Groupchannels supersede FX-channels?

Is this pretty much it - FX channels are there for historic reasons, or?

You can only route FX channels to hardware output bus.

Tracks can route sends to FX and Group channels.

Looking in comparison chart I see “FX send channels” which does not exist in manual.
They are only 8 on all Cubase versions.

Channels are also often used as a term for buss or track.
In other daws channels or most often the internals for routing of tracks - a stereo track has two channels.

What is meant by 8 FX send channels?

Then comparison chart says FX return channels are 64 for Cubase, but 8 for Elements.
Searching for “return channel” there is one entry in manual stating that FX channels is basically a return channel seen in mixing console.

The comparison chart “FX return channels” is that the number of those fx busses you can create in FX folder?

Apples are never called apples in Cubase, it’s always orange or kiwi or something else.
I’m studying like crazy to see whether to go all in on Cubase in this campaign running now.

And I ask myself - can I live with these odd non-intuitive naming of what is to be my main tool working all days?
Serious doubts, I tell you.
It’s like programmers are naming everything, not from a musicians point of view.

Thanks for any input on this.

Is this pretty much it - FX channels are there for historic reasons, or?

If you are asking if they fullfil any role that groups can’t also cover, then no, they don’t.

What is meant by 8 FX send channels?

On an audio/instrument track/channel there are 8 sends. If you were to need more than 8 you would have to route to a group which of course would have a further 8.

The comparison chart “FX return channels” is that the number of those fx busses you can create in FX folder?

It is the max number of FX channels you can add to Cubase…Stereo or Mono makes no odds. 64 is max.

And I ask myself - can I live with these odd non-intuitive naming of what is to be my main tool working all days?
Serious doubts, I tell you.

If this is your greatest concern in choosing a DAW then I wonder if your mind is working a little differently to most :smiley:

Depends on the Cubase version (though it´s the other way round, IIRC)

From a technician´s point of view all those naming conventions are totally common (be it DAWs or real mixing desks), and not restricted to Cubase.

Thanks for your input.

Not the greatest concern, just one of the things I’m concerned about - feel comfortable all the way.
You can try the really nice looking pair of shoes and it feels ok in the store - but after some time your toes start to ache - kind of thinking. I’ve been out of the Cubase store now for a good month - and some toes are aching.
It’s like an old marriage that were a poor match to start with - little things make the divorce in the end.

Funny thing is that the same mind is also deciding which directlon I throw my money.

Another concern is performance - the approach Steinberg take with this ASIO Guard thingy.
I still get some spontaneous pops now and then keeping this on.
Same project in Reaper never do this and cpu is lower.
Seems to me Steinberg are trapped is very old code that need rework.

Yet another how you can get an overview of current routings - VST connections is crap regarding this, really odd.
Most daws have a simple matrix for this to see what goes where on a global scale. Trying to look in manuals but I simply don’t if it’s there in Cubase - or that I have no idea what Steinberg call it.

Thanks.

Running Elements I felt that groupchannels supersede fx channels completely - that why I asked what I missed.
FX channels seems obsolete to me.

Could you ellaborate on which versions you are thinking of - and where groupchannels are more limiting than fx channels?

[quote=“Larioso”]
It’s like programmers are naming everything, not from a musicians point of view.
[/quote]

From a technician´s point of view all those naming conventions are totally common (be it DAWs or real mixing desks), and not restricted to Cubase.

Well, that is what I meant, not from musicians point.
And also included everything, now read through manual front to back, it’s not common convention on too many things.

IIRC at least in the elements version, FX channels don´t have as many routing and send options as in the full version, where both are more or less identical. I think I worded that badly - FX channels are more limiting in the small versions (Again IIRC long time since I used anything else than the full version)

Well, but usually it´s technicians who operate a mixer and a PA and recording equipment. And the other way round, for example for a drummer, a flam will always stay a flam, no matter what someone else calls it…

Thanks.
Replacing one word with another is the easy part.
But when you get an unfortunate naming where you in manual start using the same word for many different things is worse.

Reading help or manual this happends all the time. Steinberg really painted themselves into a corner from where there is no return. It really should be reworked.

Sometimes channels are individual audio path, sometimes it’s tracks, sometimes it’s actually busses.
Midi events are sometimes a clip of midi data, withing a part - sometimes like in List editor midi event is the actual single midi note/controller.
Things like this making you reading through some extra pages just to grasp what are they talking about here.

I’ve done all that I need to do normally in the process of getting a final mix, as I’m used to. So it’s working smooth. But also having a lot of tools you try to improve and maybe quicken things up - I read up on this too - and get confused by terms used.

Some things are just unfortunate naming. A lot of “VST” here and there - and you think it is to do with plugins - but it’s not.

Some of my confusing is that I am not running Cubase yet, but try to read manual for it - alongside with Elements . So I’m reading more than usuall until I’m into the whole thing.

Just letting some steam out in my process learning Cubase fully.

i hope the nomenclature gets consolidated.

i personally never use fx tracks (because you did not use to be able to further re-route them).

but then again, some features in cubendo are designed and hard-wired to the fx-tracks: like ‘automatically connecting’ newly created tracks’ sends to your fx tracks, or the function to instantly create a fx track with a chosen plugin inserted in it.

The first step to learning Cubase is to…buy Cubase.

Reading the Cubase manual with only Elements at hand, will only confuse you, at best. You can’t read yourself a good engineer/producer/mixer without trying, trying, trying, testing ,testing, trying, testing…

You can’t read the Mercedes manual and drive a Lada, and expect to get to know the Mercedes :wink:

PS. At first when reading all your posts in such a short time, I suspected a sophisticated troll with a slightly hidden aganda :wink:

+1

It did become rather intense - that is true. It’s bound to be PITA to some.
And to rare posters - that don’t care to look what is actually written by somebody - I’d rather be a PITA.

Some people may have more money than sense - and buy a lot of things without even thinking about it.
I’m not one of them.

So the car methaphor become - not so accurate for us not filthy rich.

So, if these are all pre-sales questions, why post in this forum instead of the appropriate one?

So you did 67 posts so far.

How many of those are just commenting that other people post, what they post, and where.

Seems you got a problem there.
You reveal more about yourself than about me, actually.

Hi,

well, as this thread has gone completely out off topic, and it seems to have started on the wrong forum since the very beginning, I’m locking it.

Any complaints, please PM me.

Best regards and have a nice weekend :slight_smile: