whats the point of a ’ mixer’ in cubase ( or any DAW )
when everything can be done via the project window
is it just a legacy thing from pre digital recording
would like some reasons why people would use the mixer
instead of the exclusive view that can be obseved in the project window
when recording / editing / and mixing

Off the top of my head

  • ‘Can be done’ typically means - it’s possible but it’s gonna be clunky
  • MixConsole fits more controls into the available screen space
  • Controls for multiple Tracks are available concurrently
  • Ease of routing
  • Ability to easily see & compare the relative levels of different Channels
  • Maps nicely into control surfaces
  • The MixConsole is optimized to the task of mixing while the Project Window is optimized for editing

Or was this a belated April’s Fool joke?


ive been using cubase since atari pro24 in the 80’s
never ever used any ’ mixer ’ views except for the i/p stage gain
the cb12 mixer is a ’ joke ’ it hasn’t even got that now ( or its well hidden )

have been looking at some vids of the mixer functionality and it seems very
impressive for complicated routing etc
i find i can do most everything i need from the project window
does an input adjustment exist ??

I’m with you on this,

I never use the mixer. I just open it once in a while for Stereo Out effects and to initiate Stereo Out automation etc, and as you mentioned above, rooting etc.

it seems like theres no stage gaining on mixer inputs
deegain is a good free plug that can be inserted at slot 1 per channel

Hey guys, if Cubase didn’t have a mixer, almost every user would be demanding Steinberg add one, because Logic has one, Pro Tools has one, do I really need list all DAWs that have one.

Personally, I work with two screens, the project window in one and the mixing console in the other. Oops, a third for the various VST or VSTi. On the other hand, I can understand that people working only with a Laptop, the screen quickly becomes cluttered…

1 Like

There is a gain stage (pre-gain) on every audio channel/track. It’s available on different places, not only in the mixer.

The following provides a good sum up…

please tell me where the input stage gain is
why would anybody use the mix faders when you can edit and automate any
parameter of every plugin as well as volume / mute / panning etc etc . . visually and accurately in the project window

Sometimes you don’t need automation on every track. Just level, some EQ, and panning.

Input stage on every channel. It’s more like a digital trim with +48dB and -48dB possible gain.

Or maybe you mean something else?

You said you know Cubase for over 40 years? Really?

please tell me where the digital trim is :+1:
cubase( pro 24 ) first came out on atari 1080( 1 meg ram ) early 80’s it was all midi there was no mixer included
all mixing was done on an external mixer using midi sound modules and synced
to an anologue multitrack which was used for all the live sounds ( vocals guitars etc )
i think pro tools was the first computer based audio recording prog followed by cubase audio and nuendo
then sx1/2/3 cubase4 /5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 and hundreds of spin offs (logic etc etc etc )

There were some recording solutions on Unix available in the early 80s.
No practical use for pop music production, but used in forensics and sound editing, I believe.

The first DAW was the Synclavier II from 1979, where the computer was used for controlling some optional modules.

ProTools was the first DAW on the Macintosh.

The mixer was introduced in Cubase Audio in 1991.

grafik grafik

The online manual is a very good resource for many things. You should get in the habit of using it. You won’t always be able to rely on users on a forum to cut/paste pictures for you.

Raino gave you an answer in the second post in this thread and it’s a good answer.

Yes, a large part of the reason for why there’s a “mixer” User Interface in Cubendo is legacy. When we started switching from hardware to software it was natural to try to emulate the user experience to speed up the adoption of DAW mixers. In other words for everyone who started on analog consoles being able to see “the same” on a computer screen really helped. As a matter of fact there still is value to the layout of mixers in terms of understanding signal flow, if a person learns it that way.

The current benefits I see is what Raino pointed out, but to give you an example: I mix for TV and our requirements are that our stems are properly filled with the right content, i.e. no narration in the “Mix Minus” submix and maybe no dips for it in the “Music” stem. In my case I have mixer #4 on a key command and sometimes I bring that up to look at the signals reaching each output bus from which the stems are taken. I can then see very quickly if the level of music on the music stem is the same or higher than in the main stereo mix for example, and I can easily see if narration is or is not in the “Mix Minus” stem. I can see that just by looking at the behavior of the meters.

Also in that mixer view I have all inserts visible so I can verify that metering plugins are turned off before exporting (to speed up exports) and that all other plugins that need to be on are on (e.g. brickwall limiters).

And as for doing the automation on the project page - I actually somewhat agree with that. However, it does depend on the task. In my case I certainly see the value in seeing automation lines with waveforms which isn’t possible in the mixer, but on the other hand I also always use a hardware controller with actual faders to do level rides in realtime. I wouldn’t expect anyone to actually do that in the mixer view on actual faders so that’s a point I get, but again, it’s legacy that it’s there because a lot of us don’t draw the automation.

So again, read Raino’s post. I think it’s spot-on.

1 Like

yes its horses for courses
there are a multitude of ways from getting from A to B
i’ve had a bellyful of ’ mixers ’ and ’ guessing’
so for me its computers accurately manifesting my thinking . . thats the name of
the game . . if you want to automate on the fly :+1: . . . not for me anymore :smile:
it seems the ’ mixer might be a great tool for routing etc ’
but mixing . . dont think so

It is a good tool for mixing.
But the overall use depends on the workflow and is related to the work that needs to be done.

project page mixing for me . . but everybody has there own way
rock on cubase :+1:

@raino pretty much covered everything.

Why I like the mixconsole:

  • Ability to switch between Input, Pre-Fader, Post-Panner metering and evaluate levels at once.
  • Ability to interject effects between inputs and audio channels, without cluttering the project window.
  • Easier to work with groups and their sources at the same time visually. (with visual feedback)
  • Easier to simultaneously tweak multiple sends of multiple channels. (with visual feedback)

It all comes down to visual feedback. What you can do in the mixconsole, you can probably do in the project window. But for me, the mixer offers a tidier overview for all channels at once.

variety is the spice of life . . .everybody to their own

The pre-filter section is not available in the project window.
You need to open a channel editor or the mix console to get there.
That’s the main thing I learned from the conversation.

1 Like