Channel Strips (e.g., Fat Channel XT) vs. Individual Plug-Ins

[crickey13]

It's about saving CPU and optimizing workflow. I guess opening up several individual plugins may or may not be more CPU intensive, whereas the self-contained nature of the channel strip may very well make you work in a different way and approach sound from a different perspective, boosting creativity, breaking muscle memory and speeding up the mixing process. Just use what you own and learn your tools well, it's as much about the experience as it is about the tools themselves if not more. Channel strips may also be more suitable for mixing entire mix busses rather than individual tracks, as they're slightly less surgical i.e. more about broader strokes and shaping the overall tone rather than detailed processing, which is what dedicated tools are all about, but I guess it all depends on the context and what you're talking about.

[mwooten777]

Has anyone here used Fat Channel or Fat Channel XT?

[imrae]

He was talking about FatChannel vs. Fabfilter. So let me have my thoughts on the subject and I let you have yours.

The thread title:

Channel Strips (e.g., Fat Channel XT) vs. Individual Plug-Ins

The question in first post:

why use a channel strip instead of individual plug-ins?

The first line of your post:

A channel strip will help you to mix more with your ears than with your eyes.

How on earth is somebody supposed to infer that by "A channel strip" you meant FatChannel specifically? If your "thoughts on the subject" are likely to confuse and mislead people, I think it appropriate to challenge them.

[AGIGA]

You are right. Next time i'll be more specific.
I don't want to cause any confusion. Peace.

[imrae]

Peace.

[codec_spurt]

rt

[jens]

A channel strip will help you to mix more with your ears than with your eyes. You will not judge an eq curve on how it looks.

Eh? I have channel strip plugins with EQ graphs (e.g. AudioTrack, RenChannel) and EQ plugins without this feedback (e.g. SlickEQ, Luftikus, various Pultec models...)

To the OP I think the key workflow benefit is that it is easier to open one plugin and quickly go back and forth between EQ and compression setting when these are interactive. It's also useful to A/B between setups, or save presets that cover all the channel strip components. And turning up a gate threshold is faster than inserting a gate plugin.

That being said, I don't find they work for me that well. I usually want a particular compression style, and have yet to find a channel strip EQ as useful as SlickEQ GE.

And I have neutron 3. He was talking about FatChannel vs. Fabfilter. So let me have my thoughts on the subject and I let you have yours.

Please try to be less stupid if you must reply... your reply to Imrae makes absolutely zero sense for the following three reasons:

1) the OP was obviously mentioning the plugins he mentioned just as an example. This can already be taken from the thread title: "e.g." is the abreviation for "example given".

2) you also replied as such. your reply is a generalization:

A channel strip will help you to mix more with your ears than with your eyes. You will not judge an eq curve on how it looks.

See? You do not even mention FatChannel at all in your reply.


3) the default (they call is "standard") EQ of Fat Channel XT his paragraphic. This is also the only EQ the original Fat Channel has.

So in short: you really seem to have a dreadful SNR

So let me have my thoughts on the subject and I let you have yours.

Yay! An actual thought would be a welcome improvement indeed!

[AGIGA]

Thanks for your reply, Jens. imrae and I already settled this.
As I wrote in my last post:
Next time i'll be more specific.
I don't want to cause any confusion.

[jens]

Seems I am a little late to the party. Apparently folks made up with each other already and are sprawling on the sofa while exchanging sweet kisses.

Sorry then - I replied before reading the whole thread.

[exmatproton]

A channel strip will help you to mix more with your ears than with your eyes. You will not judge an eq curve on how it looks. As a result you will make bolder EQ moves and get to a competitive sound faster.
On the other hand with the Fabfilter EQ you can get more surgical and f.e. cut offending frequencies.
The same with compressors. Channel strip comps often have more character/vibe as the purely digital ones.
Both have their use.
So, you can use both a channel strip and Fabfilter depending on what the track needs.
Or, just use what you like best and what brings you the best results.
Happy mixing!

Huh? This is nonsense

Why?

I see that others have settled my issue with your statement. You were talking "channel strips", instead of a particular one, the XT one in this case.

[AGIGA]

Seems I am a little late to the party. Apparently folks made up with each other already and are sprawling on the sofa while exchanging sweet kisses.

Sorry then - I replied before reading the whole thread.

No problem! All the best!

[jens]

Thank you very much and the same to you!

[Unaspected]

I'm not an effects/mixing expert and have a question...why use a channel strip instead of individual plug-ins?

The channel strip represents a traditional workflow. You could achieve similar with multiple plugins but then you have more windows to open and close. And, of course, the sound itself.

[schpaeckulum]

The whole idea behind a channel strip is that it is more than a sum of its parts, IOW something you can not do on your own by putting a few plugins in a container and saving the preset.

Usually, the parts of a channel strip interact with each other - be it routing, sidechain, the underlying 'sound', etc.

See for example the SSL Channel Strip, Eventide Ultrachannel, or Acustica Audio strips (there are a few), or Variety of Sound Prefix, etc. It's a 'team' working together. Makes life easier.

[jens]

Prefix is not a channel strip at all.