16 inserts per track

You can always still use a 3rd party chainer if that suits your workflow.

That should not negate the legitimate need for other users so have a simple built in solution as an option.
No more workarounds! We spend too much time making decisions based on inserts limits, we should not have to stop and think about this in the middle of working.

I hate having to go for the second and third option because I can’t easily just click an additional insert.
I hate starting off a song, already contemplating my compromises and sacrifices because I already know that 3 of the inserts will be used for utility.

It’s a joke… we have invested enough into our software to have to put up with this drivel.

It’s not even 8, slots 7 and 8 are pre-fader witch are unusable for dynamic processors, reverbs…

MOAR slots please!
One of the features that attracts lots of producers to Ableton is the ability to create plugin stacks. Frankly I’m sick of ReWiring Ableton into Cubase.
You could even set different max insert limits based on the type of Cubase purchased, Pro vs Artist.


If you use waves, the free Waves rack is a super plugin, you can load eight plugins into each slot giving a total of 64 as well as save each individual waves rack for specific purposes and plugin chains. The coding to enable other plugin manufacturers to use the rack is freely available from waves.

That’s pretty cool.

I almost wish these workarounds were not mentioned in fear SB take the lazy route of calling that an argument against implementing it natively.

SB wake up it’s 2015.

+insert slots
+modular plugin connections
+macro control of more plugin pareters at once


It’s not so much a work around as a way forward, although it runs as a stand alone Vst insert using the local CPU, it also integrates over LAN card with waves own Asio i/o & DSP server range allowing anything from simple offloading of plugins from local CPU through to some fairly comprehensive solutions, there’s a range of interface cards available for a number of Yamaha desks which is quite interesting to Steinberg users, something to keep an eye on maybe.

sounds pretty robust, but again – nothing will beat a native solution that’s tightly embedded into the core of the software that will hopefully allow complex parameter modulations and linking in the future, if steinberg open their eyes to modern production techniques.

No but even if people don’t use them they might still be affected. For example having inserts open on the inspector and not being able to see anything below it without scrolling down.

I can’t see anyone needing more than the current amount if they are actually creating or recording and mixing music rather than playing with a million different plugin chains.

that’s not a valid argument. it’s been repeated ad nauseam - features are here as an option, it is not imperative to use them. a daw should either set arbitrary restrictictions to stimulate creativity, or (which is the path cubendo seems to take) – try to present a blank canvas type of paradigm, and be unobstrusive. in which cubendo party fails, one reason being these types of limitations.

I also need more insert slots. Best solution would be an option so the user can add new slots as needed. This feature is so important to me, I will not buy a new Cubase version anymore without more plugin slots.

Lol, I’m not one to encourage dissension, but this was exactly the thing I thought when I read this feature request. I’ve never used more than 5 inserts, ever…even after writing and mixing 60 hours a week. These weird “more, more, more!” requests often confuse me. Less CPU usage - sounds great. Improved workflow - hey, I’m all for it. 1,567,567 insert slots - not so much.

Sarcasm aside, maybe someone could provide a use case? I’m trying to think of a reason SB would want to divert development resources into something like this, other than “…because DAW xyz already has it!”

Keep in mind something like this will greatly impact the rest of us. In what situation is this beneficial? I’m asking seriously here…


Set the track for unity gain, route it to a group and you have 14 pre-fader inserts using the group fader as the actual control fader.

I’m pretty sure there were a couple folks who wondered why anyone would ever need more then 16 channels for a mix!

I often use or at least check pre-post VU meters, or have a dedicated HPF, or have a console workflow. I have been moving towards more FX with mix knobs to save mixer space when I can, and I like to audition compressors without spending too much time dragging and dropping. In the case of for ex. UAD MKIIs that have 3 versions that need to be A/B’d quickly, it would be nice to have space to load all 3 at once.

I think it’s quite a crude ideology to have the flexibility of a computer and not use it. I remember when we first got layers in Adobe. Then we got multiple undo. then we got layer comps and variations, and smart objects. This is smart stuff. it increases my workflow, I am better and more efficient as an artist, and it has improved my skill set. Demands grow, keep up or get out is the way it works here.

I’m equally confused why folks are so against these sort of requests. As an artist, we do realize that this is not a science, and different artists have differing workflows, and there’s no rule to it. No one here gets to create the rules for others’ music, so yeah I am utterly confused as to an artist having this perspective.

I’m all for 16 pre and 4 post slots!

It would be very beneficial in the case of EDM production!

In some sub-genres of EDM the only way to be market competitive is to produce a master directly from the mix.
Attempting to have a mix mastered after mixdown actually ruins things.

As EDM has become the dominant music (about est.60% of total music revenue these days)
It would be a smart move for Steinberg to plan for the next version to have increased slots.

I do think 16 pre and 4 post would satisfy over 98% of the usage scenarios.

Since the tag line in “the producer’s choice”, it would be a good idea to provide a product that satisfied the needs of the majority of producers.

While I’m at it…
A vocal dub ADR and alignment tool like VocalAlign or Revoice (even that technology licensed) would be great too!

You’d think with VST licensing as a bargaining chip Steinberg could negotiate some better deals or discounts with 3rd party mfgs. for its users!

Just out of curiosity, what would be your advice for those 2% :question:

Go to a studio where a professional already knows how to achieve what you want to do in 16 slots or less. :slight_smile:

Not sure if at the moment 98% would use more than the insert available… But Cubase provide other tools for creativity in addition to the mixing side, I wouln’t expect some *creativity" feature in some DAW like ProTools (like their 10 inserts, that we know is more than enought for mixing).

Maybe 100% of the professionnel mixer are happy with the 6 inserts, they don’t need more and if they need some extra insert they only have to create a group track… That’s find.
Probably 100% of “sound designer” or tweaker modulation peoples :smiley: would very welcome more insert to feed their track with their pitch, distortion, audio step-sequencer, gate, glitch, granular tools etc… Plus they would get the big benefit to save those new sound FX in only one track preset (clearer preset managment) :wink:

3rd party chain sofware can help in some situation, but stability and extra CPU process is a disadvantage in my case.