I like the PC, but seriously there is no comparison between those compressors and my IK Black and White.  Not in the same ballpark.

Funkybot

FastBikerBoy


I have and just remembered why I don't use them any more unless I have to....

I'm currently working on a project where I need to use the Sonitus Compressor on several tracks and I've just proven that my own theory on the PC ergonomics is correct. I'm trying to tame the peaks on a guitar track and wondering why on earth the compressor isn't working.

In desperation I start to reduce the threshold all the way down and hear the drums being squashed down to nothing. Yep...... I've got the wrong Compressor window in focus.

Back to the nice convenient prochannel as soon as possible for me.

I think this is more indicative of an area where Sonar should improve, rather than showing where it excels at something. What I mean by that is: Studio One and Logic both have excellent plugin menus that 1) tell you what track your on and 2) allow you to navigate from effect to effect from the plugin menu. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure you can even navigate to different tracks. That means you can do all your navigating without ever having to look at the Console or Track views just from plugin menus. That'd be a huge plus to Sonar.


Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

Hi,i completely desagree.
There are many forums on the web with many UAD users that compare 1176 and ssl Buss comp and LA2A with PC emu.
Their judgment is excellent especially on the PC LA2A emu.
I'm a Pro and if i think to job with a DAW that give me a completely professional tools to finish my job is a huge save of money/time.

However i use a very Pro mastering limiter (Voxengo Elephant) because it still is not included.
I did a recording session with 12 tracks and on the voices i used LA2A emulation with no delay at a latency of 3 ms.
The singer and back vocals were amazed by the quality of their monitoring.

The last i have not any single prob with Sonar X2.
It's only my exp.
Best.

Roby

I like the PC2A very much, it bears comparison to the Waves CLA2A which I also have.  And also... I like the gate! And Concrete Limiter is very handy too.

It's much better now that we can drag in VSTs though- for really specific processing that the ProChannel tools struggle with.

GIM Productions

Hi,i completely desagree. 

There are many forums on the web with many UAD users that compare 1176 and ssl Buss comp and LA2A with PC emu.
Their judgment is excellent especially on the PC LA2A emu.
I'm a Pro and if i think to job with a DAW that give me a completely professional tools to finish my job is a huge save of money/time.

However i use a very Pro mastering limiter (Voxengo Elephant) because it still is not included.
I did a recording session with 12 tracks and on the voices i used LA2A emulation with no delay at a latency of 3 ms.
The singer and back vocals were amazed by the quality of their monitoring.

The last i have not any single prob with Sonar X2.
It's only my exp.
Best.

Roby

I haven't tried the PC LA2A yet. I've also heard good things about it, but again, haven't tried that one yet (hence why it wasn't referenced in my original post). That said...


Regarding the 1176...remember how good everyone thought the UAD 1176LN was? Then Softube put out the FET Compressor, and other 1176's came out (Waves, IK), and suddenly there were a bunch of UAD users clamoring for an 1176 Mk II plugin to compete with the newer offerings. Then UA listened and put out the 1176 Collection, which is excellent, and the best of the bunch IMO.


Now, the 1176 in Pro Channel might be on par with that original UA 1176, but it's got nothing on the newer offerings. Sorry. Just compress some drums with a super fast attack time and release in all buttons mode and compare a few plugins and you'll hear how tame the PC 1176 is in comparison to the UA 1176 Collection, IK Black 76, and Waves CLA-76. It's not the same ballpark.


Do the same comparing The Glue, which is an excellent SSL comp, with the PC Buss Compressor. Listen to Slate's VCC compared to the PC Console Emu. The Sonar plugins sound a generation or two behind the better, newer plugins (like Slate, like the newer UA offerings, IK, etc.). It doesn't make the plugins horrible, or unusable, but they're definitely not the best.

Also, it's been confirmed that UA is working on a MK II version of the LA-2A. Do you think the Pro Channel version will still hold up to comparison after that one is out? It might...but opinions change quickly on the internet once the newest, shiniest, new thing is released. Where Pro Channel will always beat the UA plugins though is latency, I'll concede that, but that point doesn't hold true when comparing PC plugins to native plugins.

Is there any way I can demo the PC LA2A? If not, I'll add the lack of demos as 5th reason not to use Pro Channel.

Funkybot

GIM Productions

Hi,i completely desagree. 

There are many forums on the web with many UAD users that compare 1176 and ssl Buss comp and LA2A with PC emu.
Their judgment is excellent especially on the PC LA2A emu.
I'm a Pro and if i think to job with a DAW that give me a completely professional tools to finish my job is a huge save of money/time.

However i use a very Pro mastering limiter (Voxengo Elephant) because it still is not included.
I did a recording session with 12 tracks and on the voices i used LA2A emulation with no delay at a latency of 3 ms.
The singer and back vocals were amazed by the quality of their monitoring.

The last i have not any single prob with Sonar X2.
It's only my exp.
Best.

Roby

I haven't tried the PC LA2A yet. I've also heard good things about it, but again, haven't tried that one yet (hence why it wasn't referenced in my original post). That said...


Regarding the 1176...remember how good everyone thought the UAD 1176LN was? Then Softube put out the FET Compressor, and other 1176's came out (Waves, IK), and suddenly there were a bunch of UAD users clamoring for an 1176 Mk II plugin to compete with the newer offerings. Then UA listened and put out the 1176 Collection, which is excellent, and the best of the bunch IMO.


Now, the 1176 in Pro Channel might be on par with that original UA 1176, but it's got nothing on the newer offerings. Sorry. Just compress some drums with a super fast attack time and release in all buttons mode and compare a few plugins and you'll hear how tame the PC 1176 is in comparison to the UA 1176 Collection, IK Black 76, and Waves CLA-76. It's not the same ballpark.


Do the same comparing The Glue, which is an excellent SSL comp, with the PC Buss Compressor. Listen to Slate's VCC compared to the PC Console Emu. The Sonar plugins sound a generation or two behind the better, newer plugins (like Slate, like the newer UA offerings, IK, etc.). It doesn't make the plugins horrible, or unusable, but they're definitely not the best.

Also, it's been confirmed that UA is working on a MK II version of the LA-2A. Do you think the Pro Channel version will still hold up to comparison after that one is out? It might...but opinions change quickly on the internet once the newest, shiniest, new thing is released. Where Pro Channel will always beat the UA plugins though is latency, I'll concede that, but that point doesn't hold true when comparing PC plugins to native plugins.

Is there any way I can demo the PC LA2A? If not, I'll add the lack of demos as 5th reason not to use Pro Channel.

It's a respectable opinion,but that's it.
I 'm a Focusrite Liquid Mix owner and i consider the Liquid mix 1176 emu the best on the market(i'm not hypnotized by UAD plug's GUI) and the Sonar LA2A is the best for me.
I have done a test with Apogee converters and two monitor systems (ADAM X7 and K&H o300)and for me sometime  people are influenced by the fidelity of the plug's graphics rather than the reality of sound.
Best

Funkybot

FastBikerBoy


I have and just remembered why I don't use them any more unless I have to....

I'm currently working on a project where I need to use the Sonitus Compressor on several tracks and I've just proven that my own theory on the PC ergonomics is correct. I'm trying to tame the peaks on a guitar track and wondering why on earth the compressor isn't working.

In desperation I start to reduce the threshold all the way down and hear the drums being squashed down to nothing. Yep...... I've got the wrong Compressor window in focus.

Back to the nice convenient prochannel as soon as possible for me.

I think this is more indicative of an area where Sonar should improve, rather than showing where it excels at something. What I mean by that is: Studio One and Logic both have excellent plugin menus that 1) tell you what track your on and 2) allow you to navigate from effect to effect from the plugin menu. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure you can even navigate to different tracks. That means you can do all your navigating without ever having to look at the Console or Track views just from plugin menus. That'd be a huge plus to Sonar.


Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

I wasn't comparing it to other vendors, I was comparing it to the FX bin. Until such time that Sonar fails to do what I need it to do I personally have no need to use other software. Of course I appreciate that others do but the PC isn't compulsory. If a user has no use for it then they don't have to use it, they don't even need to know it's there and if it's existence is a problem there's always the studio edition.

I can only comment on my workflow, the way I work it is impossible (or at least I've never done it) to accidentally change the wrong track or buss effect. I have a floating inspector in all views and obviously in the CV the PC is attached to the track. In the TV, PRV or any other view, click on a track and the GUI is there. I don't see how it could get much easier.

With even a modest project of 30 tracks and 15 or so busses, if most of them have a compressor, that's 45 GUIs to manage and keep track of straight away. Start adding EQs, reverbs and everything else and it's a window management nightmare. I can't see how a system could be much more ergonomic than the PC. It doesn't need menus for managing the GUI, just a click. Sure it's not perfect but what is?

YMMV of course.

Funkybot

Frankly, I think Pro Channel has a couple of major problems:


1. The majority of PC plugins are mediocre at best. The 1176 is "eh," the SSL Comp is "eh," the EQ is "good, but nothing magical" the saturation knob is "bleh," the Console emulator makes me really appreciate all the work that went into VCC, Breverb is good. Haven't used anything else, but I'd rather not compromise my mixes by using sub-par PC plugins when I have much better plugin alternatives.


2. Portability is non-existent. Great, so I nailed a sound using Pro Channel plugins, but now I want to transfer that project to Pro Tools or another host...if everything on that channel was a VST/RTAS/AAX plugin, I can just save the preset and reopen it in whatever DAW I want to move to, and recreate the channel strip. Can't do that with Pro Channel plugins because they are a...


3. Closed Platform. If Pro Channel as a format only works in Sonar, then it's a closed format and I have no interest in that. It's a bad direction for DAW's to go in. Imagine all DAW's had unique plugin formats? It would completely fragment the marketplace. I just can't, in any good conscious, support closed plugin formats within a DAW. See #2 for why openness is important.


4. Loading VST plugin effects into a Pro Channel is buggy. I've had crashes and multiple parameters getting assigned to a single plugin. Not cool. I'd rather just use the plugin as an insert effect in the bin. I like the idea of FX Chains, but again, the closed nature of it is disappointing.

#1:  I totally disagree.  I have Waves, UAD, IK etc...  PC Channel plugs are as good - just different flavors.
#2: All DAW's built in plugs work that way.  Ever tried using Logic plugs in Pro Tools?
#3: All DAW do have unique plug in formats for the ones that come with them.
#4: Agreed.  The quickfix solved most of my problems but it still seems a bit quirky.  That might be user error.

No... they do not display correctly.

I've created a FX chain GUI for every single VST that I use regularly and just load that. There's not many FX that I use that need more than six knobs and buttons.

It only has to be done once per plug, the only pain is the adjustment figure is in percentage rather than the actual value but even then most of the time I'm adjusting by ear and if I really need it I can still open the GUI.

I think Funkybot misunderstood your post Karl.

I would say that calling the PC modules mediocre is at best an inability to appreciate  their unique qualities and what they offer.  

 

John


I think Funkybot misunderstood your post Karl.

I would say that calling the PC modules mediocre is at best an inability to appreciate  their unique qualities and what they offer.  

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. The wrong one of course but each to their own.