Surely a solution would be to simply label one side Dry and the other Wet? A bit like the 1179 with it’s backward Attack and Release dials.
The problem with that is how much dry are you adding? With a typical mix knob you know that fully counter-clockwise is 100% dry and fully clockwise is 100% wet, with a 50/50 mix at the centre point.
With the Cubase comp, what’s the ratio of wet to dry when the knob is fully clockwise?
Hi @mlib ,
you are right about it - I checked with a null test. The dry signal is added to the wet signal and does not fully replace it.
If the dry mix knob is turned fully clockwise you will still have an unknown percentage of the compressed signal.
I will edit my previous post accordingly.
Sorry, @KT66 - I should have checked more thoroughly earlier before, my bad. I guess I was too focused on the direction of the genius dry mix knob.
There is no way of knowing and the manual doesn’t tell. Moreover, the comp changes the level of the dry signal as well but I am not going into further details here.
Oh my, it’s supposed to be a simple, straightforward and clean compressor. Why do they do these things?
No problem and thanks for confirming.
I had never used this comp before and, based on this, I won’t be using it in future.
+1 !!!
Same here. It’s a shame, though. I still think it’s a decent stock compressor with potentially nice features.
Absolutly. Keep it simple and straightforward. That’s not exactly Steinberg’s strong suit.
2 Likes
It is a wonderful compressor with its abiltiy to have peak or RMS based threshold values for 100% wet usage.
For parallel compression put it on an Effect Track. 
I’m actually overstating things. The comp itself seems OK but I’d likely avoid the dry mix knob just because I have no insight into exactly what it’s doing.
I avoid the Dry Mix knob even though I know what it is doing.
Make sure it’s on 0% and ignore it henceforth. Don’t worry, be happy.
1 Like
In my opinion, the dry/wet compressor function in Cubase is poorly designed.
When you input a dry signal, it’s added to the wet signal.
The sum of these signals causes a large volume jump.
All the meters show red peaks.
I don’t use these compressors because adjusting the volume takes too long.
I think a better solution would be to change the dry/wet ratio.
Maybe this way.
Dry… Wet
Steinberg cannot change the existing parameter as that can break a ton of existing projects from their customers.
The only way out would be to introduce an additional dry/wet parameter, perhaps with the option to toggle between the two. This is what they did with the channel EQ.
However, that will possibly confuse new customers in the future. They will ask why there are two parameters, much like people now ask why there are track and rack instruments.
I understand this can be tricky.
I think changing the Makeup gain will also be helpful.
Currently, we only have a positive value.
The ability to lower it by a few dB will be useful.
This will probably be easier to do.
This will allow for better volume control when using dry/wet.
If I find the time, I’ll post it in the feature-request section.
I appreciate your ideas and I don’t want to curb your enthusiasm but I think the “fixes” are rather obvious, even to Steinberg.
The real issue is that Steinberg can’t simply change the behaviour of a parameter, not even that of the makeup gain for reasons of backwards compatibility. They would need to add a parameter.
There are actually quite a few areas in Cubase, which Steinberg would design differently nowadays but have to keep them as is for not breaking backwards compatibility.
I second that and we have to give Steinberg credit for not repeating this obvious design mistake with later models.
Like you said @Johnny_Moneto , one could still use it in parallel on a send although I think it was meant to work as a clean insert compressor when they first introduced it.
Anyways, it is what it is.