Best channel strip plugin that's NOT emulation of SSL, Neve, API, Amek, etc.

[jens]

And what EQ do I really like? I dunno - perhaps with EQual yet another IK product, but I must say I really like the one in the Evo Channel as well. I also would incude something that does the Pultec trick - perhaps Boz' Bark of Dog...

I forgot - actually EQual already does this...

[_leras]

I don't have to answer to your particular question, because in this very topic I already explained - before you graciously barged in - why I like channel strip plugins.

Nothing you said after this answers my question. Although it does raise a couple - what makes you think "sound design" and mixing are two separate processes and what advantages do you see in treating them that way? It seems like a duplication of effort to me. e.g. You decide that you need lots of mid-range in a particular part so you boost it during the "sound design" stage, maybe deliberately with EQ but more likely with saturation or through filter settings without really knowing that you're doing it, then you go to the mixing stage and discover it is muddying up your mix so you cut the same frequencies that you boosted earlier. Surely it's easier to work on each channel within the context of your mix from the very start, ensuring that it all fits together seamlessly throughout the process?

My take on this that there are 2/3 stages of this, but of course to an extent they overlap. Where they overlap depends on your process.

1. Sound design, get the sound and any fx that are part of the sound that you want and make it as good as you can
2. Premix, use tools like saturation, compression, EQ, maybe fx here too also, to further enhance individual elements
3. Mix, more like channel strip stuff, lpf/hpf to make more space, EQ to stop clashing sounds, compression to help the groove/swing

*bus tools like EQ, saturation also appear in the process, really along side 2

I certainly like to make a sound as good as it can be before 'mixing' - but if everything is made big in a mix, then more things start to clash.

Of course arrangement is number one choice for making space for sounds, but after that EQ, panning, compression and saturation can all help. For this, channels strips are great for working with sounds that you are already happy with to help them sit better together.

Using a common interface across a mix is really handy, and can make it a more consistent and quick process, where things like cutting one sound slightly and boosting another at a frequency can be done very naturally. Using the same tool leads to a kind of muscle memory/ear training, where you can just get where you want more quickly.

Mixing desks, with channel strips, have evolved as tools over time for good reason, and as such channel strips are great tools to use for mixing.

[_leras]

I think this thread is a bit of a misleading... as it doesn't ask why a not emulated strip may be wanted. Emulated channel strips are copies of designs that were iterated over for many years. So there's no guarantee that a not emulated channel strip is going to be either better, or preferable.

How is it misleading? I never implied that "unbranded" channel strips are in any way better than emulations. I specifically wanted to avoid discussion of countless SSL, Neve, API, etc. clones in here, because that'd descend into subjective comparisons of how this version is better than the other one

Yeah, ok point taken - thread title not incomplete - perhaps it's the thread itself thats kind of lacking.

To describe the best non emu strip, I think it needs to be said why it's better than an emulated one.
e.g. I detailed several points of why Waves Omni Channel has good functionality that an emu may not have (thought it has emulations of bit of multiple strips).

However, a lot of these comparisons are not made in the thread, which is a shame as it would be an interesting point of discussion. i.e. why would Neuron be better than an emulation?

[jens]

To describe the best non emu strip, I think it needs to be said why it's better than an emulated one.

But nobodsy said anything about being better than the emulations - he simply wanted to keep the emulations out of this thread and he explained in clear words why.

That says absolutely nothing about the emulations - neither positively nor negatively. For the sake fo this thread simply pretend they would not exist - shouldn't be too hard.

[ghettosynth]

i.e. why would Neuron be better than an emulation?

I assume that you mean Neutron? Neutron is better than emulations for me because of the features and U/I. There's a lot of fetish over emulations that I'm not particularly into. I agree with Dan Warrall on this, saturation, ok, EQ curves, that can have some advantage in terms of the mapping between U/I and sound, e.g., you get someplace more easily because of the properties of the EQ. However, for modern EQs with graphical interfaces, I don't find this to be something that makes some amazing difference.

So, the limit, IMO, with emulations, is, wait for it, they're emulations. So, in order to sell them you have strive for a good level of authenticity. This means that you are implementing, often unnecessary, limitations in software because those limitations exist in hardware. This is mostly for the sake of purists who want to pretend that they have the real thing in their bedroom.

There is a valid point to be made about the tradeoff between complexity and usability, so I'm not arguing that you should have everything and the kitchen sink. However, in terms of pure usability, I'm not convinced that emulations take the prize. Some aspects of their design related to belief that those were the right choices, but others were limitations of technology, cost, or simply opinion.

Which is why I asked the question that I did. If you're dismissing emulation as a driving concern, what features and level of complexity should make the cut. Do you need more than two mid bands with hi and lo shelf? Should you be able to select between different sets of EQ curves, compressor technologies? Should you have hipass/lopass? Should those have a limited range to make them useable in a more surgical context, or, should they be wide range to allow for creative use as well? Since the latter effects the control of the filters, should the range be switchable?

[jens]

There's a lot of fetish over emulations that I'm not particularly into.

Yes, and exactly that fetish aspect is what antic wanted to keep out of this thread if I got him right.

[ghettosynth]

There's a lot of fetish over emulations that I'm not particularly into.

Yes, and exactly that fetish aspect is what antic wanted to keep out of this thread if I got him right.

Yes, agreed. So, with respect to the question, let's talk about "best" in terms of features. 4 band EQ, 5 band EQ, switchable curves, Opto Compressor/VCA compressor, do you need a gate, what features make for a good strip?

[jens]

Yes, 100% agreed.

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

Because of this thread .....I compared most of what I have. I used an unprocessed drum beat and set out to do roughly the same set up on each or at least approach the track with the sound in mind.

Omni faired well but I wrestle alot with the comps and never really liked it. To spittty sounding.

An oldie but one that consistently does well Nomad factory SC 226. Blue tubes track box also was easy to dial in and sounded good.

Waves SSL..... sounded .....well like Waves SSL which is good and was easy to set up.

Ultra channel sounded good but honestly I don't use it much....so it was a hunt for control.

DD Channel 2 was dead easy and sounded a bit like Waves SSL

Sknote Channel 5 (API Emu...I think) was ok...easy to dial in. Color was a bit different from others.

Sknote Strip 3. This also has console emulations amongst multiple instances. Loosely based on SSL but not really. Sounded similar to SSL but not as tight.

Over all I liked DD Channel 2, SC226 and Sknote strip 3.

On a side note. I use Fuse Audio Labs TCS 68 recently. It doesn't have a gate or compressor but that's ok. I don't really use a gate for tracking and use mainly parallel comp buses for comp duties.

[BONES]

1. Sound design, get the sound and any fx that are part of the sound that you want and make it as good as you can

How does that even work? You can't "make it as good as you can" until you put it in the mix because how it sounds on its own is irrelevant to the process. The instant I select a patch I start tweaking it to fit into the mix, not to sound as good as it can. And as I add more parts to the arrangement, I revisit it to ensure it continues to work in the mix. By the time I have my arrangement in shape, my mix is normally 80%-90% of the way there.

2. Premix, use tools like saturation, compression, EQ, maybe fx here too also, to further enhance individual elements

I'd be doing the opposite at this point - removing things that might have helped early in the process but are no longer necessary. The longer I work on a mix, the simpler it gets, not the other way around.

3. Mix, more like channel strip stuff, lpf/hpf to make more space, EQ to stop clashing sounds, compression to help the groove/swing

Surely that's better done as you add things?

Of course arrangement is number one choice for making space for sounds, but after that EQ, panning, compression and saturation can all help. For this, channels strips are great for working with sounds that you are already happy with to help them sit better together.

All seem like admissions of failure to me - "I can't get this sound right so I'll pile on the effects so no-one notices". Much tidier to fix it at source, as far as possible.

Mixing desks, with channel strips, have evolved as tools over time for good reason

Perhaps but they are not reasons that necessarily apply in the digital realm. e.g. To keep the noise floor lower by not over-using the patchbay. I would suggest the process has well and truly evolved beyond those things being necessary. e.g. I no longer need to put anywhere near the effort into my drums at the mixer because my drum VSTi's have a shitload of DSP built-in that takes care of most of it. Same with my softsynths - why add a compressor or EQ when most synths have full control over their dynamics and frequencies via their envelopes and filter(s), respectively? Surely it is much cleaner and simpler to make your changes at source than to add extra layers of obfuscation to what is a delicate process? To me that feels like simple common sense K-I-S-S!

[ghettosynth]

Ultra channel sounded good but honestly I don't use it much....so it was a hunt for control.

I don't use it much either. I also like the sound of it but the hi/lo pass have restricted ranges. Now, for most things mixing that's not a limitation, but, I like more flexibility in my track template so I would end up using Neutron anyway.

[Winstontaneous]

The "perfect channel strip" is indeed an elusive beast! The ones I end up using have HP/LP filters + at least 3 EQ bands, the ability to change component order, good metering, gate, and hopefully an output limiter.

Voxengo VoxFormer is a go-to, as is Voxengo's multi-band DrumFormer, and both have great saturation.
I also use Metric Halo Channel which IMO has an ideal interface for a strip, functional and not skeumorphic.

But most of the time I just end up using chains of Ableton or Bitwig's EQ, compressor, limiter...

[pixel85]

It looks like some folks don't want to understand what this topic is about on purpose (like, because they have nothing to add so they have to stir up it with their offtopic comments).

Anyway, let's back to the OT:

My favourite is the one in Cakewalk (ProChannel). They managed to make it the way Channel Strip should be (IMO).
It doesn't have wasted space in GUI, the size is right - you can change it to compact size or to a full window when needed. It allows for inserting other plugins inside and creating a chain with assignable knobs to not have the need to open the GUI of those plugins. This means that it can be treated as another custom module in Channel Strip. Which other CS can do that?
I like that it can be accessed on the left side in Inspector. The only culprit is that it's only vertical and I prefer modules order to be horizontal.

Once again I'm looking at Cubase Channel Strip. It's ok one and I was waiting to get it in Cubase but finally, I barely use it. Most likely because it's either before or after Insert Slots which more than often it's unusable for me and I suppose, many others, who would like to use it somewhere in the middle of Insert Slots.

Neutron is nice but it requires jumping between different windows, which is kinda against having everything in the same window at once.

[Halonmusic]

VoS NastyVCS. it's 64bit now

[antic604]

To describe the best non emu strip, I think it needs to be said why it's better than an emulated one.

No, you don't need to say any such thing. Actually the best non-emu strip might be worse than the worst emulated one. But it's completely irrelevant for this particular discussion.