Multi-Mono-Plugins?

I want to insert the Waves WNS (mono or stereo-instance available) on a 5.1-Master-Aux.

In ProTools the plugin is loaded as a multi-mono-instance where the several engines are opened and linked in background.

What should I do in Nuendo?

Hi Domilik:
To use a mono or stereo plugin in a 5.1 track just insert it and press the tab at the right upper corner(stereo or mono) of the plugin and open the routing editor so you can adress it to any output available.

Hope it helped

Roberto

These little channel-config-tab does not let me choose a 5.1-channel configuration when I have a stereo-plug inserted.

Only “workaround” I know atm would be to insert 3 instances of my stereo-plugin, change routing manually on each, and then also make each parameter setting manually on each, one after the other (I cannot link plugins on same channel, can I?).

Unfortunately this workaround does not fit into a workflow, because when I make adjustments to one plugin-instance I only hear this on 2 outs of my 5.1-Channel, unless I copy it to the other plugins. And then being in complex automation process…not suitable. In addtion to that I burn up 3 of my only 8 inserts for one plugin.

Is there any way like in PT?

Sorry, the workaround is the only way I know.

Nobody else facing this problem?

Anybody who uses inserts in a multichannel-master which are not native 5.1-plugins? Anybody using (like in my example) the WNS for location sound?

Yep, having it too.
I was really unhappy with that at first, mostly because I was thinking Protools…
Turns out I rethought my workflow and stopped using badly dev plugs like waves.
Where do thy get that idea that some plugins should be mono an or stereo and just others surround ? Nonsense. It is that way because of the conception of soundesigner ii / protools in the first place.
Should have been updated a long time ago.
Some vst3 plugins work brilliantly for surround, like flux.
You just put the plug you need and it appears in the right format.
I do use wns though, but I put them on sources tracks and never on 5.1 busses.

But anyway, even with vst3 plugs, you simply cannot make different adjustments for front/rear or a channel basis for instance.
At least for now…
I used to think it was a big drawback (even a show stopper) for Nuendo, now I’m just used to it.
I have to say that even if I certainly wouldn’t want to see a protools multi-mono conception here, it could be really interesting to target different channel(s) with the same plug instance and different adjustments.
But maybe not by default.

If I may ask, why don’t you use wns on the source channels pre-panner ? It really is soft on CPU.
Of course you have to automate them individually, instead of one instance, it’s true…

Maybe that could de be a feature request, if not already…

1 Like

Basically, every plugin is mono. It processes “a” audio channel. A stereo plugin is actually two mono plugins with linked parameters. A VST3 plugin is a -as many channels as needed- multi mono plugin.

What has been asked for is a x-number of plugins side by side with the possibility of linking some parameters.
These are multichannel plugins with their own specific problems.
Mostly the are fixed to a specific channel config, and not usable within another config.
Which basically comes down to the fact that each and every user wants/needs a different set of plugin configurations.

Fredo

What I ask for is inserting a (mono-)plugin into one insert-slot of a multichannel track and have it working on all channels.

That works in Protools, in Nuendo it does not.

Well. I think Fredo explained it very well…
What you ask is what’s implemented in protools. Nuendo is different.
None of the two systems as they are today is perfect, but with time, nuendo seems way more logic to me.
Especially if they finally implement what Fredo suggested.

And for the record, what you ask is already there (all channels same param) with good implemented vst3 plugins (ie not waves, which are clearly PT aimed and badly vst3 implemented).

What’s missing in nuendo is just the ability to make different adjustments on different channels/group of channels inside the same plugin instance…

I’m afraid that in your case, the workaround is the only solution… Or you have to reconsider your routing to take this phenomenon into consideration, which could be more annoying than the workaround ;-(

I am aware of that. But I guess it’s legitimate to ask for a functionality which is offered by another DAW and which is lacking in Nuendo. Same reason why people are asking for VCAs, Playlists (obviously coming in N6.5), and many more. And ViceVersa, PT in between introduced clipgain, native, fastbounce, etc.

So, back to my problem, for now I will try your tip, use 24 WNS-instances, one on every channel - compared to 6 instances in PT still a pity, although Nuendo is different and of course much better in many other tasks.

I get your point, and I understand the frustration of course.
But it’s a wide area for us to think about, because we all use different configurations.
For instance, about a wns, I wouldn’t use it any different way than on a source basis, even on PT
(and I made that choice before half-switching to Nuendo2)
We just think it differently, and I say it’s cool that way !

As for vca, no questions asked, it’s missing… Well, half-missing in my opinion…
Vca is really a wonderful must-have in PT, partly because they simply didn’t care implementing post fader plugins…
Which means the only solution to manage a stem level without messing with dynamics first (for instance) is to go for master or use vca.
As long as you get post fader plugs in Nuendo, groups do actually already replace vca for that.
Of course, it is still useful to have vca, but I would be really more angry to not have it in Protools than in Nuendo.
But again, that’s me, I’m sure music guys wouldn’t agree with that
(And they would be right!)

And at the same time I totally agree with you on the viceversa part !!!
Sometimes I dream of a proendo or a nuentools…

That is impossible.
Mono = one single channel, so it can’t work on multiple channels.


The only way I can see this working (if you say that PT does that), is that PT infact inserts x-number of extra plugins as “Ghost plugins”. So you think you insterted one for all channels, but in fact there are multiple who are controlled by the GUI of the one that is visible. And that is the exact discription of a VST3 plugin.


But really, I do not see the point, not at all.
I actually find the VST3 plugins (which are doing the exact thing you are asking for) not very usefull.
I rarely find myself into a situation where I want all my channels being processed in the same way.
As an example, let’s take the most common channel format, 5.1.
I’m not going into differences between front, back and center, but the LFE channel alone should explain this very well. There is no thinkable situation, configuration or user case where we would want to process the LFE the same way any of the other channels is processed. I am very happy that I can insert a mono plugin into my LFE channel for applying Low Pass filtering, limiting, generating sub harmonics and everything else that comes with the use of an LFE channel.

HTH
Fredo

The only way I can see this working (if you say that PT does that), is that PT infact inserts x-number of extra plugins as “Ghost plugins”. So you think you insterted one for all channels, but in fact there are multiple who are controlled by the GUI of the one that is visible. And that is the exact discription of a VST3 plugin.

That’s exactly what protools does.
And by default, all mono instances are controlled by the one visible.
Except you can view any of the instances, and you can choose to link any combination of instances.
Which leads to adjusting differently the different instances in the same insert slots.

But really, I do not see the point, not at all.
I actually find the VST3 plugins (which are doing the exact thing you are asking for) not very usefull.
I rarely find myself into a situation where I want all my channels being processed in the same way.
As an example, let’s take the most common channel format, 5.1.
I’m not going into differences between front, back and center, but the LFE channel alone should explain this very well. There is no thinkable situation, configuration or user case where we would want to process the LFE the same way any of the other channels is processed. I am very happy that I can insert a mono plugin into my LFE channel for applying Low Pass filtering, limiting, generating sub harmonics and everything else that comes with the use of an LFE channel.

HTH
Fredo

Exactly the point Fredo !
That is because in many surround situations you’d want to adjust differently various sets of channels, that this function is really useful.
The LFe example is not a very good one imho, because it concerns one channel that is is truly separated and really different from all others. So yes, for the Lfe channel, you’d want to use Lfe only targeted insert.
It’s not the same story when you want to, say, eq front and rear with the same plug, but with different parameters.
In Nuendo you have to use two plugins slots for that… One for front, on for rear.
In Protools, it is true that you can use one multi-mono plug in one insert slot and having Two control groups : one for front, the other for rear.

In regards of automation, it doesn’t change anything, because on the one hand (PT) you have to deal with one slot, but multiple invisible groups of parameters (buggy if you’re not extremely cautious), and on the other hand (N) you have to insert 2 plugs (using just the same amount of instances by the way) 1 insert for front, 1 insert for rear.
Automation is then more secure, but you use 2 slots out of 6 (The 2 post fader don’t count because PT don’t has that)

That’s why in the end I got used (pretty quickly) to Nuendo and that’s why I wouldn’t want to see the whole “multi-mono” old paradigm from PT on Nuendo.
So, not the whole paradigm, but maybe having the ability to in fact insert a VST3 on one slot, say 5.1, and be able if you want to differently control front/rear/lfe, yes, but in the same insert slot !
Winner on both sides.
One use for that is that you can save presets for your plug with different parameters on different sets of channels, same slot.

I’m not sure this is crystal clear, but knowing the actual difference between the two daws, I see here a good opportunity for Nuendo to address all combinations if that could be implemented.

1 Like

By the way, Domilik, the apparent limitations I was talking about (plugs presets) can be addressed easily via track presets, an I would go for a pulgin grouping (static or quicklink) to control all your wns as one.
That way you can either have the same parameters on all tracks and/or adjust on a track basis.
Hope it helps…

Apparently, this is no feature of ProTools, this actually is within the AAX specs.
In the AAX specs of UAD, I read following: “Multi-mono support, so you can use UAD plug-ins on surround and stereo tracks with full linking and unlinking capability.”

That is exactly the same behaviour as to be found in a VST3 plugin.
And … Nuendo add the extra functionality of the Routing editor, where you can chose how many, and which, channels to be used.

The question that should be asked is why Third Party Manufacturer xxx doesn’t provide true VST3 support.

Fredo

Yes true, part of the thing is about third party not providing true vst3 support. And that’s the case for waves…

But nonetheless you have to get your hands on a protools to get the multi-mono thing completely. And it’s been around for rtas an tdm since forever… Not only aax.

As far as I can tell, in nuendo, you can target whatever channel(s) you want with a (true) vst3 plugin. Completely cool.
But you simply cannot target say 5.0 channels out of a 5.1 track and in the same plug have a different states of the plugin for, let’s say LCR and LsRs.
You are forced to use two plugins.
Or else I have (hopefully ?) missed something for many years :wink:
In that case you have to put 2 instances I the same vst3 plugin on your 5.1 track (one targeting LCR and the other one targeting LsRs)

In protools you can insert a multi-mono plugin and then you can create one group with LCR, and an other one with LsRs.
And that goes for every plugin.

Frankly, I’m quite happy with how nuendo handles it, but I can also understand people around who would like to do that but with only one plug inserted.
Have both possibilities would a plus, even if I’m not sure it’s doable technically…

I See.
Then Protools actually has a different and somewhet better solution for the lack of true Surround Multichannel plugins on the market.
Nuendo gives you a “solution” to use regular plugins in a surround environment, while ProTools emulates multichannel plugins from a single channel plugin. Actually it looks like they are splitting up/multiplying their insert buss, rather than duplicating the plugin instances.

Yup, cool solution.

Fredo

1 Like

I think you’re right about the splitting thing…
Though they also propose true multichannel plugin possibility. (in addition to rats/tdm choice, which makes 4… no comment, well even if aax intend to unify that, it remains the same you have to choose between native or dsp)
Actually when you select a plugin you first have to decide if it’s multi-mono or multichannel.
Their multichannel is similar to vst3, without the possibility of target specifically certains channels, except for specify plugin like lfe filters, for instance. (So Nuendo is more flexible in this regard)
But it is true that Protools multi-mono can virtually transform regular plugins for convenient multichannel use…

That’s what is (arguably of course) “missing” in nuendo, only when different setup are necessary across channels with just one insert slot…

But the thing is, for using regularly both, I like the Nuendo style more because it’s simpler and in the end more efficient, providing you work most of your plug pre panner, meaning at the source.
True multichannel plugin come really in handy in vst3 and I find it convenient in the end to “have” to put 2+ different plugs if I want to filter differently different channels. At least, it is more clear for someone coming after me in the session.
All of that just for me of course :wink:

Do you guys using protools and nuendo regularly have any particular other approach regarding the so called “multi-mono” thing ??

It’s a dreadful problem.
The basic issue for me is that Multi-Mono is hopeless, as I cannot think of any circumstances where I want the same settings applied across all 6 channels. The only workaround is to use several instances and route in the routing editor.