I spent the better part of Saturday getting to know Pro-MB. I didn't expect it to be a steep learning curve, since I've plenty of experience using multi-band compressors. Surprise! It's a bit of a beast.
 
For the first hour or so I did what most folks do when exploring a new plugin: drop it into some existing projects, step through the presets and twist knobs to see what happens. But everything I tried it on sounded worse. Tweak, listen, tweak and listen but not once did I achieve anything I'd call an improvement.
 
So I proceeded to the next logical step: RTFM. I read the documentation, watched Dan Worrall's video, read online reviews and searched forums for Pro-MB discussions. Several hours later, I felt sufficiently briefed to give it another go. I approached it systematically, starting with a single band and experimenting with each control until I understood what it did. By the end of the day, I had a vocal bus that sounded significantly better with Pro-MB than without it.
 
This triggered a minor epiphany. It occurred to me that over the years the ultimate usefulness of a plugin has been inversely proportional to the ease with which it was learned.
 
Most of my favorite plugins had not given instant gratification on day 1. In fact, it's more often been the opposite: anything that I'd just dropped in and was immediately wowed by eventually got dropped from rotation for non-obvious limitations or negatives.
 
Has this been your experience? Think about the tools you use all the time, versus the ones you once used but don't anymore. Which ones were exciting at first but later lost their appeal? Which ones became favorites only after you got to know them?

So we have a couple of days left before you push this one aside.
You can always sell it to Bapu.
He'll buy almost anything.

IMHO...all too often a valuable tool (read:plugin) will be discarded or dismissed in haste simply because the user didn't have immediate gratification or, more often, doesn't really understand how it's best used. I know that's been true for me...but I try and fight it. That's why one should be skeptical with any review (including mine own) which says something to the effect of "well, I downloaded the demo of this thing...tried on a couple of projects and it RAWKS!!!!!...or, more often the case...it SUCKS!!!!!

There's a very interesting tutorial by Tony Maserati using WAVES multiband C4 on some vocal tracks that really helps one understand how such a plug can be properly used to enhance and control the track. I'll try to find a link and post back.

Glad to know that you're enjoying it Dave...

I think the major illusion is in "preset" madness...
Most want to put in on...pick a preset...and boom...there ya go.
They fail to realize that a preset is merely a "guestimation" to get you
somewhere close.  After that, then YOU have to do the work to find 
"The Spot".  The preset may have been written for a Jazz piece..while
you're doing a Heavy Metal song...

A plugin is just like hardware...you have to get to know it (I need to heed this myself)
and what each component does and how it effects the sound.

The REAL reason we end up using the ones that we took the time to learn is...


WE TOOK THE TIME TO LEARN THEM...LOL

I immediately overused the UAD Fatso Sr. on drums to the point of hating it.
 
I admit I have not dug into the UAD Manly Massive Passive enough to truly understand how it is to be used.

I was a little underwhelmed by Trilian the first few weeks I had it, before I not exactly decided to RTFM but sat through Eli Krantzberg's Groove3 tutorials. It was only then that I realized I was only using 20% of its capabilities. I had similar epiphanies after watching the Groove3 tutorials for synths like FM8, Massive and Reaktor. I don't know why I seem incapable of learning this lesson...over the years I've had the same experiences with all kinds of software, notably Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator etc. I think when you grow up "techie" minded, there is this arrogance which tells you that you're more than capable of getting to grips with a new program without having to read the manual. Whereas someone who's always been a bit tech-shy will read the thing from front to back before they even twiddle a knob. And then they end up teaching you a thing or two about your favorite apps. 

Sometimes, I like plugins I don't know how to use properly because they push me towards new sounds. Cacophony made good! :-)
 
Same thing with sheet music you've never heard performed. You take the time to learn a part off sheet music and realize later you emphasized an accidental when it was intended to be performed as understated.
 
I love making a total mess of things. Getting really aggressive with plugins I barely understand.
 
Sometimes it's also fun to listen back to recordings I regarded as wrecked at the time. Sometimes I like them years later.
 
That said, when doing something I care about, I never TRY to mess it up. That just comes naturally. 

That's why one should be skeptical with any review (including mine own) which says something to the effect of "well, I downloaded the demo of this thing...tried on a couple of projects and it RAWKS!!!!!...or, more often the case...it SUCKS!!!!!

Excellent point. It's been a pet peeve of mine for decades, for all software categories.
 
Professional reviewers typically cover far more products than they can possibly personally use, so most reviews are written by someone who's only had it for a day. I've seen many products downgraded because they were hard to install or get 5 stars because they were easy to install. Who cares? You only install it once! I want to know how people feel about it after a few months of daily use.
 
Another peeve is the lack of objective analysis. OK, so it transparently adds vintage warmth, clarity, smoothness and definition. WTF does that mean?

bitflipper

That's why one should be skeptical with any review (including mine own) which says something to the effect of "well, I downloaded the demo of this thing...tried on a couple of projects and it RAWKS!!!!!...or, more often the case...it SUCKS!!!!!

Excellent point. It's been a pet peeve of mine for decades, for all software categories.
 
Professional reviewers typically cover far more products than they can possibly personally use, so most reviews are written by someone who's only had it for a day. I've seen many products downgraded because they were hard to install or get 5 stars because they were easy to install. Who cares? You only install it once! I want to know how people feel about it after a few months of daily use.
 
Another peeve is the lack of objective analysis. OK, so it transparently adds vintage warmth, clarity, smoothness and definition. WTF does that mean?

I couldn't agree more on a number of points.  I would love to see a new category of reviews.  Something to the effect of "Review after 6 months of regular use".  I also hate reviews full of subjective terms like "vintage warmth" .  It's like the use of "gourmet" when it comes to food.  It means nothing and there is no legal standard for such things.

Now THOSE reviews would be useful...

"I found that, after 3 months of use, and really getting under the hood, that If I 
did "X" then it sounds 10 times better..."

That would be a useful review.  
 
Sadly, what we usually get is a re-hash of the product advertisement from the Company's mouth
in a review.

Also, there is a lot of "under the table" hanky panky in reviews.  This I know first hand.

Remember, the "objective" is to SELL!!!