Can you please explain the whole process of adding the output delay and how you know which value to add?
I presume you’re looking at the channel with the largest latency and adding the same value to the Voxengo Latency Plugin?
The second question is if that will not make the decay even larger? Because that would mean adding the largest channel delay X 2, no?
I’m a little confused, so if you can explain the process I’d be grateful!
Thanks,
Cezar
The Cubase delay the whole project to the larger channel latency. That’s the deal here.
And because the developers have not added the function to ping the output buses, the Cubase is not delays the project to the latency caused from the summing mixer. So we add this plugin and we are delay the Cubase project ourselves.
1.For a start, add the latency of your channel with the biggest latency. A few trial and error to the values of the plugin will do the job.
did you a find a solution dude?
Also very interested in any solutions. I know the exact issue the OP was having, and completely understand the workflow he was trying to create. Dealing with the same thing here on my end. Yes, it would be awesome if Cubase created a summing mixer function in its studio configuration, which accounted for buffer latency, and let you mix in a hybrid fashion in real time without having to print the mixer returns to new tracks. Has anyone figured out a workaround in the mean time that doesn’t involve latency plugins? ( i never trust a plugin to pass the signal through unmolested).
I guess you want the track delay in Cubase to also work on direct monitoring. That is the only thing holding back using “Dumb” summing units.
My best tip to make it easy to work hybrid is to spend the cash and get a summing unit that does it all or expand the dumb unit to do more.
If your hardware summing unit, can monitor both analog and digital sum to your monitors (Have your summing unit as monitor control).
Can mute analog and digital sum from your monitors. You are in a safe spot.
Now you can direct monitor the sum track and only have the sum track to monitors while the rest is summing in the hardware all in sync (Use the track delay if needed on playback channels).
Then it is just the annoyance of writing the non delay compensated automation.
Not really, and it’s annoying because I’m building myself a new studio here and I want to find a way to get multiple passthroughs. My intention is to sum 32 tracks to 16 busses (through my console for eq and any external hw), then add whatever plugins I need on those 16 busses in Cubase, and finally sum these 16 busses to a stereo out with another active summing mixer for Stereo In. The biggest problem I’m facing is when monitoring those 16 busses and adding plugins to them, because each plugin will have a different latency and will de-sync them.
Just activate the channel latency in cubase mixer and use the track delay to compensate. Should sync up your session in no time.
This sounds overly complicated.
I would use the 32 tracks as 16 external fx inserts and go crazy. Now those 16 busses are delayed compensated and Track delay is available and also monitor channel latency, so it is easy to delay compensate individual tracks.
Now you can pass that on and monitor the final print by direct monitor the channel. And it should sync with the project if printed.
But I also work on a console. I do my tracking on the analog part and the rest in the box. Why do you want to complicate things to this length for 1 thing only you can hear in your control room with your monitors? I mean when ever I flip monitors the mix goes from wide to narrow to mid heavy to lack off bass to… I dont belive you will gain much. I get so much 2,3,4th harmonics from tracking, that I am spending time cleaning it up itb.
This is just my case, I know that using the external fx as last plugins on the tracks to first plugins on the busses(groups) does work, I won’t see the visuals on the tracks anymore tho. Like I said, there are workarounds, though Cubase could make it easier and update to people’s needs when using a summing mixer because it’s so damn common nowadays.
Here’s a chagpt prompt of this issue. I’m using a simple 16IN-2OUT summing mixer example here:
Your diagnosis of the problem is accurate: Cubase’s current routing model treats hardware summing as a manual I/O loop, not as a time-aware processing stage. As a result, you lose proper plug-in delay compensation (PDC) coherence once you leave the internal mix engine.
Below is a structured breakdown you can use both to refine your idea and to pitch it effectively to Steinberg.
Route multiple outputs → analog summing mixer
Return stereo signal via input
Record/monitor via audio track
No automatic latency compensation for the round-trip
Monitoring path is not aligned with timeline playback
Automation becomes unreliable (visual vs audible mismatch)
Requires manual printing before final export
External FX workaround is not scalable (multi-channel summing)
Cubase PDC works correctly inside the digital domain, but:
External routing is treated as real-time I/O, not a deterministic process
The system does not:
Measure round-trip latency per path
Apply compensation to all contributing tracks
The “External FX” module:
Only supports insert-style processing (1-in / 1-out or stereo pairs)
Not designed for parallel multi-output summing topologies
A new subsystem similar to:
Audio Connections
Control Room
External FX
…but specialized for multi-channel analog summing workflows
User defines:
Output channels → summing inputs
(e.g., Outputs 1–16)
Input channel → summing return
(e.g., Input 1–2)
Cubase generates:
16 mono (or 8 stereo) Summing Send Buses
1 stereo Summing Return Bus
These behave like group channels, not raw outputs.
Leverage and extend External FX delay measurement:
Send impulse through each output
Measure round-trip latency
Apply:
Global offset to all contributing channels
OR per-path compensation (advanced mode)
Phase coherence
Automation accuracy
Visual/audio sync restored
Replace current “record + monitor” workaround with:
Dedicated Summing Monitor Mode
Real-time audition of:
Pre-summing (internal mix)
Post-summing (analog return)
Toggle similar to Control Room A/B
New export option:
Behavior:
Real-time render
Automatically routes through defined summing path
No need for manual print track
Align internal tracks to slowest external path
Maintain phase with heavy plugin chains
Save summing configurations per project
Hardware profile presets
Allow:
Pre-summing inserts
Post-return inserts (hybrid chains)
Hybrid mixing engineers
Analog summing users
High-end studios
Currently, no DAW handles this elegantly:
Pro Tools → similar limitations
Logic Pro → no structured solution
Studio One → closest, but still manual
This is a differentiation feature, not just a fix.
You can present it like this:
“Cubase currently lacks a structured way to integrate analog summing mixers with proper delay compensation and monitoring.
I propose a dedicated ‘Summing Mixer’ system that allows users to define multi-output routing and a stereo return, automatically create buses, and use an extended External FX engine to measure and compensate latency across all channels.
This would restore phase accuracy, enable correct automation behavior, and allow real-time export through analog summing without manual print workflows.”
Your idea is not just a UX improvement—it requires Cubase to treat analog summing as:
A deterministic processing block with measurable latency, not just external routing.
That conceptual shift is the key.
If you want, I can convert this into a formal feature request document or a forum-ready post for Steinberg that maximizes visibility and developer response.
I did another, properly written(with the help of ChatGPT) feature request on this topic. If you guys like it and would benefit from it, please vote it here: Native Analog Summing & Console Integration (Delay-Compensated External Mix Engine)
I understand your issue.
But I dont think there is enough users. 10-20% of cubase users need to demand this, if it is going to get implemented with in a year or two. Majority of cubase users has setups less then 5K. I dont think there is enough demand.
This will be post 32 on a thread started in Dec 2021. That speaks for it self.
Are you on Mac?
Have you looked in to getting a pair of mcdsp api 16? They will give you what you want and a lot more without all the latency fuzz.
I’m on windows with the new PC, and yes, I have looked into the mcdsp units, they seem fine, but expensive, I might look into getting one or two in the near future.
I don’t think I explained this issue properly at the beginning fo this thread, hence the mixed reactions.
We shouldn’t have to change out our hardware.
The bits to do what is needed here have existed in Cubase since at least SX3, and all work as needed.
The problem is that the bits aren’t combined together properly.
“I would use the 32 tracks as 16 external fx inserts and go crazy”
You obviously haven’t done this or dont do it on a regular basis. I dont have to go crazy, this has already made me crazy.
The problems with your suggestion, that I have been using for many years now, are many.
the channel with the fx insert cant do post fader level monitoring. This is because there is no return signal. The return must be a separate stereo pair and cubase doesn’t link them internally.
solo, and sometimes listen and mute dont work properly because, again, their input and output are separate tracks that aren’t linked internally.
if I want to add an insert into the analog signal path of the outboard mixer that has latency i have to re-ping that channel. But to do this, I now have to move the input from my input bus to that one fx bus, ping it, then put the settings back to where they are. I use a 48 channel mixer. This is a royal pain in the behind. In a rational world (not asking for perfect), i would be able to go to a summing mixer tab in audio connections and just reping the whole mixer at the click of a button.
This gets super complicated when you consider that some of the outputs going to the summing mixer could be coming from an avb or Dante setup where the end outputs could be physically changed out on the back end but still show up as the same output name within cubase. Aka, I could change out converters that change latency and cubase would never know.
This is another situation where we just need a re-ping the mixer button.
The bits needed to make this happen are already written. They just aren’t linked together as a singular device within cubase.
This isn’t something new… when I first started using cubase on an atari I was using an… outboard mixer. What I, and many other users, are asking for is to be able to integrate the vst side of cubase into that pre-existing workflow. That workflow existed even before the PC was invented. We shouldn’t have to do work arounds, especially when they can burn many hours of possibly productivity time and not even be accurate in some cases.
I got 50 new built in fx plugins I never use, but cant use an external mixer properly despite the external mixer existing for longer than the computer chip.
That last paragraph sums up the whole idea. Instead of implementing actual pro workflow for people who use external mixers (consoles, summing mixers) which have become quite common these days, they reinvent new plugins to showcase their daw to kids. I’m not saying they can’t be useful, but it’s eye candy as far as I’m concerned. More important for us is functionality, and I’m really surprised that the whole recording world never put enough pressure on DAW developers to make this happen not now, but back in the 1990’s, when full consoles were a lot more common in studios than now. Actually, if I think about it, this lack of implementation might be in the top 5 reasons why people decide to sell their gear and go itb.
We have seen that Steinberg takes a look at the top voted feature requests.
Besides a good technical description of the requested feature the key is to get many votes for it. A strategy would be to ask the many users that you refer to in your above to come to this topic and upvote it.
The reason why I did a new topic as a feature request is specifically because on that topic the initial request statement lays out, in a technical manner, exactly what we want. I would strongly encourage to upvote that one, this is a 2021 post and I did a bad job at technically explaining what I was talking about, hence all the confusion and opposition to the idea.
So let’s get this topic upvoted as much as possible, and, if you all can, start commenting over there if you have any other ideas or suggestions, or even need cases that you encounter for this specific feature!
That’s not an easy task. I already posted the link here, either a lot of people don’t understand how to upvote or there haven’t been people online. I notice a lot more likes on the replies here than upvoting the actual topic/feature request, which tells me there’s smth weird happening. If you look at my original post, way up, you can see 23 likes but only 5 votes on the whole topic.
Everybody has a limited amount of votes. It is possible that people who gave a like see a greater need for other features. And some might not understand that we have a voting system.
Both are probable cases…