[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 10:22 pm

tex wrote:yes would like a chainer .... but steinberg would charge for it so tha it will be backward compatible? just a question
We're talking about a baked-in Cubase feature, not a chargeable add-on

ctothel
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by ctothel » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:44 pm

I voted yes, but only if that's the only option to overcome this limitation. Why couldnt the insert slot section look excactly like before until you actively decide to add the 9th plugin. After that the slot number increase
by one with each plugin you add. This way everyone's happy. Someone mentioned phase issues, and if your afraid of that just avoid adding another plugin. Personally Im not afraid, and if your a mixing engineer using three inserts
on a vocal I would provably look around for someone ekse to do the job. If you're creative do whatever you want,
but I still dont understand the mindset of wanting a program to limit you. "Oh, slow down, sure you need that decapitator?" "sure you need another de-esser?" "I know you're computer is a beast, but please be careful!!" And one more thing: the cubase channel strip does not sound anywhere close to specidic third party plugins, so to me if Cubase really is "Pro" now unlimted inserts is an absolute must.

ctothel
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by ctothel » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:54 pm

Just to be specific. Let's say half of Cubase's users want unlimted
inserts and half of them don't. Why not let it be an option? The next slots are added only when you choose to.

Personally I feel like a fossil
when I watch someone with Ableton having 16 plugins on a channel. In the right hans that is extreemly
powerful.

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 11:17 pm

ctothel wrote:Why couldnt the insert slot section look excactly like before until you actively decide to add the 9th plugin. After that the slot number increase
by one with each plugin you add.
What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.

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 11:25 pm

What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.
What if you could change every slot to pre- or postfader? Nothing complexe here.

So many other DAW's have more insert slots. It's not complex!
Artist name: Okular (Producer and DJ from Zürich)
Genre: Progressive Trance
Page: https://soundcloud.com/okularmusic

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 11:33 pm

florian360 wrote:
What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.
What if you could change every slot to pre- or postfader? Nothing complexe here.

So many other DAW's have more insert slots. It's not complex!
So if I switch slot 2 to a post-fader insert, it then jumps down to the bottom slot? Because it should, signal-flow-wise, but that would be absolutely bizarre.

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 11:42 pm

Jack Burtons Truck wrote:What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.
I think it would have to reside on its own collapsible row in the console. A side benefit being it would enjoy the same variable number of inserts the pre-fader inserts would.

Older projects would simply map the hardcoded 7 and 8 slots to 1 and 2 of the post fader inserts section.

I actually wish Studio One had such an option. It currently can only be done via the sends pane of the channel (and creates an extra aux fx buss in the process).
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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:27 am

What if the pre/post cutoff point could be dragged up and down the inserts list? I see no reason why that has to be complex. But anyway, with infinite plugins and complex chains inside a native chainer, who cares? You could put as many plugins as you want pre or post fader, it would make no difference whether you had 2 post fader slots or 22. :lol:

atze100
Member
Posts: 687
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:36 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by atze100 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:46 am

I would be happy with an integrated Plugin Chainer.

- it should include all Plugins and self created plugin lists from the plugin manager
- it should be fully an easily automatable per R & W
- it should be sidechainable

AND i would rather prefer it to be a modular chainer instead of a rack solution (like the blue cat one), or at best both in one.
I think Prologue's Bidule or ImageLine's Minihost Modular would be a good starting point:
Image
Cubase Pro 8.0.40 64 Bit, Win7 Ultimate 64 Bit, Core i7 2600k, 16GB RAM

Cubase Safe Start: https://www.steinberg.net/fi/support/kn ... ences.html

Cubase Einstellungen: https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... and-Nuendo

ctothel
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by ctothel » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:14 am

Jack Burtons Truck wrote:
florian360 wrote:
What would happen to inserts 7 and 8, which are post-fader, once 9 is introduced? It gets complex here.
What if you could change every slot to pre- or postfader? Nothing complexe here.

So many other DAW's have more insert slots. It's not complex!
So if I switch slot 2 to a post-fader insert, it then jumps down to the bottom slot? Because it should, signal-flow-wise, but that would be absolutely bizarre.
If this is important to you, the 9th could just be added in between. Meaning the post fader slots now would be 10 and 11 instead. I dont get why you can't just choose pre/post yourself per slot though. This way we both get our way.

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:22 am

ctothel wrote:...just choose pre/post yourself per slot though.
I think it would be confusing to have inserts in a stack where the signal flow through them doesn't match their visual, top-down order.
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

ctothel
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:21 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by ctothel » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:32 am

That's why I said that you don't personally have to. This could be made
totally up to you and each user. In your case all you would need to do is to not press the pre/post fader
button (just like with the sends). But don't get me wrong, I would not be happy with 8 pre fader
slots. I want to be able to add as many as I want.

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:37 am

As requested, here are my thoughts on the subject of Cubase inserts.

WaveLab gives you the ability to add inserts. Cubase could do this. The issue is, how much is too much? I believe the ability to add more inserts is only valuable if they can be assigned routing options like mentioned by Hattrixx.

Some are covered by the plugins themselves, for example mid/side and sidechain. Additional routing options such as, pre / post fader, left only, right only, insert to insert chaning, insert to group…

But wait a minute, doesn’t this sound like the sends. the send can do this. However, wouldn’t it be more efficient to do this routing in the track? Sure it would. better work flow. you can use an external chainer but, this adds to the memory and processing load more than an internal routing algorithm optimized for DAW.

If you have a boat load of RAM, multiple processors and a frontside BUS you could drive a truck through, 20 or more inserts might not be a problem, at least resource wise. Do you really need it though?

As i said earlier, 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.

Long story short, proper insert configuration and routing to include adding and removing them, is needed. other DAW’s have it, WaveLab has it, why not Cubase?


[][][]Steve
Best Regards,

[][][]Steve

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:14 am

ctothel wrote:That's why I said that you don't personally have to. This could be made
totally up to you and each user. In your case all you would need to do is to not press the pre/post fader
button (just like with the sends). But don't get me wrong, I would not be happy with 8 pre fader
slots. I want to be able to add as many as I want.
Okay, I'm on board now. I think you're right. That would work.
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
StefK
Junior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:49 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by StefK » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:29 am

ctothel wrote:" And one more thing: the cubase channel strip does not sound anywhere close to specidic third party plugins, so to me if Cubase really is "Pro" now unlimted inserts is an absolute must.
Agree with your comment about built-in channel strip, ... and besides if it REALLY was PRO, then why is not
the "RND Portico" suite not automatically integrated and part of the "CB-Pro"
https://www.steinberg.net/en/products/v ... start.html
Cubase 9.x|Reason 10.x|Halion6,HSO]|NI Komplete 9|VI-Labs Ravenscroft275
WIN10|GA-Z370-G7|8086K|64Gb|SAMSUNG-970|Thunderbolt3|UAD-Apollo.X6
Win 7 |GA-X58|W3680|12Gb|SAMSUNG 850|ECHO-MIA
MacBook Pro|MR816:CSX| Maudio:FW410 | Line6:KB37

maggie
Member
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by maggie » Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:29 am

I do not want any chainer I would like more slots. Even before version 9.5.
Cubase 10 pro, Halion 6, Groove Agent 5, Padshop Pro, Tone2 Electra 2, Tone2 Ultraspace, U-He Diva, U-He Presswerk, U-He Hive, Tubeohm Vintage, Virtual CZ, Arturia Solina V2, Arturia Analog Lab, Waldorf Nave, Synapse Dune 2, UVI Falcon, UVI Grand Piano Type D, AiR Xpand!2, KV331 Synthmaster, Steinberg UR22, Arturia Keylab 49 (Black Edition), Intel i7 2600, 16GB RAM, ASUS P8Z68-V/GEN 3, Windows 10 64bit

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:22 pm

Steinberg want's our feedback about Cubase 9 :) At the end of the survey you can write a comment. If we all write about the insert slots problem then the devs would see how important this wish is!
Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=250&t=107198
Artist name: Okular (Producer and DJ from Zürich)
Genre: Progressive Trance
Page: https://soundcloud.com/okularmusic

J-S-Q
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:45 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by J-S-Q » Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:42 pm

I didn't make a vote but I guess my view would be "Yes, I occasionally want more than 8 inserts, BUT it's not near the top of my wish list so please don't waste time on it until you've done all the things on MY list first." :)
Cubase Pro 9, Win10
CPU: AMD Threadripper 1920X. MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte Aorus X399. RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX. GRAPHICS CARD: Gigabyte GV-N96TSL GeForce 9600GT. SYSTEM DRIVE: Samsung 950 Pro M.2 SSD. AUDIO INTERFACE: Steinberg MR816-CSX CONTROLLER: Avid S3, Avid Artist Transport

Razzia
Junior Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:31 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by Razzia » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:10 pm

Raphie wrote:Steinberg should come with a statement why the mixer is what it is and a statement on performance impact.
My sole concern is that I don't want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.

If performance is not impacted, my suggestion would be to make mixer 2 or 3 the "extended" mixer for the ones who want more. But if it affects performance, or primary mixer ergonomics, it's a no go.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it would affect either the performance OR the aesthetic, when the current mixer only shows as many slots as you are using. If you never use more than 8 inserts, and Cubase changed nothing except the 8 insert limitation, you would literally not notice the difference.

on another tangent here, if Steinberg continues to add features Studio One has implemented (i.e. Lower Zone), then maybe they'll include multi instrument/multi effect chains too. The anti-Cubase crowd can drone on about how Cubase copied Studio One again (who copied Ableton in the first place) and I would be happy as a clam. And in that scenario, you really couldn't justify an 8 insert limitation, since you're dealing with multiple signal chains on one track. This is Live's best feature and if Cubase were to take a page from their book it could only make it far, far better for people who aren't just composing with presets.
Cubase Pro 9 / Ableton Live 9 Suite / Ableton Push 2 / Novation LaunchKey 25 / Steinberg CMC-CH
Audient iD4 / ART Voice Channel
Win 10 Pro x64 / i7 6700k / 200 GB SSD / 2TB HDD / 16 GB RAM

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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:12 pm

That's very condensending, being fine with 8 slots doesn't make one a preset pusher.
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 » Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:17 pm

I hope Cubase 9.5 actually takes away two insert slots. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :lol:

omniphonix
Junior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:27 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by omniphonix » Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:40 am

I don't see how more inserts could impact workflow or performance since slots are hidden until used and there is no processor load if there is no inserted plugin. Still, is it really so hard to send the channel to it's own group to add more plugins? Don't touch the fader or panner on the originating channel and just use the controls on the group and it will work just like pre-fader. This workaround is so easy that I feel like they should be spending their time on more important things like bezier automation curves, mixer plugins, a preview to headphones button, multitouch, I could go on for a while before I hit >8 inserts on my wish list.
Main DAW: Core i9-7940X | 64GB DDR4 3200 | Asus Prime X299-A | Radeon RX570 | Samsung 950 Pro 512GB & 850 Evo 2TB | Acer T272HUL | UR824 | CC121 | Virus TI | MCU Pro | Akai MPD232 | Nektar Panorama P6 | Roland VG-99 | Win10 Pro x64 v1809 | Cubase Pro 10 | Reason 10

DAW/Gig NB: MSI GT76 9SG | Core i9-9900K | 64GB DDR4 2666 | RTX 2080 8GB | 2x PM981 512GB NVMe SSD RAID0 | 860 QVO 2TB SATA SSD | iConnect Audio4+ | Akai APC40 mkII | Akai MPK249 | Win10 Pro x64 v1809 | Cubase Pro 10 | Ableton Live 10

iPad Pro 12.9" Gen 3 1TB: Same Audio4+ as above | CME Xkey 37 | Cubasis | Cubase iC Pro | Many IAA/AU Apps

SG
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:14 am
Contact:

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by SG » Sat Dec 10, 2016 1:55 am

Ideal case is allowing more than 8 insert slots but I'd be happy with a built-in plugin chainer given it has all the same functionality and ease of use in terms of automation of individual plugin parameters. As well as support for other plugin manufacturers, not just stock steinberg plugins.

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

Re: FAO: people annoyed about 8 inserts limitation

Post by alexis » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:38 am

Raphie wrote:Steinberg should come with a statement why the mixer is what it is and a statement on performance impact.
My sole concern is that I don't want performance/ergonomics consessions to cater for a few EDM lovers.
...
I am not an EDM lover. I would like more slots.
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

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 » Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:11 pm

maggie wrote:I do not want any chainer I would like more slots. Even before version 9.5.
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:

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests