have PC deleted? Why and how is it getting in your way? Not considering the on/off bugs.
 
You wanted reasons for why it was important to implement PC and you’ve gotten buckets of answers and opinions. Your refusal to listen gets tedious.
 
“I didn't think I would have to explain this... to this old blue collar maintenance technician... it just seems sort of obvious.”
 
Eeh… right. So why do you refuse to understand what people are trying to comment here? And why dance around in circles? As far as I know, we have similar work experience so I expect that my collar is as blue as yours, buddy.
 
That console example of yours is great, by all means. Did you know that analogue console manufacturers actually started doing it this way because audio engineers got used to be able to pick out their favorite processors in DAWs and to some extent, in digital consoles and by that do away with their huge effect racks? This is the modern market strategy of analogue consoles and is a testimony that we are already well off. Whether we need the PC is one thing, if it gets in your way is another. If it gets in your way, please let us know how so we can tell you what you’re doing wrong. However, it doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for people

(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#263
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? 2011/07/06 08:39:03 (permalink)
mike_mccue



"BTW and FYI: You still haven't made a reply my previous lengthy post and the ones that other users have posted of a similar nature "


What are you talking about?

For one thing... you may try to hold me responsible to answer every question asked of me... I will only answer when I wish.

For another thing... where in that post did you request a reply? You lectured to me a little, you made some estimation of the value of my argument and you said good night.

And I DID reply... I read your complete post and I replied:  "Take Care!!!"

Which I thought was a nice way to respond to a lecture and a salutation... and I meant it. You are always welcome to comment... and I wish you well.

Take Care!!!

best,
mike


He he, ok. I admire your rhetoric. Let’s leave it at that. Carry on
 
 
And you take care too


(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#264
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? 2011/07/06 08:56:50 (permalink)
OK Project M,

So now we've boiled it down too one click vs two mouse clicks.

and

Closing the efx gui.



As long as you don't have to move the mouse to another hotmap location on the display screen... then it seems to me that a double click is a "click".

But just so that you can fully understand my perspective. I have my tablet set up so that indeed a double click is expressed as a single tap.



With regards to not closing the Pro Channel versus closing the EFX gui dialog windows.



You got me there.


Except... for me... I close the ProChannel each time I'm done with it because I choose to use a single small monitor. I'd rather listen to my sound rather than sit in front of a sound reflecting, null and peak forming, large scale interference baffle, a baffle that messes up your sound.

I'll bet lots of people close the ProChannel when they are not using it.




And now...


When I suggested that it might be important to view your ProChannel instantiation frequently it is because you should... well you should if you want to find out if your ProChannel is doing what Bub's ProChannel is doing,

I don't have to do that. I'm using efx that have proven to me... and probably to you... that they work 100% of the time.

So where I may have suggested that opening and closing effects is something that can be a real time consuming issue it is within the context of suggesting this to people who are using ProChannel.

It doesn't take too much deep thinking to realize that there is actually no way to know if each and every instance of ProChannel is acting up and switching automatically the way Bub's (and mine, and Dannis, and Skylodelic etc. etc.) is doing.

It doesn't take to much experience to learn that, with most of your other EFX,  it is not something you should have to worry about.

I don't need to open each of my VST EQ's every few minutes to check on them... but the ProChannel users might want to do that every few minutes.

So, I'll suggest you are trying to make me account for something that is not a big deal for me... but might be to someone else.


For me... if ProChannel did work... it would be a one click for click comparison.

But, so that you may put the matter at ease... If ProChannel did work I do acknowledge how others may be able to save a few clicks with Pro Channel if they want to devote, what I consider, very valuable screen display space to it.


best regards,
mike





post edited by mike_mccue - 2011/07/06 09:00:05


#265
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? 2011/07/06 09:05:47 (permalink)


"That console example of yours is great, by all means. Did you know that analogue console manufacturers actually started doing it this way because audio engineers got used to be able to pick out their favorite processors in DAWs and to some extent, in digital consoles and by that do away with their huge effect racks? This is the modern market strategy of analogue consoles and is a testimony that we are already well off. Whether we need the PC is one thing, if it gets in your way is another. If it gets in your way, please let us know how so we can tell you what you’re doing wrong. However, it doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for people "


FWIW, I believe that you can easily find that modular consoles and the idea of facilitating upgrades etc. predate the practical use of digital audio in music recording studios by about 25 years.

That is why it made good sense to part out the old consoles when the DAW culture came along. The possibility had been engineered into the consoles from the onset.

best,
mike







#266
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 50621
  • Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
  • Location: Fort Worth, TX
  • Status: offline
Re:Why was it so important to shove Pro Channel into it's own hidden bus? 2011/07/06 09:34:48 (permalink)
Bub


This is another major problem with Pro Channel besides turning on/off ... sometimes the controls are unresponsive as well until you turn on Saturation. Once you do that everything starts working. This has been happening since X1 was released before any patches.

Here's a video with sound.

I'll send in a bug report with link to video.

Bub - excellent video showing the problem.  Mine does not behave that way at all, what could be the differences that might be causing the problem? 
 
I've tried it on both 32bit and 64bit X1.  I'm on win7x64, I have build 255.

http://soundcloud.com/beaglesound/sets/featured-songs-1
i7, 16G DDR3, Win10x64, MOTU Ultralite Hybrid MK3
Yamaha MOXF6, Hammond XK3c, other stuff.
#267
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? 2011/07/06 09:39:25 (permalink)
It doesn't happen all the time... you can go along nicely for a while... the real issue is: How does anyone know it's not happening?

I mean, really... how do you know unless you are staring at the thing or are soloing the track and listening carefully for a problem?

Doesn't that make it hard to listen carefully for the "good things" about the mix you might want to focus on?

Which brings me to:


"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?"


best regards,
mike


#268
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? 2011/07/06 09:40:04 (permalink)
True that, I was talking about the little renesance we see today with he endless choices, lunch box products etc, moder'n things being created today. People stoped buying analogue stuff so manufacturers realized that tube pre amps didn't quite cover it all anymore. Anyway, doesn't matter. I'm just saying what I've heard manufacturers say about it

Regarding everything else - this line of comunication is really moving into something where one analyze what one say to compare what was once thought and should or should not be explained and then taken around again to be misunderstood so we move from one point and devalidates a previous argument before bringing it back in because the other part needed to make sure his manhood holds its position and we end up arguing pretty much the same thing but in circles and with increasing amounts of nonsense so before we start annoying others let's just end it here and conclude that there are good reasons for many things and if the comunity started to rebel agains the PC something would probably happen with it but as of now, most people seem to be happy with it. If you don't like it, that's as much your right to think so as it is for others to enjoy it

I bid you a pleasant midweek and I seriously hope you will come to peace with Sonar again soon

(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
Soundcloud
Negative Vibe Records
#269
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? 2011/07/06 09:48:07 (permalink)
Thanks ProjectM... you are a true gentleman, a valued acquaintance, and a thoughtful and challenging debater!!!

all the very best,
mike


#270
Page: << < ..678910.. > >> Showing page 9 of 17
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1