I like the sound of this, and the option of three different emulations, nice! Plus the Tape and EQ and compression emulations, gorgeous!
But i was wondering what other Sonar users think about the pro-channel in regard to its 'sound', not its actual displayed characteristics as achieved by Cakewalk/Gibson, but its 'authenticity', does it achieve accuracy in the emulations of each particular analog desk that it aims to emulate.
I have noticed that Slate-Digital pulled no punches, and the consensus is that Slate-Digital nailed-it, nigh on impossible to tell the difference between their plugins and the real-world counterparts, warts and all; so, i was wondering if i would need to get some of Slate-Digital's plugins or do users here think that the pro-channel has actually achieved absolute authenticity, is it up to Slate-Digital and UAD standards or just merely in the ballpark? 
 
Can anyone point me to any readily available info as to how Cakewalk/Gibson went-about emulating these desks and the extent they went to in order to achieve this?

Mr Slate who has gotten credits on numerous albums for his heavy compression.
I'd seriously consider you actually listen for yourself.
There is much hype created on varying forums by the very companies that are selling a product.
A Marketing strategy that works.
Internet consensus is just that,
 
From my own experience the sound of hardware is rarely reproduced by plugin emulations just by the very nature one is electrical voltages the other zeros and ones.
 
Plugins are getting better and some like EQs, Reverbs are very good.
 
I have never noticed a sound imparted by a plugin in the box and that includes ProCh.
 
It is not that the tools don't work or can't be used.
In fact there are far too much emphasis on the acquisition of more of the same kind of tools.
 
At the end of the day the money you put into plugins you could put into a classic hardware item(s) which will keep or increase in its value and resalabilty compared to software.
 
There are very good clones of the classic pieces.

I would say all of them are "ballpark" ones when you're up at the highest level where you can actually choose between the real hardware or a plug. I also don't think it matters, ultimately. Plenty of good mixes have been made with and without any of them, hardware or software. Use your ears and decide if it sounds good. Most products have a reasonable demo time.

One thing I will say is that often these plugs are tested the wrong way - by inserting them on channels and busses and then switching them out for another version to see which sounds "better". That's useless. The point of them is to mix an entire project with the emulations on and see how it affects your mixing.

Plugins are good.  Authentic?  I'm not too sure.  One problem is (except for DSP-based effects) you can't record into them, using the effect while recording.  Don't think that a good performer can't use a compressor while recording and use the effect with feedback.   Yes, you can make mistakes overcomping etc.   But when you get it right it takes your recording to higher level since you've already laid a compressed foundation, which means less compression is necessary in the box.  Serial compression using less dB at different stages gets (me) a great but more natural sound.
 
Yes, the Prochannel tools are great.  The EQ is fabulous, while the CA2A and the SSL buss comp are great.  The FET comp is very good.  The comps/limiters all do a good job of controlling dynamics, and the mix knob for parallel compression is the best tool of all.  And they sound good too -  the tone.  For, me, where emulations start to fail in comparison to analog hardware is tonal response.  Software is no longer simply putting a patina of color from hardware over the digitally compressed sound, the patina actually changes - responds to the incoming sound.  But it still doesn't imparts the analog responses in all their subtlety. It is almost there - close enough for the most part.  But I've never gotten that FET sound from an 1176 emulation that made me smile, and knew I had nailed the sound I've heard on dozens, if not hundreds, of recordings going back to the 70s.  That is a bigger difference than any I've experienced between different emulations.  Or different FET hardware compressors.
 
So I wouldn't put my money in "better" software emulations.  The SONAR Pro package (esp. w/ the CA2A) is great.  UA DSP or Waves or now Slate are replacing a lot of hardware during mixdown because it is great sounding and repeatable (a big factor in the pro world).  Cakewalk is right up there with those emulations, or not far behind.  But those same pro projects are recorded with great analog hardware.  I've found that the $600 WA-76 has a bigger impact on sound (esp. in a track-at-a-time project studio) than $600 of software emulations.  More bang for buck.  Unless you are recording bands-at-time mostly, a good channel front end will do more for your music than variations of the same software.
 
@

No two analog consoles were exactly the same...they were analog. 

Why does it matter if the emulations are "accurate"? Surely what matters is if they process the sound in a way that is pleasing, useful and consistent. And the pro-channel modules, to my ears at least, fit those criteria very well.

As for claims on the internet that software X is a spot-on emulation of analogue hardware Y, I'd regard any such claims as doubtful. Many of the people who praise how well software emulates hardware have never actually used the hardware in question. The more expensive or rarer the hardware the more that's the case.

Take guitar amp/fx emulations. How many of the people on forums praising, say a particular Marshall 50watt Lead + 4x12 emulation have ever actually played through the real thing at the kind of volume they were intended to be used at back when it was necessary to fill a venue with sound without going through a PA? I have, and I find the emulations to be lacking. Do any of the emulations that include a Crybaby model sound like my 1979 Jen Crybaby Super? No. Close, but not the same.

My advice is to forget wondering whether software is an "accurate" emulation or not and simply consider its merits (or otherwise) in its own right.

When I first started recording with CWPA9, it was much better than anything I used before.

It's only gotten better in the last 15yrs.

tlw, I have an old Boogie mkII B that doesn't sound fantastic till that sucka is turned up, way up!!

Amp Sims are close, but still don't have it in the end.

I just gotta wonder why every time this person posts they make sure they praise Sonar yet ALWAYS make a point to bring up competitors.
 
And some of the language/details used when referring to Sonar seem a little... off. Like they aren't as intimately familiar with the program as one would expect from a true Sonar fanatic.
 
hmm...
 
Either way... use what works and as far as I'm concerned for the price I've paid I've gotten some pretty slick dealymadoodles. On top of that I certainly do not have the room, time, patience or money to own, use and maintain the hardware equivalents. More cables, more things to go wrong, more stuff to learn, more hum/heat/heavy things to move around and honestly... are they REALLY gonna sound THAT much better?
 
It's like some buddies of mine who used to drop all this insane cash on these weird old tape machines, hardware thingies, consoles, etc then another whackload of cash repairing them and another pile of cash storing them/renting rooms to use them in, etc, etc... and at the end of the day they were broke and never actually used ANY of it. To me I didn't know any better and just figured that that is what you had to do to get pro sound (and I'm not talking about the old days... I've seen this happen in the past 5-6 years). Now I look back on that nonsense and shake my head. For all the money and effort spent I could have built them a powerhouse DAW (or order one for them from Studio Cat or ADK), installed not one but multiple daws (including Pro Tools), set them up with WAY more ins/outs than they were getting from their crunchy old consoles and enough plugins to replace STACKS of gear.
 
Then they could focus of actually useful hardware like mics, guitar/bass amps and mic pres.
 
Yeesh.

I spent most of my playing career standing in front of 1 and sometimes 2 Marshall Super Lead 100 watt stacks. As stated before, playing auditoriums, ball parks, etc. with no mic in the p.a.. Pure brutal volume. You had to stand off to the side a little to escape the ear-bleeding pressure levels!
No, amp sims are not going to re-create that hurricane of sound! But, that's not what it is supposed to do. It's not to take the place of those stacks. It is to try to give you the general impression of a MICED cab. No amp sounds as big in the studio as it does out in the trenches. You play a 4X12 bottom? They mostly cram an SM 56,57, or 58 in to one speaker as close as they can get it. And if you were lucky enough to be in a big enough studio, you might get a mic across the room for distance to fill out the sound. Those huge guitar tracks you hear on most recordings are overdubbed to heck and back! Read some articles on how many guitar tracks Def Leppards guitar slingers had to lay down to get that sound. How about Brian May's world reknowned guitar orchestrations. Reverend Billy Gibbons built a small room out of guitar amps, even with amps pointing down to the floor like a roof for Eliminator! Many tracks with different amps and different guitars is how you arrive at that destination.
I had a hard time with amp sims because I have always been an amp guy. What I found was I had to change my thinking. What I learned was you can take the right amp sim in the right song and by the time you pile on drums, keys, vox, bass, strings, horns, and 3 girls in the background singing "O-O-O-Oh"! no one will hardly ever know the difference. It mimics, not perfectly but most times very well, the sound of 1 or 2 mics on a cab. To get that aura of sound you hear standing in front of the full rig you would have to have 3 dimensional recording techniques coupled with surround sound technology that just is not there today. Maybe in the future. And at the end of the day it made my job easier and faster.
That being said, I'm having a blast going out and sitting in with my buddys. I plug the laptop in to the P.A. or I bring in my HD500. They're still loading gear at the end of the night. It took me all of 5 minutes to pack and I'm already in the car and gone!

Going by all the replies, the consensus seems to be that "NO! The Pro channel is not an 'accurate' emulation".
 
But i must say that Slate Digital had the original hardware in front of them, the 'original' hardware was in their possession, it had to be, in order for them to model it, and extensive A/B comparisons were done to certify the end result as being nigh-on identical to the original hardware - crosstalk, transformers, distortion, harmonics, everything; side by side it is impossible in a blind test to tell them apart, but it appears that this is not the case for the pro-channel, which is a little disappointing, seeing as how Cakewalk/Gibson touts the pro channel as being an emulation of the 'big three' analog classics. What's the point of having an emulation if they don't sound identical to the hardware they seek to emulate? Cakewalk/Gibson should just state that the pro channel merely sets-out to give the 'typical' sound of an expensive analog mixing desk. Has Cakewalk/Gibson ever sought to provide us with info where we might investigate what they did and what extent they went to in order to arrive at their claims of emulating three 'big-name' analog giants of yore?