New pro Channel module ?

I think I hear the sounds of the blue and the gray suiting up to do battle on this one - whether to have an FX Bin module for ProChannel, or a moveable Prochannel insert point in the FX Bin.

brundlefly


I think I hear the sounds of the blue and the gray suiting up to do battle on this one - whether to have an FX Bin module for ProChannel, or a moveable Prochannel insert point in the FX Bin.

Will I be forced to use them?

Thinking it through - I'd always imagined it the other way, with an insert point in the FX bin, but that makes the PC an opaque block as far as the FX bin is concerned; there's no neat way of achieving PC EQ> VST > PC comp > VST > etc. 

The way Roger proposes is potentially superior, I think, as in theory, you could have multiple FX bin modules, and achieve any configuration of PC modules and VST effects. You could do that with multiple insert points too, of course, but I can't picture a particularly elegant interface for that. You'd have to manage multiple ins on the FX bin and multiple outs on the PC.

On a more serious note there's only so far that the PC concept can go isn't there? Once you've got a gate, compressor, EQ, de-esser, improved metering maybe what else do you need on each channel.

Most other stuff is better used on a buss surely?

Yeah much what I was thinking, I guess reverb, delays etc might have their place on a buss PC strip but even then the main benefit of the PC for me which is the easier window management, would be lost. It  really isn't an issue on a buss where many effects are single or perhaps only a couple of instances. It's still not quite the same as trying to juggle 20+ compressor/eq interfaces on tracks.

The way I see it is that EQ, Compression and Gating are absolutely bread and butter needed-on-every-channel processes, by and large. And a bit of emulated "Tube drive" probably wont see as much use, but is still absolutely a channel effect. And neatly, all this applies to buses, though I can see a case for a more esoteric bus-specific EQ.

So yeah, to me, that's all "part of the console". Other stuff, I dunno so much. Do I need or want an "in the console" phaser or delay? Probably not. There's an intuitive processes vs effects distinction here for me. Possibly this is just mental habit from the pre-DAW days, but I suspect the reason old consoles were like that is as much because it was a good paradigm as any kind of technical constraint.

Not all reverbs/effects are created equally. Until Cakewalk gets into emulators such as the Lexicon 224 produced by UAD, i won't find an interest. UAD's Lexicon 224 and LA-2A....etc are absolute perfect emulators of the hardware versions. 
I have exhausted my interest in reverbs/delays that just bounce the sound back to me. I want true emulators that I can A/B back and forth between itself and the original hardware unit with absoutely no distinguishable difference.

I no longer want a piano with the same harmonics on the C1 key as that C4 key. I understand why Cakewalk includes the TTS1 and its effects, but I believe there comes a time where "true" emulation should be a desire of a musician. But then again.....maybe not.

Maybe thats the difference between some of the deep discussions on this forum.  Some people are musicians and others are DAW'ers. Some people just make electronic type robotic music (the cheaper the better) and others produce classical music (where quality is primary and cost is not an issue).

If cakewalk keeps this pro-channel thing going, I hope they start looking at quality. I've tried the current pro channel modules and its just too mechanical sounding for me.

gtgarner: you seem to be matching your psychological investment to your financial investment. I proffer that this is an error. The reality on the ground is that the stuff bundled with DAWs these days is easily matching the most expensive plugs of a just a couple of years ago. I'd further suggest that the UAD paradigm is already outmoded.

It's just how progress works. I've got a walk-in wardrobe's worth of outmoded gear myself.

John T


gtgarner: you seem to be matching your psychological investment to your financial investment. I proffer that this is an error. The reality on the ground is that the stuff bundled with DAWs these days is easily matching the most expensive plugs of a just a couple of years ago. I'd further suggest that the UAD paradigm is already outmoded.

It's just how progress works. I've got a walk-in wardrobe's worth of outmoded gear myself.

I suppose thats why UAD is continuing to emulate vintage gear.  I suppose they are creating this gear to loose money. I suppose thats why they don't have to reduce their prices in order to sell their gear.  I suppose that's why most of the new Waves and TC electronics and the majority of plugin makers attempting to model vintage gear as well.  Come-on. 
 
I'm not just talking about having a nice picture interface, but actually being able to A/B their plugins with vintage gear. I'll put anything up against UAD's Lexicon 224 anyday.  How can you outmod an exact response?
 
 

Its just like moding a Hammond B3 organ or better yet - a Fender Rhodes.   On an original Fender Rhodes electronic keyboard there is an electronic mistake that was admitted by Fender.  All of the keys above A3 have harmonics cut off from tube #3 of the output amp when you hit the keys harder than a medium velocity.  There is only one vendor that I know of that took the time to emulate this mistake.

In conclusion - Emulators have to include all aspects of what they are emulatiing. Even the mistakes in design. This is what I call the personality of the hardware.   In much the same way - the B3 organ had issues with the 16' drawbar on the bass pedal that is random based on how much the Organ was played (how hot the input tube got).  There is only one vendor that I know of that has taken this into account on their plugin.

I don't want an emulator that's more perfect than the original. I want the original. Mistakes and all. That's just me.

That's actually a neat idea :)

RogerH -
 
Fantastic idea, and Cakewalk absolutely should implement some form of this. But I'm on the fence as far as which is better, an FX Bin module in the PC or a PC insert in the FX Bin.
 
Honestly, I think they should do away with the track FX bin altogether (heresy!). Integrating the two will never be elegant. If I could insert unlimited FX bins in the PC, putting chains of VSTs wherever I want between modules, I would be overjoyed. For those who don't like the prochannel, just delete the other modules and the only difference is your FX bin is in the inspector.
 
I love the workflow of the PC... I know it's basically a glorified FX bin, but having all the modules' controls always exposed, and changing upon switching tracks, is amazing. It takes too much mousing and too many open windows to tweak my gate, compressor, eq, for each channel.

Relocating the FX bin to the Pro Channel would float my boat. I find the FX bin a pain to access in console view and I use it all the time. It would also reinforce Cakewalk's plans to make the Pro Channel a centerpiece in Sonar Producer. I'll go out on a long thin limb here and state for the record that I predict the next paid release will consolidate X1 Pro and X1 Pro Expanded and include a moveable FX bin insert in Pro Channel just the way the O/P has illustrated.

It just makes sense to me, YMMV.

Merry Christmas Cake!

All things are possible if you only believe...