Prochannel

[Emanu3le85]

I use the Prochannel a lot as a channel strip of the console, putting the pre at the beginning then the compressor and equalization and the FX Chain represents the Insert and I put everything post FX, but sometimes I wonder if the Prochannel is really a channel strip or if it is an insert, The fact that the modules are outboard style and not channel strip makes me think so in a channel strip I don't have an LA2A in outboard format or an 1176 or a reverb, the pre should be at the beginning not at the end how do you use prochannel? Would I be better off inserting a third-party emulation as a channel strip and using the prochannel as the track insert?

Thank you

(Google translate)

[John Vere]

the Behringers that have the Midas pre amps  are actually one of the best pre amps available. They rate very high on the list. The ones that don’t have Midas are considered garbage and rate near the bottom. 

Edited April 21 by John Vere

[Emanu3le85]

12 hours ago, sjoens said:

I found this out when comparing an older mix done thru a Behringer interface and a new mix done thru a Mackie Onyx.  The Behringer sounded better to me and there was no way to make the Onyx sound the same.  At least in the same price group it's all subjective I guess.

I also tried to pass the signal from the sound card through my Mackie VLZ3 (made in America) but I didn't notice any difference compared to the internal processing in the signal, even by raising the gain of the mixer channel it didn't change, I think that to obtain a certain type of sound you need to have certain preamps like the Neve 5059 or 8816 summing mixer, but are expensive

[pwal³]

how about the ad/da converters? surely they can be just as important (maybe more?) as the pre-amps?

[John Vere]

3 hours ago, pwal³ said:

how about the ad/da converters? surely they can be just as important (maybe more?) as the pre-amps?

It’s been gone over a million times on all the audio related forums and the conclusion is that in blind testing nobody can hear a difference.

Even the super budget converters on a computer sound card seem to work fine. Of course there must be a difference but it will be off the spectrum of human hearing. 
 

You won’t hear anything different running the signal through a mixer like a Mackie. They are good mixers and transparent. 

Edited April 21 by John Vere

[Glenn Stanton]

the audio part of the secret are the anti-aliasing filters used. for the digital side: power, clocks, etc all contribute to how good (or not) a AD/DA unit "sounds". poor clock stability, under-powered, cheap opamps and filtering components all make a difference. and much of it is measurable. check out a DIY equipment forum where some folks get really in depth on the components, actual o-scope views, log traces, etc etc.

Edited April 21 by Glenn Stanton

[pwal³]

1 hour ago, John Vere said:

off the spectrum of human hearing

but not computer hearing 

[Starship Krupa]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:19 PM, John Vere said:

Digital channel strips will usually fall short of the emulation of analog gear. Often making things worse not better.

Whether they fall short is a matter of opinion. I don't agree that they "often" make things sound worse.

As with any effect you put on a track, it's up to your ears whether they make the audio sound "better" or "worse."

Most of them are pretty subtle, like the console emulation in Cakewalk's ProChannel. Since a well-designed physical analog channel strip shouldn't add much color to whatever audio is sent through it, the same goes for an emulation.

The design goal of a channel strip is usually to color the sound as little as possible. Accurately emulating a piece of hardware that is designed to have as little effect on the audio as possible seems like it wouldn't be that big a job.

[pwal³]

digital approximations will never sound the same as the real analog, not just channel strips, just like JPGs will never be the same as an analog photo 🤷‍♀️ though we can but try haha