I don’t use the channel strip but want to give a big thumbs up for the EnvelopeShaper plug as an insert. I kind of got suckered into buying a couple of third party ones but find I can get the best result with the Cubase one.
I also think the simple UI of this plug is really good.
no but i usr the filters on almost every tracj.
Nope. Tried it. Tested. Found it inferior to 3. party plugs, both sound wise and not the least GUI wise (why have a modern function look like an obsolete old mix desk?). Deleted it from the Mixer window. In fact I do not use Steinberg stuff other than Cubase itself much. Cubase is great and 8 the greatest of them all, and I wish Steinberg would concentrate on the DAW and not the other stuff. I think the only other thing I use is the Quadra fuzz. None of the included synths, nor fx. The Groove Agent is close to laughable.
I use Groove Agent elusively for drums. The only laughable thing about it is paying $100s more for another drum sampler for general duties, when GA does the job admirably. Of course, some drum samplers with huge libraries that target specific genre’s are another matter. For EDM Groove Agent se is as good as any.
As for Cubase Stock plug-ins and the channel strip. They are absolutely fine for what they are. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if hit records had been produced using only them. They are as good as those in any other DAW out there.
The input filters just got better with steeper slopes, now as steep as 48db. Hopefully they will get better still in future updates.
Our disagreement is only temporarily. Your ears will develop over the years to come and then you will agree with me. And who cares about EDM anyway?
Wow.
I do, amongst many others. And your patronising attitude only shows you know nothing about me or how many years I’ve been using music production tools. I could say exactly the same right back but I won’t.
“You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan/
You are right and I appologize for the offence. Pls let me try agian with a softer approach:
I find EDM on the opposite side of the dynamic range as classical music. There is rarely any dynamic at all in EDM as it has been compressed and run through limiters many times trying to get it bass heavy and very loud. The listening situation for EDM is either at a dance party (hence the name) with a lot of background noise or using limited headphones and a minute sound source as a cell phone, often with the lowest resolution on sound files. Rarely the drums and basses in the songs are from “real” instruments or samplings of “real” instruments. (Even if I considder synths and drums maschines as real instruments, I think you get my drift when I say “real” instruments"). Thus I find that EDM is not the proper foundation to evaluate the sonic quality of Groove Agent. More so the 3 acoustic sets are. And here I (and many with me) find the sonic quality poor compared to competitors. When it comes to the user interface I have much trouble. Strange naming of grooves is just one. No prelistening of 3. party grooves another. The mentioned Classical music (as the opposite dynamic side of EDM) does rarely utilize drumsets. But there are other genres of modern music that utilizes a dynamic range where sonic quality is important. Singer songwriter is just one. If sonic quality does not matter then free drumsets (available from almost “everywhere” on the net) would do the job, GA could be taken out of the Cubase default delivery and we would either get an even better Cubase (as Steinberg did not have to deversify resourses) or a cheaper one (Or Steinberg would make more money). I would rather pay the extra 100USD for an investment in sound quality for all future productions. Toontrack and MOR are my preferences.
Apology accepted, thanks.
I find EDM on the opposite side of the dynamic range as classical music. There is rarely any dynamic at all in EDM as it has been compressed and run through limiters many times trying to get it bass heavy and very loud. The listening situation for EDM is either at a dance party (hence the name) with a lot of background noise or using limited headphones and a minute sound source as a cell phone, often with the lowest resolution on sound files. Rarely the drums and basses in the songs are from “real” instruments or samplings of “real” instruments. (Even if I considder synths and drums maschines as real instruments, I think you get my drift when I say “real” instruments"). Thus I find that EDM is not the proper foundation to evaluate the sonic quality of Groove Agent. More so the 3 acoustic sets are. And here I (and many with me) find the sonic quality poor compared to competitors. When it comes to the user interface I have much trouble. Strange naming of grooves is just one. No prelistening of 3. party grooves another. The mentioned Classical music (as the opposite dynamic side of EDM) does rarely utilize drumsets. But there are other genres of modern music that utilizes a dynamic range where sonic quality is important. Singer songwriter is just one. If sonic quality does not matter then free drumsets (available from almost “everywhere” on the net) would do the job, GA could be taken out of the Cubase default delivery and we would either get an even better Cubase (as Steinberg did not have to deversify resourses) or a cheaper one (Or Steinberg would make more money). I would rather pay the extra 100USD for an investment in sound quality for all future productions. Toontrack and MOR are my preferences.
Here again we have a difference of opinion regarding dynamics in EDM but best to leave it there I think. I agree that Toontracks and MOR are fine software. But so is Groove Agent se IMO. Horses for courses, giddy up!
All the best.
+1, except the edm part
I created a grid of samples, edited them, perfected them… spent a day on that. Made and saved a preset.
Next week came back in and all my work was disheveled and barely there, half the samples ‘could not be found’.
No thanks Groove Agent. If I save a preset, it needs to be called up exactly as I saved it. There are no exceptions and no excuses.
I’ll stick with Battery.
…
On the channel strip thing, I agree with the guy that wanted a more specific question/clarification, … if I only use a filter here and there , or a/b magneto against something, am I ‘using’ the channel strip? Do you mean completely mixing thru the strip like a console?
Just like all Steinberg and 3rd party plugins, I use them when I need them, or see fit for the project. I take it that the question is asking “who uses the strip like a console”? Or who uses these internal plugins exclusively?
For too long I underestimated the quality of the built-in channel strip.
I have spent way too much money on plug-ins that pretty much the channel strip can do.
Furthermore my workflow has sped up quite a bit going to the channel strip first.
Don’t use the SB channel, when zoomed out, can hardly see the controls. Also have collected a wide range of plugins over time and have the favourites permanently across the inserts as a custom strip, they also sound smoother
After spending over 10 000$ on plugins i don’t think i will use Channel Strip but…
i tried it few times and its pretty goood, helps working faster and easier, it has
its own unique things especially for smaller projects, demos e tc…
You make a point, it is a lot faster workflow but i can not compare this to Steven Slates,
IK, UAD, Sonimus, sKnote, Melda and few other things.
Hi Cubasers, I’m new to Cubase 8, coming from 6.0, and so this is the first time I’m seeing the Channel Strip. I’m not seeing how it’s different from using inserts. Is it just a way to expand the number of inserts, and set up presets? I already use track presets that have the inserts I like to use (for example, vintage compressor, saturation, …). What does the channel strip do for me?
The Channel strip FX are the Steinberg vintage compressor, saturation, etc. They seem to be pared down, so CPU is barely affected.
You can position EQ anywhere in the path within the Channel Strip.
Other than that, it’s a workflow thing. Those of us coming from big consoles, I think really enjoy it. Had that feel of running your hand down the strip, from pre to out
Thanks, enjneer. I do like the Steinberg vintage compressor, and often use it as an insert. I guess I can stick with my track presets. Appreciate the enlightenment.
The Channel EQ is not linear phase and you limited choices over the filter slopes so I usually load up an EQ plugin when I want to get surgical. Same issue with Dynamics - there are other tools that give more visual feedback and that makes them faster to dial in. I set up the HPF and LPF in my templates, but I often still find the need to use something more precise (steeper filter) than the stock channel HPF. I also don’t find the channel EQ very pleasing with narrow Q settings. I guess I can say I have used them, but I don’t find them useful for very much. You can get by with just the stock EQ, but in the interest of getting things done promptly, FabFilter Pro-Q2 (and EIOSIS Air EQ on the 2-bus maybe) get me there faster.
I like the channel strip in Cubase Pro 8.5.
• I use the vintage compressor a fair bit, but also 3rd party compressors, however, the channel strip compressor makes it quick and easy.
• I use the Envelope shaper a fair bit.
• The Gate Occasionally.
• I use Magneto often (mostly for fx buses), but usually I use Slate VTM for tape saturation on the most prominent busses and instruments.
I love many of the Steinberg stock plugins -
• Quadrafuzz v2 is outstanding and incredibly flexible (doesn’t get much better than this & it’s free with Cubase Pro!);
• the multiband compressor, multiband envelope shaper are also really awesome.
I’d like them to model the channel strip to specific selectable consoles (Neve, SSL, EMI, etc). It seems no DAW has attempted this, or at least model one analogue console, (aside from Harrison Mixbus 32, I guess).
Still, overall, the included channel strip is a time saver.