Channel Strip & Plug-in Performance

[PatriotsBiker]

I'm barely a year into this whole big Pro Tools home project studio thing. I use the stock EQ on most tracks along with a compressor. My first choice is the BF76, but I think that it's only because I got a feel for what's going on with it a lot more than the others.

So that's two plugs on every track. I see the do it all plug called "Channel Strip" that comes equipped with a different style compressor, limiter and EQ. Math being what it is makes this seem like a simple choice. One less plug to gobble up resources. Seems obvious on the surface. sometimes things are not as they appear.

For the sake of my questions, let's say I've got 8 percussion tracks, 3 guitars, 1 bass, 1 vocal, 1 synth pad and 1 keys track and that I've got minimal EQ (including HPF-LPF) and compression on every track. I'm running win 7 64-bit with a whole bunch of wasted RAM at the moment. I track everything, so it's all audio at this point. (no active VI's running)

#1: Would using the Channel Strip be less taxing on my system, leaving me with more capacity for processing?

#2: If all four components of the Strip were "on" or active, would it be very close to having four plug-ins running on your system?

#3: This is more opinion than anything, but is Channel Strip worth learning and getting used to? Does it sound decent, or is it marketing hype? Perhaps I look in the wrong places, but almost every tutorial is pre-PT10 or otherwise just doesn't use the Channel Strip. I've seen limited Tutorials on it as well.

#4: Is having all of these compressors and EQs running at once really just a nominal hit to begin with and I should stop worrying about it?

And in general, any thoughts from you kind folks are appreciatted. I know opinions and mileage will vary, but I'd like to hear what you've got to say about this all-in-one plug-in or others like it.

[CME]

I'm not sure about which is more efficient, but with what your doing either should be fine. They're both quite efficient in my opinion. As to which is "better" sound wise is totally your opinion. I believe the channel strip is based on euphonix mc5 console channel strip. And IMO sounds really good. The default EQ widths on the channel strip were kind of wide but adjustable so not a problem. It's designed to be neutral overall. So it may not have the "character" of the BF76 your using now. It was my default channel strip until I got Metric Halo's. :)

[albee1952]

You can test this and answer this question(which is a good one) right on your own system. Create a pair of audio tracks. Insert the channel strip on one, and separate EQ and Compressor plugins on the other. Put up the system resources meter(if you don't already have it showing) and make both tracks inactive. Then activate one track at a time and see what the CPU(Rtas) meter tells you(or maybe use 10 tracks with CS and 10 tracks with separate plugins and check by activating each set of tracks). Next thing to consider is; there is not an absolute correlation between the number of plugins, and the amount of system resources used. There are single plugins that use more cpu than a dozen of some other plugins. Having used the plugins you specify(EQ III, BF76 and the new channel strip), I say use what works best for you. Any decent computer should run dozens of EQ and compressor plugins with barely measurable hit on the system BTW, EQ III and BF76 get lots of use here, even though I have tons of other choices. They work well and take very little horsepower

[PatriotsBiker]

I've done similar tests in the past. Most recently when those Native Instrument comps went from ebing inside of Guitar Rig to being stand alone. I think the idea of using many tracks as oppossed to just one or two would a better test. I do have a learning curve element with the channel strip, though. I just have not gotten comfortable with that style of compressor yet.