Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 09:52:50
(permalink)
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
ProMusic27
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 341
- Joined: 2009/11/27 06:05:55
- Location: Granja Viana - Carapicuíba - SP - Brasil
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 10:56:00
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
There is actually a big difference from Reason components. It is possible to build a PC compatible module that works as a normal VST in other hosts. That's exactly what the Softube modules are. They are dual mode VST's that support the expanded prochannel interface so that they can live within SONAR's channel strip or be patched as a regular VST in another host (or SONAR for that matter). As such the amount of effort for a 3'rd party developer to implement this is much smaller. It also doesn't lock them to the SONAR platform if they don't choose to voluntarily do so its definitely a lot more open in this regard.
Tell us Noel, just for curiosity, how difficult it is to turn PC interactive to FX bin more than just "post/pre"... This could be a HUGE gain for audio chain process... What you think? Turn PC plugs more interactive with other plugs could be such a powerful and handy tool... And this could turn things more "inclusive" but maintaining things on Sonar... You now, keeping CWs interests...
Mauricio Monteiro - BrazilIntel I7 2.8Ghz 16Gb ram | Win 7 64 | Sonar Platinum 64 | UAD-2 Octo | UAD-2 Quad | VS-700 rack | VS-100 | FaderPort | JBL 4326 monitors | A-88 | Integra 7 | iRig keys 37 PRO | Akai MPD 226 | Full AIRA system | XPS-10 | JP-8000 | Super JV-1080 | R-8 | R-44 field recorder.
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 11:08:49
(permalink)
It's been talked about quite a lot, that idea of having ProChannel insert points, so you can mix and match PC and standard effects. I think it's unique in being one of the very few things there's near-unanimous agreement on round here. I'm sure Bub can think of a reason why it would be bad - and unfair, and ethically wrong - if we give him time, mind you.
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
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 12:14:06
(permalink)
>> Does "dual modules" refer to one dll that can be accessed 2 ways... or is it a reference to two distinct dll files?
One physical VST dll that supports two modes of operation - as a PC module or as a standard VST UI module. Its basically flipping a switch on the plugin to tell it how it should work.
Regarding insert points its possible to extend the design to handle moving the PC as a unit to an arbitrary position prefx, postfx, or intra-fxbin. In fact one of my early ideas for the PC was to have it be an fxchain living within the normal user fx bin. I didn't go down that route for various reasons. However, the prochannel itself is essentially an additional fx bin that resides either pre or post the normal track/bus fxbin. Given that we already have FxChains that are similar, it would be possible to set up the prochannel as an insert within the track fx bin (or vice versa set up the track bin as an insert within the PC).
Regarding how simple - its never simple :) The fxbin code has evolved to be one of the more complex pieces in the audio engine and there are many considerations to be taken and tested when we make changes like this. Also the GUI would present some challenges. Although we could probably get away with a simple placeholder entry for the insert point - like we do for the external insert.
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 12:19:57
(permalink)
The way I imagine it is as a connecting module with a unique ID that has to exist in both places at once. So if you insert "Insert 1" in the PC, then "Insert1" automatically appears in the FX bin too, and vice-versa. These can then be dragged up and down in either place just as you do now to change ordering. Dunno how easy that would be to code, but it would be really simple to use.
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
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 12:24:23
(permalink)
Thanks for explaining about the dlls.
"..intra-fxbin. In fact one of my early ideas for the PC was to have it be an fxchain living within the normal user fx bin.."
It's shame that idea slipped away... In my personal opinion that subtle difference in choice causes me to regard the resulting implementation of ProChannel as redundant, inflexible, dumbed down, and a overall turn off.
best regards,
mike
|
ProMusic27
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 341
- Joined: 2009/11/27 06:05:55
- Location: Granja Viana - Carapicuíba - SP - Brasil
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 12:40:48
(permalink)
Imagine how surprised (or not  ) we all will be if X2 comes with this "intra-fxbin" feature... It will raise Sonar power quite a lot... Plus a de-esser and some other "add-character" plug (like a tape emu)... and a working V-Vocal. Thank you Noel for all the input... Are you working on saturday or your work is also your hobby? Peace.
Mauricio Monteiro - BrazilIntel I7 2.8Ghz 16Gb ram | Win 7 64 | Sonar Platinum 64 | UAD-2 Octo | UAD-2 Quad | VS-700 rack | VS-100 | FaderPort | JBL 4326 monitors | A-88 | Integra 7 | iRig keys 37 PRO | Akai MPD 226 | Full AIRA system | XPS-10 | JP-8000 | Super JV-1080 | R-8 | R-44 field recorder.
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 12:56:26
(permalink)
The way I imagine it is as a connecting module with a unique ID that has to exist in both places at once. So if you insert "Insert 1" in the PC, then "Insert1" automatically appears in the FX bin too, and vice-versa. Same here. That way you could have the first PC module followed by two plugins in the FX bin followed by another PC module followed by an FX bin plugin. That could a bit to keep track of (pun intended) but well worth it in flexibility, IMHO. And SONAR has always been big on flexibility.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 13:05:41
(permalink)
Yeah, exactly, it's like changing lanes within a flow that continuously goes downwards. Perhaps you could double up with send modules and return modules for more clarity.
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
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 14:52:01
(permalink)
Our architecture wouldn't easily allow for interspersing PC and fxbin plugins.
i.e. UFX is a user fx and PCFX is a prochan fx, you can't have UFX1->PCFX1->UFX2->PCFX2
I also think that would be unnecessarly complicated to implement as well as to use and visualize.
What I was thinking of was only a placement of the entire PC itself within the user bin OR vice versa the user bin within the PC. i.e.
UFX1->UFX2-> PC Bin->UFX3 ...
or
PCFX1->PCFX2->User Bin-> PCFX2->PCFX3 ...
We may also consider making some PC modules dual mode in the future. The PC platform is only one year old so its possible we may have future enhancements.
|
bvideo
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1707
- Joined: 2006/09/02 22:20:02
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 16:14:27
(permalink)
As previously mentioned: how about a PC module equivalent to an FX chain. Small number of controls displayed in the module in the PC strip. Click to get access to the individual FX.
|
Jind
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 878
- Joined: 2007/09/08 16:14:48
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 16:15:24
(permalink)
Thanks for the insightful discussion Noel - it's the type of information I appreciate from those involved with Cakewalk. It's those little tidbits of technical detail that I always seek out in your posts.
Jind Sonar X2 PE, Cakewalk V Studio 100; Intel i7 w/ 16 GB Ram, MS Windows 8.1
|
trimph1
Max Output Level: -12 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6348
- Joined: 2010/09/07 19:20:06
- Location: London ON
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 16:22:09
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
Our architecture wouldn't easily allow for interspersing PC and fxbin plugins.
i.e. UFX is a user fx and PCFX is a prochan fx, you can't have UFX1->PCFX1->UFX2->PCFX2
I also think that would be unnecessarly complicated to implement as well as to use and visualize.
What I was thinking of was only a placement of the entire PC itself within the user bin OR vice versa the user bin within the PC. i.e.
UFX1->UFX2-> PC Bin->UFX3 ...
or
PCFX1->PCFX2->User Bin-> PCFX2->PCFX3 ...
We may also consider making some PC modules dual mode in the future. The PC platform is only one year old so its possible we may have future enhancements.
That would be cool if you could pull something like that together...
The space you have will always be exceeded in direct proportion to the amount of stuff you have...Thornton's Postulate. Bushpianos
|
ProMusic27
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 341
- Joined: 2009/11/27 06:05:55
- Location: Granja Viana - Carapicuíba - SP - Brasil
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 16:41:35
(permalink)
Jind
Thanks for the insightful discussion Noel - it's the type of information I appreciate from those involved with Cakewalk. It's those little tidbits of technical detail that I always seek out in your posts.
In fact, for me, one of the things I love the most in Sonar X1D (or in any other version of it) is this forum.  The interaction with CW staff, power users and "not much power users" like me is just amazing. This is one of the great reasons why the loyal Sonar users wich provides CW so much good input trough critics and/or ideas in this forum deserves to have privilege to access news and promotions from CW. Also a good reason for us to give CW people like Seth, Brandon, Noel, Ryan, etc... Lots of respect. I am between the 1000. And I am glad. Respect you all people. Thanks for always helping me.
Mauricio Monteiro - BrazilIntel I7 2.8Ghz 16Gb ram | Win 7 64 | Sonar Platinum 64 | UAD-2 Octo | UAD-2 Quad | VS-700 rack | VS-100 | FaderPort | JBL 4326 monitors | A-88 | Integra 7 | iRig keys 37 PRO | Akai MPD 226 | Full AIRA system | XPS-10 | JP-8000 | Super JV-1080 | R-8 | R-44 field recorder.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 17:27:50
(permalink)
mike_mccue
Thanks for explaining about the dlls.
"..intra-fxbin. In fact one of my early ideas for the PC was to have it be an fxchain living within the normal user fx bin.."
It's shame that idea slipped away... In my personal opinion that subtle difference in choice causes me to regard the resulting implementation of ProChannel as redundant, inflexible, dumbed down, and a overall turn off.
best regards,
mike
To me this is the most absurd statement one can make on this subject. What ever was in the thinking on how to implement Pro Channel I can't see how ever it is implemented one can say its a dumb down , inflexible and redundant idea. To me it offers considerable complexity. As it now stands it can be pre or post FX bin. The modules can be moved around to optimize the signal chain processing. Extra modules can be added at will. One could liken it to a super VST with its own FX bin. Each module has its own set of controls peculiar to it adding a great deal more complexity. If you look at it as an adjunct to the FX bin the complexity becomes monumental. Just to get a very rough idea how complex it is simply take a look at the number of presets in the CW PC presets sharing page. To me the possibilities are infinite. Ultimately what really matters is the sound. If you can't get good to great sound using Pro Channel its not because of the attributes you mistakenly attach to it but your own prejudice. As time goes on the concept will be refined. When we first bought X1 Producer who imagined it would be more than just a channel strip? CW did but I don't recall any one on the forum doing so. One really great thing about PC is the very high quality of sound at a very low CPU overhead. This is a very remarkable quality that makes PC useful in ways a standard VST is not. All I see with remarks by Mike are seeing only one small side of the possibilities. Never seeing what can be done and only seeing what can't be done. I refuse to limit myself with such notions.
|
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31112
- Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
- Location: Worcester, England.
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:00:09
(permalink)
@ John/Mike...
Plus, with a little organisation, you can use busses to mix and match Pro Channels and VST's in any order you want.
A little fiddly maybe, but it does work, and for me it's nowhere near a deal breaker.
|
SteveStrummerUK
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31112
- Joined: 2006/10/28 10:53:48
- Location: Worcester, England.
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:08:15
(permalink)
In fact, after watching the Round 2; Day 17 VIDEO about stacking compressors on this site (as linked to by John T), I tried experimenting by running a guitar signal through two instances of the Pro Channel Compressor - i.e. one instance on the track itself and another on a bus. As I say above, it's not ideal, but perfectly workable.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:20:26
(permalink)
I wasn't thinking about the track buss connectivity in that post but you bring another layer of possibilities and complexity. Well done. Actually I can't figure out why there is any negativity aimed at PC. I can see good feature requests or new ideas that could improve it. I don't see anything wrong with it. I look at it as another tool for refining the sound I am able to get from X1. Now we can really say that Sonar sounds 20 to 40 % better!  BTW that is no joke! LOL
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:40:30
(permalink)
And now for something not completely different.
When X1 Producer was first released I thought what a missed opportunity. No PC limiter. It made sense to include an EQ and the notion of a compressor was a good idea but why two compressors and no limiter? It was a little exasperating for me. I liked the PC concept and the modules that it came with but I felt there was a big hole in the PC concept without a good limiter.
Than CW came out with the Concrete Limiter. What a sweet sounding limiter. It was worth waiting for.
I had not much use for Boost 11. I will always think of it as the Spinal Tap plugin.
Now I don't have to look elsewhere for a solid, highly useful and luxurious sounding limiter. Without breaking the CPU, either.
Now we have this sorta odd module the T type soft compressor with an amazing sound.
Will the abundance of joy we have using these tools ever be repeated?
|
Jind
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 878
- Joined: 2007/09/08 16:14:48
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:42:23
(permalink)
While I would never think to speak for Mike, in this case I will posit a possible Mike-like response - that being that ultimately if it's a VST under the hood and it's really just a way of locking the feature into Sonar PE, then it brings nothing to the table that the standard FX bin already does, other than the immediacy aspect of it "just being there". That it's nothing more than a smoke and mirror gimmick.
Mind you even if one was to think it's just that, a gimmick, it's one I'm sold on for the immediacy aspect - I like the looks of it, the way it fits into how I'm currently working, the quality of the plugins released so far so this is just the other side of the argument - one that seems to be a winning bet for Cakewalk so far. Just playing devils advocate for a second as they say.
Back to making music - using ProChannel left and right.
Jind Sonar X2 PE, Cakewalk V Studio 100; Intel i7 w/ 16 GB Ram, MS Windows 8.1
|
SCorey
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 538
- Joined: 2011/04/26 15:13:14
- Location: Salt Lake City, UT
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:50:24
(permalink)
Noel, just make it so I can use PCFX as per-clip FX and I'll be happy with the ProChannel.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 18:57:43
(permalink)
While I would never think to speak for Mike, in this case I will posit a possible Mike-like response - that being that ultimately if it's a VST under the hood and it's really just a way of locking the feature into Sonar PE, then it brings nothing to the table that the standard FX bin already does, other than the immediacy aspect of it "just being there". That it's nothing more than a smoke and mirror gimmick.
Than get X1 Studio. No one needs to get the producer version if they see it as a waste. I don't fully buy into the VST under the hood characterization all that much. Even with what Noel has to say on the subject. I think its a unique sort of "plugin" that adds very high quality sound with very little CPU hits. Further I believe its highly optimized for X1. Something no generic VST can be. Mind you even if one was to think it's just that, a gimmick, it's one I'm sold on for the immediacy aspect - I like the looks of it, the way it fits into how I'm currently working, the quality of the plugins released so far so this is just the other side of the argument - one that seems to be a winning bet for Cakewalk so far. Just playing devils advocate for a second as they say.
Here I concur completely. In the end, however one thinks about the PC, one can not deny how good it sounds and that is the really important consideration.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 19:41:29
(permalink)
>>Noel, just make it so I can use PCFX as per-clip FX and I'll be happy with the ProChannel.7
You want the PC effects to be available as normal clip based effects or the entire PC to be available on a clip basis.
The former is the same as asking for dual mode PC modules. The latter is more complex since it means the clip effects bin essentially becomes a PC and the UI now has to be clip based and not track/bus based.
PC was intended to provide built in and fast access to the most commonly required components for a channel strip. There is no end to enhancements and growth is good, but at some point we have to question the goals of some of this stuff.
|
Jind
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 878
- Joined: 2007/09/08 16:14:48
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 19:53:33
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
>>Noel, just make it so I can use PCFX as per-clip FX and I'll be happy with the ProChannel.7
You want the PC effects to be available as normal clip based effects or the entire PC to be available on a clip basis.
The former is the same as asking for dual mode PC modules. The latter is more complex since it means the clip effects bin essentially becomes a PC and the UI now has to be clip based and not track/bus based.
PC was intended to provide built in and fast access to the most commonly required components for a channel strip. There is no end to enhancements and growth is good, but at some point we have to question the goals of some of this stuff.
That's exactly what I think of it as - it's a Channel Strip with a rack of great gear installed. If it gets too complicated it becomes maybe, more functional, but might lose that immediacy I'm digging right now. As it stands I could choose to use the effects bin, make up chains of plugins to build a channel strip of my own, but the right there, ready to use and on every track and bus thing is whats working for me.
Jind Sonar X2 PE, Cakewalk V Studio 100; Intel i7 w/ 16 GB Ram, MS Windows 8.1
|
Jind
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 878
- Joined: 2007/09/08 16:14:48
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 19:56:16
(permalink)
And the quality of the modules thus far have been superb.
Jind Sonar X2 PE, Cakewalk V Studio 100; Intel i7 w/ 16 GB Ram, MS Windows 8.1
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/24 20:44:22
(permalink)
SCorey
Noel, just make it so I can use PCFX as per-clip FX and I'll be happy with the ProChannel.
You're not happy now? It has to be clipped based to make you happy? I think you have lost the point of the PC.
|
SCorey
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 538
- Joined: 2011/04/26 15:13:14
- Location: Salt Lake City, UT
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/25 09:53:42
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk
]
>>Noel, just make it so I can use PCFX as per-clip FX and I'll be happy with the ProChannel.7
You want the PC effects to be available as normal clip based effects or the entire PC to be available on a clip basis.
The former is the same as asking for dual mode PC modules.
Yes, the former. You guys have created some terrific PC plugins. Most of my projects have many per-clip effects. I would like to use those terrific PC plugins as per-clip effects.
|
SCorey
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 538
- Joined: 2011/04/26 15:13:14
- Location: Salt Lake City, UT
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/25 10:05:23
(permalink)
John
You're not happy now? It has to be clipped based to make you happy? I think you have lost the point of the PC.
What a condescending remark. I know the point of the PC. I also know that there are many different ways of working, and that I would like to use the PC plugins as per-clip FX. Right now, the PC plugins are limited to the PC in tracks and busses. Other plugins are not. I would like the same flexibility with PC plugins that I have with other plugins. In my opinion, making PC plugins as 'dual mode' by default would be great for everyone. Yes, that flexibility would make me happy.
|
Jind
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 878
- Joined: 2007/09/08 16:14:48
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/25 11:08:27
(permalink)
While per clip ProChannel would have it's uses I suppose, I can't imagine the implementation. If it was really desired right now one could always place the clip in a separate track in say a folder with the original track and process it separately. Is it a graceful way of doing it, or even an easy way to work with multiple clips? No, but as I said, I can't imagine how an implementation of per clip ProChannel would appear or be easily navigated.
I think Noel is pretty clear he has modeled it after a console channel strip type methodology and once that becomes too complicated it will possibly lose the immediacy aspect of what many find it's greatest feature.
I have no doubt that some features can be added or improved - but when do features have an impact on the simplicity the console emulation it was based upon.
As always individual mileage may vary. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Jind Sonar X2 PE, Cakewalk V Studio 100; Intel i7 w/ 16 GB Ram, MS Windows 8.1
|
SCorey
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 538
- Joined: 2011/04/26 15:13:14
- Location: Salt Lake City, UT
- Status: offline
Re:The PC plugins fever... a trend?
2012/03/25 11:35:38
(permalink)
To be clear, I'm not talking about a per-clip ProChannel strip. I'm talking about the ability to use the individual PC effects on a per-clip basis.
My main application would be SFX for videos. In one of these projects, I may have hundreds of SFX clips. It's not very feasible to have a single track or buss just to process one clip with one of the PC effects. Even having the clips in a track and automating parameters to turn the PC modules on and off isn't very feasible compared to a simple per-clip FX that I can do with normal VSTs--including the ones that are bundled with and tied to Sonar. Having the ability to just pop in a PC effect on a clip would be terrific.
Like the hybrid eq. Its broad boost and narrow cut is a very easy to use, good sounding method. It would make a wonderful per-clip eq. And again--I don't mean have it available by default on every clip. Just don't limit it to a channel strip, make it available as an option to insert on a clip.
|