So my SPLAT was active through May 2017. So does that mean it would be already included in my software plugs?

 
Nuts and bolts:
In the studio:
I still use the pro channel q very very often, and I use the delay alot when I need something thats very clean.  I use the blue tubes chorus a lot as well.  I use grit in the style dial, and the reverb (forgot the name while typing), and the compressors alot as well. Ive done many mixes using only the cake stuff. 
 
However mastering - I havn't used the cake stuff, i've been an izotope customer for a long time and am very used to to the ozone platform. I typically use some kind of compressor, or a tape plugin, then go into ozone.  I still use alloy 2 alot, not because its better, but because I know it very very well.
 
Child:
For me - as a guitarist, I never wanted to learn Eric Johnsons songs, as much as I wanted to learn where he was coming from.  I searched out lessons on his style, what he studied to view music the way that he does, got his instructional videos to hear how he talks about what influences him.   I view mixing, and choices one would make in the same manner.  What if I could own a piece of gear that a complete genius who has spent their entire life with a soldering iron, built.  What if I could buy a software emulation, made by guys who have done software emulations for decades, have ... well... built, based on that.  I want to know what they know, hear how they heard.   
 
When I was growing up, I got my first guitar, and had it for years before I got another one.   Even today it would feel like a welcome old friend, even though it is inferior to ones that I currently have.
 
The child with a credit card:
For me - the fun part about some of the more "modeled" waves stuff, is in exploring how they actually do sound different, and go in different directions.  I don't own any slate stuff so I can't comment about that, but the idea of having rented access to everything a munufacturer makes is not appealing to me, not because of the rental aspect, but because of the overload.  I feel I am better off with 3 things I know very very well.
 
I like when something goes on sale, say at waves, and Ill youtube a few demos, and throw my 50 bucks down.  For me - I've bought the ssl 4000 series, the api series, the scheps 73, the h reverb, and a few others from waves over the past 2 years.  But my promise to myself is that I only buy another series when Ive done a few mixes restricting myself to what I just bought. 
 
Wow... that was good coffee... sorry everyone....

Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate the input. What do you think about the H-Verb by Waves? Also, that Midas touring board at church is analog and the sweetest thing you have ever heard. It didn't take too long to get used to it. Amazing sound.

tonyzub999
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate the input. What do you think about the H-Verb by Waves? Also, that Midas touring board at church is analog and the sweetest thing you have ever heard. It didn't take too long to get used to it. Amazing sound.

Check out the Yamaha Rivage PM10 for a legit church touring board.   They are a big step up from the Midas Pro X series.
 
Yamaha's CL5 is more on par with the Midas Pro stuff.  

Yeah - at the church where I mix the console went down one sunday, my friend nearby had an old midas venice 24 I grabbed to get through the service, it sounded amazing.  So I talked them into getting the m32 to replace what they had.  Its a great line.  The club where I mix uses the pro series, and an avid venue sc48 in monitorworld.
 
I think the hverb is really really useful.  It sounds great, and all of the things you might use another plug in for, it already has on board.  Different delays for pre and post, compression, and really great presets.
 
 
 
 

Gosh, I'm glad I'm not the only one given to somewhat long-winded semi-tangential philosophical ramblings! 
 
I feel like the analog modelling paradigm is driven to a significal extent by marketing; it's really hard to convince people they need 27 more EQ's and compressors when they already have several perfectly good ones, *unless* you can convince them that what they really need are faithful models of great historic gear that most of us have never heard or used - but which will, like magic pixie fairy dust, sprinkle awesome analog vibes all over our tracks. It doesn't just sound good, it sounds *authentic*, and by extension your tracks will have credibility that simply can't be achieved without the Special Magic Sound of the very same legendary processor used by, well, you get the idea. 
 
I am probably about as susceptible to this as anyone, and as a result I have some great stuff that in actual fact I only use occasionally... if I want to quickly dial in a bit of simple compression or EQ, I'm quite likely to use the ones already right there in the Pro Channel, unless I know I'm going for something specific, say a heavier saturated compressor like NI's Supercharger GT, or the sheer retro character of Waves' TG12345... But for bread and butter purposes, the PC is right there, and sounds pretty darn good, and I highly doubt anyone who hears the track is going to say oh, I'm not into this, he's clearly using stock plugins. They will like the music, or they will not; if I make it sound as good as I can with whatever tools get me there, hopefully the former is a bit more likely. 
 
That's not to say there aren't some really excellent products that have emerged from the modelling approach. We have, in fact, an embarrassment of riches, and they're getting better all the time. I think it's a bit silly to pretend that UAD and Waves are the only companies with the resources to do serious component-level modelling; certainly I've seen about 30 companies making the claim, including IK, PSP, Softube, Overloud, UBK/Kush... it's not like these units are *that* hard to get access to. And then there are a number of developers that don't go down the road of modelling specific gear but rather make great-sounding, useful and well-thought out plugins that may or may not aim to capture the essence of analog/tube/tape/whatever - like McDSP, FabFilter, iZotope, Soundtoys, Flux, U-he, Blue Cat, Voxengo, Klanghelm, the almost unbelievably prolific Melda, Valhalla, Klanghelm, Toneboosters... 
 
I also think it's a bit silly to pretend that using plugins that very exactly model specific gear from the past is the only way to raise your game production-wise. It's one way, or rather could be part of one way; however as per one of my previous posts, having and using those products is not going to magically make you a better mixer, all the marketing in the world notwithstanding. But it's also completely possible to raise your game in terms of skills, and achieve completely professional results, using only the tools in Sonar. If Andrew Scheps or Chris Lord-Alge or Butch Vig or (insert your favorite pro engineer here) were trapped in a studio with an artist worth recording and only Sonar Platinum, do you think they would not be able to make a great-sounding track? Not pretty-good-but-would-have-been-better-if-only-they-had-better-plugins, but flat-out great. I'm pretty sure they could do it. Real engineering knowledge and skill has little to do with knowing what gear sounds great (though that certainly helps), and everything to do with highly trained ears and the ability to use the basic tools of our trade to make things sound better. 
 
I'm not pretending to be an engineer on anything like that level, I'm fundamentally a musician who got into synths and recording back in the analog days and have nursed it along as an interesting and rewarding hobby that more or less pays for itself and keeps me out of trouble. I do like it when things sound great, rich and warm and detailed and tonally balanced... but I also know that many classic, important and influential recordings were made with limited gear, limited skills, limited budgets, but lots of attitude... and it's hard to find that in a plugin. 

subtlearts
Gosh, I'm glad I'm not the only one given to somewhat long-winded semi-tangential philosophical ramblings! 
 
I feel like the analog modelling paradigm is driven to a significal extent by marketing; it's really hard to convince people they need 27 more EQ's and compressors when they already have several perfectly good ones, *unless* you can convince them that what they really need are faithful models of great historic gear that most of us have never heard or used - but which will, like magic pixie fairy dust, sprinkle awesome analog vibes all over our tracks. It doesn't just sound good, it sounds *authentic*, and by extension your tracks will have credibility that simply can't be achieved without the Special Magic Sound of the very same legendary processor used by, well, you get the idea. 
 
I am probably about as susceptible to this as anyone, and as a result I have some great stuff that in actual fact I only use occasionally... if I want to quickly dial in a bit of simple compression or EQ, I'm quite likely to use the ones already right there in the Pro Channel, unless I know I'm going for something specific, say a heavier saturated compressor like NI's Supercharger GT, or the sheer retro character of Waves' TG12345... But for bread and butter purposes, the PC is right there, and sounds pretty darn good, and I highly doubt anyone who hears the track is going to say oh, I'm not into this, he's clearly using stock plugins. They will like the music, or they will not; if I make it sound as good as I can with whatever tools get me there, hopefully the former is a bit more likely. 
 
That's not to say there aren't some really excellent products that have emerged from the modelling approach. We have, in fact, an embarrassment of riches, and they're getting better all the time. I think it's a bit silly to pretend that UAD and Waves are the only companies with the resources to do serious component-level modelling; certainly I've seen about 30 companies making the claim, including IK, PSP, Softube, Overloud, UBK/Kush... it's not like these units are *that* hard to get access to. And then there are a number of developers that don't go down the road of modelling specific gear but rather make great-sounding, useful and well-thought out plugins that may or may not aim to capture the essence of analog/tube/tape/whatever - like McDSP, FabFilter, iZotope, Soundtoys, Flux, U-he, Blue Cat, Voxengo, Klanghelm, the almost unbelievably prolific Melda, Valhalla, Klanghelm, Toneboosters... 
 
I also think it's a bit silly to pretend that using plugins that very exactly model specific gear from the past is the only way to raise your game production-wise. It's one way, or rather could be part of one way; however as per one of my previous posts, having and using those products is not going to magically make you a better mixer, all the marketing in the world notwithstanding. But it's also completely possible to raise your game in terms of skills, and achieve completely professional results, using only the tools in Sonar. If Andrew Scheps or Chris Lord-Alge or Butch Vig or (insert your favorite pro engineer here) were trapped in a studio with an artist worth recording and only Sonar Platinum, do you think they would not be able to make a great-sounding track? Not pretty-good-but-would-have-been-better-if-only-they-had-better-plugins, but flat-out great. I'm pretty sure they could do it. Real engineering knowledge and skill has little to do with knowing what gear sounds great (though that certainly helps), and everything to do with highly trained ears and the ability to use the basic tools of our trade to make things sound better. 
 
I'm not pretending to be an engineer on anything like that level, I'm fundamentally a musician who got into synths and recording back in the analog days and have nursed it along as an interesting and rewarding hobby that more or less pays for itself and keeps me out of trouble. I do like it when things sound great, rich and warm and detailed and tonally balanced... but I also know that many classic, important and influential recordings were made with limited gear, limited skills, limited budgets, but lots of attitude... and it's hard to find that in a plugin. 

What I actually said, and I believe you understand this is, you've got to know what aesthetic you're aiming for. I'm bringing my fine art (ugh I know lol) knowledge into the discussion to help create a language, and from there people can make better choices about their software purchases and indeed their mixing decisions. You don't need 500 EQ plugs...absolutely. And Sonar's offering, as I've said throughout this discussion is the bomb. But the Sonar offerings will only get you so far, and the mixer will need to understand that Sonar is offering you a digital aesthetic...even though they supply console emulation and tube/tape emulation (ugh again I know lol). So a digital aesthetic is cold and blue...if this is the sound you want, then own it. On the other hand, the analogue emulation aesthetic is the solution to the digital medium and to get around the coldness of digital. But you have to follow a formula, or this is what my experiments suggest to me...I know it's confusing...am I an artist or a scientist? lol. Actually I'm probably the last of the modernist Furturists', because of my belief in technology and how I try and work technology out. Or as I've labelled it techno-romantic...I know I'm confused too lol.  
 
Finally you're absolutely right, no singular plugin will change the sound of your mix...it's using emulated real world plugs in sequence with 64bitfp, oversampling and binaural diffusion (yea I made the term up...it's more along the lines of time based ambisonic effects lol to be more accurate but binaural diffusion sounds way cooler), that changes the sound of your mix.
 
Ben

Hey Ben... I didn't mean to put words in your mouth and sorry if I misinterpreted you... in fact, looking at what I wrote now I think parts of it do come across like I'm jumping on things you said in an argumentative way, and in fact that wasn't my intention - it was more a case of, things you said made me think and I wanted to express what I was thinking, but again, apologies if it came across more aggressively than intended. 
 
However, I think there are some points where we might have to agree to disagree. Or rather, I think we have fundamentally different approaches. I think in many ways you're absolutely correct that having a specific aesthetic and understanding what goes into making that aesthetic are probably going to be helpful in many aspects of production, including but not limited to selecting and using add-on analog emulation processors - if you're going for a specific aesthetic. However, what if - as in my case - the aesthetic you're going for is "whatever sounds good to me and makes me feel good"? 
 
I know there are many people working in music and production who are going to be much more formulaic in their approach than I am, and many of them are likely far more successful with that approach than I will ever likely be. But I'm simply not interested in following any existing formulas to make the strange music I like to make, except for whatever habits organically emerge through the process of doing so. I am not trying to emulate anyone or anything, though I think it's perfectly valid to do so; I'm simply not interested in that. So my 'formula', which informs everything I do and everything I produce, is simply to be playful - I start putting things together and when they start to make me feel good and/or spark my creative interest, I figure I'm on the right track.
 
I'm pretty committed to this intuitive, playful approach, since it's always served me well, and in fact it often informs my mixing choices as well - I'll throw something on a track simply because I haven't used it for a while and I wonder what it will sound like on what I'm doing; sometimes it sounds terrible, so I remove it and try something different, but sometimes it wakes up a track with a completely different sound than I might have been going for, taking the whole process in a new and unexpected direction. And *that* is what makes me happy and keeps me curious and creative. I think you're entirely correct that a formula and a more deliberate process will always serve you best if you are going for an expected result, but I am literally doing the opposite, I am looking for unexpected results, since a) they make me happy, and b) they are the lifeblood of my playful creative process. 
 
Of course, I also have my standby plugins and my habits which, again, have largely emerged organically, and those are the ones I will tend to put on towards the end of a mix (and I'm also one of those people that doesn't particularly separate composition, production, mixing and mastering - it's all a bit of a jumble for me, which I'm sure breaks all sorts of rules, but then I like breaking rules, it's always worked well for me and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon!) to bring in the overall warmth and spice and tonal balance that I do want the final product to have. For me, currently, that is very often Neutron and Ozone, with sometimes a few hints of Waves and even IK stuff. 
 
Anyway, I am in no way interested in an argument about this stuff, but I do think that one of the things that makes this forum valuable is the healthy exchange of ideas from very different perspectives, so while I hope we haven't inexcusably hijacked the thread, it's been interesting, at least to me! 

bitflipper
I, too, must confess to having a lot of plugins. Not a bapu-sized collection, but a lot.
 
Unfortunately, you have to acquire a lot of them before you realize how few of them you actually needed.

This post might have been too short to be noted, but is sage advice. If you cannot properly use a compressor, getting a "better" one doesn't solve the root issue. Until you understand the capabilities of what SONAR can do, you cannot assess its gaps (to your specific workflow needs). Rather than seek "solutions" to an unidentified problem, it is more effective to use what SONAR has until you actually hit one. SONAR is very capable.

Also, there are very inexpensive offerings available from smaller companies that are sometimes just as good or better than what the more "mainstream" companies like Slate and Waves are offering.  You may want to have a look at those as well.
 
Companies like Klanghelm, Tokyo Dawn Labs, Valhalla, SKNote, Sonimus, Boz Digital, etc (I'm sure others can add to the list)....offer great products for far less, or are always running great sales.  Plus you don't have to lock yourself into a subscription or deal w/ the WUP plan that many people seem to despise.  For instance, Greg Kurstin said he used Valhalla Vintage Verb, which only costs $50, for Adele's "Hello".  Dave Pensado also did a video using Klanghelm's MJUC compressor ($29), and Tokyo Dawn's Slick EQ (free, or $35 for the expanded version).  All great plugins that I find myself reaching for often.