Hello guys, Ive started using Cubase and am not able to figure out what I want to achieve.
I have been setting up a template for my production and want to create a global sidechain automation lane, so when I add sidechain plugins, like shaperbox, on multiple tracks, I just can easily route the master mix to that one automation lane and control the master mix of those shaperboxes with 1 automation, instead of needing to copy every new automation to another track, which will take up so much time.
I worked before on FL Studio and I could easily control all of my sidechain plugins through the whole project with only 1 automation pattern/lane.
Is this possible in Cubase?
p.s. please help bc I do begin to like cubase and I don’t want to switch back to FL :)))
Maybe I’m tired, but I have a very hard time understanding what you want to do. I feel like your terminology is maybe different from what at least I am used to. For example, we don’t route a master mix to an automation lane.
It sounds like you are maybe talking about having multiple fx tracks routed to a group track.
Can you maybe describe the path you’re signals should take?
So for example: I have different instruments that im using in a break and in a drop. In the drop, I want the instruments to be side-chained through volume, which can be done easily with Shaperbox.
So all the tracks/channels of those instruments have a shaperbox instance on them, bc im picky about how much sidechaining should be done by the shaperbox on every track/channel. during the breaks, those shaperboxes are turned off, bc I don’t want have them sidechained during the break. the ‘‘master mix’’ of those instances are set to 0 procent, so that they don’t work.
when we go into the drop, I want all the ‘‘master mixes’’ of instances to go from 0 to 100 procent, which can be done with an automation.
Instead of having 100 different ‘‘shaperbox-master-mix’’-automations handling that, I want to have only one automation in the whole project linked to all those ‘‘shaperbox-master-mixes’’ on all those different tracks/channels, so the work is much less and straightforward.
I want to create that and haven’t been able to figure that out.
p.s. if I wasn’t able to explain it well, I can upload a video of how I have set it up in FL Studio
Maybe using the “link” function could do the job? I don’t normally need to do what you want to do so I’m not sure exactly how to get it done, but look up “linking channels” in the manual (that’s what it’s called in Nuendo at least).
I’m a little bit confused about the Plugins Dry/Wet Mix Level and what is you’re trying to accomplish sonically. I guess I’m questioning whether or not there is another way to achieve the same result but not using the plugin Dry/Wet - for example: Couldn’t you turn the side-chain input level down to negate the effect?
And if that were the case, set up an FX or Group Channel as a send splitter to all the Shaperboxes, put the sends as post fader, and then you only have to control the FX/Group channels fader to control all sends levels. Disable the groups main output so it’s not heard.
Channel 1: Shaperbox A
Channel 2: Shaperbox B
Channel 3: Shaperbox C
Channel 4: Shaperbox D
Channel 5: Shaperbox E
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Group Channel ← Fader controls all side chain post-fader send levels. Group output disabled.
^
Channel 6: Key Source X
^
Channel 7: Key Source Y
^
Channel 8: Key Source Z
You can also then of coarse have multiple send split groups with different setups, and have their faders linked.
You could also just put the groups output as the sidechain key… But the sends give you a bit more individual control separate from the mixed levels of the key sources going to the group (if they are also being used/heard in the mix)… mind you, you could control their send level being sent to the group as well.
edit
Unfortunately, despite channel linking working for inserts, it won’t work using only one automation track as a master Automator… But you can manually control them linked and write that to automation together… which might be another solution for you.
I think I did figure out a hack way to do this at one point… Think I have it written down somewhere… But I think it involved using MIDI faders somehow routed to controls through Quick Controls… But it might have involved a virtual MIDI loop.
I think that might be good solution but I still think it can be done better imo (btw love the support from you guys)
here I made a video about what I want to accomplish in Cubase, done in FL Studio.
So I assigned the master mixes of the Shaperboxes to one automation pattern, similar to an automation lane ig. With one automation pattern, I can control the Shaperboxes that are set on different track/channels (inserts 1, 2, 3, 4) in the mixer of FL studio
MIDI Channel faders linked
MIDI Inserts to convert volume information to a generic CC
MIDI Output to a VirtualLoop
Looped back to Quick Controls Inputs
Add another single channel of any type, go to the quick control slots, there’s a trick where if you hold shift and click on a quick control, it opens an alternate menu that offers cross-channel routing. Set up the 8 Quick Controls cross routed to the different plugins of different channels.
Now when you automate one of those MIDI channels (if volume fader linked), I’m pretty sure all the parameters of each plugin will move.
I can’t remember how well it worked tbh
edit
Actually, that might not have been the exact way. I might have changed all the QCs to be the same MIDI CC or something.
It honestly might have not worked, and or it interfered too much with other routing needs to utilize.
I think my MIDI hack, you’d still run into the same problem not being able to link automate the MIDI controller faders…
You’d have to figure out how to get one MIDI Fader to output all Quick Control CCs at the same time to turn my MIDI trick into what you want to do… Which might be doable with the MIDI Transformer plugin.
No that’s the difference between FL Studio and like any other daw:
All those shaperboxes are on different channels but in FL studio, channels are called inserts. All Fl-studio-users call those inserts ‘‘mixer-channels’’ (because they are channels in a mixer ), but the daw itself calls those channels ‘‘inserts’’'.
I honestly don’t remember if it worked or how well,
All I remember is one sleep deprived night, the Cubase topology entered my head, and I set out with drawings and sketches to try and make multi-routing work.
Ok, well the standard nomenclature is that “plugins” are placed into “inserts”. A “channel” exists in a track, and audio flows via channels to and from different points. In other words a mono-channel track with a mono insert would mean the signal goes into the plugin and then leaves the plugin, using one channel before and after.
It sounds to me that FL-Studio users are just wrong to “call those inserts “mixer-channels””. Inserts/plugins are not “channels in a mixer” and therefore not “mixer-channels”.
Either way make sure you adopt the language used here in order for people to fully understand what you’re looking to do.
Now;
In your example, does the signal flow from the start through all of those instances of your plugin in series or in parallel, and are they all on one track?
Haha, im trying im trying. Here another video to not get confused by words
Hope this explains!
(you can see at the bottom of the channels (inserts) the routing going to the master channel, so they are all separate channels, not linked with one another)
That’s what I’m getting at, yes. If this is all in one track then some solutions won’t work.
Also, if the core routing and functionality is significantly different then if we’re making a feature request we’ll need to know what we’re talking about.
I saw the latest video and I still don’t understand if signal is in parallel (implied by user) or serial (implied by nomenclature). Huge difference for Steinberg if we’re just asking for the ability to link automation targets to a single automation lane, or if we’re asking for a quite different way of routing inside a track.
But anyway, I don’t get how it’s routed even though I understand the most basic thing the user wants to achieve so I’ll bow out of the thread.
), but the daw itself calls those channels ‘‘inserts’’'.