Any Word On Direct Routing?

[suntower]

Absolutely. I wouldn’t get near PT except for the fact that it’s -everywhere- so ya kinda -have- to become familiar with it. But I gotta say… every time I look @ PT: the PT ethos -feels- more like a traditional studio–I think it held them back actually–whereas Cubase always felt more like a piece of -software-… a clean slate which I mostly like. But I wish they would just -get- that there are certain -conventions- (like MULT) that just make life -easier-.

@robotpriest

This mult feature is really useful in Pro Tools. I use it all the time. What I use it for is to set up all kinds of submixes to print different stem mixes out. This is super useful if you have a complex template file you are working with. For example you can have a 2mix that every channel is assigned to and then all strings to a strings bus etc with submixes that are dry and submixes that are wet, the list goes on.

the real desk feature I want is to be able to assign a send of a track to the input of the same track to create a feedback loop. I used that technique all the time in Pro Tools to create cool delay effects and its really annoying that Cubase doesn’t let you do this. If its trying to protect me, I think its pointless in a piece of software this complicated to pick this one place to hold my hand.

[stevont]

@marQs

What is a ‘proper’ FX rack/what’s wrong with the current style for you?

I don’t want to hijack suntower’s thread so please refer back to this thread (which you already viewed in February.)

FX vs Group Channels - how to choose?

I just wanted to take advantage of a thread about “real world” routing.

Simply put, effects should not be added to the mixer as a “Track type” (a faux group with an effect inserted).
There should be a “VST Effects” item in the Devices menu (like VST instruments) where you would simply select an effect. A corresponding effects RETURN would be automatically added to the mixer with the parent effect as the input. Not just inserted on a sub group.
Everything could be referenced intuitively and elegantly closer to what we have in the Propellerhead’s Reason GUI.
It would improve the overall experience for users, new and old, in my opinion.

Anyone who contemplates the difference between the instrument TRACK and the VST Instruments RACK will realize the benefits of both and understand why having an instrument RACK is still a good idea. Same goes for FX.

[marQs]

@stevont

@marQs

What is a ‘proper’ FX rack/what’s wrong with the current style for you?

I don’t want to hijack suntower’s thread so please refer back to this thread (which you already viewed in February.)
FX vs Group Channels - how to choose? - Cubase - Steinberg Forums

I just wanted to take advantage of a thread about “real world” routing.

Simply put, effects should not be added to the mixer as a “Track type” (a faux group with an effect inserted).
There should be a “VST Effects” item in the Devices menu (like VST instruments) where you would simply select an effect. A corresponding effects RETURN would be automatically added to the mixer with the parent effect as the input. Not just inserted on a sub group.
Everything could be referenced intuitively and elegantly closer to what we have in the Propellerhead’s Reason GUI.
It would improve the overall experience for users, new and old, in my opinion.

Anyone who contemplates the difference between the instrument TRACK and the VST Instruments RACK will realize the benefits of both and understand why having an instrument RACK is still a good idea. Same goes for FX.

Oh yeah, I remember… seems we have a different approach to FX management. I remember the FX rack in former Cubase versions which was a pretty limited beast and still don’t wanna have it back