[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

weld77
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:28 pm
Contact:

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

Post by weld77 » Wed May 31, 2017 3:02 am

I would personally like to have more than eight insert slots, but what would be even more useful to me would be the ability to change the position of the pre / post fader split (to configurations other than 6/2), and to be able to set the location of the channel strip to any point in the inserts chain. I know this scheme may sound odd, but if this were implemented, then 90% of the situations where I'm forced to add extra routing would be fixed.

User avatar
MovingWaves
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:39 am
Contact:

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

Post by MovingWaves » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:53 pm

Very rarely have I needed more than 8 inserts. At those times I simply route the OP to group track.
Last edited by MovingWaves on Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
DAW
W10 64Bit-Cubase 10
Intel Core i7 4770K @ 3.50GHz - 32 Gig Ram - 2x238GB ATA OCZHDD's -2048MB DELL U3415W on NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Interface AD/DA
MOTU 828es - (Retired:- Focusrite Saffire PRO 40 - Focusrite OctoPre MkII Dynamic)
Monitoring
Mackie HR624 Studio Monitors
Opal Event Studio Monitors

dmbaer
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:30 pm
Contact:

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

Post by dmbaer » Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:48 pm

I've been meaning to add a comment to this thread for some time - the wrong question is being asked, which I why I have not "voted". I do *not* want Steinberg to devote time to developing a plug-in chainer. I want more than six insert slots (pre-fader), period. I've got a chainer already (the marvelous Blue Cat Patchwork). But I want the ability to include analysis plug-ins quickly without having to resort to anything more complicated than a straightforward insert. I want the ability to audition three or four different compressors quickly without having to resort to anything more complicated than a straightforward insert. And so on ...

Clearly there are a lot of users who want this. Even if a majority don't care, the portion of the user community who does care is significant enough that a thoughtful software firm should be paying attention.
David Baer

Hardware: Intel I7 4-core hyper-threaded; 8M RAM; Dual hard drives; Roland Quad Capture
OS: Win 7 64-bit
DAW: Cubase 7.5 64-bit (and SONAR X2 64-bit)
Synths and effects: More than I care to contemplate, but only the 64-bit stuff ever gets used

Manike
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Manike » Mon Jun 05, 2017 3:30 pm

dmbaer wrote: Clearly there are a lot of users who want this. Even if a majority don't care, the portion of the user community who does care is significant enough that a thoughtful software firm should be paying attention.
Yeah thats how I feel. It's pretty irrelevant if you don't ever find yourself using all the insert slots. Some people obviously do, and it's a feature within other DAWs. There should be some seeing past the genre you work in, and how you in particular work.
8-Core Trashcan Mac Pro : Mojave : Cubase10.0.40 : MOTU828x : Nektar P6 :
Macbook pro : Mojave
http://www.manikemusic.com

User avatar
Konrath
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:53 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Konrath » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:09 pm

MovingWaves wrote:Very rarely have I needed more than 8 inserts. At those times I simply route the OP to group track.
That was what I thought first. And if I need them PF i can use the send PF as output.
I don't mind. I did so for some fx drowned drone stuff.
For all I care they could raise it to a 24 stack with a variable PF/AF line if it doesn't harm performance.
But I don't get how the discussion gets harsh sometimes about such marginal issues.
"I don't understand why people are afraid of new ideas. I'm afraid of the old ones." - John Cage

Cubase 10.0.30 / Spectralayers 6.0.10 / Sound Forge Pro 11 / Cubase iC Pro / Win 10 1903 64bit / Tascam us20x20/ Cakewalk 3UMG / Akai MPK88 / Doepfer R2M

User avatar
avviano
Junior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:57 pm
Contact:

A friendly forum / innovation / more slots please!

Post by avviano » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:56 am

More slots please!

I have seen many user posts in the English and German forums requesting a.) more insert slots and b.) a possibility for third party dynamic processors in the channel strip. Unfortunately, these requests often get rebuked unfairly by “vintage” Cubase users.

Schoolmasterly engineered comments along the lines of "Why do you need more than 6-8 Inserts" are rhetorical questions, no arguments. It’s also a bit condescending to suggest using more than 6 slots slots is unprofessional, inefficient or lack an understanding of workflow procedures. I can think of a many reasons why you would want to use more than 6-8 insert slots. But its the once we dont think of which are just as important. Making space for creativity will render new procedures, similar to expansion in rack slots has opened many more possibilities in modular synth & studio racks.

Another comment I see quite frequently in this forum is "Read the manual". I am mentioning it here, because I believe it is relevent to the insert slot discussion and the topic of feature requests in general.

If the manual is so flawlessly awesome, why not close the forum and create a landing page with four large golden letters reading RTFM. Excuse my cynicism, but if you’re an experienced user you can freely choose to either help someone, or not. The time it takes to post an imperious comment though, is the same time it takes to post a helpful answer. The latter being the primary purpose of this forum.

I have noticed a sublime atmosphere of intimidation in this forum, which is very visible when threads begin along the lines of "I have read the manual, but I still have a question!". It’s very unfortunate that these sometimes snobbish comments will eventually hinder innovative development of Cubase. Why? It’s this kind of atmosphere which I believe can lead Cubase developers and / or product managers to adopt a segregated view of the Cubase user community and consequently lead to an erroneous and unfavorable weighting of feature requests.

It could have - and I believe already has - lead the development team to adopt a more comfortable approach - where user requests are preferred based not on innovation - but on the teams own ideas of innovation. Innovation which is based more on the concept of "feasibilty" than “possibility”. Listening only to experienced user, Cubase veterans that have come to adopt the Cubase way of doing things, ignores what true innovation needs most: disruptive and transformational ideas!

It could also very well prevent what any company needs: A widening of its user base and consequently, more growth. I doubt that growth can be based primarily on massaging a proficient and veteran clientel. Unfortunately, most organizations fall into the feasibility trap, focusing primarily on what can be developed easily, rather than creating what is possible and truly innovative!

Just imagine where modular synths would be now, if rack manufacturer would have limited slots to four, either for convenience sake or based on the assumption that more slots don't translate into a better sound! Or studio racks for that matter... Integrated dynamic processors on a channel strips did not stop anyone from buying a couple more compressor they didn't need. Or did need. Sound excellence does in part thrive on variation.

More slots can translate into increased creativity. It’s also more fun. As with the many hardware processors in studio racks. It might not be feasible for the development team to facilitate more slots as there are – I am sure – many challenges. A lot of times though, tough circumstances at the outset can increase innovation. Maybe make the two last "post fader" slots variable. I am sure it has been suggested before.

So, why do we need more slots? Distortion. Complex sound design. Increased creativity to name a few.

Yes, Halion and Kontakt have built in effects and dynamic processors. But these will never be able to keep up with the speed in which 3rd party plugins are evolving. Using 3rd party plugins, filters, effects will necessitate more slots. Period.

Unless mixing "in the box" is understood as an extensive definition which goes beyond the natural limitation of native Cubase VSTs and dynamic processors, more slots are an important feature. Steinberg has developed the VST standard to create a kaleidoscope of creative possibilities; it would be somewhat paradoxical, if Steinberg sustains a bottleneck at the end of its own flagship DAW.
Cubase Pro 10, Wavelab Pro 9.5, Absolute Collection 3 (Halion 6). UR-824, Yamaha HS7 W, Yamaha Subwoofer, Lorenz Acoustic F1-80 (1979!), Win 10

https://www.avviano.com
https://soundcloud.com/avviano

Manike
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Contact:

Re: A friendly forum / innovation / more slots please!

Post by Manike » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:40 am

avviano wrote:More slots please!

I have seen many user posts in the English and German forums requesting a.) more insert slots and b.) a possibility for third party dynamic processors in the channel strip. Unfortunately, these requests often get rebuked unfairly by “vintage” Cubase users......

.......Unless mixing "in the box" is understood as an extensive definition which goes beyond the natural limitation of native Cubase VSTs and dynamic processors, more slots are an important feature. Steinberg has developed the VST standard to create a kaleidoscope of creative possibilities; it would be somewhat paradoxical, if Steinberg sustains a bottleneck at the end of its own flagship DAW.

+1
8-Core Trashcan Mac Pro : Mojave : Cubase10.0.40 : MOTU828x : Nektar P6 :
Macbook pro : Mojave
http://www.manikemusic.com

dmbaer
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:30 pm
Contact:

Re: A friendly forum / innovation / more slots please!

Post by dmbaer » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:35 pm

avviano wrote:Another comment I see quite frequently in this forum is "Read the manual". I am mentioning it here, because I believe it is relevent to the insert slot discussion and the topic of feature requests in general.

If the manual is so flawlessly awesome, why not close the forum and create a landing page with four large golden letters reading RTFM. Excuse my cynicism, but if you’re an experienced user you can freely choose to either help someone, or not. The time it takes to post an imperious comment though, is the same time it takes to post a helpful answer. The latter being the primary purpose of this forum.
All well-stated, avviano! As to the RTFM issue, as long as the Cubase documentation has such a skimpy and essentially useless index, the "RTFM" admonition is just hot air. If one cannot find the relevant information in the manual (and without a decent index, one frequently cannot), then the manual cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

That's not to suggest the documentation is of poor quality - it's actually quite good, provided you can first find the section you need to read.
David Baer

Hardware: Intel I7 4-core hyper-threaded; 8M RAM; Dual hard drives; Roland Quad Capture
OS: Win 7 64-bit
DAW: Cubase 7.5 64-bit (and SONAR X2 64-bit)
Synths and effects: More than I care to contemplate, but only the 64-bit stuff ever gets used

Manike
Member
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Manike » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:24 am

Indexes are largely irrelevant because of our ability to search terms no?
8-Core Trashcan Mac Pro : Mojave : Cubase10.0.40 : MOTU828x : Nektar P6 :
Macbook pro : Mojave
http://www.manikemusic.com

alexis
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: A friendly forum / innovation / more slots please!

Post by alexis » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:54 pm

dmbaer wrote:
avviano wrote:Another comment I see quite frequently in this forum is "Read the manual". I am mentioning it here, because I believe it is relevent to the insert slot discussion and the topic of feature requests in general.

If the manual is so flawlessly awesome, why not close the forum and create a landing page with four large golden letters reading RTFM. Excuse my cynicism, but if you’re an experienced user you can freely choose to either help someone, or not. The time it takes to post an imperious comment though, is the same time it takes to post a helpful answer. The latter being the primary purpose of this forum.
All well-stated, avviano! As to the RTFM issue, as long as the Cubase documentation has such a skimpy and essentially useless index, the "RTFM" admonition is just hot air. If one cannot find the relevant information in the manual (and without a decent index, one frequently cannot), then the manual cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

That's not to suggest the documentation is of poor quality - it's actually quite good, provided you can first find the section you need to read.

I agree with your post strongly (there's even a moderator who likes to post "rtm"!).

RE: quality of the documentation: I've noticed I've had a harder time finding things in the new on-line-only manual than the old .pdf. Others have posted the same observation, so it's not likely just me. I assume this situation will only get worse as the .pdf manual grows more and more out of date.

This was a change for the better ... how?
Alexis

-Cubase "Safe Start Mode" (CTRL-ALT-SHIFT)
-Get variable-tempo audio to follow a grid here,
-Replacing freely-timed section into a variable tempo project

Cubase 9.0.20; i5-4570 3.2GHz, 16GB RAM; W10 Pro 64-bit on Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB; Seagate 1TB SATA 600 Audio; UR28M; Motif8; UAD-2 Solo; Jamstix 3.6; RevoicePro3.3; EZDrummer 2

dmbaer
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:30 pm
Contact:

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

Post by dmbaer » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:22 pm

Manike wrote:Indexes are largely irrelevant because of our ability to search terms no?
In my experience a well constructed index is vastly superior to a general search. I will use the search function of, say, a Windows help file or a PDF document if that's all I've got to work with. But it frequently brings back way too many hits to efficiently find what I'm looking for. With a good index, I can often find what I'm after the very first time. But I suspect there's an art to writing a good index and a lot of writers of documentation don't know that art unfortunately.

Anyway, I'll shut up about this now - we've gotten way off topic - sorry about that.
David Baer

Hardware: Intel I7 4-core hyper-threaded; 8M RAM; Dual hard drives; Roland Quad Capture
OS: Win 7 64-bit
DAW: Cubase 7.5 64-bit (and SONAR X2 64-bit)
Synths and effects: More than I care to contemplate, but only the 64-bit stuff ever gets used

In_Stereo
Senior Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:21 pm
Contact:

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

Post by In_Stereo » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:48 pm

8 inserts is usually doable for me, but others might need more. The biggest issue with Cubase is that you only have 6 pre-fader inserts, which is a major problem compared to other DAWs. If you could simply switch the two post-fader inserts to pre-fader (individually, as needed), that would be such a giant very common-sense improvement.
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

User avatar
Home Studio 87
Member
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:32 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Home Studio 87 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:05 pm

[quoteThe biggest issue with Cubase is that you only have 6 pre-fader inserts, which is a major problem compared to other DAWs. If you could simply switch the two post-fader inserts to pre-fader (individually, as needed), that would be such a giant very common-sense improvement.][/quote]

Totaly agree.... 8-)
Gigabyte GA-X99P-SLI / Intel Corei7 6800k / 32 Go DDR4 / 4x SSD / Win 10 Pro x64 / UAD Apollo Twin USB / UAD2 Satellite Octo USB / UAD2 Octo PCIe / Cubase Pro 10 / VEP6 / D-Touch Cubase / Console 1 / 24 Ch X-Touch / CMC Controllers / iPad 2&3 Lemur / Komplete Kontrol S61 MK2 /

In_Stereo
Senior Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:21 pm
Contact:

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

Post by In_Stereo » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:07 am

There are very few real-world instances for me in which I would want post-fader inserts -- I never understood why a Cubendo user is forced to sacrifice two out of eight for that with no option otherwise; there's no flexible real-world logic to that decision by Steinberg.
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

Larioso
Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:18 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

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

Post by Larioso » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:38 am

Yes, yes and yes - the 6+2 is the big problem. Reserved two slots for post fader.

Samplitude has a nice solution in an editor for inserts - and you just move up/down where you possibly want post fader stuff.
The fader is grayed part, and your own inserts normal text. Just move fader part so you at least can use all slots for pre if you want, or any way you like. So a simple list if your inserts, and one slot where fader is - and move it to liking.

Also like Digital Performer where you set how many inserts you want to use. Set to 20 if you want.

To extend slot range I use DDMF Metaplugin or BluecatAudio Patchwork. Very handy plugins for many things.
Windows 7 Pro - Intel i7-860 2.8GHz 16 GB - Cubase Pro 9.5 latest - RME HDSP 9632 + AI4S + Audient ASP 800 - Nvidia GT730

User avatar
avviano
Junior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:57 pm
Contact:

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

Post by avviano » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:38 am

Cubase 9.5 just released:

16 slots it is!

Cheers!
Cubase Pro 10, Wavelab Pro 9.5, Absolute Collection 3 (Halion 6). UR-824, Yamaha HS7 W, Yamaha Subwoofer, Lorenz Acoustic F1-80 (1979!), Win 10

https://www.avviano.com
https://soundcloud.com/avviano

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 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:18 pm

problem solved! next! (wondering who will be the one starting a new topic "16 isn't enough" ) :mrgreen:
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

dmbaer
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:30 pm
Contact:

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

Post by dmbaer » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:53 pm

avviano wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:38 am
16 slots it is!
Cheers!
Hear, hear! Very pleased at this. This, plus a couple of other features that have been requested for ages, makes 9.5 first upgrade in a while that I want immediately and will not wait until a summer sale to acquire. Thank you, Steinberg, for listening to your user base this time around.
David Baer

Hardware: Intel I7 4-core hyper-threaded; 8M RAM; Dual hard drives; Roland Quad Capture
OS: Win 7 64-bit
DAW: Cubase 7.5 64-bit (and SONAR X2 64-bit)
Synths and effects: More than I care to contemplate, but only the 64-bit stuff ever gets used

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests