Keep 8 Inserts! No16/Unlimited. Insert-Expander-Rack instead

Cubase
,
1

Contrary to most, glad to see 8 inserts have maintained.

Personally, imo, instead of 16 or unlimited inserts. I would rather see Cubase have an ‘Insert Expander Rack Plugin’ that expands any insert into a VST wrapper which would be a horizontal and or vertical scrolling rack with as many VSTs loaded in as people want, in any order - maybe even with a routing matrix/schematic overview that can be switched to. This way, the large chain can be bypassed and the entire chain can be moved to different stages in the 1-8 insert path. You could give this ‘Insert Expander Rack’ dedicated features like input/output trims to gainstage the entire Insert Expander Rack chain, meters that cater to gain staging and pre/post visuals (Waveform, frequency), etc.

I like the limitation of the current 8 inserts. It’s clean, and simple, and UNIVERSAL. People working at home forget that universal GUI and workflow is important with studio cats. I don’t want 20 plugins on a channel with one causing a problem and having to look through them all, That’s not what the insert section is for. ie, universal in the sense I don’t want clients sending me their Cubase projects with 100 inserts in a single channel. The exception to this would maybe give FX channels unlimited.

2

Dude, you should read and understand the original thread first, before you come up with such a long text wall of nonsense.
Rack Expanders are nonsense because you can’t see the inserted plugins from the mixer view. There are also a couple of third party options available. Most importantly, additional insert slots were requested as optional. No one wants to take something away from you cry baby.

3

Dude, you want to “play” on the monkey bars you dumbfk? Clearly I’m not implying the fear of losing all inserts by saying ‘keep’, I’m implying to not add any more to the current 8 - I expanded beyond the character limited title in the thread which you would have realized except for some reason refused to. I don’t give a fk about the original thread, I’m creating my own on a new sub-forum.

I know there’s third party options - what’s your point? I’d like to see an official option with official integration in which there would probably be hard-coded integration beyond what any 3rd party could offer. You also can’t see your inserted plug-ins if you have too many of them - how’s that going to work if you have 20 plugins on one channel and 2 on the rest? You’re going to have to scroll the one channel. If I’m creating a complex chain, I’m going to know what is in each and every insert expander rack just as I know what chain is inserted in the gear rack behind me. Simply have a mouse-over pop-up feature where you place your mouse over the insert expander rack plug-in to get a pop-up overview. And or, make it like a vertical file tree where the plug-in expander insert can be expanded to show what it contains in a list indented from the rest of the inserts.

What’s worse than a cry baby, is a cry baby crying over a cry baby who actually isn’t being a cry baby.

4

I’m sorry I was rude to you, your original post was actually constructive and mannerful and not arrogant and offensive like one other guy who constantly insults people who would like to have more insert slots.

I will now quote a few things, also from your first post, and give some specific replies.

“II would rather see Cubase have an ‘Insert Expander Rack Plugin’ that expands any insert into a VST wrapper which would be a horizontal and or vertical scrolling rack”

Afaik most people would like to see the plugins in the mixer without the need to open a rack. That’s why many dislike the VMR rack for example. (And great companies like Soundtoys make their rack optional, sorry, small sidenote). Point is, your idea would not be any better than existing solutions and I think I know all of them, some of which are really complex.


“This way, the large chain can be bypassed and the entire chain can be moved to different stages in the 1-8 insert path.”

This can be done already with third party chainers. I would rather be able to select several plugins at once - like you can select files or folders in Windows- and then drag and drop them or copy them; all from within the mixer view. THAT would be an advanced feature. Especially if you could even save individual plugin chains, say slot 4 to 9.

“I like the limitation of the current 8 inserts. It’s clean, and simple, and UNIVERSAL.”

Rather than to force a universal way to everyone, I would like to see a Cubase that people could precisely configure to their own liking. I can absolutely see why someone does not need more insert slots, and does not want the mixer view to be crowded with empty insert slots, he will never use anyway. That’s one reason why it needs to be optional and configurable.

“I don’t want 20 plugins on a channel with one causing a problem and having to look through them all”

That one causing trouble would be used in a group then, causing trouble there. And you have to look through them all anyway, no matter if they are spread across groups or in one channel. In fact it would be much faster and streamlined, when they were all in one channel.

“I don’t want clients sending me their Cubase projects with 100 inserts”

That’s just polemical.

“The exception to this would maybe give FX channels unlimited”

Would not look coherent if all other tracks were limited to less inserts.

“Clearly I’m not implying the fear of losing all inserts by saying ‘keep’”

No, of course not. You fear to lose the Cubase you like. That’s what I basically meant.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. The guy who makes simple guitar music should not be affected by
strange electronic artists who build complex textures or whatever.

But it does not have to be like this if it’s made cleverly. (See above and below)

“I’d like to see an official option with official integration in which there would probably be hard-coded integration beyond what any 3rd party could offer.”

You did not mention anything significant that 3rd parties do not offer. Maybe asio/cpu consumption could be better or stability but that’s just speculation.

“You also can’t see your inserted plug-ins if you have too many of them - how’s that going to work if you have 20 plugins on one channel and 2 on the rest?”

Depends on the mixer layout (and resolution etc.) First of all, I did not talk about 20 plugins. I personally would be fine with 8 pre fader slots, so 10 overall.

But to each his own so lets assume 20 slots. First of all, you could define a new mixerview so that it does not show anything else than plugin inserts and faders.

Or, it could be done so that cubase shows only a certain amount of inserts *** and you have to click an icon to open up the other slots below. Similar to how you can open and close Sends for example. That would be a little bit like a chainer plugin but it would be a coherent look and show exactly the audio path “in one go”.

‘’’ Important: The user should be able to define that amount in the options menu. When set to 8 nothing would change whatsoever compared to earlier Cubase versions. I would set this to 10 and the next guy maybe even 16.

5

Nothing universal at all with 8 inserts (and only 6 pre-fader ones)… Not PT (10), Studio One (unlimited), Reaper (unlimited)…

A BIG NO, to the rack-extention thingy from me. I have trouble enough with Slate’s VMR :wink:

6

It is universal among what people have been used to with Cubase and is universal to previous versions, which is why they can’t change the number of inserts. Cubase 8 and 7 woudn’t be able to read sessions with more than 8 inserts because the code doesn’t exist. Backwards compatibility is important and most developers don’t care, Steinberg should be commemorated for that.

VMR is a third-party plug-in, its not fair comparison. We are talking about a unique, hard-coded plugin that has features and functionality unique to only it - not typical VST stuff open to anyone. This would solve the issue of backwards compatibility because steinberg could release a free plugin that works in previous versions - VST2/32-bit.

It’s also universal in the sense of how a console typically works. Most consoles only have a few insert points if not only 1 or 2. The chains on each of those inserts could be complicated, 20 pieces of gear on each if you wanted.

7

If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. 6 works,
Just use a chainer. Or PT, or S1
The Cubase Mixer layout is a strenght, should not be ruined with endless slots, scrolbars and performance consessions
All the stuff that you’re now blaming on containers will happen exactly the same when in the mixer.

8

In terms of hard coded features of the Steinberg Expander rack:
-It’s own send buses
-make it freezable
-have different ways of viewing which plugins are in it without having to open it/the plugins.
-different views, rack view, schematic window (like reaktor)
-ability to break the rack so plugins are free floating like they usually are.
-pop out individual plugins
-resizeable rack that reorganizes the plugins: vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, single plugin width or tiles/columns 2x_ or 4x_
-modifier controls that can be assigned to parameters across multiple plugins,
-single plugin solo/listen
-create sends out of the chain at any point of the chain
-create sends within the chain
-name your chains and a Cubase Mixer/Channel search feature to find a specific chain, ability to bring up that chain without having to go to the channel and click on it.
-monitor the output of the chain whilst auto-bypassing any regular channel inserts after the chain.
-Chains get their own dedicated history (also duplicated/mirrored to the new mix history)
-Freeze a chain within itself and have the ability to start another B chain ontop of the freeze. ie, racks could have multiple pages - A, B, C, D which can be patched together (if your CPU can handle it) or you can freeze A and route it to B, work on B, then freeze B and route it to C.

9

Cubase 8 and 7 woudn’t be able to read sessions with more than 8 inserts because the code doesn’t exist.
Backwards compatibility is important and most developers don’t care, Steinberg should be commemorated for that.

Backwards compatibility is important but it’s the other way around: Cubase 10 needs to be able to read sessions from
prior versions. People with older versions can upgrade. And: Cubase 10 could add an option to the project settings
to make it “legacy compatible” and disallow more inserts. Plus, the one who do not want more inserts generally should be able to define it in the mixer settings or so.

"VMR is a third-party plug-in, its not fair comparison. We are talking about a unique,
hard-coded plugin that has features and functionality unique to only it - not typical VST stuff open to anyone. "

But what you described was just a chainer, therefore the comparison is legit.

“It’s also universal in the sense of how a console typically works. Most consoles only have a few insert points if not only 1 or 2. The chains on each of those inserts could be complicated, 20 pieces of gear on each if you wanted.”

When BM-TSR says more inserts are universal because other DAWs have it, you do not accept it. When you argue that less slots are universal you compare a software DAW to a hardware console to justify it. That’s contradictive reasoning, it’s ideology in some sense and not matter orientated reasoning.

And “complicated” is a good keyword. Having more insert slots means not to have to route to groups means less “complication”.

“The Cubase Mixer layout is a strenght, should not be ruined with endless slots”

You could have the mixer the way you have it now. If everything is configurable and optional I see no reason why you should lose anything.

The layout should be much more configurable to the needs of the individual user. There is way to much room wasted for my liking. Every element should be able to be removed or reduced in size.

  • Lowpass and Highpass need 2 “height units”. Should be able to be removed completely and resizable to 1 height unit. This alone would make room for 2 - 4 more insert slots and solve everything for me personally.
  • Phase Button - Could be removed and replaced by a small round button near the fader adding one more “height unit” for an insert. Again as option so those who like the phase button how it is can sleep well.
  • Send Slots - Should be resizable to one height unit
  • Horizontal “section bars” - should be resizable to a few pixel. I don’t need to be reminded what what is. I’m talking about the labels like “Routing”, “Inerts” etc.

And so on and so forth. Everything configurable so you can still have your mixer like you have now and sleep well.

Plus, there are up to 3 mixer views, don’t forget that.

10

Backwards compatibility is important but it’s the other way around: Cubase 10 needs to be able to read sessions from
prior versions. People with older versions can upgrade. And: Cubase 10 could add an option to the project settings
to make it “legacy compatible” and disallow more inserts. Plus, the one who do not want more inserts generally should be able to define it in the mixer settings or so.

Backwards compatibility can be a two way street, and is even better so.

But what you described was just a chainer, therefore the comparison is legit.

What I described was a chainer being developed by the DAWs own developer. VMR is 3rd party.

When BM-TSR says more inserts are universal because other DAWs have it, you do not accept it. When you argue that less slots are universal you compare a software DAW to a hardware console to justify it. That’s contradictive reasoning, it’s ideology in some sense and not matter orientated reasoning.

And “complicated” is a good keyword. Having more insert slots means not to have to route to groups means less “complication”.

How is that contradictory? A lot of people don’t use those DAWS, a lot of people with studios and consoles don’t use those DAWS. There’s similarities between an anolog console, and a digital one. Consoles are essentially patchbays in which you route, or insert your sound design into.

11

I think we all can get our way if adding more inserts is up to each individual user. The ones who like 6 can just choose not to add another plugin and the design can look excactly the same. You don’t have to use this option at all. It’s your personal choice! We both win.

The pre/post fader can stay excatly the same, but move down one slot pr. plugin you add. I know some people will react to this, but please read my msg carefully: This is your own option. You don’t like it, then just don’t add another plugin. Why do we get in each others way when there is no need to whatsoever? I have so much frustration these days mixing porely recorded stuff and I don’t want to switch DAWs because of a silly feature like limited inserts. I personally need at least 12, but 16 or unlimted would be best.

One example: Mixing a vocal the first three slots often gets taken up by melodyne, autotune and revoice pro link. I’m not going to mix vocals with three plugin slots (if I did my clients wouldn’t come back), that’s not anywhere near taking advantage of the technology we have at our disposal. Cubase is an incredible DAW in most other areas, but this insert thing is becoming dated and I don’t get why someone would want a program to put limitations on you in such an important area as this. Especially when there are solutions that would work perfectly for everyone.

12

A few things. It’s never just simple adding features because now you are opening up a new workflow tree/portal and users who utilize 20 slots are going to want changes to the mixer, features, etc that cater to their use of 20 plugins/channel.

Backwards compatibility is important, not just for the ease of opening projects but morally speaking as well… Not everyone can afford to upgrade, you can imagine someone in a less fortunate country or place saving up to buy Cubase 9 which instantly becomes incompatible as soon as Cubase 10 is released with more inserts.

Why not do something new? “Reaper has this” “FL has that”, who cares what they have. All the people who want 8+ inserts haven’t even stopped to contemplate if there is a better solution - if a plugin chainer could be designed in a way that is better than having a strip of 20 things on a console channel. A plugin chainer if designed and integrated directly into the software beyond typical VST protocol could be way better than having unlimited inserts. Has any one thought about this possibility? Nope, “more more more I want more”. Slow down, assess different possibilities, realize that a hard-coded plugin chainer could be a great thing, and better workflow than reaper or any other program that has unlimited inserts.

13

EDIT: Backwards compatibility is important, yes. But not forward compatibility. Your argument is invalid: Look at sample track, track versions, 64-bit only, …

If we don’t get that feature, we need an automation that is following the inserts it belongs to!! Otherwise, the workaround of routing to a group is too tedious to do.


Another idea:

  1. Implement umlimited inserts in Cubase 9.5
  2. Still restrict to 8 inserts for the user
  3. Wait some years until cubase 12
  4. In C12, enable unlimited inserts for the user
  5. You now have backwards compatibility until C9.5 and can officially drop it without the majority of users getting angry
  6. ???
  7. Profit


    Or, just popup a compatibility warning after adding the 9th insert. Kill this artificial limitation.
14

If any insert slot could be changed to Pre or Post fader, it would be a start.
Maybe someone has the use for up to 8 post fader inserts :slight_smile:

15

Actually it doesn’t invalidate. New features not existing prior to Cubase 9, simply won’t load in earlier versions. There is no way for Cubase 8.5 however, to read code for more than 8 inserts.

A new idea that just popped into my brain, is Steinberg would have to create a piece of code that converts new Cubase project versions to be backwards compatible. And in the case of 8+ inserts, say 16, Cubase would modify the project so that for instance with one track with 16 inserts… a group is created, ‘Audio Vox’ track would be routed to it. 1-8 inserts would remain on the original track ‘Audio Vox’ and the 9-16 would be moved to the new group ‘Audio Vox Group +inserts9-16 [BC]’ - BC standing for backwards compatible.

16

It’s not about fixing it’s about adding. If 6 works for you so use only 6.
If SB ever implement more than 6 inserts so just don’t upgrade.
The Cubase Mixer layout is good today and you can see your inserts+1 empty slot. So why do you think that SB Team is a group of imbeciles which once upon a time was lucky enough to accidentally create such a good DAW and they will show you all possible slots at once?
And name at least one good reason Why, lets say, 12 inserts in a single channel would cause performance concessions if today 6 inserts in a Channel + 6 inserts in Group channel (12 in total) work perfect?

17

“Backwards compatibility” so you mean a collaboration case - when a Cubase 9 user from “a less fortunate country or place” wants to collaborate with a C10 user from the “upper world”. We have a pretty simple solution - “up town girl” shows her/his mercy and work in Cubase 9 for “Backwards compatibility”'s sake, because in Cubase world if you got your license for the last Cubase version you can use all previous versions as well.

Why not do something new? A plugin chainer which in MixConsole will look like Unlimited insert slots :laughing:

18

Because 12 inserts in one channel are assigned 1 thread, using 1 track and 1 group are 2 threads.
That equals better scaling, if that would cause performance problems depends on how heavy the plugins are and probably mostly theoretical with today’s CPU’s.

19

You can’t make it multi-threaded even when the audio is routed through another track. The second track can only process it when the first track is ready, so it’s one and the same chain. You can’t make those work in parallel.