LA2A
Going by all the replies, the consensus seems to be that "NO! The Pro channel is not an 'accurate' emulation".

 
No one in this thread has claimed that they ABed the ProChannel emulations with "the real thing." So the statement you're making is not accurate, and misrepresents any so-called "consensus." (I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees the irony of being disingenuous while complaining about an assumed lack of accuracy...)
 
Before Cakewalk became a part of Gibson, I tested the Console Emulator because I was skeptical. I specifically tested the ProChannel emulations against the characteristics of input transformers, as I feel that was a significant element in the "sound" of vintage analog consoles. I didn't test against "Jensen Transformer serial number #1100745 as used in channel 9 of a console that recorded the kick drum in 'Waterloo Sunset' and has rusted slightly over the years" but against what makes transformers desirable for some sound sources - low-end linearities, frequency-dependent distortion, and frequency response anomalies. The Console Emulations in Sonar accurately convey the qualities of input transformers when considered as signal processors. Educate yourself to understand how the Console Emulators process sound, and check out the waveforms at the end of the article. I did more research than was published due to word count limitations, but the article does present the conclusions.
 
I haven't tested the non-linearities between channels (which gives the extra sense of space and definition) against "legendary" consoles because I'm not going to have a frickin' console shipped here just to see if Cakewalk came within 80% or 95% or 97.32456% of "a real thing." I say "a real thing," not "the real thing," because analog gear differs. It's not just a question of manufacturing tolerances, but also, production runs of components didn't always extend across the production life of a console.
 

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

 
Can you provide details on the test procedure you used to do a blind A/B test that allowed you to decide it was impossible to tell the difference?
 

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?

 
If you don't have a basis for your assertion they don't sound identical, then your question is meaningless. Besides, no emulation of an analog device will ever be 100% the same; there are too many variables. For example, analog component values can be affected by heat or become microphonic over time. If those characteristics aren't being emulated, it's not 100% accurate. Manufacturers make decisions about what they consider the most important characteristics 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?

No. It is up to the third-party designers of the Console Emulators to decide if they want to provide a recipe for how to do Console Emulation. I believe "what they did and the extent they went to" would constitute IP. Based on my experience in this industry, if Cakewalk or Gibson divulged that IP, they would likely be violating a non-disclosure agreement.
 
I've designed analog mixers. I mixed an album through one that I hand-built, and mastering engineer Randy Kling (look under 1989) thought that, based on the sound, I was using a well-known mixer that cost $250K. I know what Jensen transformers sound like. I know the characteristics analog mixers can impart to a sound. I reviewed the VCC and gave it a favorable review precisely because I know these things. I did not compare VCC to particular consoles nor did I care to; I wanted the "signature" of analog consoles, VCC provided them, that's all I cared about. The Console Emulators also emulate those qualities that I consider "signatures" of analog consoles.
 
Slate produces quality products and has some extremely talented people like Fabrice working for them. Their drum sounds are excellent. It is a disservice to the company to make vague assumptions about comparisons which you give no indication you have ever actually experienced. If I were working for Slate, I would be sending you a PM politely asking you to please refrain from making these kinds of posts, lest people think Slate was behind them.
 
There are many emulations that aim to capture the most salient characteristics of analog devices. If that has been accomplished, then those products provide a useful function in the process of making music. If those sounds have been inspired by the signatures of vintage pieces of gear, that's wonderful and if they're really, really close, so much the better. Then again, I don't always want exact emulations. The first thing I did with Waves' Aphex plug-in was switch off the noise emulation, and I'm very glad IK gives you the choice of a beat-up Mellotron or a "perfect" Mellotron - I always pick the perfect one. That setting doesn't emulate a "real" Mellotron. So what? I think a plug-in should be designed to please my ears, not my test equipment.

melmyers
 
As a matter of fact, I've seen videos and interviews with industry professionals who have said that certain plugin's don't sound exactly like the hardware modeled...but they actually prefer the sound of the plugin.

And there's nothing wrong with that, because a common definition of emulation is "effort or ambition to equal or surpass another." Steinberg's emulation of my Quadrafuzz was better than the hardware version I designed; the designer came up with virtualized distortion elements that don't exist in the real world. I cried myself to sleep every night for years because the emulation wasn't 100% perfect.
 
Not.

I believe Mr. Anderton has ended this discussion.

I see the point of your divergence Mr Anderton, i understand fully what you are saying, but I simply started the thread to ask if any Sonar user knew 'how authentic' the pro channel is compared to the desks they are purported to emulate, meaning, if Cakewalk had indulged us and revealed such things in relation to this. Have i done something wrong by asking that question? The tone in here from some replies would suggest that i have.
 
Lets start again shall we, quite simple really, if anyone here knew or had a pointer to any info regarding Cakewalks pro channel emulations; nothing sinister about that question is there? Exactly what are my motives for asking this question? Passionate music making and simple curiosity, not some weird enigmatic subversive motives, sheesh!
I can't believe i'm even having to explain myself in order to dispel the evil surmising against me (official definition of surmising...suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it).
How did a sincere simple question get morphed into the baddest horror movie to be released this year? LOL. Why don't we keep it simple, there is no bank robbery in progress here people. Anyway, I would like you to know that you have not done your research regarding Slate Digital's plugins, Slate Digital did indeed set-out to give us a 'perfect' emulation, REGARDLESS of whether no two hardware units are identical, that is not the point, because the variations in hardware units are more often that not, quite minor, hardly even noticeable in many instances, only measurable technically, but the bulk of the 'signature sound' of the same series of hardware units is usually 99% the same, thus inherent differences in assembly-line runs are not what i am interested in addressing or enquiring about! Have i got stupid written on my forehead??
 
Mr Anderton essentially says that Slate Digital should be upbraiding me or admonishing me for revealing their adamant position in relation to the accuracy of their emulations... so lets have a look at what Slate Digital themselves say in regard to their own algorithms and efforts, as follows... "The Slate Digital Virtual Console Collection brings THE SOUND of 5 of the world's TOP analog consoles INTO YOUR DAW workstation. Slate Digital CTO Fabrice Gabriel and I, STUDIED THESE CONSOLES INSIDE AND OUT. We METICULOUSLY MODELLED the ENTIRE CIRCUIT PATH so that we could recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE that makes these consoles the legends that they are, says Slate."
 
 
Need i say anything more? 

Then you could have asked the question without hyping up a competitor then falsely stating that the "consensus" in this thread was that the PC emus were not accurate models. Also your first thread used the same tactics except you were hyping up other DAWs while carefully praising Sonar hoping we'd ignore your other statements... except not carefully enough because you made many errors in regards to content and the history of the program indicating you aren't as familiar with Sonar as you claim to be.
 
At first I wasn't sure if you were a paid shill or a concern troll but now after your followup acting aghast and hurt anyone would accuse you of such shenanigans yet still beat the same drum (which is classic concern troll tactics) it's pretty clear you are the latter and perhaps an alt account just trying to stir the pot.
 
So, yeah... you got some bites but this is all very unoriginal and obvious.
 
*yawn*

[link=mailto:LA@A]LA2A[/link] CW wrote about how they developed the modules in the Pro Channel and that they did a lot of work to ensure the modules will performs as one would expect from such plugins. Also members did report what they found in comparing them to other quality plugins emulating the same hardware and their conclusions were favorable. 
 
Do a search on this board to find out more. 

LA2A
I simply started the thread to ask if any Sonar user knew 'how authentic' the pro channel is compared to the desks they are purported to emulate, meaning, if Cakewalk had indulged us and revealed such things in relation to this. Have i done something wrong by asking that question?

 
We like people who ask questions. We like to give answers. Unfortunately, you paid no attention to the answers, instead choosing to declare a "consensus" that was disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. Nor did you bother to do any research before asking your question, or you would have found links like this:
 
http://www.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR%20X3&language=3&help=ProChannel.08.html
 
And this:
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Pro-Channel-Tape-Sim-Console-emulator-analyzed-Audio-geekery-alert-m2899028.aspx#2899395
 
So, click on the links, as well as the link I provided previously, and educate yourself.
 

Lets start again shall we, quite simple really, if anyone here knew or had a pointer to any info regarding Cakewalks pro channel emulations; nothing sinister about that question is there? Exactly what are my motives for asking this question? Passionate music making and simple curiosity...

 
Most community members are considerate enough to try to find answers for themselves before asking people here to do their work for them. You didn't have enough curiosity to search and find multiple links to comments, blog posts, documentation, articles, and videos about the Console Emulator. That is probably why people question your motives as being something other than simple curiosity.
 

How did a sincere simple question get morphed into the baddest horror movie to be released this year? LOL. Why don't we keep it simple, there is no bank robbery in progress here people.

 
I will concede that you have a firm understanding of hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum.

 

Anyway, I would like you to know that you have not done your research regarding Slate Digital's plugins

 
I apparently did enough research on Slate's VCC that when I submitted a pre-publication version of the review to Slate for fact-check, they found no technical errors or inaccuracies. I will take Slate's opinion of the accuracy of my evaluation of their product, and thoroughness of my research, over yours.
 

Mr Anderton essentially says that Slate Digital should be upbraiding me or admonishing me for revealing their adamant position in relation to the accuracy of their emulations...

 
Again, you are being disingenuous. Here is what I said:
 
"If I were working for Slate, I would be sending you a PM politely asking you to please refrain from making these kinds of posts, lest people think Slate was behind them."
 
Quoting advertising copy or press releases is not exactly "revealing" anything.
 
On the other hand, the links I've referenced above are quite revealing. And there are plenty more sources of information for those who truly are curious.
 

Need i say anything more?

I hope not.

Bet he doubles down on the shock of being accused of being disingenuous. A good troll would have been quiet and let established but perpetually disgruntled regulars make his points after his OP instead of being s obvious. There are several regular posters who would have eventually jumped in to give their digs at Sonar. Patience young troll.

dubdisciple
Bet he doubles down on the shock of being accused of being disingenuous.

Tough call. He also seems to favor the "look over there!" approach that doesn't actually address anyone's points, so it's hard to say which option he'll pursue.

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

+1. That's why SSL total recall was more or less BS moving from studio to studio. And even recalling a mix in the same studio was tricky esp with extra outboard gear. It was simply a ballpark to work on. Should have been called 'hazey memory'.