Jonbouy
Bub
sharke
I remember when I was first looking at X1 one of the things that drew me in was the claims about the ProChannel and how having EQ and compression etc "built in" to the strips means a much lower CPU load. But is this really true? I could never work out how this could be the case. It's not like putting a reverb on a bus and channeling multiple tracks through that. Every instance of a PC compressor is a separate instance with its own settings, so therefore must occupy its own process in memory. So how is that reducing CPU load?
I think they are all VST3 compliant in a VST2.4 format.
It's the only explanation.
Noel's explanation stated that they were indeed VST2.4 standard plug-ins with customisations to the interface only.
If a module is enabled then it is taking up cycles for DSP use like any other instance of a VST, but the graphics overhead is reduced as it all appears in a re-used window rather than a different window for each instance.
If they are turned off (disabled) in the Pro-Channel of course they won't (shouldn't) be loading up the processor at all.
So basically they are just channel inserts with a recycled display.
I forgot the [/sarcasm] thingy.
There's been a 'discussion' on the VST subject upstairs.
I discovered a cool bug last night, speaking of the Pro Channel.
Anyone can try it. It seems to do it in all of my projects, so I'm guessing it's not system specific ....
Hide the first track in a multi-track folder (Make sure it's the top folder in the project), click the upper left corner of the folder header to select the entire folder, and bang ... the Pro Channel for the hidden track shows up. Pritty kewl in a bug finding Easter Egg hunting kind of way. Kind of like moving the screw on the PC4K Bus Comp to make the VU meter turn blue. :)