Only 8 insert slots? Why do we still have this limitation?

I’m very disappointed! Almost everybody want more insert slots and we still have only 8 slots? And 2 of those are post fader. So, we have only 6 normal slots in almost 2017? Are you kidding? Also 8 send outputs aren’t enough.

I hope the devs from steinberg are seeing this! I won’t upgrade. Maybe I will change DAW because of that. It’s just ridiculous!

Use a chainer.

eg. this one is free…

http://www.waves.com/plugins/studiorack#studiorack-plugin-chainer-overview


… or if you prefer, create a new group channel, just for the output of your channel full of inserts, and add more inserts there.

You can use group channels too,no big deal.

You can’t freeze group channels though. You can print them, but that’s too inconvenient for those wanting a freeze-based workflow (especially in DAWs that allow multiple freezing at once, you never want to go back).

Those of us using more than 6 freezable inserts (in other DAWs), for more extreme sound design purposes, almost always end up needing to freeze tracks as part of the workflow. Even with monster multi-core CPUs and RAM.

Also, plugin chainers, and I have them all, are fiddly and have their limitations and issues. I’ve finally decided to simply not use them ever again.

Inserts should be the DAW’s responsibility.

Totally agree, - it was request already on last year in many forums! and chainer is not best option, more must to be in slots by default. I use Blue Cats Patchwork, but for example there are some plugin combe conflicts, - Cubase crash if You put together DMG Limitless and Acustica Coral/ A

I guess they gotta leave one big upgrade incentive for 9.5 or 10 :wink:

on every forum you write this. cant you really see why some of us dont like to use chainers? we dont want workarounds, we want a solution.

Chainer is NOT the answer.

We would like to see the plugin name in the normal mixer view, not having to open the chainer every time we want to look at, or find a plugin.

NO no, NOT the argument: Why do you need so many plugins, bla bla?
I have never needed more than 6 pre-fader inserts for making my sounds/mix, but…

… But it is GREAT to have more insert slots when comparing different compressors, eq’s, or whatever plugin… WITHOUT having to load and reload plugins… When we should be able to just switch between them directly on the track.

So true. They broke backwards compatibility by dropping 32bit plugin support so their maintaining backwards compatibility argument doesn’t really hold much weight here imo.

considering that cubase CHOKES the more group sends that are used… this is NOT unreasonable to allow more inserts directly on the channe; cubase hates you for using groups upon groups so stop making us have to do it! Plugin racks are NOT an effective answer. I hate that workflow and always have. there should be NO need for that type of software.

I am just hoping to have overlaps finally… to not have to use multiple audio tracks for a vocal and therefore default have to use a group send for the vocal chain.

I agree that although group channels can work at times, it’s not always feasible, especially for already existing group chs, and of course, the MF.

I wonder if SB won’t do this, for fear that people with computers that barely meet the min. req., will start adding more and more plug-ins that the computer really can’t handle, and then blame the problem on Cubase, and the lack of “proper coding”. Don’t know that that is the reason; just speculation on my part.

But yeah, I would like to see at least four post fader slots, and ten pre fader.

And yeah, let’s stay away from the argument: Why do you need so many plugins, bla bla? That is certainly not at all helpful. :exclamation:

Cheers.

The mixer just works. You can use any of the many 3rd PTY chainers.
The mixer currently has great ergenomics, is tactile and 100% backwards compatible

The mixers in PT, Ableton and S1 are a mess and so much backward.
Cubase is NOT a clone of any of the above neither does it has to tranform into one.
Steinberg needs to stay true to it’s userbase and vision of a tactile interface.
That’s why people chose Cubase.
If you prefer the competition, just shop with them, pretty sure you’ll be back soon enough :smiley:
Learn how to use FX channels as well, instant 8 additional inserts, parallel processing etc.
Be REALLY creative. Don’t claim to be creative, while not using everyting at your disposal already. That’s not creative, that’s shortsighted.

If steinberg would ruin the mixer legacy with endless scrollbars, performance issues and sound design matrix modulation issues, they would stab their userbase in the back.
KISS principle
The mixer IS NOT a “sounddesigners dream” you’ve got plenty of shitty containers and chainers, to go crazy on “sound design”

The mixer should be an efficient / ergonomic signal router, nothing more, nothing less.

I just don’t understand why people are set on defending a stupid limitation that other DAWs don’t have. What if I want to A/B 2 different processors?

On a vocal track I have an EQ, a saturator, and at least one compressor but often two. That’s four of my six pre-fader inserts. I’m already 2/3 of the way to screwed if I need to add more inserts for special effects, and that’s just after having the bare minimum on there. What if I want to chorus the vocal, plus add reverb and delay as inserts to send through a group channel? Should I send it through a group so I can properly send it through a group? Pointlessly convoluted and it pollutes the whole workspace. Litters it with unnecessary channels that make it harder to locate things that are actually important.

And no, I don’t want to use the strip. I want to use third party plugins that I spent a lot of money on specifically because they sound better/work better/have a better design than stock plugins.

Even without invoking the sound design argument, this is a stupid limitation. And saying “use another DAW for sound design” is an obnoxious, smarmy argument. And that’s coming from someone who DOES use another DAW for sound design.

Scrollbars in the insert area need only appear if someone wants to use enough inserts to have them appear. No compromise required. This is a false argument.

A simple example, of plugins of my choosing (not stock plugins): It’s not unreasonable to want a console channel emulation plugin in slot 1. Then, an eq before compression. An 1176 style compressor followed by an la-2a. Then, an eq post compression and a peak limiter at the end.

That’s a very basic, non-sound-design chain and it’s used all six freezable inserts!

Not a single freezable slot left for anything “crazy.”

that’s (IMHO ofcourse) an insane chain for every channel that can’t bring anything other than “mushy peas”
That has NOTHING to do with sound design, way OTT, but you CAN already do that, if you want to go there.
I would start with putting the condsole EMU post fader so you can drive it with your mixer and send it to a group channel for 8 extra inserts if you need more.

But then again, You should do what you feel you need to do, It’s not my busines. BUT I don’t want the mixer to be broken or create more overhead, or break backwards compatibility. Cubase is VERY fragile and ergonomics, performance, stability and compatibility should ALWAYS come first.

If you want this on every channel I would put them all in a chainer and save that as a preset, works much faster.

The problem is that you can use a chainer for inserts but you are still stuck with 8 sends.

I didn’t say every channel. I didn’t mention the instrument. You don’t know the settings. It could be .25 of a db I’m taming. It’s my channel to make those decisions. You can’t possibly make a broad statement that the chain I mentioned would result in mushiness. Or, perhaps mushiness is what I’m after for that channel.

I’m certain that Steinberg’s engineers could easily find a way to deal with “N” vs 8 number of inserts without breaking any backwards compatibility.

Sends are an interesting one, I tend to use CUE’s a lot and sends only for Reverbs on FX channels, or parallel compression.
How do you fill up 8 sends on 1 channel?

it’s fairly easy with more complex mix protocols. you may have a couple parallel compression busses to send to, a couple delays, ~two spaces, a modulator bus or two, a sidechain-trigger bus to send to… it’s an arbitrary question, as the daw’s philosophy, when it comes to cubase anyway, is a ‘blank slate’, ‘pose no limitations’-kind of paradigm. which this directly counters unfortunately.