Check out these 3 projects with different routings applied:
If I get the idea you want to have 15 instantly accessible FX per audio channel and use the FX track/return faders to blend. The example projects would work that way for a single channel. For each further channel you’d need another 15 FX channels if you restrict yourself to blending with the FX return faders. Doesn’t seem too ergonomic to me. That’s why we have sends.
Don’t know about your world, in mine it’s easier to choose 8 fx (out of the total count of fx in my projects) than creating lots of weird routings by default. In any case I need more than 8 sends - which happens - I’ll just send the specific channel to a group to add another 8.
I agree that having 16 sends (or 24 or 32 or just unlimited) would be useful in some scenarios and can’t imagine a major technical reason to not add another 8 or so in the future, Steinberg did it with inserts (from 8 to 16 which is a big relief).
Yep, that’s what i want. And i have 100+ channels so that’s not a way, 15 effects on 100 tracks and will end up with 1500 fx faders.
Not 100% sure yet, but at this point what i gather, people either dont understand what i mean or its being setup as a limitation to 8/15 to each channel. In some way its just duplicating the process in another way of adding it to the 16 insert slots that’s available, same limitation, only that we added blend to faders.
That’s my world too, and that’s what i do.
The idea here is not the quantity of plugins i need on each track but the availability of them for each channel.
Would probably be about 30 effects plugins that i would want permanently on all projects. A predefined set of effects.
Thought it would be clear from that cla video in how he fed his audio with his outboard gear on the track with a fader.
Only think it’s possible through sends at this point, limited to 8 sends though…
I was thinking something like summing tracks, that i dont route the fx track to stereo out but in a way a real time fx bounce track… i dont know enough of that, but i feel that the limitation is in the path the affected audio channel has to have some other path to take so that the other audio channels are not affected… i dont know…
Dek, I do get what is being said. In a studio you could easily have 30 outboard processors in a few racks that you could physically patch into, pieces you knew and used all the time. But not multiple channels simultaneously unless they were on a bus, right? But then 8 bus’s is pretty typical in a good hardware studio and you’re back to 8 of anything. So C10, ITB, already offers more than this with 16 sends and multiple duplicate efx along with multiple bus’s - but you want more. And no cables…
Ok, so if you had a channel preset that had 16 plugins on it, and you had 30 instances of it… Good lord, haha, would this even fly? I doubt a project with 30 tracks with 16 plugin efx running could even work, forget the efx bus’s or Group channels. I have a pretty OK PC and I wouldn’t even try it.
I definitely hear what you are saying though. In a Perfect World scenario it’s fun to imagine such excess. However, whether by what’s been my experience or by my shortsightedness, Cubase 10 is a lot of kit.
Acutally any current digital desk would make it possible using ‘sends on fader’. As long as a channel is solo’d and the thing is in sends on fader-mode it’d work like in the CLA video.
Connecting a digidesk with a DAW, utilizing plugins as fx processors (instead of the desks own fx), requires plenty of I/Os and some extensive routing work. Those I/Os could be analog or digital (ADAT, MADI, whatever), in case of digital proper clocking/sync’ing is obligatory.
It’s a bit nerdy but definately doable. I for myself am very happy mixing ITB without all the fuzz I remember from working with analog consoles, wouldn’t want to trade the fast/easy/reliable workflow of a DAW for messing around with all sorts of extra trouble.
I am just left wondering if 8 is a number they have settled on or if it’s a limitation of the software.
And roos, the thing is, if i would want more than 8 THEN it becomes and obscene amount of processing requirement. The 8 sends limit dictates it. I am actually asking for more sends so that i dont have to duplicate effects on each channel to save workload on the system. Save processing, less clutter, better overview, availability, by shared signal. I dont understand the decision, maybe there is a fee involved? maybe Sony wants their money.
The first thing that pops to my mind for roughly approximating such a workflow is:
Have 2, 3 or 4 group channels.
Fill them with 8-12 inserts each, in the most logical fashion (compromise here). For example, you could have 3 different compressors/limiters you like one after the other, 3-4 reverb presets, etc.
Now we have 16 to 48 available “effects”
Find a way to quickly activate/deactivate each insert in each group.
Use group fader for effect.
(Of course each channel would send pre or post to the respective 2 to 4 group channels)
I should probably test this, but I have a feeling my computer would crash and burn.