[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

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:

Each slot has an automation group, but if you have 4 plug-ins within a chainer - they have to share the a common automation group, so you’d end up with far too many parameters, you’d get in a mess with which automation line belongs to which plug in, and if you changed a plug-in within the chainer, that is probably going to reallocate the automation channels, when the replaced plug-in has more parameters than the original one - all too messy.

Another issue, is plug-ins that use floating point (like UAD), unless the chainer worked in floating point, that would mess that up,

Of course this proposed chainer, could be floating point, and have individual automation lines and independence, but that isn’t a chainer - that would just be more than 8 inserts (which I do support the idea of)

Of course! This is one of the main arguments against using a 3rd party chainer. An advanced native Steinberg chainer could potentially overcome all of that and offer parallel routing, frequency splitting, mid/side processing, etc.

I know that sounds mad, but think about the way the Sampler Track works, it’s not technically a plugin and it has advantages, such as having access to the pool and the ability to transmit samples to Groove Agent SE etc. Innovation is about looking past the boundaries of old paradigms.

Another issue, is plug-ins that use floating point (like UAD), unless the chainer worked in floating point, that would mess that up

I don’t understand what you mean. All processing in Cubase is done in a floating point domain, isn’t it? That’s why you can’t clip the channels. Or am I missing something?

Of course this proposed chainer, could be floating point, and have individual automation lines and independence, but that isn’t a chainer - that would just be more than 8 inserts (which I do support the idea of)

How would that not be a chainer? I’m proposing more inserts but I’m also proposing advanced routing options, which couldn’t be done simply by tacking on more inserts. The inserts vs sends model is a looking a bit old and withered by now. :laughing:

Could you help us to understand the specific disadvantages of an advanced native chainer (as described in my opening post) vs just more slots?

Of course I can: I want to see all my inserts in the mixer view. And not just a chainer.

But if we get a chainer, where we can do crazy stuff like you said in the opening post (mind/side, dry/wet and so on…) + we are somehow able to see the plugins in the mixer view + we are able to use sidechain on each plugin, can still automate every knob, it would be a killer feature! :smiley:

There is no need to turn a feature request as straight forward as allowing more of what is already a core feature in all DAWs, into an unnecessary, adversarial posturing against producers of a particular genre of music.

And there are more than a few users of Cubase around the world that create electronic-oriented music. Many of them signed artists who make their living at it.

Cubase has been chock full of MIDI features for decades.

Performance, design and ergonomics haven’t been harmed in any of the other DAWs that support unlimited inserts.

I voted no to a plugin chainer because I want to see at a glance what’s in my inserts. And I don’t want another layer of abstraction for automation. And because I feel it’s a Rube Goldberg, awkward design, where only a simple solution is needed.

I’d be fine if the mix console defaulted to showing exactly 8 inserts, as it does now, but could be increased upon demand – for those who don’t want to see a visual change.

I can’t answer this, since there is no option for: Give us more than 8 inserts. They would need to do a new version like Pro Tools did: You save as the older version in order to open the project again in older versions. You can’t open older versions in newer versions. Worked fine for Pro Tools, didn’t bother me one bit in the name of progressing things. Sometimes to get into a much better place you need to make a minor sacrifice like that, so my opinion is that Steinberg doesn’t need to worry so much about backwards compatibility at this point. Work on older projects in the older format if you need to, then import older into the newer format if you need the new features on them.

That’s the only way it’s going to work, unless they figure out a way to make it all compatible (which they haven’t been able to in a long time it seems - so let’s move on to an option that works).

I need more than 8 sends!

THAT’S exactly what I’ve been talking about the whole time… What if you COULD see the inserts in the mixer view? And what if you could do all the routing and still easily automate it all? I’m not saying that’s possible or could happen, but I’m offering it as an alternative suggestion. It’s up to Steinberg to decide/figure out how/what can be implemented.

Okay, thanks! Those are obviously reasons that would apply to 3rd party chainers. What if a baked-in Steinberg chainer could be designed to display its inserts with a glance at the mixer and to avoid the layer of abstraction for automation? That’s not entirely outside the realm of possibility. I’d only be cool with a chainer IF it didn’t come with those sorts of issues. Would you consider recasting your vote?