[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

I want to see a native modular chainer solution in Cubase, regardless of having unlimited insert slots!

Answer is simple: I don’t need more than 3 to 5 Inserts. Channel Strip cover basics like compression, gate, limiter and envelope + 6 pre-fader and 2 post-fader inserts = a lot for me.
I’ve had need to use a lot of plugins at the beginning of my journey into sound production but now i can make mix with (dynamic) eq and compression and no more than 4 more inserts for difficult audio tracks. When I’m opening my old projects I’m no wonder that I put 8 insert effects and still have shit sound :smiley:
For experimental/SOund syntesis etc modern instruments have so much options and effects included that it’s possible to make finished or near-finished sound without inserts at all.

But would be nice to see option for modular Insert/Channel Strip where I could relocate inserts between Channel Strip

OK, I voted NO, because a chainer is not the solution.

I would really like to be able to have more than 8 inserts, as occasionally I do run out - this is due to having several alternative plug-ins on the strip whilst experimenting, and metering tools as well.

But the automation is going to get too complicated with a chainer,

we just need ore than 8 inserts - not a chainer

I’ve never needed more than maybe three or four slots. It’s probably because I’m old school and take the approach that if it doesn’t already sound pretty much right, then a gazillion effects are not gonna cure any problems.

But I’m guessing the people who want extra slots work in a different way and are maybe doing a different sort of music to me, so I have no problem if extra slots are made available for those that want them, as long as that doesn’t further bloat the core program.

i’m voting for 8+ inserts and sends and have been rooting for them for years; but no to the poll question, as i think the unlimited inserts/sends should be solved as a low level solution embedded into the daw (akin to ableton or studio one), rather than a native vst plugin [chainer]. semantics, but i think it’s important.

Something like this?

…and why i reckon this is important: everything in the daw is locked to the 8-slot limitation, including generic remote assignments. so accessing inserts #8+ needs to be enabled via generic remote and other protocols.

I voted no, as I use Waves Studio Rack and Vienna Ensemble Pro. I rarely use more than a few slots now.

Voted No, because what we need is visibility eg more slots, not a plugin chainer…

Even if it has good intentions, this poll circumvents what the question really is about…more insert slots! If every other competitor in the market has more slots than you (which means expanded possibilites in all respects) you cannot claim to be “the most complete DAW available”…

I have never needed more than 8 inserts. I do sound design too.

Question though as I do not have v9. Has the plugin name display for 3rd party plugins been optimized so you can determine what plugin is inserted?

Then would you mind recasting your vote? I’ve added an additional option for that case. Originally the poll was only aimed at people annoyed about the 8 inserts limitation (hence title). I should have been clearer, my bad. :confused:

There should be a 4th option to vote on: “I don’t care”. That’s the one I’d vote for.
EDIT: I see that option was just added, I cast my vote accordingly.

Now, I really don’t want Steinberg to spend time on developing a plugin chainer, there are sufficient chainers on the market already, and much more urgent stuff to solve IMHO.

+8 slots would be the right solution IMHO, but personally I don’t care much - for normal recording & mixing duties, I really don’t need that many insert slots. And if I need to do sound design, a chain with only one (straight series) path is short of what I really need anyway. So Blue Cat Patchwork, or Plogue Bidule are much better options for doing stuff like parallel chains etc.



Would love to know why…

But the automation is going to get too complicated with a chainer

Is it though? For argument’s sake, if the hypothetical chainer effectively expanded the inserts with slots A-Z and automation was treated exactly the same for those plugins (Ins1-8, InsA-Z, for example) without you effectively having the experience of automating a plugin within a plugin, would that still bother you? I’m just trying to be open-minded about a less obvious solution that might actually have plenty of benefits.

I just do not know if I would appreciate a chainer or more slots. I seldom use the max number of plugs. As someone said before, I attempt to make the sound right from the start. I believe music is like Italian food; only two or three ingredients make the dish, but ingredients of top notch quality…

Buon Apetito!

Totally agree with this. I’m a huge advocate of simplicity and using as few steps as possible, but I still would like the option to have 50+ plugins on a vocal without ridiculous bus chaining solutions (some may be bypassed, some might be utility plugins, some may be for quick automated ‘effect events’, others might emulate preamp, console, tape, compression, EQ, one might be a limiter, then I might want a de-esser, a reverb, etc… I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to see why 8 is lame).

Right! Which is why I’ve suggested a solution that hopefully wouldn’t offend the “8 is enough” crowd.

Could you explain why, specifically? Perhaps you’d sway myself and others towards your way of thinking? Otherwise we can’t tell whether or not you’re saying that as a knee-jerk reaction, rather than genuinely considering the possibility. If there’s a serious downside that I should be aware of, please share it with me so that I can vote accordingly.

Absolutely, but if you’ve been following the discussion you’ll understand that people in the 8+ crowd (including myself) aren’t satisfied with using a 3rd party plugin chainer. We’ve explored all of those options (collectively) and aren’t nearly satisfied with them.

Steinberg should come with a statement why the mixer is what it is and a statement on performance impact.
My sole concern is that I don’t want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.

If performance is not impacted, my suggestion would be to make mixer 2 or 3 the “extended” mixer for the ones who want more. But if it affects performance, or primary mixer ergonomics, it’s a no go.

Why should that mean that I can’t insert my choices of stereo analyser, spectrograph, oscilloscope, metering etc., between those plugins? I think there’s a legitimate place for using signal analysis tools between processes. And that has no bearing on generic remote protocols (which I have little interest in using anyway).

Can’t tell you how sick I am of having to deal with dozens of group channels in every project, it’s so over-complicated. :laughing:

Visibility in what sense? Not sure I follow…

Not at all, I want unlimited slots. It’s just that I’d rather have a well designed, advanced chainer with excellent integration and workflow than be stuck with just 8 insert slots for another 20 years! :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: I’d love to agree with you, but we both know there’s more to a DAW than that. Seriously, Ableton can’t even integrate external MIDI devices properly. Logic can’t accept sidechain signals from multiple sources. Let’s not get into DAW wars, it misses the point. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: