Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

Suddenly confused about channel strip / console emulation plug-in inserts...

Generally speaking, if you were tracking live instruments on a large format console, to tape, doesn't the "sound" of the console get recorded to tape during tracking... isn't it in the signal path?

And to imitate that with a console emulation / channel strip plug-in, I would need to have it inserted on an Aux Input track, bussed to an Audio track, to have that sound recorded during tracking — isn't that correct?

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

Yep


Avid S6M40-32-5D, MTRX (2), Barefoot MM26, PT Ultimate HDX3, CB TMC1 S6 Penta

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

While that may be technically correct, in the real world, does it matter? Also, a lot of analog recording was done with the mic pre going directly to tape. My 2 cents; I have tried placing tape sim plugins first, then EQ/Comp/Console emulation, and I have also tried with the tape sim after. In either case, things sound fine(not sure I can hear any change) and at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it IS good:D(in other words, don't over-think it. Just try everything to find what works for you);)

"And to imitate that with a console emulation / channel strip plug-in, I would need to have it inserted on an Aux Input track, bussed to an Audio track, to have that sound recorded during tracking — isn't that correct?"
This is a perfect example of over-thinking it. Let's assume you have a tape sim plugin and a channel strip/console plugin. To achieve the "traditional" sound, insert the channel strip, followed by the tape sim, followed by a second channel strip. Now you have duplicated the "traditional" path. Remember one of the great things about DAW's is that you don't NEED to "bake in" stuff while tracking as it can all be accomplished "after the fact".

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

Not necessarily. Back when I had a console with tape machines and other types of recorders, I would track most stuff thru the desk. But that was mainly because that's where I had mic pre's. And I would mostly run thru the channels flat or bypassed. If I did any processing it would be perhaps a HPF or a little compression to get a powerful signal to tape.

But that was then. With digital/DAWs there are simply no good reasons to make processing decisions when recording. You get the best sound you can with mic choice/position/pre so you have the purest raw material to work with later on in the process. IMHO.

So, the aux - audio recording thing is a waste of time. I think.

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

When I first started recording we only had one really good compressor in the studio and used the pre amps in the desk to track to tape with compression inserted and eq'd to taste.
I still think it's a valid way of working now too.
Why not make some decisions about the sound you want early and then print that to digital as we did to tape?

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

Well, simply because they can't be undone.
Added: but whatever floats your boat.

Re: Question about tracking with channel strip plug-ins
 

You are free to do just this if you like, but why limit yourself with the "old" ways?