Sonar X1 - amazing!

[Cheez]

I upgraded my Sonar 8.5 to the new version (X1 Producer) the very first day it was released (even before they sent me the email about the release). I was very hesitant to post anything about it because the first few weeks was quite a nightmare for me. There were some big bugs in the software which made me wonder if it was a beta version! Well, cakewalk released their first patch (X1a) a few weeks after they released X1. That fixed most of my problems. A few very small erratic things which doesn't happen very often now - which I'm sure will be fixed very soon in the next patch.

First of all, the new GUI was a nice change. A number of people didn't like it. I believe that was from the viewpoint of a producer. But as a musician, I was able to access most of my plugins softsamplers/softsynths without too many clicks.

The most amazing thing is the Prochannel - a channel strip within Sonar that uses extremely low CPU and is applied to every single track. Now, I'm not an expert in mixing and mastering. But I'm really quite amazed at it. I've been working on a piece for the past month or so. I just about completed the mixing and going to mastering. The Prochannel has 2 version of compressors, 3 versions of EQ (they didn't say what hardware they model after, but that's understandable - otherwise we would have to pay more for the branding), and tube saturation (2 versions).

Initially, I wasn't too impressed with the EQ. There were 3 versions (pure, vintage and modern). The Prochannel was small, hence the value wasn't displayed but appear on mouseover. There's still the issue of using a notebook (the Prochannel doesn't quite fit into a small monitor). I was demoing Waves SSL-4000 and the Vintage Series (a Neve clone). Both the SSL and the Vintage were very close in sound, but I preferred the SSL as I had more control over parameters. I was trying to get the right "air" into my strings parts. I was able to get what I wanted from the SSL G-channel. Then I realised that I didn't push the EQ far enough in the Prochannel. So I did an A/B comparison using the exact same settings of EQ in both the SSL and the Prochannel. I was able to get almost the same results. Saved me 610 USD! Now I'm really impressed with the EQ. There was also a "gloss" button to add an analog warmth to the mix, which I didn't make too much difference for me.

The compressor was also quite transparent. Again, comparable to the SSL. Two types - PC76 U-type and PC4K S-type.

The tube saturation was also amazing. I have the SPL TwinTube plugin. The Prochannel is much warmer sounding than the TwinTube. I use the TwinTube for electric guitars and bass (there's where the harmonic function helps). The Prochannel's extra warmth works wonders for acoustic instruments (I applied Type II it to all my strings and tenor sax tracks). Hence - TwinTube for guitars, Prochannel tube saturation for acoustic instruments.

Somebody mentioned that there was a blind test between the Sonar X1 Prochannel and the Neve hardware console. And it was near impossible to tell the 2 apart (some even picked Sonar to be the hardware).

In summary, I'm really pleasantly surprised at the channel strip's capabilities. I find it matching Waves Solid-State Logic plugin. Saved me a lot of money.

The other plugins included...they are OK. Most are already there in version 8. I haven't tried the linear phase mastering plugins - that will be next in the mastering process. WIll be interested to see how the Multiband compressor work. The Boost 11 peak limiter is not very good. Too much colouration. I have Flux Pure Limiter II - so I'm ok.

CPU usage: extremely low. The only 3rd-party plugin I used in this project is SPL TwinTube. Everything else is Sonar - 8 audio tracks (not too many), reverbs in a few places, EQ everywhere, tube saturation everywhere, compression in a few places, Guitar Rig effects, PX64 Percussion strip for drums (for added compression, saturation, expander and EQ). CPU usage still very low.

 

[blueprintstudios]

if it's not too much fuss, could you export a minute of a raw clip + a minute of a mixed pro channel clip mp3 or something? sounds tempting heheh

 

[kongwee]

I also notice the Prochannel. There is no other DAW with such tools. The cheapest solution is Ardour DAW with Harrison MixBus (limited tracks and busses I think becos it simulate the real thing) solution. My way to sound "analog" is by using compressor to do bus saturation. Also I also buy cheap bus/track saturation plug-in too. Also I have EQ that behave like analog. And also I have plug-in to make it sound tube. It is getting very complex to make your mix to sound not like DAW but a mix console.

 

[senn_liu]

nice hands-on review. sounds like you've got quite a few pricey plug-ins.

 

[kongwee]

The Prochannel has 2 version of compressors, 3 versions of EQ (they didn't say what hardware they model after, but that's understandable - otherwise we would have to pay more for the branding), and tube saturation (2 versions).

You know they got Roland too, you know what I mean?

 

[Cheez]

I'll try to post a raw and processed clip (unmastered). The cakewalk site has got some examples as well. Actually, I don't have too many mixing/mastering plugins. Just the SPL TwinTube and the Flux Pure Limiter II - both not on the expensive side like Waves. And Flux products are currently on 30-40% discount now. I only have their Limiter - one of the most transparent ones out there that maintains the original track's sound quality. The rest of the expensive ones (from Waves), I demoed them. I can now safely remove them from my notebook and iLok.

As for the Prochannel, if they have used Roland, they probably would have said so (since Cakewalk belongs to Roland and there wouldn't be a problem with licensing). They deliberately left out what they are modeling. But then, they could have deliberately left out everything to keep people guessing . The "vintage" EQ may have been Neve. Don't know what "pure" and "modern" are.

As for the 2 compressors, I use the PC4K more than the PC76. The PC76 is a fast attack compressor with limited controls, but still good for quick mixing. It doesn't have control for attack and threshold like the PC4K, which I prefer. Both give quite different results.

And the X1 does come with a whole lot of other plugins. The Prochannel did almost everything for me, so didn't have to use much else, except for Guitar Rig (which comes with Sonar), Sonitus reverb, and the PX64 percussion strip. As I said, I'm about to start trying the mastering plugins - tonight after work.

 

[smurfpiss]

I think it's pretty obvious the PC76 is modeling the UREI 1176 and the PC4K is modeling the SSL 4000 master buss comp.

Vintage EQ is Neve for sure with the broad bandwidth, I'm guessing Modern is the SSL style EQs with the narrow bandwidth and Pure would be a form of linear phase EQ?

 

[kongwee]

Hmm... PCK76 is actually FET base compressor while PCK4K is VCA base compressor.

 

[smurfpiss]

Hmm... PCK76 is actually FET base compressor while PCK4K is VCA base compressor.

The UREI 1176 is an FET compressor and the SSL4000 master buss comp is a VCA compressor. Aren't the numbers on the names a dead giveaway?

 

[Cheez]

Yes, the PC76 is indeed the UREI 1176 and it is a FET compressor. Now that you mention it, the numbers are indeed a dead giveaway!

 

[Cheez]

OK. Here is a short clip of my new piece. Featuring violins 1 and 2. First file is raw and unprocessed. Second file is processed using Prochannel by adding Vintage EQ pushing up the higher frequencies. Also added tube saturation type II. Sonitus reverb in the master bus. Otherwise, no other change. Volume level not changed. Did not add compression in this case.

Raw: http://soundcloud.com/symphonia/violins-demo-1/s-OulVc

Mixed: http://soundcloud.com/symphonia/violins-demo-2/s-niMOn

I'm not a mixing expert by the way (in fact, I realised these few weeks, after talking with a person trained in music production, that I'm really a novice! I compose and arrange, but mixing and mastering is beyond me! At least for the moment... I've learned a lot about mixing and mastering these few weeks, more than I've ever known!). So, this is a very quick effort - just to showcase the Prochannel. Nothing 3rd party. Sonitus reverb comes together with Sonar.

 

[kongwee]

The two track can't play. Isn't you lock it to private?

 

[PatheinRaindropMoe]

Both clips play ok for me in firefox, quite soft on the volume for the processed track on me setup though.

 

[kongwee]

I'm not a mixing expert by the way (in fact, I realised these few weeks, after talking with a person trained in music production, that I'm really a novice! I compose and arrange, but mixing and mastering is beyond me! At least for the moment... I've learned a lot about mixing and mastering these few weeks, more than I've ever known!). So, this is a very quick effort - just to showcase the Prochannel. Nothing 3rd party. Sonitus reverb comes together with Sonar.

Well, we have to learn mixing along with arrangement. When doing modern music, we need to know the mixing skill like using eq,compression,modulation,delay,reverb....etc. Thing like ADSR, and LFO that I though for sound design only, but it apply to a lot of stuff. Also I buy some video lesson online, to learn some principle on it.

 

[Cheez]

Private doesn't make any difference. You should be able to play the track by the link.

Yes, they are soft for various reasons: 1: it actually sits in a mix of many other instruments (I didn't adjust the volume just for the demo clip), 2: it wasn't mastered. I didn't push the volume up and no compression/limiting was done...yet. You need to push up the volume. The point is showing the Prochannel.

 

[kongwee]

Ok.I used firefox, it work for me. I think using a full arrangement will be a better comparison.

 

[Cheez]

As I said, the key is to show the Prochannel. It's clearer and more detailed on one simple clip. The point I'm trying to show is the "air" added into the strings (EQ) + the added warmth (tube saturation) from the Prochannel. As for the full track...well, you have to wait for the CD!

I always thought I knew about mixing. Until I let my friend listen to my mix. Then I realised that I know very little!!!! A few of the things I needed to look out for in this particular track include:

1. Piano stereo field was too wide. This was recorded straight from NI Akoustic Piano. I didn't realise that wide stereo field of the piano actually draw attention away from it if it's the main instrument. So I needed to narrow the stereo field. He suggested recording L and R separately then panning them towards the middle (what recording engineers do). Good thing I have a stereo field plugin which helped me narrow the field.

2. The threshold was too high and the attack too fast on the compression on the piano track. My initial thought was to just capture the loudest notes. But that affected the other notes as well.

3. Drums should be recorded into 5 separate tracks instead of one (cymbals + toms into 2 separate left and right tracks, bass drum, snare, high-hat) so each can be processed individually. I got everything into one audio track thinking that Superior Drummer is, well...superior!

4. Bass guitar and bass drum need to be tighter as they share similar frequencies.

I also learned about how stereo space affects the listeners perception - how something panned onto one side draws attention away from the center. Hence Kongwee - if one have a double bass (what what you said on another thread), it should not sit on the right side like a traditional classical setup but panned to the middle so it doesn't conflict with the bass guitar and bass drum. Most of us just use the pan pot. Now I realise the importance also of the stereo field - how wide an instrument should be. Just some of the things I learned.

Anyway, I'm going off topic...

 

[kongwee]

I also learned about how stereo space affects the listeners perception - how something panned onto one side draws attention away from the center. Hence Kongwee - if one have a double bass, it should not sit on the right side like a traditional classical setup but panned to the middle so it doesn't conflict with the bass guitar and bass drum. Most of us just use the pan pot. Now I realise the importance also of the stereo field - how wide an instrument should be. Just some of the things I learned.

Anyway, I'm going off topic...

Well, at first I get nasty result from kick drum, bass guitar and double bass together. Upfront they do crash no doubt. My fix is bass guitar never put sent out reverb bus. But you could put reverb on bass guitar as to make it pretty?. With kick drum and bass guitar together,they fight against each other. Panning is one thing to fix. My bass guitar is only on my left. Other thing is to do ducking against kick drum.Compressor(on bass guitar sidechain against kick drum) setting Ratio about 5:1, attack 0ms, if got peak or RMS, switch to peak. Solo the kick drum and bass guitar. Play it and tune the release time according the song mood. Ducking is a very useful trick and it happen a lot in electronic dance music.

Then my double bass is usually with string section. I have a string sub bus, as it is a lot easier to do mixing. Double bass is only on my right. If I use a pluck bass from different library. I will add modulation delay. It is easy to create space for pluck bass. You start with very low dry signal. I add modulation/delay on both stereo channel. Example left have 50ms delay, and right have 30ms delay. You also have to adjust the volume of both channel too. I usually use KH string which have a bit of reverb. So I use this method to fit in my pluck bass.

Lastly, is the drum kit, I don't need to explain right? Just add reverb and modulation/delay if need too.

So when they sum together, with help of ducking and modulation/delay. They will not fight each other. You create space for each instrument to "breath".

 

[kongwee]

3. Drums should be recorded into 5 separate tracks instead of one (cymbals + toms into 2 separate left and right tracks, bass drum, snare, high-hat) so each can be processed individually. I got everything into one audio track thinking that Superior Drummer is, well...superior!

Anyway, I'm going off topic...

I alway split individual track and do sub bus. It is easier to do editing. Easier to apply automation if need. Sometime I get lazy, I never split toms, cymbals and hats).

 

[kongwee]

1. Piano stereo field was too wide. This was recorded straight from NI Akoustic Piano. I didn't realise that wide stereo field of the piano actually draw attention away from it if it's the main instrument. So I needed to narrow the stereo field. He suggested recording L and R separately then panning them towards the middle (what recording engineers do). Good thing I have a stereo field plugin which helped me narrow the field.

Anyway, I'm going off topic...

I have patch of piano that is not wide. In the western pop song, you will notice they have actually to two keys in some song. Comping piano which is narrow field, and a "melody" piano which just play a single line notes(usually upper keys). Have two wide field stereo piano will not work very well.