Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
razor7music

Which Uses More PC Resources, ProChannel or 3rd Party?

Recommended Posts

Hey Group--

I'm trying to see if the EQ (glossy) and compressor from the CW Pro Channel typically use more or less computer resources than say, a comparable 3rd-party plug-in? Anyone tested that?

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

Edited by razor7music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ProChannel was meant to use very  little resources when it was introduced. I can't say if it does now or not. Though it was meant to be used on all tracks. I haven't used it on all tracks yet. Also with the ability to use any VST in PC I would now say no. It would greatly depend on what is in your ProChannel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John said:

ProChannel was meant to use very  little resources when it was introduced. I can't say if it does now or not. Though it was meant to be used on all tracks. I haven't used it on all tracks yet. Also with the ability to use any VST in PC I would now say no. It would greatly depend on what is in your ProChannel. 

Yeah, I'm asking because I need to use EQ and comp on most if not all tracks. The PC would just have EQ and comp.

Edited by razor7music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the PC EQ is a resource hog. It should not show up much in Performance Module. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're using the same settings on your tracks set up a send instead of per-track instances of EQ and compression.

Bill

Edited by Cookie Jarvis
per is spelled p e r not p r e ;)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill's solution is the one I use after reading and seeing some videos on the subject.

Willard

Edited by willard cottrell
can't spell my own name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the buss suggestions. The settings are different in my case. I do have a buss comp for the 'glue' but I'm taming track transients and carving out EQ for balance, so I also need a per track solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, razor7music said:

I do have a buss comp for the 'glue' but I'm taming track transients and carving out EQ for balance, so I also need a per track solution.

There are 2 main reasons for Buses.

1- To use as a send for FX,  Sidechains, or even sending  a portion of the original signal out for extra processing.

2- To group tracks for level control Vs. Effect control.

Im with you as normally I am carving and cant group individual tracks. However there are those instances where every piece of a drum kit should be sent (using the tracks output) to a Drum Bus. Or all the guitars (of same flavor) are sent to a Guitar bus.

The pro channel uses little resources. I've used it (and still do) on 50% of my tracks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, razor7music said:

Thanks for the buss suggestions. The settings are different in my case. I do have a buss comp for the 'glue' but I'm taming track transients and carving out EQ for balance, so I also need a per track solution.

Then ProChannel is ideal for that. I'm assuming you have a recent computer with a good CPU. You don't need the greatest and latest computer. It is also possible to freeze tracks you have processed and won't process any more. This will free up resources to do more processing. LOL  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My DAW is actually a really good one and I'm not seeing any dropouts at this point. It was more of a general knowledge question. In my current project, the PC works great because I can copy the EQ settings to another track(s) when all I need to do is reverse a Q carve-out etc. Since I was moving along nicely with that method, it crossed my mind about the resource comparison.

I've got some tracks I can freeze if I start to run out of juice! 😎

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ProChannel modules are not fundamentally different from third-party plugins. They're all doing the same things under the hood. Although efficiency does vary from one vendor to the next, the major factors such as buffer sizes will necessarily apply to all  plugins of that type.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the more complexed the processing the more CPU it will need.  

So a simple Plug in with a few settings would therefore not be crunching as many numbers as one that had a zillion settings you changed. 

Then those look ahead type I would assume use more power. 

 

Edited by Cactus Music
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the the Pro Channel modules almost exclusively, only third party one I use regularly is Boz Digitals +10dB Compressor.  All happy here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Pro Channel the only ones I have found I like are the PC 76 U type Compressor and the Gloss EQ.  The Gloss EQ is more or less the only EQ I use anywhere unless I need one on the Master then I like the Focusrite Red 2 EQ .  I don't use a lot of EQ anyhow but I have the Gloss EQ using the Hi Pass filter on every track set at different settings depending on instrument.   For analog audio  If I don't like the way something sounds I re record it.  For VST's instruments I get by with the GUI EQ most times.  

My latest can't live without it is the BBE Sonic Maximizer I got for Christmas. I'm not even sure what it does but with just the right touch everything just shines and jumps out of the mix.  But they are resource hog.  If I put one on every buss I need to FX bypass if I'm re tracking anything.  I've never had an issue with having the Prochannels on all my tracks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cactus Music said:

My latest can't live without it is the BBE Sonic Maximizer I got for Christmas. I'm not even sure what it does but with just the right touch everything just shines and jumps out of the mix.

Warning: Off-topic comment. In the 1980s LA producers went crazy over a box called The Aphex Aural Exciter.  At first you couldn't buy them -- you had to rent them. Then when they became available to buy you discovered that the critical electronics inside were sealed, so you couldn't reverse engineer the product. Nobody knew exactly what they did, but somebody famous used one (Linda Ronstadt, maybe) and after that everybody had to have one. It did seem to add some kind of sheen to vocals. Eventually we figured out that it distorted certain high harmonics and added them back to the signal. I think the BBE Sonic Maximizer works like that.

Edited by Larry Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Jones said:

somebody famous used one (Linda Ronstadt, maybe) and after that everybody had to have one

Yes! Although I was just in high school, I remember exactly the moment they went viral, it was a very widely read feature in Rolling Stone, and she talked about how she and Asher put it all over her latest record. Don't remember which one that was. Would have been in the heyday of Yacht Rock. Given the times, those potted modules inside probably contained Peruvian marching powder.🤣

The other vocalist I remember talking them up was, of all people, Wayne County, who mentioned it in Creem, not surprisingly, and s/he actually described the effects in more detail. Said that it created a "sonic hologram" of the lead vocal and that you couldn't own one, you could only rent one.

This was all like reading about some wonderful far-off world where wizard people got to work with amazing devices and create magical sound sculptures. Who knew that when I knocked on the door the Mighty Oz would show me the hand, but that 30 years later it would be sitting right in my dining room.🤘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had both the Aural Exciter and the BBE.  They were helpful to spice up vocals and add sizzle when recording to tape.  But ultimately both seemed to degrade the signal they were processing and really seemed like cheap tricks to just add high frequency.  Once I got higher quality mics, digital arrived and highs weren't being lost on bounces and mixes, I abandoned them.

Oh, now that I recall, the Aural Exciter ultimately sizzled out in a blue haze of very warm electrical smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We love Off topics :) 

Yes I totally know the history and I owned one that also had a "Big Bottom"  knob.  The trick is to only use them sparingly  as it defiantly will over compress / distort at a certain point. 

My initial problem is I cannot sing into a LDC mike. I've tried a dozen or so and had to sell them all.   I sound terrible and you can hear all this unwanted noise I make when singing,,, To many years of live mike technique I guess.   I therefore sound the best using a Beta 58. So the  Sonic Maximizer  brings back the sparkle that is missing with the 58. 

I also like what it does to acoustic guitar and a little bit on drums too. 

Edited by Cactus Music

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...