We shouldn’t have a compatibility issue, as “backwards compatibility” is newer versions of a technology continuing to work (in this case “load”) older versions of that technology.
A variable number of inserts in newer versions of Cubase would still continue to load older projects, with a fixed number of inserts, without issue.
I just realized another big reason I’ve been gobbling up inserts lately in other DAWs: metering and trimming.
I’ve been making sure each stage of my chain hits around -18dbfs, since many of these modeled plugins are modeling distortion on the inputs.
I always have at least one Dorrough meter that I drag up and down. So there’s one insert gone. And some plugins that don’t have a good way to stage the output and/or input, I’ll have to insert a trim plugin. There’s at least one more slot gone.
A negligible resources penalty, too.
I’d hope that a very well-designed, advanced, native, baked-in chainer would have many, many advantages besides simply offering more insert slots. Ideally this should be a feature that even appeals to those of us who don’t necessarily use many insert slots, but are excited by the idea of new routing possibilities not offered by the current (dated) paradigm.
One thing that most of you overlook is that inserts on the same track will be processed on the same cpu core.
Expanding the number of inserts could easily max out one core.
As much as would like more insert slots, it is not going to happen without a major rewrite of the audio engine.
What could be possible without too much effort, would be a possibility to chain audio tracks with one command.
This should simply add another track, create a phantom bus to chain the output of the first track to the input of the other and finally remove the line between those tracks in both the arranger and mixer. So they can clearly being identified as chained channels.
Also keep in mind that hardware controllers like Nuage and such expect to see eight inserts, eight QuickControls, a four-band EQ in the strip, eight sends, etc, and offer immediate tactile access to them. Steinberg isn’t going to mess with this, nor should they when there are very reasonable workarounds in place.
This is exactly my situation. So two slots of 6 gone right out of the gate.
Also - I use Melda MCompare to to do a volume-compensated A/B comparison. That requires two slots (one immediately before the plug-in, one immediately after). It seems like an extravagant use of space, but I learn so much about what the plugin is actually doing when I do that.
So … yes please, I’d like more inserts slots!
A chainer from Steinberg would be a great solution. Although i seldom use more than 8 inserts, and when i need more i make a new bus. But it sure would be handy to quickly compare different chains. Or for other people who need extensive metering per channel. I think it will speed up the workflow.
Tried all the third-party chainers ; none of them are able to load all the plug-ins i have available in Cubase.
If someone knows of a chainer that can, please let me know.
Having to route to buses to get more inserts is a hack and not good for workflow. You can’t change the order of plugins on different channels without losing your automation data, for one thing.
Hey, that’s not a bad idea at all! Just goes to show that when you’re willing to think outside the box there may be less obvious - potentially more practical - solutions.
I’d be open to the idea of a channel-chainer type solution rather than a plugin chainer, if it were specifically designed to overcome all of the problems associated with the Group channels solution. Specifically, chained channels should always appear adjacent to each other on the mixer. Chained channels should always freeze or render along with their parent channels. Insert plugins (with their automation data) should be able to be freely moved around to any slot in any channel in the chain. Chained channel inserts should always be visible in the parent channel’s inspector.
The main downside I can see with this versus the plugin chainer idea is that it’s a feature that a channel chainer feature would only benefit those of us who want unlimited inserts - it misses out on the potential complex routing benefits of an advanced modular plugin chainer. I’d be over the moon with either solution done well, honestly.
Yes I understand that, I have even made a feature request in the past. I would love to see unlimited inserts with metering and level control for input and output on each insert slot. But to be realistic I think that is not going to happen anytime soon.
I think at that point they might as well just fully implement unlimited inserts. The above just sounds like ‘unlimited inserts with a messy graphical representation on the arrange page’.
I never need more than 8 inserts on one track.
I also simply don’t use inserts which cause output level problems: I think those who developed these effects should fix that nonsense in the first place, before wanting anyone to use their effect in a DAW. So I never waste a slot for fixing problems that shouldn’t exist at all.
And I don’t want ANY(!) CPU resources wasted on unlimited (not even double as much) inserts. I hope Steinberg stick with the present status.
The poll so far also indicates that there isn’t even a majority voting for more inserts: this simply is no common user concern.
the rationale behind the potential processing-power issues seems a little lacking in my opinion-- it could be likened to saying that, for instance, 4 audio tracks should be enough to complete any good song (‘look at beatles’). we indeed do have the option to keep adding audio channels that noone disputes, and CPU cores can – and indeed will be – maxed out by adding channels and insert effects to those channels. users are not seen complaining that the count of audio tracks should be limited, because there is a risk of potentially maxing out your computer (which in turn most definitely bursts in flames as a result)…
Limits aren’t always “LIMITS”…
If you want to OVERCOME the 8 inserts limit
You simply create enough Group Tracks to handle all the inserts you want to … well… insert !
Use Direct Routing from the Audio track to the 1st Group track
Use Direct Routing from the 1st Group Track to the 2nd Group Track
Use Direct Routing from the 2nd Group Track to the 3rd Group Track
so on and so forth. Leave the output of the last group track at your final Group or Bus.
Use the inserts on the original audio track and all the Group Tracks in your routing chain
to affect your sound in any way you see fit.
Yep, that’s pretty much it, the framework is already there.
Welllllll… you never know. It’s worth putting the suggestion out there, without necessarily having unrealistic expectations. For all we know, they’ve been developing an unlimited inserts solution for months .
Well yes, it could be done via a messy graphical representation, that entirely depends on how it’s implemented. I see no reason to doubt that Steinberg would develop a very slick/efficient/suave/user-friendly implementation. It might not be immediately obvious to us as users what that would look like, I’d contend that it’s totally within the realm of possibility.
Lots of people haven’t!
I can’t fathom a reason why an unused insert slot would require any additional CPU resources whatsoever, unless it was programmed foolishly, by someone far less competent than the team at Steinberg. I don’t think there’s a founded concern here that giving the option of using additional inserts would in any way harm performance for people not using those extra insert slots - not even by a fraction of a percent.
That’s not the point of the poll at all. I don’t think anyone’s pretending that unlimited inserts is the most popular user concern. The poll is specifically aimed at people who are annoyed about the 8 inserts limitation (hence the thread title).
The assumption I keep seeing here is that people who want more than 8 inserts are somehow incompetent. I think quite the opposite is true. People who want more than 8 inserts tend to be advanced level users who want fewer creative restrictions and slicker workflow.
We know! 
There’s not a single person advocating unlimited inserts who has demonstrated such a profoundly poor working knowledge of Cubase as to not be using the Group track workaround.
I’ve voted “I hope I would, but I’m not sure.” A chainer might be an adequate temporary solution. On the other hand, andyjh makes a very good point here: