New Metric halo ChannelStrip

for the record i own v2 and its very good tool very very customizable for like super specific things and fine tuning.


however, even after using it for years i agree the gui is very counter-intuitive. looks like the console of an airplane...
 
While we are at it, for guys that own both, E-channel and G-channel strips, how do they compare sonically? Any significant sound print differences when comparing one to another? I've read on their website that the G one has a pre-boost dip and a pre-cut rise, but that's about it judging from the specs.
 
I have heard nothing but good things about this plug for years. I've always wanted to try it out.
 
Well, just compare it visually to a channel strip like this:

Half the screen real-estate, except the knobs, functions and sections are much more clearly defined.

Well, no. The control area is about the same size on both plugins, and the graphs on ChannelStrip are hide-able if you don't want to see them:

CS3_screenshot.png


The E-Channel is a 4 band parametric EQ and CS-3 is a 6-band parametric EQ, so you would expect it to take a bit more space (even though it really doesn't). The Comp and Gate also have side-chain filters on CS-3 which the E-Channel doesn't. I guess I don't see the lack of definition in the CS-3 layout -- there is a Gate section, a Compressor Section and and EQ section, which is pretty similar to the E-Channel, except in the E-Channel, the knobs for the various sections blend together.

There are less block colours, and above all - they are not fluorescent.

There are less functions to be colorized. But I do see your point about the fluorescent. So the brightness of the colors is disturbing to you? That is useful feedback -- thanks!

The gradients, the shading etc. all help the user compartmentalize the different functions in their mind. On the MH UI the knobs are all lined up like an Excel spreadsheet, which makes it very hard to visually differentiate their functions, without going through and reading everything.

Really? I guess we may just have to disagree here. The point is that, for example, in the EQ, all the knobs in a particular column do the exact same thing (gain, frequency, bandwidth) and all the knobs in a particular row correspond to a different band. The colors are all matched per-band. Easy.

As far as the Gate and Compressor sections go, the top line of knobs is for the dynamics controls and the second line of knobs is for the Side Chain Filters. Again the layout is the same for both sections (and the same as in the EQ) so you learn it once and you are done.

It's just like a large format console -- lots of knobs, but they are just functional copies of the same thing --- one per channel. In this case, it is copies per band.

With the E-Channel, the knobs are kind of randomly scattered about. The layout undoubtably was set by the underlying circuitry on the original SSL console, but obviously has no particular bearing on the layout of a virtual UI except for a desire to provide fidelity in the emulation.

Just doesn't look very intuitive at first. I'm sure it becomes so once someone gets familiar with it, but there's got to be room for some improvement there.

Well, since you folks seem to have a strong visceral reaction to it, I took the opportunity to solicit feedback. Now is your chance to make suggestions for improvement.


Best regards,

B.J. Buchalter
Metric Halo
 
Well the SSL Channels are all direct copies of the button layouts on the SSL boards. Waves does the same thing with their API and Neve models as well.

They just have more 'realistic' features. The knobs, the shadows and colors, etc. Specifically, I think the knobs on the MH strip just look a little cheap.

Cool that you're here getting feedback though. I think it's universal that everyone LOVES the sound and features, just thinks the UI could use a little more bad-assery.

FWIW I go to the MH strip before the Waves SSL ones... Maybe because I only have access to the Waves at the studio and not at my home rig where I mix a lot, but still, keep up the good work!
 
I too think the Waves etc GUI smokes the MH's GUI.....but I still am not mixing with my eyes...and sonically the MH still smokes anything else out there...with the hands tied behind the back.
I love Waves SSL etc.. but it just doesn't get anywhere close to what the MH does
 
Why? Can you tell me specifically what is bugging you about it?

Best regards,

B.J. Buchalter
Metric Halo

Hey, don't get this wrong, the MH CS is my favorite plugin of all times, it just sounds really awesome, I didn't mind the original GUI at all..
I don't care if it looks like a "real" channelstrip or not, I just really think the new GUI looks like a not even beta version of something some intern with a Microsoft Paint equivalent of a crayon would do.
No sharp lines, no symmetry, tbh I actually thought this was some beta preview or something that wasn't actually meant to be released.
Please don't get me wrong, I'll upgrade either way (some info on upgrades would be nice btw), I couldn't live without the MHCS....
I actually didn't wanna complain, cause I don't care how it looks...I'm mixing music with my ears, not my eyes......but since you asked....
Well.....I don't even know how to begin answering your question.....have a look at the pic posted in the first post, it really looks like I would design a UI....and I SUCK with photoshop etc, it just looks really really poor.....like some c64 graphic

Load"metric halo",8,1
 
Hmmm.

Sorry to hear that you guys hate the GUI so much. We arrived at it by taking into account feedback from folks about ChannelStrip 2 (e.g. make it bigger, clearer, and resizable) What are you looking for? And why do you find it confusing?

BR,

B.J. Buchalter
Metric Halo

Few things that come into mind when looking at this:

CS3_UI_Graph_Big.jpg


- At least on a laptop I have to scroll to see the whole picture (using 1280x800 resolution), not sure how it translates to DAW environment. So make sure it's 100% visible with at least 1024x768 resolution on all possible DAW's you will port it to.
- The overall look is a tad too bright to my liking. Makes my eyes hurt. I think for example all major DAWs (Pro Tools, Cubase and Logic) and Waves have dimmed their interfaces most likely for the same reason.
- That wavy knob design makes it look super cheap. Use some other color than gray, like black. Simple high contrast circle vs background with a simple line indicator and some shading would be much better, something like:

v-eq3.jpg


So overall more darker, have a bit more contrast (not it's all pretty "grayish"), less neon colors and more attractive knobs. If I would have a copy of Photoshop at hand, I could do a quick sketch up. Also I would love to see some other than neon #00FF00 green for the graph lines. Steel Blue perhaps?

Hope it helps.

This could be an example of a "modern" change

OLD
sshot_big_l2_01.jpg


NEW
l2ultramaximiser.jpg

When did this happen? Mine still looks like the one on top, I'm using version 8.0.?.

edit: Ah, looks like the one below is actually the old version and the one above is the current version.
 
- At least on a laptop I have to scroll to see the whole picture (using 1280x800 resolution), not sure how it translates to DAW environment. So make sure it's 100% visible with at least 1024x768 resolution on all possible DAW's you will port it to.

It fits on a 1024x768 screen as it is now. I'd really advice not to make it any smaller due to low resolutions. The majority of audio work is done in studios with reasonable displays, not on 15" CRT's, and the amount of features is already rather packed in the GUI.

I guess I'm the only one here, but I actually don't mind the GUI at all, and definitely wouldn't call it "not even beta version of something some intern with a Microsoft Paint equivalent of a crayon would do" :lol: I mean, my most used plug-in of all time looks like this:

InsideTrack2b_l.jpg
 
I have to agree with Jarkko, I dont mind how it looks.

Plus MHCS is always made of win, idk if I could complain about how it looks when it sounds the way it does.
 
I mean, my most used plug-in of all time looks like this:

InsideTrack2b_l.jpg

my point...
Compare the knobs on that one with the knobs on the new MHCS.
There's zero depth in the way the knobs are put on the surface of the CS, with all other plugs you get the impression of a knob your turning, not with the CS, it looks so extremely 2d I think.
That was much better on te old version....simple but it didn't look cheap.
But all that said.... I really replay don't care how it looks, as long as it still sounds like the old version did
 
It's certainly not the prettiest plugin in the world, but I definitely wouldn't call it confusing.

I really need to email MH and see about getting my demo renewed actually so I can convince myself to buy this!
 
- The overall look is a tad too bright to my liking. Makes my eyes hurt. I think for example all major DAWs (Pro Tools, Cubase and Logic) and Waves have dimmed their interfaces most likely for the same reason.

You can change the colour of the plug-in to whatever you like. I have mine a darker colour which is much more pleasing on the eye.

I agree about the knobs looking a bit guff, but other than that.. I like it.
 
Well, the trend for the last few years has been to design the plug-ins to have some kind of similarity to analog devices, and I agree with Ermz that the fluorescent colors do cheapen the look a bit.

I have nothing against the layout of the knobs/faders/etc on the GUI itself, but it does look like the graphic elements themselves were done in a rush
 

That has much nicer looking knobs than MH, but crucially it is instantly obvious how everything is grouped and what knob corresponds to what numerical display. The MH interface is just not visually intelligent, sure you can work it out but it's just not intuitive.

I think it overall just needs more compartmentalising. The simplest example should be some form of divider between the different eq bands.

Also, less crude colours would be nice, all i can think of when i see the rotation indicators is the very earliest days of the internet.