Feature Request - Console emulation within Cubase mixer :)

Hi all,

I was looking at this thread on GS where they talk about a new console emulation that will be released this week called ‘Satson’.

Basically, what this thing does is it gives you :

  • an accurate VU meter for proper gain staging (0VU = -18dbfs)
  • smooth HP and LP filters
  • saturation for console emulation

I find this little thing so smart and useful I’m wondering why Steinberg doesn’t include such features in Cubase mixer channels ?

It doesn’t need to look the same but a little VU meter indicating 0 VU and a saturation algorithm for every channel would be very nice IMHO.

What you guys think ? :smiley:

Looks good, nice price as well!
Somebody be more greedy than me and try it out first please :stuck_out_tongue:

Hi - Can you help me learn a bit please? …

Why is this “Console Emulation” package better than using the Cubase mixer meters (instead of the VU meter) and Cubase EQ (for HPF/LPF)? Or, why not use one of the free-ware VU meters out there and save $39?

Is it that the Cubase EQ HPF/LPF is not so good?

And also … what is the saturation - tape saturation (like Magneto, or whatever the current Cubase product is)? … tube emulation (like Da Tube)? … something else?

Thanks so much! :slight_smile:

Good questions Alexis. I was thinking the same things myself.

Well the meter and filters are superfluous really so it’s down to whether the saturation really emulates a ‘high end console’.

If it does I would suspect it would only add a subtle change to our sound. After all high end consoles were designed with the utmost quality and hi-fidelity in mind

Well the VU meter indicates clearly where is the 0VU (-18 dbfs) which is a good information for proper gain staging, in the analog world it helps you to know that you have enough headroom to take care of the peaks in your audio.

When mixing in the box it is also useful in order to manage the audio levels running through your effects. A lot of plugins react according to the input level of the audio coming in, ie plugins like saturators, some Nebula libraries, etc. An accurate VU meter is a useful tool. Thing is, this one VU meter seems well calibrated according to the developper but I haven’t tried it yet.

Regarding the saturation it helps you getting more vibe and depth from your tracks, when applied to all channels of a mix it helps getting a more living sound and helps getting rid of the digital perfection you have with DAWS. This saturation emulates the sound of an analog console, it’s the same kind of plugin as Slate digital VCC.

But my point was not promoting Satson (I might grap it when it’s released but I need to demo it first). My point was that I would find it nice to have these features implemented within a mixer channel in Cubase. :mrgreen:

Peeps who have calibrated their DAWs to a nominal dBu level would already know that -18dBFS = 0dbu

When mixing in the box it is also useful in order to manage the audio levels running through your effects. A lot of plugins react according to the input level of the audio coming in, ie plugins like saturators, some Nebula libraries, etc. An accurate VU meter is a useful tool. Thing is, this one VU meter seems well calibrated according to the developper but I haven’t tried it yet.

As above, but in terms odf calibration the Cubase meters are accurate



Regarding the saturation it helps you getting more vibe and depth from your tracks, when applied to all channels of a mix it helps getting a more living sound and helps getting rid of the digital perfection you have with DAWS. This saturation emulates the sound of an analog console, it’s the same kind of plugin as Slate digital VCC.

But my point was not promoting Satson (I might grap it when it’s released but I need to demo it first). My point was that > I would find it nice to have these features implemented within a mixer channel in Cubase> . > :mrgreen:

It would seem a bit pointless having it just on a channel. It would need to be something that affects the whole mix engine of cubase for it to be meaningful. If you just want a certain saturation on selective channels their are plenty of plugs for that already.

I remember discussing, on the old Cubase forum years ago, the idea of having the Cubase mixer having presets for analog mixer emulation, but back then the levels of computing power simply wouldn’t have been powerful enough. Anyone who remembers the old Truetape thing would know what I’m on about. :slight_smile:

So yeah selecting SSL, Neve, Cadac, Trident, Harrison, etc desk emulations on the Cubase mixer would be marvellous, but I would say it would be a subtle effect

I’d rather see DAW programmers work on how they sum tracks together, instead of provide some sort of emulation plugin. A single, isolated and solo’d channel in the DAW can sound quite good… it’s when multiple channels are summed together that problems arise – there are a number of white papers on this very subject (google it). The plugin doesn’t address one of the biggest contributors to the “analog sound” – scrape wow and flutter

Well the summing in a DAW is just addition. And it’s done to 80bit precision in the registers. If a bunch of tracks that sound good in isolation don’t sound good when summed together maybe it’s because they way those tracks are shaped rather than the summing process itself


The plugin doesn’t address one of the biggest contributors to the “analog sound” – scrape wow and flutter

indeed. Get a UAD-2 and the tape Emulaton plug

Well the summing in a DAW is just addition. And it’s done to 80bit precision in the registers. If a bunch of tracks that sound good in isolation don’t sound good when summed together maybe it’s because they way those tracks are shaped rather than the summing process itself

I wouldn’t go so far as to say digital summing sounds “bad” but rather analog summing sounds better, for all the various reasons people often cite.

I’ve looked at one whitepaper of digital summing that I was told explains why it adds harmonics that are NOT pleasing to the ear. Unfortunately, I didn’t understand a word of it. :laughing:


The plugin doesn’t address one of the biggest contributors to the “analog sound” – scrape wow and flutter



indeed. Get a UAD-2 and the tape Emulaton plug

I demo’d it awhile back. It definitely imparted SOMETHING to the sound… to my ears, it just made an audio track sound a bit louder, and, for lack of a better word, “fuller.” But not worth the $250 price, IMO. Magneto – a freebie that can still be downloaded from the Steinberg ftp site, sounds roughly the same, to my ears

Well that’s a fair comment. Analog summing will distort the sound and boviosuly in a pleasing way

I’ve looked at one whitepaper of digital summing that I was told explains why it adds harmonics that are NOT pleasing to the ear. Unfortunately, I didn’t understand a word of it. > :laughing: >

Hmmmm. Well I can’t think why digital summing would add harmonics. I tried googling to no avail. gotta link?

Maybe twilightsong was talking about aliasing, which is a different topic than digital summing.

Problem with digital summing is it’s too perfect, it’s not bad, on the contrary it’s perfect. Analog summing is not as perfect so it has a vibe we like.

I agree the plug in do not address the summing “issue”, but it kind of gives the vibe of a real console to the mix, at least it’s how it’s advertised. Listening to some mixes done with VCC, I don’t know if it sounds anything like the real thing but it gives some depth to the mixes that is hard to get with DAWs. This one plug in is supposed to do what VCC does. Thing is it’s pretty cheap so I might try it to see if it works for me.

I wish Steinberg added it’s own analog summing engine in Cubase, kind of like the Harrisson mixbus thing…it could be an option in preferences “make it sound like a console” :laughing: (yeah CPU could be an issue :wink: )

If there’s one thing computers are good at it’s addition!

I’m 99.9999% sure you can’t cause aliasing within a digital signal chain,rather aliasing is caused when frequencies higher than 1/2 the sample rate are folderback into the tones under 1/2 the sample rate in the conversion process.

In the case of analog summing it could be argued that computers are too good :wink:

In a computer
when you add 3+3 you get 6
when you add 6+6 you get 12

In an analog word there is a speed limit based on the ability of an active component (like a tube or transistor) to drive the input impedance of next stage - whatever that may be

So in an opamp what you might see is something like this
when you add 3+3 you get 5.999 ( a slight reduction )
when you add 6+6 you get 8.0 ( the larger delta “hit” the slew rate limit )

Since most signals in analog circuits are kept relatively low, slew rate distortion is very low - perhaps imperceptible

But I think the jury might still be out on this one …

peace y’all
pj

Computers aren’t perfect addition machines though. Their registers only hold numbers up to a certain size. if you add a bunch of numbers and the result si a number that exceeds the max then you either clip the number at the max or you apply a correction ( gain ) factor to reduce it to fit. And then you lose precision

I think it was THIS paper on how the Pro Tools mixer sums (48-bit resolution). The paper does say one thing that I’ve been saying for years (although I didn’t know how to prove or defend it): there’s no loss of resolution by using the master fader to control volume in a DAW

Right – digital summing has no “sweet spot” like analog does

I wish Steinberg added it’s own analog summing engine in Cubase, kind of like the Harrisson mixbus thing…it could be an option in preferences “make it sound like a console” > :laughing: > (yeah CPU could be an issue > :wink: > )

Right, that’s what I’m talking about. I wish the Harrison worked for other than AU/TDM, I would surely try it.

True, but aren’t you talking about many decimal places down in the wordlength? Is that in any way audible?

Very unlikely to affect the summing bus, maybe for EQ and Compression…