Hi, how come the FX modulator only allows one module per instance of the same kind? Like if I had a volume module loaded I cannot add another volume module after it? I know I can load another instance but that’s a bit redundant.
Thank you,
Because you’re already modulating that parameter in FX Modulator. Adding a second modulation source to the same parameter would create conflicting controls. Curiously, why would you need to add a second source for the same parameter?
1 Like
Or allow building a DX7 
1 Like
I think the DX was all absolute parameter modulation though, right? That’d get messy quickly 
Edit: I think FX Mod is only absolute as well. If you could use relative, then maybe a duplicate source would make sense…
1 Like
The DX (FM modulation) was modulating modulators to create complex audible waveforms from simple sine waves - so a bit of different purpose than modulating FX parameters. But some gear allows LFO to push into audible range frequencies thereby blurring the distinction.
More seriously:
I haven’t played with the FX modulator yet (since I have plenty of 3rd party FX already). Is it effectively like a Guitar PedalBoard? If yes there’s no reason why you couldn’t have more than one of the same effect in the signal chain.
I assume the limitation is more based on software development convenience. Programming (and troubleshooting) gets more complicated when you can have multiples of the same kind of thing rather than just one instance of each. If I wanted to pump out a piece of software in a hurry, I’d rather have objects than arrays of objects. 
For many mainstream use cases having one of each kind of effect is good enough. For more ambitious use, use 3rd party plugins or multiple instances of the “simpler” Cubase included one.
I think this is a classic case of giving a little something nice to users and then there will be some questions why the thing isn’t more advanced.
Product development people have long discussions about “minimum viable product”.
And different users have very different ideas about what a minimum viable product is. Manufacturers take their best shot at it and then “the market” decides if they got it right.
1 Like
I see, thank hou well simply to make the sound fade as its volume is modulated so I was planning to put a slower rate envelope on it f what I ended up doin is I used another instance of fx modular after it.
2 Likes
Right on. Volume automation is also a good way to do that on the track to make the FX module a bit less “complex,” but glad you got it sorted out 
1 Like
Yes you’re right and automation use less cpu thank you
1 Like
I think that’s a fair description, but in this case, the “volume” parameter applies to the plugin-output as a whole, and not each effect individually. So it makes absolute-value parameter changes from two different sources a bit tricky, which is (in my mind) a bit different than “modulating the modulators.” But you SHOULD be able to add multiple filters, each with a different envelope, but you can’t do that either - so yeah, it’s just meant to be a single-effect-instance chain from the looks of it. Cool little plug-in though. I need to do more work with it, as I’m actively in REDUCE 3RD PARTY PLUGINS MODE right now and haven’t yet installed Devious Machines Infiltrator from my new install. I still may, as it’s pretty powerful, but only after I work with what I have in SB and make sure
2 Likes
haha - I’m also a bit of a plugin hoarder enthusiast. 
I find the Cubase included plugins are generally very solid and low CPU consumption, and implement VST3 in a quite exemplary fashion. But they don’t always target every ambitious / specialized use case. – And that makes a lot of sense to me.
2 Likes
I agree, stock plugins can go a long way (not all of them). When it comes to character plugins like compressors - it’s still 3rd party plugins for me, too.
However, some VSTinstruments deserve way more credit. They might be a bit difficult to master at first but once you get to know them they are awesome and can definetly replace some 3rd party plugins!
2 Likes
Yeah - I’ve been a long term HALion and Groove Agent User and also find Retrologue and Padshop extremely competent.
But over the years quite a few Cubase included VST instruments (and FX) have been discontinued, leading to a trail of tears for some users.
And the Cubase internal plugins aren’t usable outside of Cubase - which limits some workflows.
Going all in on Cubase instruments and fx is possible, but that’s a lot of eggs in one basket.
1 Like
I have no illusions that doing this will fit all my needs, but I am going to at least try it first. This may be TMI and all that, but I already feel the “benefits of constraint” with my new system. Where I’m at now is stock SB, UAD (which is too many by itself), FabFilter suite, Spectrasonics (Omnisphere, Keyscape, etc), and SSL, but only the channel strip, compressor, and 360 link. And only Guitar Rig 7 Pro from NI. So notably no EW, NI, UVI, iZotope, Kilohearts, Softube, Arturia, Slate, Vital, Serum, ANA2, Massive, Synthmaster, etc. etc. It was just too much.
I’m actually embarrassed to say that there were plugins from SB that I didn’t even know existed., like Frequency 2 and REVelation. I mean, like LAST WEEK I found them, so it’s clear to me that I needed a reset to zero, and take my time to work with what I already have, and if I need to go to something else it will be based on a specification or requirement I can articulate, and not “oh, shiny! Here’s money.” HALion, Padshop, and Retrologue are pretty amazing, and will keep me busy for a year. My production workflow is already suffering from some decision paralysis as it is, and I need to change that. I actually thought keeping Ableton was too much, but I changed my mind about that. I have far too much invested in Live/Max.
Anyway, I basically stopped worrying about “all my eggs being in one basket” because, to continue the idiom, all my hens are in the same coop anyway.
2 Likes