What's the point of a channel strip/multi effect VST?

[de la Mancha]

A strip plugin certainly can save CPU. My Strip T's plugin (Gate, Filter, EQ, Compressor, Clipper & Meters) uses about 50% of the CPU compared to using the individual plugins it is based on (QB-3, sixtyfive & ClipStar).

This is because there are certain core components that can be shared in one plugin compared to repeating them individually in separate plugins.

[LeVzi]

No, I mean is it better to have EQ, then compressor, or the other way, or does it depend on the circumstance?

Damn, sorry I mis read that.

As was said yes it can be channel dependent.

But you can get channel strips that allow you to put compressor 1st or EQ 1st.

[jam92189]

No, I mean is it better to have EQ, then compressor, or the other way, or does it depend on the circumstance?

Damn, sorry I mis read that.

As was said yes it can be channel dependent.

But you can get channel strips that allow you to put compressor 1st or EQ 1st.

I agree with this you should get one if you are looking for one that lets you change the routing its very helpful

[chokehold]

Having a Channel Strip VST is about performance, speed and clarity.
And also convenience.

Convenience, because Channel Strip VSTs usually combine the most commonly needed FX in one: Filters, EQ, Dynamics and Gain trim. Instead of looking after several plugins, you're only looking after one.


There are two approaches to Channel Strip plugins, the Swiss Army Knife ones that offer everything you could ever think of, and the Console ones that offer you what they think is sufficient. I clearly like the 2nd type better.

I own WaveArts Track Plug and the SSL Duende Channel, and where Track Plug can score because it's just so flexible and configurable (several dynamics sections, several dynamic behaviours, several EQ filter types, flexible routing etc.), that's where the SSL Channel can score with its simplicity (2 EQ types, 1 Comp, 1 Gate, 1 set of Filters).


My usual approach is to 1) filter out unnecessary frequency ranges and/or use a Gate/Expander to suppress unwanted noise, then 2) enhance the signal by minimal EQing, followed by 3) taming the dynamics by slightly compressing.
And that's just to prepare the signal, to get it ready for mixing and the mixing FX.
Very handy to have all these tools in one window!

IMO a Channel Strip is supposed to do just that, like on a real console, to prepare the signal for the mixing stage. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who needs 3 dynamics sections and saturation and limiting and sidechain and all that...?!
Having things like these in a plugin would be (in my understanding) a Mixing Strip, not a Channel Strip.


But when I'm mixing and I'm really after flexibility, I never load anything like Track Plug.
RMS or Peak? Vintage or Modern? 6dB or 12dB? Gate before or after Comp1? Comp2 before or after EQ?
It's just too complex. Too many decisions required. Too much thinking.

Instead, I'd rather load single simple FX like a just-EQ or a just-Compressor into the Insert chain, I can still move them around and try out different FX routings. Because the mixing stage is not about having all-possibilities-in-one, it's rather about selecting specific tools for specific purposes.

So 10 times out of 10, Track Plug stays unused.
And 10 times out of 10 I'd give away Track Plug in order to keep my SSL Channel, ReaEQ and the IK Singles. If I had to.

Anyone here wanna buy my Track Plug license?

[jam92189]

Having a Channel Strip VST is about performance, speed and clarity.
And also convenience.

Convenience, because Channel Strip VSTs usually combine the most commonly needed FX in one: Filters, EQ, Dynamics and Gain trim. Instead of looking after several plugins, you're only looking after one.


There are two approaches to Channel Strip plugins, the Swiss Army Knife ones that offer everything you could ever think of, and the Console ones that offer you what they think is sufficient. I clearly like the 2nd type better.

I own WaveArts Track Plug and the SSL Duende Channel, and where Track Plug can score because it's just so flexible and configurable (several dynamics sections, several dynamic behaviours, several EQ filter types, flexible routing etc.), that's where the SSL Channel can score with its simplicity (2 EQ types, 1 Comp, 1 Gate, 1 set of Filters).


My usual approach is to 1) filter out unnecessary frequency ranges and/or use a Gate/Expander to suppress unwanted noise, then 2) enhance the signal by minimal EQing, followed by 3) taming the dynamics by slightly compressing.
And that's just to prepare the signal, to get it ready for mixing and the mixing FX.
Very handy to have all these tools in one window!

IMO a Channel Strip is supposed to do just that, like on a real console, to prepare the signal for the mixing stage. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who needs 3 dynamics sections and saturation and limiting and sidechain and all that...?!
Having things like these in a plugin would be (in my understanding) a Mixing Strip, not a Channel Strip.


But when I'm mixing and I'm really after flexibility, I never load anything like Track Plug.
RMS or Peak? Vintage or Modern? 6dB or 12dB? Gate before or after Comp1? Comp2 before or after EQ?
It's just too complex. Too many decisions required. Too much thinking.

Instead, I'd rather load single simple FX like a just-EQ or a just-Compressor into the Insert chain, I can still move them around and try out different FX routings. Because the mixing stage is not about having all-possibilities-in-one, it's rather about selecting specific tools for specific purposes.

So 10 times out of 10, Track Plug stays unused.
And 10 times out of 10 I'd give away Track Plug in order to keep my SSL Channel, ReaEQ and the IK Singles. If I had to.

Anyone here wanna buy my Track Plug license?

all great points I agree. I to use a strip for quick work flow but when i need to get really into it i just put single plugins but i do find that the strips have a little less cpu use. And that is always a plus great advice by the way