[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

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?

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:

My pleasure. Thanks for highlighting this long wished for request!

Hmm, that sounds a lot like, simply more inserts (for those that add more inserts).

Especially, if it’s going to be showing near the inserts area in the console. And if it’s not, it may be confusing to new users of Cubase. They might ask the question, “why are there two sets of inserts in the console?” It might add, ironically, more complexity than it aims to take away. E.g., a pre/post inserts button.

But I think a chainer could also be useful for other reasons, but not as a replacement to console-level inserts.

If the desire is to see a chainer as an addition (and stop-gap), then I’ll change my vote, as I’m not against the chainer to use as a chainer. And I’m not against seeing arrive first… mostly, because all hope that Steinberg cares about this issue is lost anyway :laughing:

Well it should sound a lot like simply more inserts. I’m first and foremost an advocate of unlimited inserts. I wouldn’t be satisfied with a half-baked solution, but I’m interested to explore less obvious ideas if and only if there’s a good possibility they can be implemented in a way that’s as good as, if not better than, simply adding more inserts.

This is a comment on a purely hypothetical implementation. My question is, if the implementation was to your liking, would you be happy with that?


Well, not really. The question is, with an implementation that satisfies all of your needs, could an advanced native chainer be a good alternative to additional inserts? I’ll tell you this much… if they simply extended it to 16 inserts I’d be spitting fire. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Why? Steinberg have acknowledged the feature request and have specifically said they’re not ignoring any suggestions.

I didn’t read your actual first post, my bad!

I hear what you’re saying, yes.

Agreed :laughing: 16 would be enough for me, too. More than enough.

As for my hopelessness about this feature, mostly because the 8 insert limit was introduced in Cubase VST 3.5 in 1998. I remember several years later, around 2002, other DAWs having more inserts and wanting more in Cubase.

So it’s been passed over for 15 years now :smiley:

As for “would I be happy if I were happy”… tautologically, I guess I would have to be, but I can’t envision an implementation that walks and talks like console inserts, that isn’t simply console inserts.

So until I see a specific implementation that overcomes my lack of imagination, my (lone) vote will stay as a “no.”

Uh-huh… good answer, good answer. Now, if you could just let me in on where the boundaries of your imagination clash with your hopes of more inserts…? I mean, what is it specifically that you couldn’t imagine being well-implemented that’d have to be in place to make you a happy camper? I ask in part because I would change my own vote if the reason is sufficiently compelling. I really hope I’m not overlooking something.

10 Inserts would be fine!! :mrgreen:

yes would like a chainer … but steinberg would charge for it so tha it will be backward compatible? just a question

I think personally, the ability to assign each insert as pre or post fader is more important.

Regardless, The elephant hidden behind the tree in the room is, the more plugins you use in these inserts, the higher the probability of phase issues with the tracks, due to latency and the way they affect the material.


We’re talking about a baked-in Cubase feature, not a chargeable add-on

I voted yes, but only if that’s the only option to overcome this limitation. Why couldnt the insert slot section look excactly like before until you actively decide to add the 9th plugin. After that the slot number increase
by one with each plugin you add. This way everyone’s happy. Someone mentioned phase issues, and if your afraid of that just avoid adding another plugin. Personally Im not afraid, and if your a mixing engineer using three inserts
on a vocal I would provably look around for someone ekse to do the job. If you’re creative do whatever you want,
but I still dont understand the mindset of wanting a program to limit you. “Oh, slow down, sure you need that decapitator?” “sure you need another de-esser?” “I know you’re computer is a beast, but please be careful!!” And one more thing: the cubase channel strip does not sound anywhere close to specidic third party plugins, so to me if Cubase really is “Pro” now unlimted inserts is an absolute must.

Just to be specific. Let’s say half of Cubase’s users want unlimted
inserts and half of them don’t. Why not let it be an option? The next slots are added only when you choose to.

Personally I feel like a fossil
when I watch someone with Ableton having 16 plugins on a channel. In the right hans that is extreemly

What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.

What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.

What if you could change every slot to pre- or postfader? Nothing complexe here.

So many other DAW’s have more insert slots. It’s not complex!

So if I switch slot 2 to a post-fader insert, it then jumps down to the bottom slot? Because it should, signal-flow-wise, but that would be absolutely bizarre.

I think it would have to reside on its own collapsible row in the console. A side benefit being it would enjoy the same variable number of inserts the pre-fader inserts would.

Older projects would simply map the hardcoded 7 and 8 slots to 1 and 2 of the post fader inserts section.

I actually wish Studio One had such an option. It currently can only be done via the sends pane of the channel (and creates an extra aux fx buss in the process).

What if the pre/post cutoff point could be dragged up and down the inserts list? I see no reason why that has to be complex. But anyway, with infinite plugins and complex chains inside a native chainer, who cares? You could put as many plugins as you want pre or post fader, it would make no difference whether you had 2 post fader slots or 22. :laughing:

I would be happy with an integrated Plugin Chainer.

  • it should include all Plugins and self created plugin lists from the plugin manager
  • it should be fully an easily automatable per R & W
  • it should be sidechainable

AND i would rather prefer it to be a modular chainer instead of a rack solution (like the blue cat one), or at best both in one.
I think Prologue’s Bidule or ImageLine’s Minihost Modular would be a good starting point:

If this is important to you, the 9th could just be added in between. Meaning the post fader slots now would be 10 and 11 instead. I dont get why you can’t just choose pre/post yourself per slot though. This way we both get our way.