Channel Strip VST's - How Are They Most Commonly Used?

[beely]

For me, sonic imprint is one factor, but the workflow is a significant one too.

On any track, I immediately have EQ, filters, compression, gates, and saturation to hand, under physical knobs. When I feel something might need a little brightening, and I do it *immediately*, rather than do the whole "go get an EQ plugin, wait, which EQ plugin, think about what I want, choose an appropriate plugin, wait for it to load, and then start to EQ".

Now I need to compress, same deal, let's go and get a compress from my list of favourites - wait, which style of compressor? Hmm, should I load it pre or post the EQ plugin, etc etc. When you're constantly doing this kind of thing for every basic standard mixing task it really bogs you down and takes you out of the music - takes you away from that flow state and back in the world of dicking about with the computer.

For a long time I used to start from a blank slate (probably stemming from days of little CPU power), but quickly choosing a channel strip that matches the aesthetic I want and adding them to all tracks is super quick, and from there I have direct hardware control of all the common mix parameters (I have all the channel strips I use - mainly the PA ones (SSL & Lindell in particular) and the SSL Native - all mapped consistently on my controller, so all the controls are in the same place for each. Those strike the perfect balance for me in features vs complexity.)

You can still of course choose to patch in special processing when you need it, or particular comps/EQ/FX etc if the fancy takes you, there will always be a need for that, but having all the core tools immediately under the fingers is much more like the old console workflow, it's much more immediate - I also like that I don't need to focus on the screen to do adjustments, I can do it by ear without the visual distraction.

It's really just having the core things there, immediately accessible, without having to constantly load plugins, re-order plugins, flip between plugin slots to control them via hardware etc all the time, that's been a really nice return for me - and hardware control of those is a big help in making this work well, for me.

This is why I've moved to a channel strip workflow for mixing, from a loooong time of doing an "add what you need, when you need" workflow.

[mwooten777]

I like that approach. What controller do you use?

Also, I'm getting the idea that people use channel strips on individual tracks as well as busse, and maybe even the master bus. That's interesting.

[LeVzi]

If I have a section that could require a heap of crap done, old samples especially need this, ill reach for a channel strip.

Otherwise I just use individual plugs.

[beely]

What controller do you use?

There's not really a one-liner answer to that. The hardware doesn't really matter, it could be anything with a decent number of appropriate controls, it's my (evolving) config and how it works with the DAW where the utility is, and this is my own heavily customised system based on the MCU protocol in Logic, as well as some other stuff going on, which alongside a bunch of other functions, lets me instantly control any plugin or synth on any insert in a consistent manner. There are no currently available controllers or systems that let me implement what I wanted, so I had to roll my own...

[simon.a.billington]

There are several type of channel strips that are out there. Those that are used for mixing and emulate a mixer workflow such as the bx_console channel strips you'd get from Brainworx or the SSL and Omni strips you'd get from Waves. For a more modern take there is Neutron from iZotope.

Then there are other type of channel strips that are effectively "effects chains". IK's Mixbox is one as would be XLN's RC-20, even StutterEdit by iZotope, but that comes with other creative flexibilities too. These would be used differently again. As opposed to mixing with them they are more designed to pass a sound source through and get creative. Think of a guitar pedalboard, or a synthesiser's built in effects. These strips are usually made to be low-latency enough to use real time so you can play through them and control as you play.

The problem with "low latency" is there is often trade offs to get the latency so low. So it's quite conceivable that that, for example, IK's Fairchild compressor could sound better as its T-Racks standalone version than its Mixbox counterpart because it doesn't sacrifice quality for the lower latency. The same thing goes for these other "real time" effects too.

Quality is a bit of a relative subject though because there are a lot of situations where the differences would be negligible. Think of lofi, for example, where it throws out alot about a sound that makes it higher quality. Also, think of any situation where you apply a low-pass filter after applying distortion to a sound, there's a low likelihood you'd notice any aliasing artefacts introduced by plugins with minimal, or no, oversampling. So the subject of "quality" is a relative one. Certainly don't let it stop you from being creative of enjoying your craft.

[mwooten777]

Thanks, Simon. Excellent information! I'm enjoying learning.

[simon.a.billington]

Thanks, Simon. Excellent information! I'm enjoying learning.

No probs, man.

[PaoloT]

Reopening this old thread, because I'm starting to be interested again in channel strips. I have a couple questions:

- Aren't channel strips taking more CPU, compared to individual processors?

- Does it happen to you, to just add channel strips for the sound of them, and not for a particular processing they include?

Paolo

[Agreed]

Voxformer in 2012 was my first, IK's British and White channels when they released a year or two later I thought were very nice for doing the SSL EQ thing & also had some cool dynamics sections, some nonlinearity in them too. Now those did have high CPU usage at the time, it wasn't really easy for me on a pretty good CPU of the era (Sandy Bridge 2600k, Haswell 4770K afterward) to run more than a few instances at once in a live project so I mainly used them for summing into. But that sounded very good to me.

I use a bunch of PA ones now, which still have nice sounding functions, also have some nonlinearity in their dynamics processors (though it's a little weird in that I think it might turn off if you disable the EQ, even though it isn't strictly speaking in the EQ), with the bonus of being very CPU light which makes them easy to put across multiple tracks. That's a nice workflow booster if you like what they are doing on a track by track basis, makes it straightforward to do corresponding moves and have things gel quickly (like a console, you know?). From PA I use more often the 9000J and Amek 9099 from Brainworx. Their console_n has nice EQs, though. PA also publishes the Lindell channel strips, of which I have used the Lindell 80 (older style Neve coloration, nice preamp harmonics though it gets hairy quick if you push it too hard) more than the 50 but I haven't had the 50 very long.

I have enjoyed the Waves Helios as a flavorful/coloration tool for tracking guitar, even ran a whole mix through it on one track because I liked how the more band-limited sound worked on that particular song. But, usually I wouldn't want such a big sonic fingerprint on the whole thing, it just worked there.

[padillac]

I think with a channel strip, it’s good to consider the signal flow and why each component is there.

They usually look like:
- gate (reduce noise)
- comp (tame wild dynamics)
- EQ (tone)
- comp (get the dynamics right)

So you can figure that with most plug-in instruments you won’t need the first two stages. Then it’s a matter of deciding you want the consistency of interface, even though you might not activate the first two stages. Of course, gates can still sound cool on plug-in instruments as well!

Regarding choice paralysis: you can accomplish something similar with an FX preset in your DAW. Maybe have a live instrument channel strip and a plug-in instrument channel strip. Or just a single one and don’t use the stages you don’t care about.

So anyway when looking at a channel strip plug-in I’ll look at it’s components and signal flow and duplicate that in the DAW.

Of course I am planning to get bx_console N at the next $30-50 deal

[HAL76]

My opinion though, is that, unless you are extremely comfortable with committing to what you record and are able to get the results you want for sure, don’t print the sound with the plugin.

DMG is generally right somehow. You should always be careful with FX for recording. But: me personally - I record everything through at least (!) a "channel strip" (Acustica) or better: some carefully set "analog" EQs + filters just for "balancing" the sound, for quickly attentuating or boosting some frequencys and giving the sound "character" - and I do that every day.

- "Channel strips" are easy to use, what I do is quickly done.
- "Channel Strips" EQs can really change the sound and take it to the next level.
- You learn a lot if you always try to optimize a sound and really get a feeling for the plugins.
- you save ressources in the next steps and start on a "higher level" the next time.

If you record a sound with the wrong settings it´s "lost time". But I also think that leaving too much open and not taking the risk often means having no "result" and not having learned very much. I try to "finish" what I do and not leave too much open - what also means that I´m usually fine with "little" results.

If you leave too much open you´ll always be under pressure to set a - growing number - of parameters if you want to bring things together. The "safety" of recording "dry" has its price. The sounds are less inspiring, sound less like you and your efforts cumulate. I think that it really pays off to take some risk and that some carefully done processing is usually no problem later on. Sound is pretty "fluid" today as you can just go on processing with your pre-processed sounds.

I´d recommend "modern" channels+EQs by the way as I don´t want my synths to sound like a rock album

[Junkyard Sam]

The magic happens when you fall in love with a channel strip and you get to know it enough that you can quickly sculpt your sound however you need it without having to think too much about it.

For me, that channel strip is Scheps Omni Channel. It's just so incredibly powerful -- while sounding great with low CPU and zero latency.

It has 3 types of saturation and 3 types of compression, and when using the FET or OPT compressor -- just by passing through you get a harmonic distortion equivalent of running through one of the SSL presets on Waves NLS.

The gate/expander combined with the compressor lets you really shape the dynamics -- and there's an optional limiter on the output. The magic there happens when you dial it down just enough to register on the peakiest peaks. This helps your next consecutive compressor or limiter to operate more smoothly.

There are two DS2 deessers... Full range 20hz to 20khz, and they can operate wide, narrow, or as shelves -- these are like dynamic cutting EQs. Using one set to wide around 250-300hz works magic for "sucking the boominess" out of a sound.

The EQ is powerful -- 4 bands, all 20hz to 20khz... Set to "P" they're all the same -- otherwise you get good shelf shapes and unique narrow/wide shapes for the two middle EQs. If you set "mid" to wide, set the center frequency to the fundamental, and push it going into the compressor --- you get a focused sound that mixes well with others. Like magic! Aside from that it has a proportional EQ curve like an API...

There's a "thump" bass tilt, cool, but if you use the bass thump in conjunction with the highpass filter, you can shape the low end in a unique way.

All components can be reordered, and if you need more --- you can insert a duplicate component (2nd compressor, etc.) or nearly any other Waves plugin --- right inside it! (useful for putting a reverb or distortion in the middle of your channel strip!)

It's fast for gain staging -- you get 2 meters, one digital and one VU, which lets you gain stage quickly in a way that gets your level ready for subsequent analog emulation plugins.

Did I mention all channels can function in stereo, duo mono, or M/S. Sometimes M/S compression can liven up a stereo source in a really interesting way --- and when DUO is great when you're compressing a bus with hard-panned instruments.

I know that's a lengthy use-case, but notice that a lot of that gets to the unique nuances of that specific channel strip. That's my point...

You pick one you like, you get to know what it can do --- and then its tricks and techniques rolled out across every track becomes part of your style.

----

And as much as I ADORE Scheps Omni Channel, they all have their own unique advantages. AMEK 9099, for example, will let you adjust the saturation across all channels at once, and it has some wide-Q style low and high tone shaping tools that are awesome...

----

Last note! If you find yourself overwhelmed by fully featured channel strips like an SSL, Omni Channel, or AMEK 9099 --- try STEQ by Analog Obsession!

It's pretty minimal... It has EQ and a unique optical compressor. Sometimes embracing the limitations of a one knob compressor like that, across all your tracks, can lead to a unique sound that you wouldn't have arrived at otherwise with more complex controls.

Bottom line? Channel strips make mixing fast... and fun!

[crickey13]

TBProAudio CS-5501 is pretty awesome. The ones by Voxengo are really cool too.