[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

…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.

Regards,

characterstudios

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:

Firstly, I can understand why that concern is important to you, but it’s unfounded. Secondly, while I very much appreciate your input, trying to turn your nose up at “EDM lovers” is unimpressive and totally uncalled for. Let’s all do our bit to keep this discussion factual, rational and mature.

We need more insert slots! But a chainer is not a solution. Why can’t we have just more slots like in other DAWs?

The solution could be so easy. If we run out of slots, a new slot would appear. For all of you who don’t need more than 8 slots, nothing would change. But for us it would be much better.

I’m happy with 8 inserts. I see no point in more. I do wish I could decide on them being pre/post though. The post-fader are two insert slots that I will never use.

Yes, your right, let’s leave my personal opinion out. People got to do what they got to do.
But supersize “mixer 2” could be a good option?

Again I really would like to hear the specifics from Steinberg first.
As others have said as well, implications are all over the place: Inspector, Mixer, Remote Controllers, Quick controls, VST Controls, EUCON etc .

That’s not nice, but :laughing:

With genuine respect, the way you’ve worded that might possibly look like a knee-jerk reaction, to someone who doesn’t understand the rationale behind your opinion. Could you help us to understand the specific disadvantages of an advanced native chainer (as described in my opening post) vs just more slots?

I mean… I’m up for more slots, but I think I’d rather have a super advanced chainer than still be stuck with 8 slots a few more updates down the road. That’s why I think it’s wise to give this idea a fair trial. I certainly wouldn’t want a native chainer if it wasn’t better than a ‘more slots’ solution. :laughing: