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.