In general, I feel it is easier for digital simulations to handle jobs like

Compression
EQ adjustment
Limiting
Leveling

than it is for them to accurately CREATE authentic sounds like

Guitars
Flutes
Violins
Drums
etc....

Now true, many people will point to software like BFD Drums to dispute this point, but even then ........ those are actually real drums recorded and sampled in the studio and triggered by your Midi PRV.

So that is not really the digital CREATING the sound of a drum.
You are still listening to the sound a real recorded drum.

Yes, technology has gotten better, and in some cases it is very close -------- especially if you don't have an A/B to compare to.

So to say my final word ....

Yes, I think many plug-in SIGNAL PROCESSING tools stand up to the dedicated hardware units they are meant to copy.

Hey Mike
Nah, fizz or whomp-but not right out of the box-takes some work and familiarity. But wrong thread for this. Perhaps another thread
:-)
 

Being a guitar player all my life and at this late time in my life learning the recording side (mostly from this forum-although I have owned CW since CWPA 6) I really have no reference point to judge if the pro channel or any soft comp, eq, etc sounds as good.
I mentioned the Ultra because it is my only true reference. I pretty much listen to what the forum has to say about things like this and usually can understand.
Point being to me they sound good. From most info here in the past years-not just good enough but good.
Which makes feel a bit more comfortable with my recording results

Psychobillybob


Just a short reply about my own question on external insert, got it working and up in like 5 minutes once I remembered Lynx's archaic software nomenclature...seems to work quite well which was a bug in the 8 release that they mostly ironed out...

Hey Psychobillybob,

I just saw this.  I was surprised that External Insert is working for you.  Are you running with the X1a patch and the hotfix for Lynx ASIO drivers? 

External Insert was working perfectly for me with the original X1 release but stopped performing the Delay Offset calculation after the patch and hotfix.  If I put in the delay offset value calculated in 8.5.3 or the original X1 release it works perfectly.   After the patch and hotfix there is  no recalculation of the offset even though there is an asterisk next to the delay value indicating that the External Insert function is aware it needs to do the recalc.

I submitted an official problem report but haven't heard anything back.  Can you confirm that you are running with the X1a patch and the hotfix - and that you are seeing a recalc for the delay offset value?

THANKS!

Don

I found this thread while looking for some opinions of WAVES and Sonar plugs, so I thought I could contribute
to it with my experience. Like others here I have been using Cakewalk products for quite a while, so I have
used many of their packaged FX, but recently I've been following the sales at the Waves site and have been
building up my supply of software plugs. Recently I've picked up all of the SSL, API, Neve, and Abby Road
plug-ins. Well as you can imagine, with all of that choice, I have quite a hard time choosing between what
channel strip - preamp - EQ - compressors, I should use. So I promised myself that I would only use one
of them for each mix to really learn each of the plug-in characteristics as if I was actually using the hardware.
Well I liked each of them for they brought to the table, and I found them all pretty good sounding and easy
to use once I spent some time with them. Of them all I found the SSL channel strips to have the most 
complete set of tools to use for the way I work. But recently I loaded Sonar X3 on another newer computer
and I didn't have all of my WAVES licenses on it so I was forced to mix with just the Pro-Channel. Guess
what, with just the Prochannel compression/eq/board-emulations/stauration, and the bundled Breverb
reverb and delays, I found I got as good as a mix as I would ever need to have professional results. The
1176 on the Pro-channel really gets the job done, and man, the EQ is about as easy to dial in a good tone
as any EQ I've worked with yet. To qualify my statements, I own some really nice microphones and preamps
(Neumann u87, u89, m147, tlm 103, km184, Blue Cactus, Kiwi, Blueberry, Dragonfly, Violet Flamingo, Peluso
22 47, Rode Classic II,  Shure Sm7 Sennheiser 421, etc) and for preamps (Manley Voxbox, Sebatron VMP4000e,
Presonus ADL600, Drawmer 1960, Langevin DVC, etc).
 
All in all, I can say the Pro Channel is extremely powerful, and if you take the time to learn the various tools in it,
it is fully capable of bringing results equal to any of the various plug-ins available from other manufacturers.
 
 
 

Agree 100%. I think one of the issues is people don't fully understand how to choose which curve of the QuadCurve EQ for their projects, which is why I did a tip in "Friday's Tip of the Week" on how to evaluate the different curves using noise, and the way they affect the sound. The Pro Channel is always where I start with plug-ins, and I rarely have to go much further, other than FX Chains made for my own use.

Caa2

I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.

Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.  

Brian Walton

Caa2

I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.

Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.  

i thought the pro channel was digital?

pwalpwal

Brian Walton

Caa2

I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.

Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.  

i thought the pro channel was digital?

It is, but to call it a "toy" is laughable.  Would anyone call the UA 1167 a toy?  
 
I completely understand the value of being able to quickly input values, but you can't do that with hardware which is considered the industry standard and not "toys"

Brian Walton

pwalpwal

Brian Walton

Caa2

I personally think the inability to type in an exact value makes Pro Channel a toy.

Right, because all the best vintage hardware units let you type in the number for the setting you want.  

i thought the pro channel was digital?

It is, but to call it a "toy" is laughable.  Would anyone call the UA 1167 a toy?  
 
I completely understand the value of being able to quickly input values, but you can't do that with hardware which is considered the industry standard and not "toys"

would be nice if exact values could be input :-) (agree that "toy" is inappropriate)