Control Room - Monitor Inserts?

How do I access them???

This is a pretty good example of either me being a blind dummy, or how changing the UI from a standardized model (the mixer) to something new causes seemingly pointless confusion.

Where do I click to access inserts in order to put something in the path of one set of monitors?

Control Room tab on top (not “Meter”)…

Setup tab on bottom (not “Mixer”)…

Click on the "Control Room " section with the power button.

Inserts will pop up.


You now need to click the setup tab :confused: It’s a convoluted UI/UX compared to the N5.x CR as you now can’t view inserts and other CR functions simultaneously.

1 step forward 2.5 steps back.

Do not like.

I’m still on the fence, and seeing how it settles in. Though I did really like the way it looked, metaphor-wise, Control room (and I don’t really take full advantage of it anymore-- used to much more when working multiple output scenarios more regularly; am more stereo these days; I’m also not running multiple studio sends) always felt a little clumsy and “add-on” to me. So far, as I get used to the whole new mixer thing, it’s not bothering me, and having the option of it being attached (as you’ve noted, Lydiot) and hideable is very nice… and once the (for me) “set it and forget it” aspects have been taken care of I think I’ll be much more interested in the metering, anyway.

I know this sounds a lot like I’m “eating what’s put before me”… but no. Really. Just not sure yet.

Yes, I do miss the old fader, but more for nostalgia than functionality.

Does anybody else LIKE it? Even a little?


I certainly agree with that.

I can not see myself buying the N6 update unless the CR issues are resolved. I also use all 4 Studio Sends and find that 4 is very often not enough. 8 Sends would be great, although 6 would probably be enough for me.

If the CR had to be changed (questionable), it would have made sense for the number of Sends to have been improved at the same time - there is a demand for it.

Well, see, to me it just seems like if the features are “set and forget” then the old style would have been fine. Because who cares what it looks like if that’s what you do; set it and forget it.

And as for a simple stereo out versus multiple outs for example it sort of just explains the issue; if a person is using just a single out then the CR mixer will be more narrow and take less space. If one uses more outputs then it becomes wider which is good because it provides more feedback. Just like a normal mixer!

I know it’s personal, but it never felt “clumsy” to me. It felt like another section on a mixer that looked mostly like the mixer. Easy to understand. More visual feedback.

Again; if this new way of collapsing channels, which after all is what they’re doing with CR, is so great, then why not do it to the main mixer? And if it’s not suitable to the main mixer, then why would it be suitable for CR given that it performs essentially the same type of action?

Well, in all fairness, as annoying and unnecessary this change may seem there’s a lot of good stuff in N6 though. It’s different for everyone of course so for me it was probably worth it. The loudness track, grouping, visibility options and a few more things made it a desirable update to me.

I think the problem is inherent to our own personal workflow.
Let’s face it, we are all getting old, and we don’t like it when things change.
Especially when there is no real (personal) reason to change something.

We all want to continue working as we have always done, regardless if we are shown a better/other/faster way.
“That’s how I do it, and I have my reasons for that”. Period.
Hence why we are so passionate about using our own beloved DAW. Be it Nuendo, ProTools, Reaper, or any other.

The things we do want to change are things we are not happy with in the first place.
And of course, we want the new stuff, on top of what we had.

If development would reason like that, new technologies would never make it into the code, old code would never be renewed and technical innovations would simply be ignored.

There are plenty of reasons why this whole section is rebuild from scratch, and -mark my words- within a few years we will all be happy that this new technology, this new way of doing things … it’s already implemented now.
Allow me to give you an example … How many of us don’t see the need for rebuilding their website with “Wordpress technology” ? if you are one of those, then, browse with an iPad or iPhone to your website and report back.

My point is that the world and technology around us changes, and -at some point-, we will have to change our workflow, change our way of thinking, change our way of doing things, weither we like it or not. We are all getting old, and we are stuck in our own foolish habits.
Is there room for improvement? Are there things that aren’t very well implemented? Sure. Dozens.
But do they keep me from working with the application? No, not at all.
Therefore, I find comments like “unusable”, “showstopper for me”, “can not use it”, totaly out of proportion.

I myself had some “problems” with the new mixer, but at one point I decided to learn to work with it, instead of the endless complaining and long argumentations on the betaforum. Soon I have found ways to make it work for me in an acceptable way. It has grown on me, and now I simply love it. And whenever I have to go back to N5.x, I almost can’t believe that I once thought the “old style” was much better.

Another good exercise is trying to figure out why half of the users absolutely love the new Mixer.
What’s wrong with these guys? What the hell are they thinking? What do they see that we don’t see?

(My very personal take on this issue)



Who are you talking to? I wasn’t talking about the mixer so there’s no need to bring that up.

Also, the comments “unusable” and “showstopper” appear in your post only, not ours. Again completely pointless to bring up.

And “Wordpress technology”? Is this “Wordpress”? No, it is about the Control Room in Nuendo 6. Pointless and irrelevant comparison to the comments at least I have made in this thread.

But let me ask you this: As far as the User Interface of Control Room is concerned, what good reasons do you find to change them? Not talking about functionality but about the UI.

And don’t you agree that the fundamental task of the CR is the same as the main mixer; to take incoming signals and route them to various destinations?

And if that’s the case, if the improvements of the CR GUI are so forward thinking and great, would you not agree that the mixer should go the same route with horizontal sliders instead of faders, with tabbing instead of expanding channels for simultaneous view?

If if the above is NOT true, then explain why it is beneficial in CR but not the regular mixer.

Sorry, but your post just seemed like an anti-rant-rant against something that wasn’t ranting, but instead actually constructive criticism. How about you discuss what has been brought up specifically instead?

Great post Fredo, although, I still have a hard time with the horizontal blue line (gimme at least a fader !).

And I’m not getting old.I’m maturing.

Kind regards,


How was that a “great post”? It was a complete “cookie cutter” reply except for the part about the mixer which isn’t what this was all about in the first place…

Lydiot, different people, different ways to communicate.
The post was great in a philosophical way IMO. Getting used to changes and all that. I really dug it.
Except I too would like to see some changes in the Control room section . Might it reveal some stiffness due to aging, not wanting to change one’s habit or not.

But hey, I should not have to explain the art (and benefits) of rhetoric. :wink:

With all due respect, changing code for future functionality should not come at the cost of usability.

Another example related to the CR issue is not being able to see sends + send panning at the same time in the channel edit window. I fail to see how this can be construed as an “improvement”.

His comment was not conducive to a constructive discussion of the issue at hand.

We all have our way of working. Lydiot, I absolutely get where you’re coming from… and I do wonder why there was such a radical change in the CR format. It does seem more immediately logical that the presentation would be more “conventional mixer” oriented.

And Fredo’s point (which I also get) is well-taken. Any of us who have managed to last in this arena for the last 25 years or so has done it via a combination of professional aptitude and adaptability. I often feel my experience has relied more heavily on the latter!

Fredo mentioned something that to me was especially interesting: “endless complaining and long argumentations on the betaforum.” Looks like there was, ahem, lively debate in the new CR’s development stage. But ultimately, the end product is what we have. So… if this wasn’t some freak accident of technological evolution, I would really like to know why it turned out that way. As I said before-- I’m still on the fence about whether the new design’s an asset or an annoyance. So far, there are things about it I really like. Other things, maybe not so much. But if I were, even only hypothetically, going to adjust (hopefully improve) my workflow, I really believe it would be helpful to know what Steinberg actually had in mind.

That’s why I asked, earlier, if there was anybody here who actually LIKES the new CR. So… Fredo, you do. I’d find it helpful to understand why, on a practical level, it works better for you.


I have a feeling that a lot of the new GUI things are a halfway step towards touch screen usability. Also regarding the CR and cue mixes,with the newly released ipad/iphone and soon to be android port of cubase Ic pro, people will be able to adjust their own cue mixes from their tablet or phone. My ipad is now part of my travelling studio kit and i dont have many people come to my studio who dont have either a tablet or smart phone, so the latest update to the CR although it might be seen as unwieldy to the N5 user is a huge step forward when you see how it can now be used.


I also frequently use both phone and tablet in remote recording situations… but I do not understand how you mean the new arrangement is superior… and I WANT to. Could you elaborate?


What new functionality made the previous GUI impossible to maintain yet made the trade-off a net “huge step forward”?

Not me. Not at all.
In the old one you could switch between the “Big old meters” and all the inserts with one click, all in the open.

It is still one click!

I like the new CR, but it has taken time.