[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

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:32 pm

lukasbrooklyn wrote:...and why i reckon this is important: everything in the daw is locked to the 8-slot limitation, including generic remote assignments. so accessing inserts #8+ needs to be enabled via generic remote and other protocols.
Why should that mean that I can't insert my choices of stereo analyser, spectrograph, oscilloscope, metering etc., between those plugins? I think there's a legitimate place for using signal analysis tools between processes. And that has no bearing on generic remote protocols (which I have little interest in using anyway).

Can't tell you how sick I am of having to deal with dozens of group channels in every project, it's so over-complicated. :lol:

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:40 pm

Ni1936 wrote:Voted No, because what we need is visibility eg more slots, not a plugin chainer....
Visibility in what sense? Not sure I follow...
Ni1936 wrote:Even if it has good intentions, this poll circumvents what the question really is about.....more insert slots!
Not at all, I want unlimited slots. It's just that I'd rather have a well designed, advanced chainer with excellent integration and workflow than be stuck with just 8 insert slots for another 20 years! :lol:
Ni1936 wrote:If every other competitor in the market has more slots than you (which means expanded possibilites in all respects) you cannot claim to be "the most complete DAW available".....
:lol: :lol: :lol: I'd love to agree with you, but we both know there's more to a DAW than that. Seriously, Ableton can't even integrate external MIDI devices properly. Logic can't accept sidechain signals from multiple sources. Let's not get into DAW wars, it misses the point. :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:48 pm

Raphie wrote:My sole concern is that I don't want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.
Firstly, I can understand why that concern is important to you, but it's unfounded. Secondly, while I very much appreciate your input, trying to turn your nose up at "EDM lovers" is unimpressive and totally uncalled for. Let's all do our bit to keep this discussion factual, rational and mature.

User avatar
florian360
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:51 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by florian360 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:49 pm

We need more insert slots! But a chainer is not a solution. Why can't we have just more slots like in other DAWs?

The solution could be so easy. If we run out of slots, a new slot would appear. For all of you who don't need more than 8 slots, nothing would change. But for us it would be much better.
Artist name: Okular (Producer and DJ from Zürich)
Genre: Progressive Trance
Page: https://soundcloud.com/okularmusic

User avatar
The Elf
Junior Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by The Elf » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:52 pm

I'm happy with 8 inserts. I see no point in more. I do wish I could decide on them being pre/post though. The post-fader are two insert slots that I will never use.
An Eagle for an Emperor... A Kestrel for a Knave.

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Raphie » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:53 pm

Yes, your right, let's leave my personal opinion out. People got to do what they got to do.
But supersize "mixer 2" could be a good option?

Again I really would like to hear the specifics from Steinberg first.
As others have said as well, implications are all over the place: Inspector, Mixer, Remote Controllers, Quick controls, VST Controls, EUCON etc .
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

Jack Burtons Truck
New Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Jack Burtons Truck » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:04 pm

Raphie wrote:My sole concern is that I don't want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.
That's not nice, but :lol:

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:15 pm

florian360 wrote:We need more insert slots! But a chainer is not a solution. Why can't we have just more slots like in other DAWs?

The solution could be so easy. If we run out of slots, a new slot would appear. For all of you who don't need more than 8 slots, nothing would change. But for us it would be much better.
With genuine respect, the way you've worded that might possibly look like a knee-jerk reaction, to someone who doesn't understand the rationale behind your opinion. Could you help us to understand the specific disadvantages of an advanced native chainer (as described in my opening post) vs just more slots?

I mean... I'm up for more slots, but I think I'd rather have a super advanced chainer than still be stuck with 8 slots a few more updates down the road. That's why I think it's wise to give this idea a fair trial. I certainly wouldn't want a native chainer if it wasn't better than a 'more slots' solution. :lol:

andyjh
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:19 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by andyjh » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:19 pm

Hattrixx wrote:
andyjh wrote:OK, I voted NO, because a chainer is not the solution.
Would love to know why...
But the automation is going to get too complicated with a chainer
Is it though? For argument's sake, if the hypothetical chainer effectively expanded the inserts with slots A-Z and automation was treated exactly the same for those plugins (Ins1-8, InsA-Z, for example) without you effectively having the experience of automating a plugin within a plugin, would that still bother you? I'm just trying to be open-minded about a less obvious solution that might actually have plenty of benefits.
Each slot has an automation group, but if you have 4 plug-ins within a chainer - they have to share the a common automation group, so you'd end up with far too many parameters, you'd get in a mess with which automation line belongs to which plug in, and if you changed a plug-in within the chainer, that is probably going to reallocate the automation channels, when the replaced plug-in has more parameters than the original one - all too messy.

Another issue, is plug-ins that use floating point (like UAD), unless the chainer worked in floating point, that would mess that up,

Of course this proposed chainer, could be floating point, and have individual automation lines and independence, but that isn't a chainer - that would just be more than 8 inserts (which I do support the idea of)
Master: Windows 10 64-bit / i7 7820X / 32GB RAM / Dual Monitors / Steinberg UR824 / MOTU Midi Express 128
Slave: Windows 7 64-bit / i7 / 16Gb RAM / Dual monitors / Emu 1820m. Networked via VE Pro
Cubase Pro 10, Absolute 3 (Halion 6), Wavelab Pro 9.0, Dorico Pro 2.1.1
Equipment list: - more than I need : Plug in list:- definitely more than I need

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:39 pm

andyjh wrote:Each slot has an automation group, but if you have 4 plug-ins within a chainer - they have to share the a common automation group, so you'd end up with far too many parameters, you'd get in a mess with which automation line belongs to which plug in, and if you changed a plug-in within the chainer, that is probably going to reallocate the automation channels, when the replaced plug-in has more parameters than the original one - all too messy.
Of course! This is one of the main arguments against using a 3rd party chainer. An advanced native Steinberg chainer could potentially overcome all of that and offer parallel routing, frequency splitting, mid/side processing, etc.

I know that sounds mad, but think about the way the Sampler Track works, it's not technically a plugin and it has advantages, such as having access to the pool and the ability to transmit samples to Groove Agent SE etc. Innovation is about looking past the boundaries of old paradigms.
Another issue, is plug-ins that use floating point (like UAD), unless the chainer worked in floating point, that would mess that up
I don't understand what you mean. All processing in Cubase is done in a floating point domain, isn't it? That's why you can't clip the channels. Or am I missing something?
Of course this proposed chainer, could be floating point, and have individual automation lines and independence, but that isn't a chainer - that would just be more than 8 inserts (which I do support the idea of)
How would that not be a chainer? I'm proposing more inserts but I'm also proposing advanced routing options, which couldn't be done simply by tacking on more inserts. The inserts vs sends model is a looking a bit old and withered by now. :lol:

User avatar
florian360
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:51 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by florian360 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:47 pm

Could you help us to understand the specific disadvantages of an advanced native chainer (as described in my opening post) vs just more slots?
Of course I can: I want to see all my inserts in the mixer view. And not just a chainer.

But if we get a chainer, where we can do crazy stuff like you said in the opening post (mind/side, dry/wet and so on..) + we are somehow able to see the plugins in the mixer view + we are able to use sidechain on each plugin, can still automate every knob, it would be a killer feature! :D
Artist name: Okular (Producer and DJ from Zürich)
Genre: Progressive Trance
Page: https://soundcloud.com/okularmusic

User avatar
Jalcide
Member
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Jalcide » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:54 pm

Raphie wrote:My sole concern is that I don't want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.
There is no need to turn a feature request as straight forward as allowing more of what is already a core feature in all DAWs, into an unnecessary, adversarial posturing against producers of a particular genre of music.

And there are more than a few users of Cubase around the world that create electronic-oriented music. Many of them signed artists who make their living at it.

Cubase has been chock full of MIDI features for decades.

Performance, design and ergonomics haven't been harmed in any of the other DAWs that support unlimited inserts.

I voted no to a plugin chainer because I want to see at a glance what's in my inserts. And I don't want another layer of abstraction for automation. And because I feel it's a Rube Goldberg, awkward design, where only a simple solution is needed.

I'd be fine if the mix console defaulted to showing exactly 8 inserts, as it does now, but could be increased upon demand -- for those who don't want to see a visual change.
http://soundcloud.com/jalcide

4 DAW Network:

Main: Studio One V3 (Cubase Pro 9.0.1 on ice until future update solves some issues), Win 7 64-bit, i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz, ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87 mATX, 16GB, EVGA GTX 760, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 on a Vantect FireWire 400 PCIe (UGT-FW200), CMC Controllers (2 FDs, PD, QC, CH, AI, TP), 2 NI Kontrol F1 Controllers, Roland JD-Xi, rtpMIDI, Bome MIDI Translator Pro

Node 1 - VSTi Hosting via VEP: VEP 6 (& Sonar Platinum), Win 7, i7-4770K @ 4.0Ghz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, NI Kore 1 Controller, rtpMIDI

Node 2 - 16 Channel Stem Summing via VEP: VEP 6, Win 10, i5-4690K 3.9Ghz, Gigabyte Z97MX, 16GB, Intel HD 4600 Gfx, rtpMIDI

Node 3 - 2 Channel Mastering Chain via ADAT Optical: Reaper, Win 7, i5-4670K @ 4.1GHz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Nvidia GeForce 210, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, rtpMIDI

In_Stereo
Senior Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by In_Stereo » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:55 pm

I can't answer this, since there is no option for: Give us more than 8 inserts. They would need to do a new version like Pro Tools did: You save as the older version in order to open the project again in older versions. You can't open older versions in newer versions. Worked fine for Pro Tools, didn't bother me one bit in the name of progressing things. Sometimes to get into a much better place you need to make a minor sacrifice like that, so my opinion is that Steinberg doesn't need to worry so much about backwards compatibility at this point. Work on older projects in the older format if you need to, then import older into the newer format if you need the new features on them.

That's the only way it's going to work, unless they figure out a way to make it all compatible (which they haven't been able to in a long time it seems - so let's move on to an option that works).
Cubase 9.5, Trashcan Mac 6-core 3.7ghz, High Sierra 10.13.4 OS, 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

Oliver.Lucas
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:26 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Oliver.Lucas » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:12 pm

I need more than 8 sends!
Main machine: Fireface UFX+ 64GB, 2TB Hecacore macmini 10.14.x, egpu
Avid ProTools Ulitimate and S3. A gazillion plugings

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:17 pm

florian360 wrote:But if we get a chainer, where we can do crazy stuff like you said in the opening post (mind/side, dry/wet and so on..) + we are somehow able to see the plugins in the mixer view + we are able to use sidechain on each plugin, can still automate every knob, it would be a killer feature! :D
THAT'S exactly what I've been talking about the whole time... What if you COULD see the inserts in the mixer view? And what if you could do all the routing and still easily automate it all? I'm not saying that's possible or could happen, but I'm offering it as an alternative suggestion. It's up to Steinberg to decide/figure out how/what can be implemented.

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:21 pm

Jalcide wrote:I voted no to a plugin chainer because I want to see at a glance what's in my inserts. And I don't want another layer of abstraction for automation.
Okay, thanks! Those are obviously reasons that would apply to 3rd party chainers. What if a baked-in Steinberg chainer could be designed to display its inserts with a glance at the mixer and to avoid the layer of abstraction for automation? That's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. I'd only be cool with a chainer IF it didn't come with those sorts of issues. Would you consider recasting your vote?

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:26 pm

Oliver.Lucas wrote:I need more than 8 sends!
With genuine respect, the way you've worded that might possibly look like a knee-jerk reaction, to someone who doesn't understand the rationale behind your opinion. Could you help us to understand the specific disadvantages of an advanced native chainer (as described in my opening post) vs just more slots?

I mean... I'm up for more slots, but I think I'd rather have a super advanced chainer than still be stuck with 8 slots a few more updates down the road. That's why I think it's wise to give this idea a fair trial. I certainly wouldn't want a native chainer if it wasn't better than a 'more slots' solution. :lol:

User avatar
Jalcide
Member
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Jalcide » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:46 pm

Hattrixx wrote:
Jalcide wrote:I voted no to a plugin chainer because I want to see at a glance what's in my inserts. And I don't want another layer of abstraction for automation.
Okay, thanks! Those are obviously reasons that would apply to 3rd party chainers. What if a baked-in Steinberg chainer could be designed to display its inserts with a glance at the mixer and to avoid the layer of abstraction for automation? That's not entirely outside the realm of possibility. I'd only be cool with a chainer IF it didn't come with those sorts of issues. Would you consider recasting your vote?
My pleasure. Thanks for highlighting this long wished for request!

Hmm, that sounds a lot like, simply more inserts (for those that add more inserts).

Especially, if it's going to be showing near the inserts area in the console. And if it's not, it may be confusing to new users of Cubase. They might ask the question, "why are there two sets of inserts in the console?" It might add, ironically, more complexity than it aims to take away. E.g., a pre/post inserts button.

But I think a chainer could also be useful for other reasons, but not as a replacement to console-level inserts.

If the desire is to see a chainer as an addition (and stop-gap), then I'll change my vote, as I'm not against the chainer to use as a chainer. And I'm not against seeing arrive first... mostly, because all hope that Steinberg cares about this issue is lost anyway :lol:
http://soundcloud.com/jalcide

4 DAW Network:

Main: Studio One V3 (Cubase Pro 9.0.1 on ice until future update solves some issues), Win 7 64-bit, i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz, ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87 mATX, 16GB, EVGA GTX 760, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 on a Vantect FireWire 400 PCIe (UGT-FW200), CMC Controllers (2 FDs, PD, QC, CH, AI, TP), 2 NI Kontrol F1 Controllers, Roland JD-Xi, rtpMIDI, Bome MIDI Translator Pro

Node 1 - VSTi Hosting via VEP: VEP 6 (& Sonar Platinum), Win 7, i7-4770K @ 4.0Ghz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, NI Kore 1 Controller, rtpMIDI

Node 2 - 16 Channel Stem Summing via VEP: VEP 6, Win 10, i5-4690K 3.9Ghz, Gigabyte Z97MX, 16GB, Intel HD 4600 Gfx, rtpMIDI

Node 3 - 2 Channel Mastering Chain via ADAT Optical: Reaper, Win 7, i5-4670K @ 4.1GHz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Nvidia GeForce 210, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, rtpMIDI

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:20 pm

Jalcide wrote:Hmm, that sounds a lot like, simply more inserts (for those that add more inserts).
Well it should sound a lot like simply more inserts. I'm first and foremost an advocate of unlimited inserts. I wouldn't be satisfied with a half-baked solution, but I'm interested to explore less obvious ideas if and only if there's a good possibility they can be implemented in a way that's as good as, if not better than, simply adding more inserts.
Jalcide wrote:Especially, if it's going to be showing near the inserts area in the console. And if it's not, it may be confusing to new users of Cubase. They might ask the question, "why are there two sets of inserts in the console?" It might add, ironically, more complexity than it aims to take away. E.g., a pre/post inserts button.
This is a comment on a purely hypothetical implementation. My question is, if the implementation was to your liking, would you be happy with that?
Jalcide wrote:But I think a chainer could also be useful for other reasons, but not as a replacement to console-level inserts.
Agreed...
Jalcide wrote:If the desire is to see a chainer as an addition (and stop-gap), then I'll change my vote, as I'm not against the chainer to use as a chainer.
Well, not really. The question is, with an implementation that satisfies all of your needs, could an advanced native chainer be a good alternative to additional inserts? I'll tell you this much... if they simply extended it to 16 inserts I'd be spitting fire. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jalcide wrote:And I'm not against seeing arrive first... mostly, because all hope that Steinberg cares about this issue is lost anyway :lol:
Why? Steinberg have acknowledged the feature request and have specifically said they're not ignoring any suggestions.

In_Stereo
Senior Member
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by In_Stereo » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:29 pm

I didn't read your actual first post, my bad!

I hear what you're saying, yes.
Cubase 9.5, Trashcan Mac 6-core 3.7ghz, High Sierra 10.13.4 OS, 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
Jalcide
Member
Posts: 720
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Jalcide » Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:56 pm

Hattrixx wrote:if they simply extended it to 16 inserts I'd be spitting fire. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Agreed :lol: 16 would be enough for me, too. More than enough.

As for my hopelessness about this feature, mostly because the 8 insert limit was introduced in Cubase VST 3.5 in 1998. I remember several years later, around 2002, other DAWs having more inserts and wanting more in Cubase.

So it's been passed over for 15 years now :D

As for "would I be happy if I were happy"... tautologically, I guess I would have to be, but I can't envision an implementation that walks and talks like console inserts, that isn't simply console inserts.

So until I see a specific implementation that overcomes my lack of imagination, my (lone) vote will stay as a "no."
http://soundcloud.com/jalcide

4 DAW Network:

Main: Studio One V3 (Cubase Pro 9.0.1 on ice until future update solves some issues), Win 7 64-bit, i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz, ASUS Maximus VI Gene Z87 mATX, 16GB, EVGA GTX 760, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 on a Vantect FireWire 400 PCIe (UGT-FW200), CMC Controllers (2 FDs, PD, QC, CH, AI, TP), 2 NI Kontrol F1 Controllers, Roland JD-Xi, rtpMIDI, Bome MIDI Translator Pro

Node 1 - VSTi Hosting via VEP: VEP 6 (& Sonar Platinum), Win 7, i7-4770K @ 4.0Ghz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, NI Kore 1 Controller, rtpMIDI

Node 2 - 16 Channel Stem Summing via VEP: VEP 6, Win 10, i5-4690K 3.9Ghz, Gigabyte Z97MX, 16GB, Intel HD 4600 Gfx, rtpMIDI

Node 3 - 2 Channel Mastering Chain via ADAT Optical: Reaper, Win 7, i5-4670K @ 4.1GHz, Asrock Pro 3 ATX, 16GB, Nvidia GeForce 210, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, rtpMIDI

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hattrixx » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:26 pm

Jalcide wrote:As for "would I be happy if I were happy"... tautologically, I guess I would have to be, but I can't envision an implementation that walks and talks like console inserts, that isn't simply console inserts.

So until I see a specific implementation that overcomes my lack of imagination, my (lone) vote will stay as a "no."
Uh-huh..... good answer, good answer. Now, if you could just let me in on where the boundaries of your imagination clash with your hopes of more inserts.....? I mean, what is it specifically that you couldn't imagine being well-implemented that'd have to be in place to make you a happy camper? I ask in part because I would change my own vote if the reason is sufficiently compelling. I really hope I'm not overlooking something.

Hpeman
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Hpeman » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:34 pm

10 Inserts would be fine!! :mrgreen:

User avatar
tex
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:52 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by tex » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:39 pm

yes would like a chainer .... but steinberg would charge for it so tha it will be backward compatible? just a question
i7 12GB, pc w10. Mark of The Unicorn-MK3 Ultra, Cubase 8.5.20, Wavelab elements 9.

dragonstyne
New Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:34 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by dragonstyne » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:48 pm

I think personally, the ability to assign each insert as pre or post fader is more important.

Regardless, The elephant hidden behind the tree in the room is, the more plugins you use in these inserts, the higher the probability of phase issues with the tracks, due to latency and the way they affect the material.

[][][]Steve
Best Regards,

[][][]Steve

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kdogg456 and 3 guests