[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Would you be happy if Steinberg added a native plugin chainer to overcome the 8 inserts limitation?

  • Yes, I’m sure I would.
  • I hope I would, but I’m not sure.
  • No, I definitely wouldn’t.
  • Already happy with 8 inserts.

0 voters

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING, otherwise it’s pointless

This is not a moan post, I’m in love with this update and very happy with Steinberg right now.

I do, however, empathise with those upset with the limited number of insert slots.

There is another thread about this which seems to have devolved into an argument between those who want more inserts and those who are afraid that adding more inserts would somehow ruin the current Cubase experience. Personally, I’d like infinite inserts and I don’t want to use a third party chainer. However, I think if Steinberg were to build a native chainer into Cubase, it could potentially be done in a way that would satisfy me (I’d have to think long and hard about what conditions would have to be met, but the bare minimum would be for the chainer to have identical plugin support to Cubase).

Possibly my favourite plugin in the world right now is MeldaProduction’s MXXX, which among other things, allows you to build chains with complex routing options (L/R, mid/side, parallel/serial, feedback, sidechain, etc - it doesn’t host 3rd party plugins, though). If Steinberg were to present something vaguely along those lines - obviously not with the full feature list of MXXX - I think that could be a sound designer’s heaven without necessarily having to disrupt the mixer.

Would love your thoughts. Please vote!

P.S. In relation to the limited sends - hopefully an advanced plugin chainer could alleviate the need for more sends in a lot of situations. Other than that, I highly recommend you check out the Direct Routing options already in Cubase - understanding this alone has effectively struck ‘more sends’ off my wants list.

Sounds good to me!

For those voting NO, I don’t suppose you could explain why, could you? :laughing: <3

If only this comment had a little poll, for them to vote “No” :laughing:

P.S. It took me a minute to recognize you were wearing headphones in your profile pic. I thought, Jesus, that guy has enormous ears! The braids masked them, I guess

The Yeses are winning - I’m actually surprised there aren’t more people in the middle category! :astonished:

I get that a lot! :laughing: Ironically, I have very small ears, actually.

Oh noooh! Now I can’t unsee the ears !!! :imp: :mrgreen:

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.