Cubase Channel Strip, including "Pre", AFTER Insert Section (is all backwards?)

So why not using a DAW that allows this? Why do you need to change the way we want to work?
If you do the change for yourself, nobody cares.

I’m confused because that is the way it works,

It is inserts feeding the channel strip which then feeds the sends. Isn’t that what you wanted ?

Press the edit channel settings button

And eq can be moved to be just before the sends.

It can be an option. No one is trying to change the way you work.

No that is just how it is displayed. The Pre is first in the signal chain.

The pre gain might be but the eq is not. It works as displayed. If you put a plug-in in the inserts and turn it down it stops feeding the EQ and channel strip.

So is all if this because you just want another volume control before you hit the main fader ?

Because the current setup is needed as well because I use that pre for hot tracks and gain staging.

But I used a volume fader plugin like TrackControl. It’s a great plugin because then I do not have to mess with my automation either.

Also for abbey road type eq on effects I tend to put something like the waves req4 before my effects in the fx channels.

But another small fader before the main fader would be nice. Rather like pro tools send fader, it just pops up when clicked.

I think everyone here understands that a DAW can be anything and not beholden to analog consoles. You keep explaining the obvious but seem to be missing a pretty important point.

Cubase is a pretty traditionalist meat and potatoes kind of DAW. They have a lot of useful features but they never really go crazy and seem to deliberately stick in the lane. There are others which have much more open ended workflows and where this kind of “break the chains” approach makes more sense.

I think most people in this thread feels there are more important things for Steinberg to focus on. What you’re asking for is not a useful feature, it’s just a little quality of life improvement to do something that can already be accomplished in a better way.

You did…
The option argument is always used in these situations.
But somebody has to write the code for it, this adds another level of complexity,
this adds another point of failure…

1 Like

I didn’t realize you are a dev-mod, my apologies.

both The pre gain and filter is before , the EQ section itself I think is or can be after.

Yes that is correct, the eq is after the inserts but the pre again and phase and filters are not. But for filters you can move the eq to the end of the channel strip and use the eq as a filter.

But I see the issue, it has no trim control on the eq which us not great. You could put it 2nd from last and put one of the other channel strip items last as all the others seem to have output dials except the EQ.

It would be nice if the EQ could be added twice in the channel strip and had an output dial on it.

What you could do is create a new-feature post and add the new feature tag and suggest a new channel strip item as a fader with filters on it. That way it’s just an item in the channel strip ppl either add or don’t. No one’s workflow is changed unless they want it.

Definitely the EQ could be used, but, the EQ doesn’t always need to be used and so you would be engaging it and it would visually appear engaged when looking at mix console… Would be much better to retain separating filter engagement vs EQ engagement for all sorts of workflow reasons. My personal default settings have the Pre Filters steep, and the EQ filters gentle.

And yes also no gain compensation with the EQ

1 Like

Basically a gain plug with cuts in the tools drawer of the strip section. That’s a excellent idea. :+1:

1 Like

I think a couple of new modules, a mini fader and another with filters, or maybe just one new channel strip module with both. Probably better as separate modules because I might use the filters before the comp if I ever decided to use the channel strip more. Also the ability to add the same module twice in the channel strip.

That would be good, I would use it. Once I’ve done automation and I realise I have to change the gain on something it would be very useful. Doesn’t happen often but for when it does it would be good. Better than adding a VCA or anything else.

Oh and please someone add an output control on the eq :slight_smile:

And, if we are talking modules, lets have a mono maker too.

Add a nifty little VU-meter as well then. :grinning:

1 Like

that’s how we did it analog right?

so now you like the idea, it just needed to be more complicated and scattered? Proper Cubase user.

yeah. if you cannot get anything done with the software, why use it?

You can probably see why. Your description was not the best. It sounded like you wanted to move the pre fader and filters somewhere else which would mess a lot of people up. Me included. I most definitely DO want to change my gain before I hit the inserts.

It did rather come across as you wanted to strip it all apart and put it back in a totally different order.

It’s your description that is convoluted and hard to comprehend so some ppl will not like it.

If you simple said:
“I would like another trim just before the main fader because I want to use the top part of the main fader as it has the widest range. Also I want to trim after all the channel strip effects because currently that not always possible. This could be used to adjust gain after automation has been added too. I also want filters at the end before going to sends and effect so I can send without bass flooding the fx channels (abbey road style). I know there are other ways to do this but having those two items built in just before the main fader would be very handy”

I think ppl would have felt better about it. Rather than what looked like a plan to rip it up and start again.

If you think my idea of adding two new modules is adding complexity then good luck to you. You know this works rather like voting on these features, you have to try and charm the votes by the way lol.

Not really. If people were unable to gather that I was suggesting this as an option… then I’m not sure any amount of charm, or logic, would be enough to have a deliberative conversation regardless of the clarity of the OP. Certainly, it’s not that unclear, and certainly isn’t at all by the 5th post or so…

I don’t want another trim, I want the one pre/filter module to be moveable where ever in MixConsole, either on a per track basis, or across the entire MixConsole.

I don’t think the idea of having little trim utilities all over the place as was later suggested is a good idea. Just make the current one moveable.

Well I am not surprised ppl get annoyed with you lol …only joking :slight_smile:

Your descriptions are slightly muddled and hard to follow. Stop calling everything “pre” and you might have a fighting chance. Or maybe it’s just me being daft, it’s very possible.

In your original list you did indicate you wanted to move the current “pre” because no one would use it where it was. I use it to get all my audio I import to around the same area at the top of the faders i.e. a basic mix. So it’s the feature I use the most where it is.

Then I add plugins, but as I do, I balance the ins and outs. I do not add plugins that change the gain without me balancing the output of the plugin. I never have a signal at the end of my inserts that is very different to before the first insert if I can avoid it. Why would anyone do that? Any gain change will make the effect of the insert sound different and hard to judge, louder often sounds better, quiet worse, I want to avoid that.

I do not know anyone who would add a load of plugins and have a different gain at the end to the beginning unless it was on purpose. Even an EQ I will change the output based on my moves on the EQ. If I mute all my plugins I do not want to hear a gain change, I want to hear what the plugins did without a gain change. So I do not need another “pre” and I think a lot of ppl will not either. I do lots of sound design and I balance the in and out of plugins exactly the same. So I’m not hitting the channel strip any different than how I set the pre up when I first setup my audio track.

So I see how a trim module would help for after automation. It would also be something that could be added without changing the GUI. It is not adding faders everywhere. I suggested a module that would not be on screen unless someone selected it as a module, basically a fader if-and-when someone wanted it. Not anywhere, in the channel strip and not called “pre”. A utility if you will, your description of my suggestion is nothing like what I suggested. But your description have not been great so what do I expect.

I would only use it for gain adjustments after automation though. Though there are other ways to do that already. I use a trim plugin. To my fx channels I add eq to remove unwanted highs and lows as needed.

So I do not know how many ppl mix like you, I do not think it’s everyone, it might be very few ppl indeed.

The reasons you gave for the change, I don’t see the point of it, but I get it that you do.

For automation gain tweaks I get it, maybe for filtering sends, but I already do that in my mix template. It’s not like it’s extra work.

But it did sound rather like you wanted remove from where it was and move the pre gain in your first post and that was scary. Saying you want to move stuff in Cubase will probably get a bad reaction because ppl do use these things as they currently are. I use the pre where it currently is at the start of every project on every audio track. It’s the one thing I’m glad it’s there and glad it’s where it is and working exactly like it currently does.

I didn’t say - no one - would use it as it is, people have been using it for 30 years. I said - I don’t - use it as it is, and that I could have use for it if it was in a different position.

In the follow up clarification post, post #3, I said

Let the Pre section be the ‘Trim’ section, and let it also be moved in the signal topology.

in the 5th post, I stated

I want the entire thing after inserts as a switchable option.

I don’t think anyone had trouble understanding the post, I think they had trouble accepting it because it differs from how “this is how everyone must do it because this is how it has always been done and I have always never done anything wrong or in a way that could have been better”.

And I, leave that work to be done on events before anything else. This way, Event Waveforms represent the actual loudness of the signal that is hitting the insert section, rather than have that gain stage and amount of gain tucked away hidden in the pre.

It depends on the workflow speed doesn’t it? For me, there’s a variability of how detailed I’m being given each situation/project, style, etc. Sometimes I’m just roughly matching outs to ins, sometimes I’m using an auto leveling plugin, sometimes I’m throwing stuff all over place and not really focusing on that. There is often a different gain at the end, unless having used a precision RMS auto leveling plugin… Although, I usually get it within .5db by ear myself I find.

I’ve already gone into great detail all the use cases both technical and philosophical

Or it’s actually most people today… I mean, I’m pretty old school orientated and very exact about my processes… but looking at YouTube videos or streamers, and the general plugin user… people reach for their plugins mostly whether doing filtering or not and are fairly non-nonchalant about gain staging and technical use… I’m talking about high level pop producers to the average youtube producer… I’ve seen a lot of high level producers be pretty clumsy when it comes to the technicals, but they make hits, and it gets sent to a mix engineer who will make everything sound good regardless.

So let’s profile this person as
1.) Someone who doesn’t care about levels going into their inserts, or, gainstages their events.
Either of the above could be a top level producer, the average user, a newbie, or an audio nerd.
2.) Someone who isn’t starting a project at the mixing stage but will also be doing the mixing. They are writing/recording/producing/editing AND doing the mix themselves.
3.) They use their inserts more for FX or, use a lot of FX on their inserts.
4.) Because they are both the producer and mixer, the production overlaps into the mix. ie, there’s a point where they are approaching the project in a creative and experimental way… and then sometime later or a day later will re-approach the mix from a more technical and exact perspective.
5.) They’ve utilized automation.

I don’t think that’s a small group of people.

But we could potentially find middle ground…

Perhaps the fader section itself could get a trim knob/setting, and perhaps a filter as well. And a switchable option to be pre-post-fader-insert, or post-post-fader-inserts