[POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post general topics related to Cubase Pro 9, Cubase Artist 9 and Cubase Elements 9 here.
Post Reply

Would you be happy if Steinberg added a native plugin chainer to overcome the 8 inserts limitation?

Yes, I'm sure I would.
84
36%
I hope I would, but I'm not sure.
14
6%
No, I definitely wouldn't.
28
12%
Already happy with 8 inserts.
110
47%
 
Total votes: 236

Tim Timmer
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:22 pm

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Tim Timmer » Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:12 pm

battleangel wrote:I don't need more than 3 to 5 Inserts. Channel Strip cover basics like compression, gate, limiter and envelope + 6 pre-fader and 2 post-fader inserts = a lot for me.
That's one perfectly valid way of doing things. However, there are others. Personally, I'm a stickler for the high-quality modellings of hugely expensive classical FX modules of yesteryear. So, I don't use the Channel Strip that much, and wouldn't mind a few extra inserts.

It would also be helpful if Steinberg would copy a feature from WaveLab. Tabbed Plug-in windows, as this would go a long way in cleaning up the screen realestate.

In_Stereo
Senior Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by In_Stereo » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:20 pm

Vinylizor wrote: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.
YES to all of this.
Cubase 9.5, Trashcan Mac 6-core 3.7ghz, Mojave 10.14.5, AMD FirePro D300 Dual, 64 gig RAM, plugins galore, some hardware, a bunch of real instruments and synths, Apollo 8 TB, etc., etc., and two cats

Laserkraft
Junior Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:50 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Laserkraft » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Voted no, because i would like to see a clean implementatikn of inserts. Not a fan of a chainer "workaround", which i imagine to just make things less streamlined and more click and window heavy.
C 9.5 / Win 10 Custom PC / OS X MacBook Pro

fretthefret
Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by fretthefret » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:54 pm

one benefit that I see of a good VST based plugin chainer would be a cross platform benefit.
But the GUI would also have to be very clean and usable, like a Lance Thackeray (PureAV) design.
You could create chains in any DAW and have them readily usable in any other DAW with the same settings.
A great timesaver.
There are many obvious benefits in Cubase along the same lines.
Yes, track presets can be used, but there are limitations there as well - parallel processing sends come to mind.
Something a self contained well engineered plugin chainer could easily overcome.

Would also be of great benefit for those of us, who, by choice and by necessity, are working on multiple DAWs.

I see it as not so much to break the 8 insert per track limit but to allow for creative freedom, which is the point of software in the first place.
Cubase Pro 10.0.5, FL Studio 20, Ableton Live Suite 10, Harrison Mixbus 32c, UAD Apollo x series, UR28m, SSL, Native Instruments Komplete ultimate, NI Maschine Studio, Xfer Records Serum, Lennar Digital Sylenth1, reFx Nexus2, Reveal Sound Spire, FabFilter, Soundtoys, Lexicon PCM, Sonarworks, Slate Digital, Izotope, Brainworx, SPL, Waves, Cableguys, Cytomic, MeldaProductions, AOM, IK Multimedia, SynchroArts Revoice Pro, DDMF, Boz Digital, Antares Autotune, a bunch of other obscure stuff, TBs of samples, too much hardware to list... PC Windows 10 Pro 1803 64bit, i7-5960x (8 core), Asus x99 Deluxe ii, GeForce 1070 strix, Fractal Design Silent RL2 case, Noctua NH-d15s, 64 GB DDR4 g,Skillz Trident Z 3200 RAM, 512gb Samsung 950 m.2, 3TB segate Ironwolf NAS HDD, 4TB WDRed, 2TB WD Black, Laptop: MSI Ghost pro GS60 6QE i7-6700 Skylake Win 10 64bit, Storage: 32 TB QNAP NAS Raid 50, 12 TB QNAP RAID 1

User avatar
Hattrixx
Junior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:06 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:28 pm

Laserkraft wrote:Voted no, because i would like to see a clean implementatikn of inserts. Not a fan of a chainer "workaround", which i imagine to just make things less streamlined and more click and window heavy.
Sure, if it's implemented poorly...... but not necessarily if it's implemented extremely well, right?

PeppaPig
Member
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by PeppaPig » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:50 am

If increasing inserts is just too difficult to code then I'd be happy with a chainer - particularly if you could save the "block" as a preset. I like to de-ess before and after compression that's two valuable slots straight away.

A typical vocal insert chain for me would be...
1 channel strip
2 de-ess
3 1176
4 la2a
5 eq
6 de-ess

Nothing left for effects or comparison purposes - not good enough. Adding more than a handful of group tracks kills performance on my machine.
Cubase Pro 10.00.40, 9.5, Pro9.0.20. WaveLab 9 EL. UA Apollo Quad FW, UA PCI Octo, UA Satelite Quad, Adam T5V, Golden Audio pre73 DLX, Behringer ADA8200, Joe Meek AC3, Intel i7 6850x@4.2Ghz (6C/12T), Asus x99 Deluxe II, AMD 6450 HD, Windows 10 Pro, Samsung 860 and 850 SSDs, 64Gb RAM - Melodyne Studio, Komplete ultimate 11, Halion 6, GA,GA2,GA3,GA4 (+sp), OZ6, OZ7, OZ8 adv, Neutron Adv, BFD3, SoundToys rack, Panorama P1, M-Audio Oxygen, Yamaha YPP55 - outboard: PRO VLAII, Digitech Time machine RDS4000, 1950s Ferrograph Series 5, Mics: AKG C1000S, Rode NT2A and M5 pair, SE2200A, SE X1R, Fame-VT67 (cheap valve U67 clone), Heil PR20&PR22, Behringer Mic2200 used for reamping with a bit of nastiness!

PeppaPig
Member
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:39 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by PeppaPig » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:03 am

peakae wrote: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.
Just treat the stacker as you would an external plugin, ie monitor the latency and cater for it automatically via compensation, each stacker instance could therefore run on its own thread - indeed - you could expand the idea and treat each slot within the stacker that way and have a thread per stacker slot. Not particularly difficult to code. Yeah, you wouldn't want to track like that - but that's not the problem we're trying to fix.
Cubase Pro 10.00.40, 9.5, Pro9.0.20. WaveLab 9 EL. UA Apollo Quad FW, UA PCI Octo, UA Satelite Quad, Adam T5V, Golden Audio pre73 DLX, Behringer ADA8200, Joe Meek AC3, Intel i7 6850x@4.2Ghz (6C/12T), Asus x99 Deluxe II, AMD 6450 HD, Windows 10 Pro, Samsung 860 and 850 SSDs, 64Gb RAM - Melodyne Studio, Komplete ultimate 11, Halion 6, GA,GA2,GA3,GA4 (+sp), OZ6, OZ7, OZ8 adv, Neutron Adv, BFD3, SoundToys rack, Panorama P1, M-Audio Oxygen, Yamaha YPP55 - outboard: PRO VLAII, Digitech Time machine RDS4000, 1950s Ferrograph Series 5, Mics: AKG C1000S, Rode NT2A and M5 pair, SE2200A, SE X1R, Fame-VT67 (cheap valve U67 clone), Heil PR20&PR22, Behringer Mic2200 used for reamping with a bit of nastiness!

Kotsamanidis
Junior Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:32 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Kotsamanidis » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:49 am

Where's the option to vote for: "Fix what's already there before adding a new feature because when you add a new feature you do it in a strange roundabout way that needs 3 version updates to work properly like with instrument tracks."
--Andreas

alexadevoe
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by alexadevoe » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:24 pm

In order to freeze my channels and get maximum processing power I need more than 8 inserts - I work a lot with high end plugins which help do board emulation, compression, EQ and other things. I always run out of slots. I really don't want to switch to another DAW - I've been on Cubase since 1997 and still loyal to Steinberg. This should be made a priority.
We love Cubase and we need this, this is not a nice to have but a MUST HAVE!!!!

User avatar
WellBassd
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:35 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by WellBassd » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:09 am

Hattrixx wrote:PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING, otherwise it's pointless

This is not a moan post, I'm in love with this update and very happy with Steinberg right now.

I do, however, empathise with those upset with the limited number of insert slots.

There is another thread about this which seems to have devolved into an argument between those who want more inserts and those who are afraid that adding more inserts would somehow ruin the current Cubase experience. Personally, I'd like infinite inserts and I don't want to use a third party chainer. However, I think if Steinberg were to build a native chainer into Cubase, it could potentially be done in a way that would satisfy me (I'd have to think long and hard about what conditions would have to be met, but the bare minimum would be for the chainer to have identical plugin support to Cubase).

Possibly my favourite plugin in the world right now is MeldaProduction's MXXX, which among other things, allows you to build chains with complex routing options (L/R, mid/side, parallel/serial, feedback, sidechain, etc - it doesn't host 3rd party plugins, though). If Steinberg were to present something vaguely along those lines - obviously not with the full feature list of MXXX - I think that could be a sound designer's heaven without necessarily having to disrupt the mixer.

Would love your thoughts. Please vote!
They should make it like in Bitwig / Ableton

The only evolved way of doing it

( no Chainer, just ability to add fx without coded limitations )

Chainer would only be needed as part of the limitless fx structure for adding ( Parallel ) Processing with multiple effects/ instruments stacked

Cubase has been conceptually falling 15 years behind on this, and now it is the time to catch up

Otherwise the customerbase who vote for no changes will remain the same, and Ableton, Bitwig and FL studio will keep on inspiring all the newcomers

This means anyone who wants to achieve anything progressive will be avoiding Cubase

So unless Steiny is making well enough profit with their current customerbase, this would be goal number 1

>>>> Evolve plugin Chain
>>>> As part of evolving that plugin chain >> Include Better Routing and Modulation Options ( within channel or from channel to channel )

There have been many topics where people request these changes - it s about time to catch up

It ( Plugin Chain options / Routing & Modulation-ability ) has to be just as good or better than in Bitwig & Ableton Combined for Cubase to be interesting for other than the current customerbase

User avatar
Raphie
Senior Member
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Raphie » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:02 am

"More inserts" doesn't equal "progressive thinking" where did you get that idea from?
And speak for yourself please, not for the whole userbase.
WellBassd wrote:
Hattrixx wrote:PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING, otherwise it's pointless

This is not a moan post, I'm in love with this update and very happy with Steinberg right now.

I do, however, empathise with those upset with the limited number of insert slots.

There is another thread about this which seems to have devolved into an argument between those who want more inserts and those who are afraid that adding more inserts would somehow ruin the current Cubase experience. Personally, I'd like infinite inserts and I don't want to use a third party chainer. However, I think if Steinberg were to build a native chainer into Cubase, it could potentially be done in a way that would satisfy me (I'd have to think long and hard about what conditions would have to be met, but the bare minimum would be for the chainer to have identical plugin support to Cubase).

Possibly my favourite plugin in the world right now is MeldaProduction's MXXX, which among other things, allows you to build chains with complex routing options (L/R, mid/side, parallel/serial, feedback, sidechain, etc - it doesn't host 3rd party plugins, though). If Steinberg were to present something vaguely along those lines - obviously not with the full feature list of MXXX - I think that could be a sound designer's heaven without necessarily having to disrupt the mixer.

Would love your thoughts. Please vote!
They should make it like in Bitwig / Ableton

The only evolved way of doing it

( no Chainer, just ability to add fx without coded limitations )

Chainer would only be needed as part of the limitless fx structure for adding ( Parallel ) Processing with multiple effects/ instruments stacked

Cubase has been conceptually falling 15 years behind on this, and now it is the time to catch up

Otherwise the customerbase who vote for no changes will remain the same, and Ableton, Bitwig and FL studio will keep on inspiring all the newcomers

This means anyone who wants to achieve anything progressive will be avoiding Cubase

So unless Steiny is making well enough profit with their current customerbase, this would be goal number 1

>>>> Evolve plugin Chain
>>>> As part of evolving that plugin chain >> Include Better Routing and Modulation Options ( within channel or from channel to channel )

There have been many topics where people request these changes - it s about time to catch up

It ( Plugin Chain options / Routing & Modulation-ability ) has to be just as good or better than in Bitwig & Ableton Combined for Cubase to be interesting for other than the current customerbase
Analogue Mastering
MSI raider X299 - Intel i9 7940 - MSI Gaming X 1070GTX 8GB - OCZ RD400 nvme SSD - 16GB DDR4-3000
Windows 10 x64 up to date - Cubase Pro 9.5x - Wavelab Pro 9.5x
RME MadiFX and racks full of outboard

Everything you need to know about remote control editors

User avatar
L.F.
Junior Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:31 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by L.F. » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:48 pm

I vote No.
Because if you can't get the sound right using 8 insert and 8 send effects, than you don't know what you're doing anyway, and more plugins won't change that. But even is there's a 0,1% of users out there who really need more than 8 inserts, you can always use group tracks. Problem solved.
Now lets support some feature requests that are actually useful.
DAW: Cubase Pro 9 (x64)
OS: Windows 10 (64bit)
CPU: Intel i7 930
MB: Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R
RAM: 3x 2GB DDR3
GPU: GF GTX 660 2048MB
Sound: E-mu 1212M, Traktor Audio 2
HDD: Intel 320 SSD, 3x Seagate SATA
Monitoring: Dynaudio BM6A Mk2 + BM9S Sub
DSP: UAD-2 Duo
USB: Virus Ti, BCF2000, Novation Remote SL...

magsmccoy
New Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by magsmccoy » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:04 pm

We want more inserts not a chainer. Every other DAW has way more if not unlimited Steinberg and thats with no limitation on performance

nucube
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:20 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by nucube » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:45 am

I have to say this is one feature of cubase that really really bugs me.I was hoping it would be sorted with version 9 but sadly it hasnt.Really its 6 inserts as the last 2 are post fader so rarely get any use.Damn near every review I read on 9 mentioned this as well and how it was odd it still hasnt been updated.Even an option to choose between pre or post on the last 2 slots would help.I like the idea of a chainer,especially for sound designing.

SledDriver
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by SledDriver » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:51 am

Wow! What are you guys doing to need more than 8 FX in a chain? It's not so many years ago that the entire mix might have 8 FX applied to it! :-) I assume it's not just tracking and processing, cos if I needed more than 8 FX in a chain, I'd be retracking to eliminate a poor take. "You can't polish a turd..." and all that... :)

So what are you guys producing?

Can you not simply chain a channel to 1 or more FX or Group channels in series with Direct Routing to get unlimited inserts? I know this works cos I have tested it. Yes its a bit cumbersome and error prone having more than one fader for each actual track, but it works, and is available right now. I accept that if you really do need more than 8 on a regular basis then the hard coded limitation would be a bit frustrating.

I recently put in a change request to Steinberg to optionally not show the faders in MixConsole 1, 2 and 3. This would be quite beneficial to someone using 8+ inserts on a second/third/fourth monitor by freeing up desktop space to show all your inserts. Those who want lots of inserts might want to put their +1 to the thread I started here:

viewtopic.php?f=252&t=113119&p=618707&h ... er#p618707

Regards,
DAW: Cubase Pro 9.5.50-SL3, OS: Win 10 Pro x64 Build 1909, CPU: Intel i7-8700K delidded O/C'd @ 5GHz (running at around 34°C on air!! in Cubase), RAM: 32GB/DDR4 @2666MHz, Mobo: Asus Prime Z370-A, M.2x1 + SSDx4, Graphics: GeForce GTX 980Ti, 5 monitors, Audio Interface: FocusRite 18i20 Gen 2, Studio Monitors: Adam P11A+Sub8 with SonarWorks Reference calibration, MidiSport 2x2, Lexicon reverb. VST’s include FabFilter suite, Waves, Kjaerhus Classic, Syntorus, Eventide, R2, PositiveGrid, Focusrite Red, Softube, iZotope, Native Instruments, Nugen, PSP, SIR2. VSTi’s include Arturia V7, Addictive Keys, FXpansion, Kiev Legacy, MinimogueLuxus, MusicLab, Native Instruments, Sonivox, Spectrasonics, Synthogy. Others include zPlane, jBridge, Sleepy-Time, Voxengo, YouLean.

User avatar
Raphie
Senior Member
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Raphie » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:49 am

It's a noob driven feature request, sorry to sound harsh, but that's just what it is.
3 eq's 4 camel crushers and 4 comps on 1 channel is just plain idiocrazy.
It's EDM wannabee noobs whatching tutorials or reading reviews from other EDM wannabee noobs.
Same thing as the gainnstaging craze and putting VU meters and gain staging plugins between each plugin.

If you can't get there with 6+2 you need a new hobby. It's not only that is not needed, but it's also a principle thing not to cater for and give in to this BS. Use a chainer if you have to, or chain group channels. cubase = 6+2, always has, always will.
Analogue Mastering
MSI raider X299 - Intel i9 7940 - MSI Gaming X 1070GTX 8GB - OCZ RD400 nvme SSD - 16GB DDR4-3000
Windows 10 x64 up to date - Cubase Pro 9.5x - Wavelab Pro 9.5x
RME MadiFX and racks full of outboard

Everything you need to know about remote control editors

Puma0382
Senior Member
Posts: 1804
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:11 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Puma0382 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:23 pm

nucube wrote:...Really its 6 inserts as the last 2 are post fader so rarely get any use. Damn near every review I read on 9 mentioned this as well and how it was odd it still hasn't been updated. Even an option to choose between pre or post on the last 2 slots would help.
+1 - This sounds like the quickest/easiest solution SB might consider, in providing a bit more flexibility regarding this whole topic. Myself, I think architecturally it'd be too much to engineer the bolting on of additional Insert slots... though, having said that, I've read over in Nuendo land that the devs are considering/pursuing an increase to the number of Cue Sends available; so obviously, not completely beyond the realms of possibility... :)
System 1:- Win10 64bit, Gigabyte H81M m/board, Intel i7 4790 3.6Ghz, 16Gb RAM, NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti, 2 x 22" HD monitors; Steinberg UR44; Cubase Pro v10.5, WaveLab Pro v10.0.10, Studio One v4.5.5, Addictive Drums 2, Komplete 12, StylusRMX

System 2:- Win10 32bit, Q6600 2.4 Ghz, 4Gb RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS, Delta 1010LT; Cubase Pro v8.0.40, WaveLab Pro v9.1.0, Komplete10, StylusRMX

nucube
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:20 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by nucube » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:44 pm

I find it odd that this kind of thing is even debated.If cluttering up the mixer is the argument against,just have a 'show more inserts' button or make it so you can scroll down.The mixer is completely customisable anyway.Sending tracks through groups is far messier.Maybe an option to make the group channel pre fader,so its like they are inserts,or maybe the ability to freeze groups like in pro tools.This isnt an EDM or noob thing either,as 6 inserts is often fine but its often not either(sound desiging,a/b ing etc etc) and when having to route through groups etc its a monumental pain in the ass.Every other daw has more or unlimited.

User avatar
Raphie
Senior Member
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Raphie » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:43 pm

"Sound designing" LOL, you can A/B by copying channels, far more efficient.
Putting 8 random plugins on top of the VSTi of the week is NOT sound designing....
Analogue Mastering
MSI raider X299 - Intel i9 7940 - MSI Gaming X 1070GTX 8GB - OCZ RD400 nvme SSD - 16GB DDR4-3000
Windows 10 x64 up to date - Cubase Pro 9.5x - Wavelab Pro 9.5x
RME MadiFX and racks full of outboard

Everything you need to know about remote control editors

tepa
Junior Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:28 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by tepa » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:34 pm

PeppaPig wrote:If increasing inserts is just too difficult to code then I'd be happy with a chainer - particularly if you could save the "block" as a preset.
Exactly, i wish to be able to save my preset in 1 block, and not in combination of 2 group track preset. If adding more insert is not possible for the moment, i would be really happy with a internal chainer for easier preset managing purpose.
Nuendo 10 (last version) / Cubase 9 / Win Pro 10 / i9-9900K 4.8 Ghz / RAM 32G / RME UFX / RME FF800 / UAD 2 (1 Octo & 1 Quad) / SSD / nVIDIA

ruffindajungle
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:36 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by ruffindajungle » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:39 am

L.F. wrote:I vote No.
Because if you can't get the sound right using 8 insert and 8 send effects, than you don't know what you're doing anyway, and more plugins won't change that. But even is there's a 0,1% of users out there who really need more than 8 inserts, you can always use group tracks. Problem solved.
Now lets support some feature requests that are actually useful.

Wrong, just check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2vKHiQdabs

It's really easy to get 10 inserts full when producing modern sounds. i guess it depends heavily on style but i agree, young electronic musician will be pretty "meh" when seeing this limitation.
Hackintosh i7 4790k, Sierra, Cubase 10, Halion 6, Groove Agent 4, Erica synth Fusion box, Sh101, Ob-6, Rme UCX, E352 cloud terrarium

SledDriver
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:27 am
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by SledDriver » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:27 am

I can't tell you how unimpressed I am with the 'method' in this mix.

That's not sound design. That's sound destruction.

The fact that he has to keep fixing problems he has previously inserted into the mix is just poor technique and a lack of understanding of how to get where he wants to be at the end.

And some of those FX are multiple FX so in reality he has around 15 effects applied to just the main vocal. 2 de-essers (which are compressors) in series, at least two more compressors in series.

This is like baking a cake with random ingredients, and then when it doesn't taste how you want you just keep throwing in more ingredients. It never occurs to you to remove some previous ingredients.

Sorry but I am dumbfounded by this approach.

The original naked track is so weak I can see why it needs a lot of processing.

This isn't mixing. It's attempting to fix poor source material and turn it into something different. Maybe that's what they really mean by 'sound design'.

My son is a pro musician and records regularly. When he was young and getting started, it was necessary to melodyne everything and tweak timing and pitch to get a satisfactory result. As his skill levels increased we did this less and less.

Now we never even think to use those tools on his takes. He has developed the skills to do it right live. And if it isn't right, then it's wrong and we re-track it.

These tools all add their own bit of deterioration to the sound quality, so are best avoided. I suppose when your target sound is very techno electronic, then it doesn't matter - you can get away with murder and call it deliberate style.

Consider that it takes this guy right til the last stage to realise he has added a sheen of white noise to the mix with all his processing, so he adds a gate as the final stage to kill the white noise in quiet segments. Does it not even occur to him that his 'carefully designed sound' has this unwanted white noise all over it when it is not gated - so just how carefully sound designed is this sound after all?? Unteen FX and a result covered in white noise. That's not what I call fidelity.

All that said, I still support the idea that having limited inserts is not an idea situation. Especially only 2 post fader. Why not make this open ended then everyone is happy.
DAW: Cubase Pro 9.5.50-SL3, OS: Win 10 Pro x64 Build 1909, CPU: Intel i7-8700K delidded O/C'd @ 5GHz (running at around 34°C on air!! in Cubase), RAM: 32GB/DDR4 @2666MHz, Mobo: Asus Prime Z370-A, M.2x1 + SSDx4, Graphics: GeForce GTX 980Ti, 5 monitors, Audio Interface: FocusRite 18i20 Gen 2, Studio Monitors: Adam P11A+Sub8 with SonarWorks Reference calibration, MidiSport 2x2, Lexicon reverb. VST’s include FabFilter suite, Waves, Kjaerhus Classic, Syntorus, Eventide, R2, PositiveGrid, Focusrite Red, Softube, iZotope, Native Instruments, Nugen, PSP, SIR2. VSTi’s include Arturia V7, Addictive Keys, FXpansion, Kiev Legacy, MinimogueLuxus, MusicLab, Native Instruments, Sonivox, Spectrasonics, Synthogy. Others include zPlane, jBridge, Sleepy-Time, Voxengo, YouLean.

User avatar
Hattrixx
Junior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:06 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:01 am

Raphie wrote:It's a noob driven feature request, sorry to sound harsh, but that's just what it is.
It doesn't sound harsh at all. It sounds ignorant, the polar opposite of the truth. It's an advanced user request.
Raphie wrote:3 eq's 4 camel crushers and 4 comps on 1 channel is just plain idiocrazy.
I totally agree with you. That's not what we want unlimited inserts for.
Raphie wrote:It's EDM wannabee noobs whatching tutorials or reading reviews from other EDM wannabee noobs.
Same thing as the gainnstaging craze and putting VU meters and gain staging plugins between each plugin.
Raphie, I'm sure you feel wonderful after making such comments, but they really don't convey a sense that you have a respect and understanding for the needs of other users, or even that you're secure in your own abilities. Let's not devolve a perfectly reasonable discussion into a platform for projecting inadequacies.
Raphie wrote:If you can't get there with 6+2 you need a new hobby. It's not only that is not needed, but it's also a principle thing not to cater for and give in to this BS.
Really not a well-reasoned, thoughtful, considered, constructive contribution. I know we can do better than that.

User avatar
Hattrixx
Junior Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:06 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:06 am

L.F. wrote:Because if you can't get the sound right using 8 insert and 8 send effects, than you don't know what you're doing anyway, and more plugins won't change that.
Well that depends on what you want to really, doesn't it? It require much imagination to see that there's a world of possibility outside of basic mixing duties.
L.F. wrote:But even is there's a 0,1% of users out there who really need more than 8 inserts, you can always use group tracks. Problem solved.
There are many problems with using the Group tracks workaround, though...

01) Can't reorder insert plugins between channels from the inspector
02) Can't reorder insert plugins between channels from the channel edit window
03) Can't reorder insert plugins between channels -at all- without wiping out all automation data
04) Can't even see the full insert chain from the inspector
05) Can't even see the full insert chain from the channel edit window
06) Sends routing from parent channel can't easily be moved to final Group in the chain
07) Sends automation can't easily be moved between channels
08) Strip effect automation data can't easily be moved between channels
09) Strip effect choices and settings can't easily be moved between channels
10) Strip modules with sidechain input lose their input routing when redone on a new channel
11) Insert plugins with sidechain input lose their input routing when moved between channels
12) Insert plugins with MIDI input lose their input routing when moved between channels
13) Freezing the parent channel doesn't freeze any of the Group tracks
14) You have to route Groups through Groups when you actually want to Group multiple instruments together (gets complex, messy, hard to follow)
15) Render-In-Place has no provisions for dealing with channels routed through Groups that are routed through more Groups
16) Having to continuously name and rename chains and chains of Group channels is more laborious than you'd think
17) Lots of difficulty/confusion with automating volume faders and moving that data between channels

I'm pretty sure there are more issues than this.... but hopefully this gives you a taste of why we're not satisfied with just routing through a Group track. Personally, I end up using lots and lots and lots of chained Group channels, even though I strongly believe in using the minimal amount of processing to get the desired effect. Long plugin chains typically involve lots of sidechaining, MIDI-control and automation - these are all horrrribly tedious to do with chains and chains of Group channels. :D

characterstudios
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: [POLL] FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by characterstudios » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:42 pm

What a sh*tshow this thread has become, and what a level of disrespect shown by those that "know best", just because they can justify in their head why this wouldn't be needed.

Personally, I don't really need >8 insert slots, and yes, I would also be hesitant to mush up my sound that much. But that doesn't mean the request isn't valid. Throughout history, the most innovating art almost always did something different than what was considered 'normal'.

IMHO this whole "you shouldn't need to have >8 insert slots as it won't help your music anyway" or "only n00bs ask for this" is arrogance and mental rust. If you don't like others asking for this, fair enough. But don't be so arrogant as to classify as those who ask for this feature as less than yourself, it clearly shows your own closed mind. And closed minds have no place in arts.

Kind regards,

characterstudios

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests