Whats Mix Console's signal flow relative to the STRIP?

Hello Folks

What´s the signal flow on the Mix Console’s relative to the items on the STRIP rack?
How exactly does the signal flow through ALL the racks when you drag items within the strip to change their order?

I´m confused because “top to bottom” is not always the signal flow in analog consoles, but whenever in doubt, analog console manufacturers include a handy block diagram that helps you understand whats the exact sequence of components.

Old cubase manuals used to include an easy diagram showing which was the exact order of the components in each channel, but I can´t find anything on the current manual (version 9). In this confusing flow, the only thing I´m kind of sure about is that the pan slider is the last thing on the channel, but not thanks to anything I´ve read on Cubase´s manual.

So, from experience, i THINK, the flow goes from the top rack to the bottom one, like this:
INSERTS (pre or post fader)
SENDS (pre or post fader)
Fader and panner

However, I get confused, because of the STRIP. In the STRIP, EQ is located in the middle position, after Gate and Comp. BUT in the racks, EQ is located before the STRIP rack. So, if the flow is top to bottom, the STRIP rack generates a whole lot of questions, for instance:

  1. What happens after the inserts? Does signal go from INSERTS to EQ within the STRIP rack? … and if so… where does the signal go right after that?
  2. When does the Gate act? Before or after the PRE rack? After the Inserts?
  3. What about the Limiter within STRIP? does it limit the signal right before the channel’s output routing? Top to bottom signal flow would cause it to limit the audio before SENDS and CUES…
  4. Where is the fader located in this signal flow?

    So this set of questions sets the table for the original question:

How exactly does the signal flow through ALL the racks when you drag items within the strip to change their order?

The more I think about it, the more confusing it gets.

I don´t want to have to experiment and speculate in order to find out about this. Seems like a pretty basic thing that should be included at the beginning of the RACKS section of the operation manual.

So! this is basically the reason WHY i´ve never used STRIP very much. For me its not an intuitive feature.

Anyone else with me on this one?

-The strip can be switched to pre- or post fader insert position.
-The EQ is part of the strip.
-The single strip processors´ positions can be switched within the strip.

I also dod research on this a few months ago. (Note to self ref: JCP 6430v34)
Recorder Track OR Input channel -->
Pre -->
pre-fader inserts -->
pref sends AND fader -->
post-fader FX -->
post-fader sends AND output channel

Now you can also go from pre to the strip, with pre-fader FX before or after the strip (and its EQ). My notes seem to say it’s configurable on the strip.

My conclusion was that the strip should be ignored. It’s redundant. I’d even say it’s antiquated. It’s nice for people who are more comfortable with a traditional workflow. Otherwise, I see no advantage to it. The interface is clunky, and you have fewer selections for FX, and you can’t see what’s happening on the strip as well as you can with inserts.

hm I guess the strip is kind of useless if you need a more advanced signal flow. I do agree with ColinPark, in the fact that it feels stiff in comparison to all the steinberg plugins you can load as inserts. It just looks better in pictures than a wall of inserts, but I almost never use it…

Anyone else with a take on this subject?

Why would you use the strip instead of the inserts rack? In what way is it superior or more convenient?

Why would you use a plugin if you could do what you need to do in the strip ?
It is there to do some quick noise gating, compression etc.
Some audio needs more refined control, so you open a plugin instead.
I use it all the time to get a quick mix going, I have changed the default in most strip fx to open with the settings I mostly use.
Limited control is sometimes a good thing :slight_smile:

That’s interesting. I’ve never cared too much about the Strip, maybe if we give it a try we could find some use to it.

I’m not a big fan of Cakewalk/Sonar, but I have to say Cakewalk’s ProChannel looks waaay more interesting and capable than Cubase’s Strip.