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)

[David Baay]

4 hours ago, Emanu3le85 said:

I wonder if the Prochannel is really a channel strip or if it is an insert,

In DAW world there is no meaningful difference between a Strip FX and an Insert FX they are both "in line"  such that everything at the track input is forced to go through them (notwithstanding that some module might have a parallel path built into it).  The Prochannel is effectively just a second FX bin that can be placed before or after the track FX bin, just as a 3rd-party channel strip plugin can be placed before or after other plugins in the FX bin.  And then there's the Clip FX rack which gives you a place to put a plugin ahead of everything once the live input's been recorded.

In some sense it's a moot question because by the time any plugin anywhere in the DAW sees the signal it's already been amplified to line level before it was digitized whether by the mic pre built in to the interface or by an external mic pre into the interface's line in or by the amp in a hardware instrument that outputs line level.

[Emanu3le85]

 

1 hour ago, David Baay said:

In DAW world there is no meaningful difference between a Strip FX and an Insert FX they are both "in line"  such that everything at the track input is forced to go through them (notwithstanding that some module might have a parallel path built into it).  The Prochannel is effectively just a second FX bin that can be placed before or after the track FX bin, just as a 3rd-party channel strip plugin can be placed before or after other plugins in the FX bin.  And then there's the Clip FX rack which gives you a place to put a plugin ahead of everything once the live input's been recorded.

In some sense it's a moot question because by the time any plugin anywhere in the DAW sees the signal it's already been amplified to line level before it was digitized whether by the mic pre built in to the interface or by an external mic pre into the interface's line in or by the amp in a hardware instrument that outputs line level.

my intention is to emulate an analogue console without necessarily having to resort to third-party plugins that overload the CPU, then I tried to hear the effect of my songs with and without the console emulation in the prochannel and it can be heard a lot, in my opinion those modules sounds good, thanks

Edited April 18 by Emanu3le85

[John Vere]

17 hours ago, Emanu3le85 said:

putting the pre at the beginning

I hope you understand that there’s no pre amp involved in a DAW. The pre amp is your audio interface which controls the input level. 
You could turn the tracks Gain right off and your input level of the audio you are recording will not change. 
Once the audio is recorded or in the case of the output of a VST instrument then the gain can be used to set a desired level of the input to the track or bus channel strip. 

Digital channel strips will usually fall short of the emulation of analog gear. Often making things worse not better. 
You want great analog sound then purchase a real studio mixer like a Midas or ? 

The pro channel is just as David said another place to put effects. It differs in that it comes with modules you can use that are easy on your CPU. You can drag them up and down to try different things. You can save pre sets etc Its a handy tool that keeps things tidy. 
The inclusion of the Concrete Limiter in Sonar has made my day.  

[Emanu3le85]

4 hours ago, John Vere said:

I hope you understand that there’s no pre amp involved in a DAW. The pre amp is your audio interface which controls the input level. 
You could turn the tracks Gain right off and your input level of the audio you are recording will not change. 
Once the audio is recorded or in the case of the output of a VST instrument then the gain can be used to set a desired level of the input to the track or bus channel strip. 

Digital channel strips will usually fall short of the emulation of analog gear. Often making things worse not better. 
You want great analog sound then purchase a real studio mixer like a Midas or ? 

The pro channel is just as David said another place to put effects. It differs in that it comes with modules you can use that are easy on your CPU. You can drag them up and down to try different things. You can save pre sets etc Its a handy tool that keeps things tidy. 
The inclusion of the Concrete Limiter in Sonar has made my day.  

So why do all these analog consolle emulations exist? I only use vst or hardware synths, I don't preamplify from the sound card, but after recording the sound at -12 dbfs if I increase the console emulation trim on the prochannel the sound acquires more character, and if I do it on all the channels everything will be heard more beautiful, then by putting the console emulation at the beginning I can see the input level in dbfs or rms when the faders are in postfader levels and this helps me a lot in gain staging, in addition to the VUs In my opinion, using Prochannel emulation is better than not using it

36 minutes ago, pwal³ said:

check the signal flow diagram here (i would've embedded it but the forum doesn't allow non-https image links, even though it's their own ?)

https://legacy.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR&language=3&help=Mixing.07.html

Thanks 

[msmcleod]

Back when I was recording to tape, I used to get the sound right for each instrument and record everything as it sounded.  For example, I'd get the guitar sound I liked, then recorded that straight to tape.  If corrective EQ was needed to get it to fit in the mix, then that was a mixing task.  The key was to get the best sound possible to tape.

So nowadays in the DAW world, I use the FX Bin for sound design, and the Pro Channel for mixing (obviously it means making Pro Channel PostFx).

For example, if I record the guitar dry, I'll use TH-U or Guitar Rig in the FX bin for my sound.  The Pro Channel is then free for mixing duties.

[Wookiee]

1 minute ago, msmcleod said:

For example, if I record the guitar dry, I'll use TH-U or Guitar Rig in the FX bin for my sound.  The Pro Channel is then free for mixing duties.

That is how I use the FX bin and the PC. Occasionally I may use an FX Chain in the top of the PC just for simplicity, things like Widen, or Width plugins.

[Emanu3le85]

17 minutes ago, msmcleod said:

Back when I was recording to tape, I used to get the sound right for each instrument and record everything as it sounded.  For example, I'd get the guitar sound I liked, then recorded that straight to tape.  If corrective EQ was needed to get it to fit in the mix, then that was a mixing task.  The key was to get the best sound possible to tape.

So nowadays in the DAW world, I use the FX Bin for sound design, and the Pro Channel for mixing (obviously it means making Pro Channel PostFx).

For example, if I record the guitar dry, I'll use TH-U or Guitar Rig in the FX bin for my sound.  The Pro Channel is then free for mixing duties.

in fact I also use the prchannel as a console channel, placing it post fx and in the fx section I insert the recording chain of the instrument, but now I have a new method, I use the instrument channels only for the fx  and the midi data, then I route to a group (aux) and insert the prochannel as if it were the audio channel of the console, so I have separated the recording sessions and the mix session, in this way if I record the instrument the prochannel will not also be recorded and then I insert the recorded audio track into the aux group (prochannel) for the audio mix

Edited April 19 by Emanu3le85

[msmcleod]

5 minutes ago, Emanu3le85 said:

in fact I also use the prchannel as a console channel, placing it post fx and in the fx section I insert the recording chain of the instrument, but now I have a new method, I use the instrument channels only for the fx  and the midi data, then I route to a group (aux) and insert the prochannel as if it were the audio channel of the console, so I have separated the recording sessions and the mix session, in this way if I record the instrument the prochannel will not also be recorded and then I insert the recorded audio track into the aux group (prochannel) for the audio mix

I like this idea - in fact, I did this for a while.  The only reason I stopped doing it was because it slowed me down keeping track of aux tracks/tracks.

So now I only do this if I need to.  Most things end up going to a bus in any case, which is where most of my volume automation goes.

[Emanu3le85]

11 minutes ago, msmcleod said:

I like this idea - in fact, I did this for a while.  The only reason I stopped doing it was because it slowed me down keeping track of aux tracks/tracks.

So now I only do this if I need to.  Most things end up going to a bus in any case, which is where most of my volume automation goes.

I correct myself, by recording the audio of the instrument channel the prochannel will still be recorded if it is turned on in the aux channel, it will have to be turned off, but in any case having the 2 independent sessions helps me a lot in calibrating the sound, because I don't start the song with the prochannels turned on I turn them on halfway through the song because the console emulations change the response of the sounds a bit and I like to start dry then after recording I do a bit of trim, saturation, eq on the prochannel

[John Vere]

5 hours ago, Emanu3le85 said:

why do all these analog consolle emulations exist?

Very good question. I personally think it’s an attempt to bring back the sound you can get from good quality ( expensive) analog recording equipment. A lot of the marketing is snake oil. 
As we all know the difference was mostly in the harmonic distortion that analog circuits and tape added to the recording . 

In the digital world we have two phrases that are bantered about transparent and coloured. 
Coloured might also be called warmth or even analog mojo! 

There’s the snake oil. 
Hopefully by design your digital signal path is transparent and your audio recoding will be un-coloured. 

The only thing that would add true colour is the pre amp of your audio interface. As everything before the A/D converter can be high quality analog, This is the best way to achieve great analog sound. Hardware that is before the A/D. This is why your choice of an audio interface is so important. 

So this is also part of the answer to your question. Why make digital emulation of this hardware? 
Most people seem to think that they are missing out on something using digital so they  seek out that analog warmth using digital software emulation. All the digital stuff can do is attempt to add harmonic content to the sound. It is doomed to fall short of the mark  because analog is infinite and digital will always be a block of numbers at the mercy of your computers processing power. 

 

 

[msmcleod]

If I want a "recorded through an analog console sound", I put Kazrog TrueIron on the channel.  It emulates different transformers by adding harmonic distortion at different harmonics/levels depending on the transformer you pick.  The difference is clearly audible right away.

I'm not that fussed about the analog mixing sound, but if/when I need it, the PC Console Emulator does a good a job as any.

[John Vere]

Like the old Aphex Aural exciter. It made your PA sound "better" turned out it was just adding high frequency harmonic distortion.  We all know how much more fun it is to play a guitar at maxed out pre amp overdrive from a tube amp. Pedals just never cut it for me. But a Fender, Orange, Blackstar ,Marshall, Hi Watt, Vox etc  on 11 can't be beat! 

[Glenn Stanton]

one of my favorites as a kid (14?) was to take an old single tube photo preamp (from my old non-turning portable record player) and just plug the guitar straight in and then output to the amp (whatever one tube or solid state never really mattered at the time) - using the volume control to get just ther right distortion - from just light distort to that "modern" metal screaming distortion! the key was to add a volume pot in front of the input to limit the guitar level and a 10K resistor in series for the input load. 

[Emanu3le85]

3 hours ago, John Vere said:

 

 

 

ok but if I use vst I would have to exit the sound card to process analogically and then return, this would increase a lot of latency in songwriting, however I understood what you mean and it is in fact the only real solution to analogue heat

Edited April 19 by Emanu3le85

[John Vere]

I will interpret this as you are saying to use analog gear you have to send it out from the DAW through you audio interface and then bring it back?  
Yes often people who do this use what are called inserts if your interface supports them. 
But a regular interface can easily be configured if it has lots of ins and outs.  
With a good quality interface using ASIO drivers there should be no latency. 
The DAW and the ASIO driver calculate the latency and adjust for it so everything is in perfect sync. Only ASIO does this. 

[garybuckels]

On 4/19/2024 at 10:54 AM, John Vere said:

Very good question. I personally think it’s an attempt to bring back the sound you can get from good quality ( expensive) analog recording equipment. A lot of the marketing is snake oil. 
As we all know the difference was mostly in the harmonic distortion that analog circuits and tape added to the recording . 

In the digital world we have two phrases that are bantered about transparent and coloured. 
Coloured might also be called warmth or even analog mojo! 

There’s the snake oil. 
Hopefully by design your digital signal path is transparent and your audio recoding will be un-coloured. 

The only thing that would add true colour is the pre amp of your audio interface. As everything before the A/D converter can be high quality analog, This is the best way to achieve great analog sound. Hardware that is before the A/D. This is why your choice of an audio interface is so important. 

So this is also part of the answer to your question. Why make digital emulation of this hardware? 
Most people seem to think that they are missing out on something using digital so they  seek out that analog warmth using digital software emulation. All the digital stuff can do is attempt to add harmonic content to the sound. It is doomed to fall short of the mark  because analog is infinite and digital will always be a block of numbers at the mercy of your computers processing power. 

 

 

Can you recommend a decent interface with a good pre amp?  Thanks

[John Vere]

I don’t really review them I just compare price points to features. 
This video he reviews in detail and has tested a few. The only problem is there’s a few interfaces he didn’t test like Zoom and Tascam that are in my opinion very good interfaces. 

 

[sjoens]

On 4/19/2024 at 6:54 AM, John Vere said:

The only thing that would add true colour is the pre amp of your audio interface.

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.

Edited April 20 by sjoens

[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