Need > 8 Insert slots: Here's WHY (An example)

Let’s say I have a vocal track.

I might have a preamp emulation, tape emulation, console emulation - well that’s 3 already.

I might add EQ, compression and limiting - now we’re up to 6.

What if I want to do formant shifting, or tuning? I’m already at 7 and 1 of those plugins is forced into a post-fader position.

Then I might want some plugins to do some funky automation effects… could be a reverb, flanger, a delay (all insert because I want to compress the result).

I’d also like a de-esser.

I’d also like spare slots to compare different plugins against each other. How can I preview an alternative compressor now without losing the one I have?

And what if I have special purpose EQs like Eiosis AirEQ, Kush Audio ClariphonicDSP, Voxengo Curve EQ, vs something like FabFilter Pro-Q 2 with its sidechain matching? I might want 3 inserts just for different specialised EQ bands (some surgical, some saturated, some dynamic, etc).

And I want 3rd party utility plugins… oscilloscopes, stereo analysers, spectrographs, etc., between plugins so that I can analyse what’s going on at each stage.

Then I want another compressor for sidechain action… I could easily get over 20 inserts on a vocal.

Yes, my example is extreme - but not unreasonable.

?It doesnt happen often I need more than 8. If it happens I make a group track. Send your audio track into it and now you have access to 8 more

Yes, everyone uses Cubase differently. And each of us have a unique artistic goal.

If it happens I make a group track. Send your audio track into it and now you have access to 8 more

Nobody who is asking for more than 8 inserts doesn’t know that. There are many problems with using the Group tracks workaround, though…

01) Can’t reorder insert plugins between channels from the inspector
02) Can’t reorder insert plugins between channels from the channel edit window
03) Can’t reorder insert plugins between channels -at all- without wiping out all automation data
04) Can’t even see the full insert chain from the inspector
05) Can’t even see the full insert chain from the channel edit window
06) Sends routing from parent channel can’t easily be moved to final Group in the chain
07) Sends automation can’t easily be moved between channels
08) Strip effect automation data can’t easily be moved between channels
09) Strip effect choices and settings can’t easily be moved between channels
10) Strip modules with sidechain input lose their input routing when redone on a new channel
11) Insert plugins with sidechain input lose their input routing when moved between channels
12) Insert plugins with MIDI input lose their input routing when moved between channels
13) Freezing the parent channel doesn’t freeze any of the Group tracks
14) You have to route Groups through Groups when you actually want to Group multiple instruments together (gets complex, messy, hard to follow)
15) Render-In-Place has no provisions for dealing with channels routed through Groups that are routed through more Groups
16) Having to continuously name and rename chains and chains of Group channels is more laborious than you’d think
17) Lots of difficulty/confusion with automating volume faders and moving that data between channels

I’m pretty sure there are more issues than this… but hopefully this gives you a taste of why we’re not satisfied with just routing through a Group track. Personally, I end up using lots and lots and lots of chained Group channels, even though I strongly believe in using the minimal amount of processing to get the desired effect. Long plugin chains typically involve lots of sidechaining, MIDI-control and automation - these are all horrrribly tedious to do with chains and chains of Group channels. :smiley:

Sure it’s a work around but how can you say- no! i don’t need more so you will not be needing it either -when every other daw has implemented the feature. Is everyone else wrong and Steinberg should cement the walls of their bubble more? Then why implement sampler track and one screen/laptop workplace, if the goal is to be conservative and not to attract too many remixers/maybe electronic music type of people? Kind of non- question in my opinion, quite obvious, there are bigger fish to fry. Have a nice spring!

If you need more than 8 inserts on an audio channel, likely you recorded rubbish and no amount of adding more and more inserts is going to fix that.

8 is more than enough

Why would you like all that crap on your vocal in the first place ?!?
I assume you’ve recorded the vocal in a great booth, with an excellent mic and pre-amp
Why cloud that by stacking mediocre plugins?!? That’s the real question.
Those plugins don’t mimic iconic gear, most of them just degrade the audio.

Just IMHO. You can dissagree.

Damn I cant wait to leave the EU. maybe then I can have a choice to use more inserts or not.I vote for more inserts please steinberg so that the ones that need them can use them and the ones that dont need them well… have a choice.

personally I have never used all 8 in a sitting, but don’t see why my brother or sister shouldnt be able to in this day and age. maybe back n the day ye …but for today and beyond sky is the limit

Why would I want a preamp emulation on a vocal? Perhaps I have one of those microphone systems that are software/hardware hybrid, like the Slate Digital Virtual Microphone System (VMS), or the Kush Audio Omega preamp series. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want a tape emulation on a vocal? Perhaps I like the sound of recording to tape more than the sound of recording to digital, but don’t want to be restricted by the impracticalities of using a real tape machine. Tape adds a particular flavour, a charm, a smoothing, a softening. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want a console emulation on a vocal? Perhaps I’m specifically going for a Neve or SSL sound - those sounds are popular for good reason, subjectively they add 3D depth and thickness to a mix. Top engineers agree that most of the greatest recordings of all time have ‘that sound’ imprinted on them. Again, for reasons of practicality, a plugin is more convenient than the real thing. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want a compressor on a vocal? This seems like a noob question, honestly. It’s quite standard practise to control a vocal’s level with a compressor, at least in part. It can add punch, level out the dynamics, increase intelligibility. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want formant shifting or tuning effects on a vocal? Well maybe just for fun - I think you’d struggle to find a modern pop/dance/RnB record that doesn’t have at least a little autotune or melodyne or whatever. It’s almost expected as an aesthetic/creative choice to young years. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want a limiter on a vocal? Because vocals sometimes have much higher peak level than RMS level - surely you knew that? Optimising headroom is a reasonable endeavour in today’s music climate, I think. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want to do some funky automation effects with reverb? Perhaps to tightly control the sense of size/perspective across the mix. When it’s done right it sounds modern, exciting, spacious, dynamic… Especially when compressed along with the dry signal (note: requires additional stage of compression). Am I not allowed to be creative, according to you? Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want to do some funky automation effects with a flanger/phaser/frequency shifter/bitcrusher/distortion/delay/etc? Well I might not, but I’m hearing all that kind of stuff all over modern music to the point where in my artistic opinion vocals can sound a bit drab and lifeless without such effects. It takes a lot of skill and attention to get these effects working well and they’re not for every record - I’d at least like the option to be open to me. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want a de-esser on a vocal? Isn’t that what they’re for? Over-sibilant vocals sounds really nasty to me. I might even want de-essers at multiple stages in the chain just to be able to get to the problematic areas without turning the vocalth into a lithpy meth. :wink: Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want spare slots to compare different plugins against each other on a vocal? Because when you’re a professional/advanced user, those nuances between plugins count. I might want to audition three different reverb plugins with very different algorithms against each other to see which works best in my chain. Same with compression, same with any plugin, really. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want to use special purpose EQs on a vocal? Voxengo’s CurveEQ bundled with Cubase does an excellent surgical tilt that’s very useful. It also does spectrum-matching which is useful for a plethora of advanced mixing techniques/situations. If I’ve used that plugin, I’d also like the option to use an EQ that has other strengths. For example, I might want to use a surgical EQ like Frequency or Pro-Q 2 to deal with specific resonances (this is not an uncommon consideration among top mixing engineers). In addition I might want to use a Pultec emulation (it has a specific, highly sought-after character), or some other EQ that saturates in a particular way. I might want to use an EQ with a special shelf quality like the Kush Audio ClariphonicDSP, Eiosis AirEQ, Maag EQ 4, or whatever… because they can brighten up a signal in a much more pleasing way than the average EQ - their use makes a huge difference to the quality of the mix overall. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want to use dynamic EQ on a vocal? Because vocals tend to be fairly broad-frequency and highly dynamic. A dynamic EQ can help to combat unwanted shifting of tonality to help you sit the vocal tightly into a mix. OR maybe I’ve boosted the vocal for body, but I only want that boost to kick in when that vocal is lacking in that region. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why would I want 3rd party utility plugins such as oscilloscopes, stereo analysers, spectrographs, etc., between plugins on a vocal? Simply it’s so that I can analyse what’s going on at each stage - not necessary, but definitely highly desirable in many cases. This helps in learning about processors, learning about sound, understanding the correlation between what you’re hearing and what’s actually happening to the sound at each stage. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

Why might I want an additional compressor for sidechain action? Perhaps because that’s a stylistic/artistic trend that makes sense for this particular record. Is there something wrong with that? Is it crap?

These are all just examples, of course. I’m the biggest advocate of getting a great recording and using a minimal amount of processing in order to reach your goal. Sometimes (not always) the minimum amount is actually a lot more than 8 insert plugins.

Which of the plugins I’ve mentioned here are mediocre? Answer: none of them.

I actually agree with this sentiment for the most part, although I think the net effect is often more positive than it is negative - and I don’t think you or I have the right to deny someone else the option to use those kinds of plugins in their mix.

Raphie, could you just quit with the arrogant, condescending, narrow-minded crusade? There’s absolutely no need for it here. Nobody has been disrespectful to you. The argument that nobody needs >8 inserts is intellectually bankrupt.

I agree it’s pretty easy to need over 8 inserts.


I think part of the problem is that people don’t seem to be able to see beyond the genre they work in. As soon as you’re working in some form of electronica you want another batch of plugins on top of the general EQ, comp, saturation etc for vocals.

Plugin chainers are a possibility like the plug&mix

Why are you using so many mics?

3 pairs of shoes? You only have 2 feet?

Did you just use 5 filters on that photo? You took the photo wrong. The way I do it is correct!

Did you really need 18 tracks for that song. WRONG. A piece of music can not have more than 8 tracks. This is a rule of music. You are doing it wrong.

Why do you have 2 dogs?

Why are you eating steak and shrimp. Only one protien.

At some point you have to laugh at some of this stuff.

The Cubase Channel Strip is pretty cool.

I think for the channel strip to be more useful to me it needs to have more controls that can reveal themselves. IMO they’re too simplistic as they currently are. I appreciate that is by design, but certainly I feel I’ve been spoiled by the gui of things like the fab filter gate. Yes yes, use your ears but for something like a gate where visually you can spot whether you’re going to have hysteresis issues etc it’s really useful.

It’d be great if the EQ display in the strip view, could adapt to give some visual information regarding the gate, compressor etc depending on what was selected.


Michael

8 inserts can be easily used. The need for them has nothing to do with quality but with purpose.

Using your logic one could easily argue anyone using more than 4 tracks of audio or more than 2 sends is just ‘clouding’ the mix as well.
Functionality doesn’t automatically compromise quality or end results.

Steinberg did give us more than 8 inserts but their desire for us to use their plugins more backfired. The channel strip. Personally it’s not high on my wants list, I prefer to use groups… But, I don’t doubt its arrival at some point in the future.

Many years in and i’m still not even near that stage of benefiting from them, concentrating on the sounds initially. Most of the tracks inserts in my projects are bare.

The question, is why do you want all of that AT THE SAME TIME? :laughing:
It just doesn’t make sense. I mean, clouding kush distortion with a tape emu, then shitty harmonics again from a channel strip, then cloud it further with a de-esser, to finally rape it with a formant filter. And that’s only 5 plugins.
:laughing:
Really I admire your effort for debate and you’ve done an excellent job on retrologue patches, but below just doesn’t make any sense.

It just makes no sense to deep fry a hot dog after it’s already cooked! You are cooking it wrong!

Why are you using butter in Olive Oil!! Olive oil is all you need to fry!

Why are you bothering to make art differently than I do! It is unneccessary! It only makes sense if we all follow the same workflow and conventions! The way I do it is the right way to make art! Get a new job!

Bravo!

I don’t really understand why this is being debated - people use more than 8 inserts all the time. In your argument you’re only talking about tone - what about delay / reverb / stutter / using multiple consecutive compressors .

If you’re a composer composing/producing a track, chances are you’ll need to export as stems at somepoint too - so it might be advisable to avoid using send/aux’s at all.

Ok, guys you’re right, I’m not the insert police :mrgreen:
You do what you gotta do, I just want cubase to stay intact, no performance hit, no latency increase, no EUCON templates going south. Backward compatibility. Yada Yada…

It’s indeed not up to me to tell you if your insert work is innovative, or makes sense or not.
You guys do what you gotta do, as long as Cubase doesn’t suffer.
Last word of advice: with plugins less IS more.

Wanting various improvements and wanting the option for more inserts does not have to be mutually exclusive.

But let Steinberg figure their resource delegation out. The FR forum is for us discussing features, not for us dictating the priority of their software development.