I think it would be confusing to have inserts in a stack where the signal flow through them doesn’t match their visual, top-down order.
That’s why I said that you don’t personally have to. This could be made
totally up to you and each user. In your case all you would need to do is to not press the pre/post fader
button (just like with the sends). But don’t get me wrong, I would not be happy with 8 pre fader
slots. I want to be able to add as many as I want.
As requested, here are my thoughts on the subject of Cubase inserts.
WaveLab gives you the ability to add inserts. Cubase could do this. The issue is, how much is too much? I believe the ability to add more inserts is only valuable if they can be assigned routing options like mentioned by Hattrixx.
Some are covered by the plugins themselves, for example mid/side and sidechain. Additional routing options such as, pre / post fader, left only, right only, insert to insert chaning, insert to group…
But wait a minute, doesn’t this sound like the sends. the send can do this. However, wouldn’t it be more efficient to do this routing in the track? Sure it would. better work flow. you can use an external chainer but, this adds to the memory and processing load more than an internal routing algorithm optimized for DAW.
If you have a boat load of RAM, multiple processors and a frontside BUS you could drive a truck through, 20 or more inserts might not be a problem, at least resource wise. Do you really need it though?
As i said earlier, 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.
Long story short, proper insert configuration and routing to include adding and removing them, is needed. other DAW’s have it, WaveLab has it, why not Cubase?
Okay, I’m on board now. I think you’re right. That would work.
Agree with your comment about built-in channel strip, … and besides if it REALLY was PRO, then why is not
the “RND Portico” suite not automatically integrated and part of the “CB-Pro”
I do not want any chainer I would like more slots. Even before version 9.5.
Steinberg want’s our feedback about Cubase 9 At the end of the survey you can write a comment. If we all write about the insert slots problem then the devs would see how important this wish is!
Here is the link: https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=250&t=107198
I didn’t make a vote but I guess my view would be “Yes, I occasionally want more than 8 inserts, BUT it’s not near the top of my wish list so please don’t waste time on it until you’ve done all the things on MY list first.”
I’m having a hard time understanding why you think it would affect either the performance OR the aesthetic, when the current mixer only shows as many slots as you are using. If you never use more than 8 inserts, and Cubase changed nothing except the 8 insert limitation, you would literally not notice the difference.
on another tangent here, if Steinberg continues to add features Studio One has implemented (i.e. Lower Zone), then maybe they’ll include multi instrument/multi effect chains too. The anti-Cubase crowd can drone on about how Cubase copied Studio One again (who copied Ableton in the first place) and I would be happy as a clam. And in that scenario, you really couldn’t justify an 8 insert limitation, since you’re dealing with multiple signal chains on one track. This is Live’s best feature and if Cubase were to take a page from their book it could only make it far, far better for people who aren’t just composing with presets.
That’s very condensending, being fine with 8 slots doesn’t make one a preset pusher.
I hope Cubase 9.5 actually takes away two insert slots. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I don’t see how more inserts could impact workflow or performance since slots are hidden until used and there is no processor load if there is no inserted plugin. Still, is it really so hard to send the channel to it’s own group to add more plugins? Don’t touch the fader or panner on the originating channel and just use the controls on the group and it will work just like pre-fader. This workaround is so easy that I feel like they should be spending their time on more important things like bezier automation curves, mixer plugins, a preview to headphones button, multitouch, I could go on for a while before I hit >8 inserts on my wish list.
Ideal case is allowing more than 8 insert slots but I’d be happy with a built-in plugin chainer given it has all the same functionality and ease of use in terms of automation of individual plugin parameters. As well as support for other plugin manufacturers, not just stock steinberg plugins.
I am not an EDM lover. I would like more slots.
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.
That’s totally respectable. I’d just like to point out that this thread isn’t about the priority of items on our personal wishlists, it’s more particularly directed at possible solutions Steinberg might consider specifically to please those of us who’d like unlimited inserts. This is an important distinction because simply adding more inserts isn’t necessarily the best solution to the problem, nor is it necessarily the easiest/quickest for Steinberg to implement (we just don’t know). I don’t think any of us want to see Steinberg pour excessive resources into features we’re not personally interested in, which is why it’s important to help establish whether or not we’d potentially be satisfied with alternative solutions that might help bring about the change sooner (potentially!). So if you could vote anyway, I’d appreciate that. Not voting won’t do anything to change Steinberg’s priorities anyway, I wouldn’t have thought.
features I’d like to see in a Steinberg Expander rack which would be better than cramming unlimited inserts into a console:
-It’s own send buses
-make it freezable
-have different ways of viewing which plugins are in it without having to open it/the plugins.
-different views, rack view, schematic window (like reaktor)
-ability to break the rack so plugins are free floating like they usually are.
-pop out individual plugins
-resizeable rack that reorganizes the plugins: vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, single plugin width or tiles/columns 2x_ or 4x_
-modifier controls that can be assigned to parameters across multiple plugins,
-single plugin solo/listen
-create sends out of the chain at any point of the chain
-create sends within the chain
-name your chains and a Cubase Mixer/Channel search feature to find a specific chain, ability to bring up that chain without having to go to the channel and click on it.
-monitor the output of the chain whilst auto-bypassing any regular channel inserts after the chain.
-Chains get their own dedicated history (also duplicated/mirrored to the new mix history)
-Freeze a chain within itself and have the ability to start another B chain ontop of the freeze. ie, racks could have multiple pages - A, B, C, D which can be patched together (if your CPU can handle it) or you can freeze A and route it to B, work on B, then freeze B and route it to C.
I’d also like to the rack come with its own set of “micro” metering and gain staging plugins that can be inserted between plugins. Think of narrow Eurorack 2-4hp modules. Phase displays, pre/post effect waveform monitors, different meters from VU emulations to digital modern and a variety of gain staging plugins that use different algorithms for different purposes - see Air Windows bitshift gain and purest gain… or how about a plugin where you bypass the effect before and it takes a measurement of the bypasses signal into memory, and then you activate the effect and do another measurement and it finds the best average RMS to compensate.
The argument that you don’t need more than 8 inserts because you shouldn’t need more than 8 inserts is laughable and quite demonstrably wrong. That’s not to say you have to use more than 8, but to say you shouldn’t need more than 8 is incredibly insular.
Now, more inserts vs plugin chainer. I think the chainer is the cleanest solution to keep backwards compatibility and workflow for those who are content with the current mixer layout. It would have to be a Steinberg implementation to ensure compatibility, future proofing, tight integration and transparency. Third party solutions are not the answer.
Let’s say Steinberg goes ahead and do this then they have the possibility of having the groundwork done for some kind of Bidule/Reaktor contraption they can further develop into a native Cubase/standalone VSTthingie 1.0 and $$$ of … if they like?
You cannot continue to move forward if you’re forever appeasing those working on older versions of the software.
There needs to a be a ‘Save as version XXXX’ command which saves the session in an as compatible state as possible. This is what Protools did when they changed their fader headroom from +6 to +12 db and other changes and its the perfect solution.
It’s not just inserts that are the problem.
Why do we have a new EQ plugin? If its that much better it should be in the channel strip. Whats the point of having a sub-standard channel strip with all of its constituent parts bettered by included plugins? If we’re gonna keep the channel strip relevent it needs to be continually updated - maybe have the EQ switchable between ‘Classic" and "Frequency’.
Cubase 8 and earlier users can’t use the Frequency EQ plugin anyway - so we already have backwards compatibility issue. Earlier versions also can’t use VCA’s or the Track Sampler, or even instrument tracks either! These are issues that are easily solved in a ‘Save as version XXXX’ solution - you just give the option to flatten and render newer features until you’re in a situation where you have a session that is readable by an earlier iteration.