As many of you who work in multichannel formats probably know, both Cubase and Nuendo do not offer the possibility to use multi-mono plugin configurations. The only workaround you could do is loading in a TON of the same plugin into the mixing track, and mapping it to the according output. But when a value needs to be changed or automated, I’m in for a long process.
I see this has been requested for over a really long time now (saw a post from 2014) and yet the issue still isn’t addressed. Especially now Dolby Atmos is coming in the game really strong!
What is the reason this is not implemented yet? Is it due to patents, or due to the lack of motivation at Steinberg, because honestly, how perfect Cubase and Nuendo are, this is bothering me since a really long time. I’d sit on my knees to ask the devs to implement this.
Thing is that VST3 is actually supposed to take care for that issue, but its implementation depends on the plug-in’s manufacturer, so we see very few of them working properly in that respect.
Exactly! But still, is it really that hard to implement for Steinberg? ProTools has it, Logic Pro has it and I suppose many others as well. Honestly one cannot expect from every VST manufacturer they create their plugins in ANY surround sound configuration out there. And there are a lot of them lately haha!
Add: even Steinberg isn’t doing it properly imo. Frequency goes up to 7.1.2 while the StudioEQ goes up 7.1.4 and the Multiband supports every format… like it’s really hard to understand their decisions.
So I’m trying to set up Michael Brauer’s Protools template in Cubase. He uses tons of unlinked compressors and many of these don’t have 3rd party link/unlink buttons. So in Protools, he use multi-mono versions of those compressors.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is easy to setup multi-mono in Cubase. In stereo, I just need to add the same Compressor twice, and then use the Cubase Routing Editor to switch them to mono and assign one to left and the other to right. That’s great, but as others have said, then there is no way to control the settings of both halves from one of the halves as you can do with both Protools and Logic.
So we need parameter mapping from one plugin to another. In Protools, if you link parameters it is all or nothing. That is also kind of a bummer if you want all parameters the same but one parameter to be different or unlinked. So please Steinberg, when you implement multi-mono parameter mapping please allow us to leave a subset of parameters unlinked. You could do this by having a checkbox next to each parameter in the Plugin Generic Editor . Have them all selected by default, but then we could deselect them if we wanted.
Unpopular opinion: Maybe it is not the best to try and mimic the behaviour of other DAWs.
Now please don’t take this the wrong way, I understand the frustration and this idea would be a great addition to an already great DAW.
However, I think there are a lot of other issues that might benefit of the needed resources to ‘fix’ this.
Especially for a problem that is mostly existing because plug-in developers do not use VST3 guidelines correctly or because we all want all the features (from all the DAWs) in our favourite DAW. And I think it is not in the ‘philosophy’ of Steinberg to fix it this way.
When you go to the PT forums you will find people saying, why don’t we have multi marker lanes, Nuendo has had them for years! And although I’d love for PT to have multi marker lanes, there are more important bugs to be fix than that ( I think).
Are you working a lot with larger channel counts? If so, you should be aware that it’s way easier to have this implementation than forcing each single dev to create immersive compatible plugins. Let’s say a simple flanger plugin. Why would external devs put effort in creating a 22.2 immersive audio flanger when you could simply have a multi mono instance. A multi mono is not something which should be implemented from the dev , but by Steinberg themselves.
Also, the fact that when working with outboard gear you cannot create sub paths for different channel configs bothers me as well, and even when you only create mono tracks, you can’t insert 2 instances of the I/O to accommodate the left and right channel, because you cannot select a channel router in the plugin, which you can with VST plugins.
I do work with larger channel counts (not 22 though!) and I understand the sentiment that you cannot expect every plugin developer to create multichannel formats. I don’t however understand why you would need a 22 channel flanger but maybe that’s besides the point you’re making. (although I am quite curious, couldn’t you better use the flanger on a channel/event instead of on a whole mix? ).
To be clear: I like working with certain restrictions so maybe that is matter of taste and workflow. I don’t want all my plugins to do 22 channels (or more). It’s already hard enough to choose from all sweets in the DAW candy shops.
I’m interested for (conv) reverbs, delays, eq, compressors and limiters to be true multichannel. Anything other than that I consider quite exotic and then I’ll go looking for it. If it’s not available than maybe I should reconsider my reason for needing it.
As to your last point, I simply don’t know how that works I never use outboard gear, so I can’t respond to that.
But that’s the whole point: No need for seemingly “exotic” plug-ins to be available in true 3D or surround when we can use multi-mono for these tasks.
In the Real World that’s beyond our own decision more often than not, isn’t it? What should I tell a client who asks me to implement a filter sweep across all channels of my almost finished Auro 3D mix of his movie score …? “Please reconsider!” …? ;-D
I guess you have a point. But still I think it is up to the developer of plugins to offer scalability in VST3, if it is possible at least. Which seems to be the case.
Otherwise steinberg would have to reinvent there whole automation workflow (assumption by me). This is not a small thing i imagine.
Haha. I get it but also sounds a tiny bit hypothetical. But it could happen yes. I’d still would like to have a little conversation about it though. Or maybe i probably wouldn’t even work with a person who demands such ideas.
I’ve just decided to do all composition and recording in Cubase as I do now, and then use the excellent export features of cubase to export audio. Then Mix this audio in Protools which I also have, but just not as comfortable in at the moment.
I’m finding I really like the Protools arrange window for mixing, as I can see all the inserts, sends, and I/O for every track in one view in the arrange window.
I’ve just read this thread and am trying to set up a first Atmos project. As I explain on another thread (unanswered), I want to use stereo plugins on stereo tracks routed to BUS, say, 7.1.2, in an Atmos context. Nothing beats a test.
So I read that the stereo plugin will only process two channels out of 10. But I can hear the changes (and see them when playing the plugin’s volume) on all channels. Which would mean that this is quite possible. The stereo signal is sent as a processed signal to all channels. Am I making a mistake in thinking this and using it?
If you want to test: create a vocal track that all positions/channels you need and pan them accordingly. Center to center etc. Use the plugins and re-import the renders to analyse the mix/processing of the channels.
So far, I think I understand. I’ve been a bit misled by the manual and some threads. Basically, if a stereo signal is routed to a Surround Bus WITH its effect, it will be positioned by the VST Panner according to our choice, WITH its effect. So using a stereo plugin works just as well as the stereo track itself routed to a surround bus (which can be a D. Atmos object or go to a bed). I’ve made it too complicated for myself.
When using surround you have to keep the psychoacoustic spaces in mind such as arena, church, chembar, hall and plugins have to at some point radiate in. Even here in a culturally governed space, this is a major issue, esp. where we are that is (south and east asia or Indo China belt) where psychoacoustic spaces are radically different and the way it gets defined are currently not reproducible using standard DAW toolset, so great care is taken at the recording stage itself.
In India Music happens in between two notes which is a challenge because most DAW are internally modeled on Western representation.
Most multi channel plugins such as compressors and eq don’t care about spaces, so applying a 7.1.2 distribution at the same time panning without at thought can be dangerous, dolby and sony 360 are doing complex processes internally and so objects and beds are to be thought through and plugins not simply thrown in the surround mix.
Frequency manipulation is fine in stereo and even in surround for some genre but may not work for jazz esp. in surround.
Most Film engineers are aware of these issues but sound engineers from music industry are not.
