This has been an interesting, albeit fairly highly convoluted, thread. The subject line caught my curiosity initially, partly because having a “pre” (as in “preamp”) section AFTER inserts is certainly not backwards, but also partly because there have been times where I’d like to have the “pre” controls be available, or more likely “also be available”, after the inserts.
For context, it may be helpful to note that my projects are mostly traditional music production in the sense of the sort of instrumentation that might have been done with live players, and hardware instruments, in a recording studio back when I was starting to record music, but with the twist that these days all my tracks except vocals are typically virtual instruments. I do some degree of sound design in that context, but it is generally sound design for the best fit in the context of the song and recording, as opposed to sound design for sound design’s sake. I also arrange, record, edit, mix, and master in the same project.
Now getting back to the “pre” section consideration:
Most of the time, the Pre is exactly where it should be for my needs. I’ll use the HPF and LPF just like I would in a hardware console, and I’ll also use the gain like I would a trim control in such a console. I am not working with audio waveforms because I’m working with virtual instruments (and, at least to date, it has been exceedingly rare for me to start with a rendered WAV file of a virtual instrument part since I like the flexibility of being able to tweak the arrangement during the mix if I find somewhere that would be beneficial – and I frequently do). So I’ll take the output of the virtual instrument, usually put a VU meter plugin in there for gain staging temporarily, mostly for the purpose of analog emulation plugins that want traditional analog-style signal levels to optimize how they respond, and do any gain staging. I may or may not tweak the HPF and LPF right away, or use them at all, because it depends on what I’m doing after that in my mixing. In particular, it is very common for me to use third party channel strip plugins (e.g. from Waves, PSP Audioware, et al) for my main mixing duties. With some key exceptions, I’m generally relying on the sound out of the virtual instruments to be the sound I want for purposes of starting a mix. What comes after that will typically be a channel strip and sends to any FX buses, with outputs going to subgroup buses in most cases (the main exception on the outputs is when there is only one instrument of a particular category, such as piano, where it will go to an instrumental submix group in parallel with other submix groups like electric guitars, acoustic guitars, synths, etc.)
The big exception where I would tend to like to use pre-type processing after channel inserts tends to be virtual electric guitars. I may also use the pre section prior to guitar signal chains (typically Guitar Rig Pro, AmpliTube, TH3, et al), but I will almost always want to have pre-type capabilities after what would have been the analog output of the guitar signal chain in this case. (This is my most common scenario for the sound design case, though not the only one, as sometimes I’ll also do some creative FX processing in inserts.) In some senses, it is no biggie that I can’t have it there, because I’m usually using channel strip plugins instead of the MixConsole controls, and most channel strip plugins at least have HPF, and usually also LPF, controls, but it would be nice.
This is especially true in the cases where I have to freeze the virtual instrument track with its inserts to get CPU performance back, but that is also an issue for the channel strip plugin use because I can’t just, say, freeze through the point of the guitar signal chain then let me put the channel strip after it for working on the mix. So I typically doe the freeze/unfreeze/refreeze dance as needed during the mix. Or, alternately, I’ll just route the instrument track to a group bus of its own, then do the mix-level processing there. I can even hide the original channel if having both visible would be confusing. In fact, there are some contexts where I need to do the extra channel thing anyway in cases where I am dealing with a mono track (more likely on my lead vocal, but some virtual instruments also put out a mono signal) that will need stereo inserts.
There are also cases where I’m not being careful enough with my insert gain staging (or where specific plugins I’m using don’t have needed capabilities in this area), where it would be nice to have a trim control after the inserts (but prior to the fader) to allow using the full resolution of the fader. However, when I need this, I typically just set the original track fader wherever it needs to be then use a VCA track in place of the original track fader. This also has some advantages in cases of multiple similar tracks that need the same fader automation but have their track faders starting at different points. (And I also use VCA faders when I’ve already got fader automation on a track or set of tracks but find I need to bump things up or down a bit.)
So, what am I saying with respect to the original proposal??? I guess I’m somewhat ambivalent because I can already do everything I need to do easily enough, even if sometimes that means treating the original track as an audio input and using a single instrument group track as the track for mixing. I hate to see more complexity added to an already complex picture. But I also certainly wouldn’t mind a post inserts, or maybe even post-fader (or either/or), trim control (and maybe even additional LPF/HPF). But then do I also need more insert slots after that since I generally prefer channel strip plugins to MixConsole controls??? If so, that either complicates the channel strip signal flow even further or just sends me back to what I already do (i.e. using a separate MixConsole channel as the mix-level strip while leaving the original track as more like the input to that mixer strip).
Also, one big consideration on my 2014 vintage PC is that I’ll often run out of oomph at mix time, so using a group channel with inserts as a mix channel, where I can’t directly freeze that channel can cause some extra acrobatics. Those extra acrobatics can be somewhat simpler in Cubase 12 due to some of the enhancements rendering, but, when I do need to deal with those, the rendered track will be out of sync with the original track if I adjust things after the rendering (i.e. on the new audio track that would have been the equivalent of the group track).
One thing I will say on the proposal as the one graphic mockup of a potential solution that was posted looked to me to be overcomplicated. If something is added/changed in this area, I would hope it would be kept simple in the same way the current Pre implementation is (and in the same way it always has been in analog signal flow). I’m also not convinced that just having the location of the Pre be variable on a per-track basis (I definitely would not want it on a mix-wide basis) would buy much for my needs in that I am mostly using third party processing at the channel level. (I do sometimes use the MixConsole EQ after that, though, since it works after tracks frozen with inserts, if I need to fix additional issues at the final mix stage.)