Why doesn't Cubase provide a WET/DRY mix knob for every VST?

Should there be a WET/DRY mix knob in the VST host?

  • Yes!
  • No!

0 voters

It seems to me that the most useful thing that Cubase could add would be probably one of the simplest to implement: a WET/DRY mix knob in the VST host window.

(In fact it seems so simple that maybe I’m missing the fact that Cubase already has it and I just haven’t found it??)

I know that there are plenty of VSTs that allow you to control the Wet/Dry within the plugin itself. But not every plugin has this feature. For a simple insert chain, the idea of trying to emulate wet/dry with Sends seems clumsy when a simple wet/dry mix of the effct I’ve inserted would be the quickest way to the effect I’m looking for. (I think that Sends should be reserved for effects that are shared across several tracks, otherwise the addtion of an FX track is overkill.)

So I’m asking folks to vote. Should the window that hosts VSTs have its own WET/DRY mix knob?

Just 4 votes guys? :frowning:

yes but not only steinberg. I wished all the distortion plugs i have would have wed/dry options that i do not need to sidechain them anymore. Steinberg, Native Instruments, Pod Farm… maybe with a hidden menu. But this would be more easy for some quick adjustments.

Yes yes yes fantastic idea!

One of the things I miss most from the old SX3 plug-ins. What before required one automation lane now requires two lanes and a separate fx track. (fading between dry and wet signal)

Why not add a standard set of controls present in the generic plug-in editor, with per plug-in panning, level and dry/wet-mix for example, oh and a way to toggle pre or post processing bypass would be sweet for time based plugins.


great. that´s it!

why in the generic plugin editor only?

This “preset line” above every plugin could well be extended (as somehow done with cubase 6 from 5) with

  • a wet/dry knob

  • pre/post bypass mode button

  • “default preset” button, to mark the currently loaded preset/plugin state as the default anytime the plugin is instantiated

  • “instance name” (the name that is shown in plugin slots, to distinguish between “Reaktor 5” (with a bass patch) and “Reaktor 5” with a bell patch for example)

  • a “preset browser name” (the name of the media bay folder cubase scans when opening the preset browser for that plugin, 'cause it might be that you have two dlls of the same plugin, like “TAL-Noizemaker” and “TAL-Noizemaker (Automap)” and their preset folders are different and presets saved with one are not shown in the preset browser of the other, even though their Unique-Vst-ID is the same and can load the same presets…

  • some kind of “automap” similar functionality

    etc etc etc…

… PLUS an A / B switch for quick comparisons between presets :wink:

All the replies seem to indicate YES yet there are 5 NOs. I wonder why those people didn’t bother to share their reasoning?

Has anyone here ever worked in a real studio? If you did you might have an idea why things are the way they are. You’d also be able to explain at length why you want your way used by everyone.

Could be an option but could be a big job to nowhere for a programmer.

how many programers do work for steinberg? Six?? :wink:
YES ###################### 10
NO ############## 6

In my humble opinion this is not a good idea. (And I don’t work for Steinberg… :slight_smile: )

I prefer using fx send channels having control of all the mixing levels in the Cubase mixer.

Great idea I’d say - I’ve been wanting this for ages, and I’ve even suggested it too a few times. In these days of increased interest in parallel compression and distortion I think it’d be a worthy feature to add to any DAW (and Reaper has it already I think). After all, we don’t need to be bound by hardware limitations in software.

Of course, for those who don’t need it then it should hide away discretely and default to 100% wet.

Other things that would be nice are the A/B button, or even an A/B/C button, again why limit ourselves?


To the folks that posted that ‘this is not a good idea’ and ‘have you ever worked in a studio?’ I still think you dent provide a reason. Could you elaborate? It takes time to code and speculating about how much time isn’t really an acceptable response. Tell me how you can do what a simple WET/DRY knob offers in a sensible number of steps o without creating sends and a return track, which is egregious for the task of achieving a mix of effected an unaffected signal for a single track?

FWIW: the studio I worked in was Yale University’s Center for Studies in Music Technology, and we were taught to push creative boundaries through software. Isn’t that what we should all be doing? :wink:

Edit: I see Lars provided a reason in his last edit that came in while I was slowly punching out my reply on my iPhone :wink: peace on that.

Yep totally in favour!
Time moves on guys… remember when digital audio was the inferior cousin to tape?
IMHO it would be a VERY useful feature and a bit of a time saver over a whole project.

I agree that every plug-in should have a wet/dry mix. I don’t think it is Steinberg’s responsibility to fix the plug-in developer’s shortcomings. If steinberg did this what would really be happening? They can’t change the code for the plug-in so all they would really be doing is creating an “invisible” FX channel, mixing it, and sending it on. This capability already exists.
My opinion.

Unfortunately every plugin does not implement wet/dry. It’s not required in the VST spec. That’s why I’m asking for it. If you agree every VST should have it and acknowledge that’s not the case why wouldn’t you want this feature in the host?

In software, as in hardware there is the question of wiring the connections so it’s not as simple as putting a big empty knob there for anyone to twiddle. Further, as it has been a connection protocol for years, is change really needed for “creative purposes”? Yale should at least have taught the basics and not to push “creative boundaries” for the sake of it. It’s expensive enough to do that, surely?
The question asked is reasonable enough but the further posts seem to be demanding it for the poster’s own convenience. It’s implementation certainly wouldn’t push creative boundaries and may even confuse a large amount of students and long time engineers and also, because of the “wiring” I allude to it would be open to buggy behaviour for some time after development and would be pretty hard to trace and fix.
Next time you’re in an analog studio don’t look at the pretty lights, ask if you can look under the table and thru the cobwebs and dust at the wiring looms and you may get an idea of the problem.
The patch bay in any DAW is pretty massive. And it has to change the wiring on the fly.
You may get it when the next computer generation comes along but if they start now it will be unfinished when Cubase 10 uses nanoram or whatever.

Anyway it is an old proven fact that creativity is never compromised by technological shortcomings.
I’d like to write a book but the computer won’t do it for me. :mrgreen:

Conman did you get your degree in computer science or build software for a living? Seems like some bold statements about the cost and risk of implementation.

A good idea and works fine in Reaper.

1 Like