Since the original architecture of Cubase was designed to mimic an analog recording studio it is quite possible that some elements are baked in pretty deep and removing some limitations may be more trouble than they are worth. If the insert count limitation were removed it doesn’t really add any new capability (we can already add more than the limit to a signal path), it would just make setting it up marginally easier (and I’m not sure it actually would be better than the current method). Is that worth spending engineering resources on for a once in a blue moon event?
Okay, so here’s the thing. It’s not once-in-a-blue-moon for me. This is why I mentioned it depends on the music genre and why I got so frustrated with so many people coming in and dismissing my concerns, calling me silly, saying there’s no such thing as music genres etc.
I went back and found a third-party example of a typical modern progressive metal mix in Cubase, here: Metal Workshop #1: Alpha Wolf Guide Rework - YouTube
You can see at 4:35 what a fairly typical modern ERG or Bass worfklow can look like:
Notice the number of inserts. It’s quite similar to what I deal with. I never have quite reached the max but I often get that close.
Now please, I implore everyone here, before you reply take the following in to consideration:
- Yes he has repeats of the same plugin multiple times. Yes it’s inefficient and could be theoretically combined somewhat, but why must we always be forced to change our workflow to suit an inadequacy of the DAW? Finding a good tone and mixing ultra-modern metal is a very iterative process and usually has multiple steps. What works for e.g. EDM or Country or Classical won’t necessarily work so easily here- and vice-versa.
- If you listen to the final mix/production (at the start of the video) it sounds good for the target subgenre. Personally, I think it has too much reverb and it’s actually a little too processed (plus maybe pushed a little high in to clipping) for my personal liking but that’s a subjective thing: Plenty of huge bands use this sound.
- If you still think it’s unnecessary or silly, that’s fine, but please, remain polite. Is there any reason to defend the way you prefer to work to the point of disparaging the way others work? I know some of you see this as development time the software engineers could better spend elsewhere, and that’s fine too, but part of the point of forums like this is for people like me to request these features. Other DAWs do not have this limitation, after all.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, which is okay, but this is a real workflow and not just something I’m asking out of ignorance or because I don’t know about busses. 
Thank you. :]
Nobody is saying you should NOT be able to add as many Inserts as you like onto a Track.
Granted some are questioning the wisdom of using so many Inserts. I think a lot of that is folks seeing their past selves in what you are doing and trying warn you of pitfalls they’ve seen.
Anyway, you can have as many Inserts as you want right now. Is the way you do it different than other DAWs you know? Yup, so what - it is still super easy. In the gif below I’ve quadrupled the number of Inserts in maybe 30 seconds.
Thank you for going to the trouble of making that gif.
I do know I can chain busses in such a way, but when you already have a lot of tracks/busses I think it’s already quite hard to keep track of them all in the mixer/project window. I know I can ‘hide’ them once I’m done with them. It’s just a workflow thing. I think if I get to the point where I do run out of insert slots I’ll probably use a VST-host plugin to group some similar effects together in to “one” slot, just so I don’t have to spread my effects for one bus in to multiple anyway.
Ultimately I started this thread to ask if there was something I was missing (maybe there was a “page 2” for inserts or something) and kind of lightly complain that this limitation still exists. I’m not claiming it’s the biggest issue facing anyone in Cubase right now- I can work around it if necessary. As it stands, it’s a mild feature request that I’d love to see the restriction completely lifted in 14.
That’s why you create the busses outside of the Group Folder so they are adjacent to the initial Track on the right. And the graphical representation has one advantage that instead of a single Insert list that is 64 lines long you can easily see it all in a 16 x 4 matrix.
You’ve never hit this limit before. Maybe you do in the future, maybe you live forever & never do. The vast majority of folks will never need this. But I’ll bet you twenty bucks that you (and me too - what’s wrong with me) have spent more time discussing the issue than it would ever take to just deal with it as a one-off when/if needed.
It kinda seems like this is a solution in search of a problem?
FYI when I want to do a lot of complicated processing on a Track I’ll usually use Save As… to make a little side-version of the Project. Do all the heavy lifting there and then use Import Tracks From Project… to suck the results back into the main Project. Keeps the main Project clean while the side-version can have everything lying out so it is easy to see what was happening.
Well Jeopardy is starting and happy hour is calling…
1 Like
Reading between the lines, I think the real problem is that Instrument tracks cannot be manipulated with DOP.
From what I see in the video, each EQ plug-in is set to a one-band cut, and is not automated in any way. If this was audio instead of an instrument track, using inserts in such a way would be pretty much wasting the slot, and that’s precisely the use case for DOP.
In terms of workflow, I understand it’s easier to be able to try out different music parts for each instrument while keeping an eye on the audio shaping process. In this case, depending on how elaborately one uses FX, there will definitely be some juggling required, especially if one tries to fit a whole pedalboard’s worth of FX in 16 slots, or 5-6 back to back processing passes of 2 effects. Maybe a 3rd party solution would be a better choice here.
Temporarily diverting the track to a new project as @raino suggests also works fine and is a valid approach.
It’s equally valid to first have the performance in place, and then shape the sound. In this case, it’s very easy after rendering all instruments to work with DOP, and 16 insert slots feel too many!
Personally speaking, I haven’t yet “insert” myself into a corner, but I can see how easy it would be if I got caught up in the moment and wanted to shape the mix’s sound during the “tracking” (well it’s MIDI) phase. I always need to remind myself that mixing will come later, and it’s better if I do this with rendered audio tracks, in a new clean project.
It’s really not a matter of a single engineering task—I’m speaking in broader terms. A design direction if you will. We are seeing a change in how audio professionals use and relate to their digital tools. The stigma that a mixing console, compressor, reverb (or any tool really) has to operate in a fashion directly descended from the analog world is dissipating and we are seeing this in tons of innovative plugin designs that in turn are celebrated by its users. It’s evolution and that is good.
Don’t disagree.
My point is that if you initially create a vehicle on a pickup chassis, you can update it a bunch and add tons of sporty features but you are never going to be able to transform it into a sports car because it is all still sitting on that pickup chassis.
Something like this comes pretty close, though …
Sorry, I couldn’t resist! With all the car analogies around, yours is probably one of the better ones. I am for sure not saying this truck could outperform a true sportscar. But, a lot can be done to make a workhorse a racehorse. Okay, now we’re getting into animal analogies …
… I’ll get my coat.
1 Like
That’s the exact car I want as a DAW, only, could I get a back seat, a longer bed, and launch Control? And cup holders, does it have cup holders?
2 Likes
14 Inserts! WTFork!!! Maybe it’s time to change your strings. 
But seriously, I’ve never had that problem. Personally I would be worried about the quality of the signal.
Cheers,
Ricardo