# Racks or Tracks in Cubase 10, what IS the difference?



## stigc56 (Feb 13, 2019)

So what is the difference between Rack instruments and Track instruments?
Are there any benefits by using the first one (Rack) when it comes to VEPro?


----------



## stevebarden (Feb 13, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> So what is the difference between Rack instruments and Track instruments?
> Are there any benefits by using the first one (Rack) when it comes to VEPro?


Track instruments only respond to Port 1 from VEPro. Rack instruments respond to all ports.


----------



## stigc56 (Feb 13, 2019)

Well it's possible to enable several outputs in the track instrument as well, but it can't be the only difference?
Even a thorough search of the user manual gives NO result! The SECRET instrument?


----------



## JamieLang (Feb 13, 2019)

Difference is---its MIDI INPUT channels. Meaning that a rack, you can put up a 32 MIDI channel Kontakt that you can then map 97678589 MIDI tracks to....where an instrument track accepts one MIDI channel as input....generally omni "all MIDI input", but you can wire it to a specific--but, I can't have 15 midi tracks of strings mapped INTO that instrument track.

the simple way I remember it is anything being sequenced gets a RACK....anything that I'm PLAYING with 10 fingers, gets an instrument track. Because it USED to be that only the Instrument Track got the smaller secondary input buffer. In recent versions of Cubase, they will map any flat MIDI track mapped to a rack into that smaller buffer, I think.

When in doubt, use a rack. It's the traditional way--to have a MIDI track feeding a multitimbral midi sound source. Instrument tracks were honestly made by Emagic to make MIDI easier to use for people who don't "get" channelized routing. It offers no REAL benefit now that both connect to the smaller input buffer.


----------



## bcarwell (Feb 14, 2019)

Try these among others to confuse you further:






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Z9Zo-N9tI&list=PL7udNXT-d6T7ubZtRx_ZE68esQdiM0zwO

Bob


----------



## Rob (Feb 14, 2019)

For multitimbral Vstis I think it's better to use rack instruments, so that the vst remains in the rack and in the arrange window you only have midi tracks, it's cleaner this way...
Instruments with monotimbral capabilities can safely be loaded as track, that's at least what I do. But it isn't true that you can't assign different midi channels to track instruments, you just have to create midi tracks and assign their output to the loaded track instrument (Cubase does this automatically)...


----------



## InLight-Tone (Feb 14, 2019)

Multitimbral setups are a relic of the past. Instrument tracks, one per instrument is the way to go. No midi tracks to take care of, channels, midi volume blah blah to confuse, automation and mixing is straight forward.


----------



## jneebz (Feb 14, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> Multitimbral setups are a relic of the past. Instrument tracks, one per instrument is the way to go. No midi tracks to take care of, channels, midi volume blah blah to confuse, automation and mixing is straight forward.


So for let's say a string library, you load a separate Instrument Track for every articulation and never run multi-timbral?


----------



## Rob (Feb 14, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> Multitimbral setups are a relic of the past. Instrument tracks, one per instrument is the way to go. No midi tracks to take care of, channels, midi volume blah blah to confuse, automation and mixing is straight forward.


to each his own


----------



## InLight-Tone (Feb 14, 2019)

jneebz said:


> So for let's say a string library, you load a separate Instrument Track for every articulation and never run multi-timbral?


No I use 1 instrument track and expression maps to get to all the articulations. That keeps the track count down in a big template. My template is around 1300+ tracks right now, all disabled instrument tracks, all with expression maps where applicable. 

If I want to go the separate articulation per track route, which I do often to keep string shorts separate for instance, I duplicate the track and change the articulation in the map. I don't multi-timbral anything. Mixing gets more complicated if everything goes through one Kontakt for me. I like a stereo track per instrument, easy to automate, no fussing with midi volume, pan which I never touch...


----------



## jneebz (Feb 14, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> No I use 1 instrument track and expression maps to get to all the articulations. That keeps the track count down in a big template. My template is around 1300+ tracks right now, all disabled instrument tracks, all with expression maps where applicable.
> 
> If I want to go the separate articulation per track route, which I do often to keep string shorts separate for instance, I duplicate the track and change the articulation in the map. I don't multi-timbral anything. Mixing gets more complicated if everything goes through one Kontakt for me. I like a stereo track per instrument, easy to automate, no fussing with midi volume, pan which I never touch...


Huh. Pretty cool... And if Steinberg works out the disabled track kinks, that would be pretty powerful. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Mishabou (Feb 14, 2019)

InLight-Tone said:


> No I use 1 instrument track and expression maps to get to all the articulations. That keeps the track count down in a big template. My template is around 1300+ tracks right now, all disabled instrument tracks, all with expression maps where applicable.
> 
> If I want to go the separate articulation per track route, which I do often to keep string shorts separate for instance, I duplicate the track and change the articulation in the map. I don't multi-timbral anything. Mixing gets more complicated if everything goes through one Kontakt for me. I like a stereo track per instrument, easy to automate, no fussing with midi volume, pan which I never touch...



What do you do for libraries like EW Hollywood strings Diamond where there are no multi articulations patch ?


----------



## InLight-Tone (Feb 14, 2019)

Mishabou said:


> What do you do for libraries like EW Hollywood strings Diamond where there are no multi articulations patch ?


I don't have any EW libraries, didn't know they didn't have multi arts patches...


----------



## InLight-Tone (Feb 14, 2019)

jneebz said:


> Huh. Pretty cool... And if Steinberg works out the disabled track kinks, that would be pretty powerful. Thanks for the info!


To note, I don't have any problems with the disabled tracks but I know Guy has some issues. The downside is the save times. For 1300+ tracks mostly Kontakt instances save times are about 2-3 seconds on an m2 drive with nothing loaded except 4 Reverbs. I try and sketch out my main ideas first using up to 10 tracks or so. After that when layering and what not, save times are about 10 seconds for 40 tracks. I'm comfortable with that...


----------



## Henu (Feb 15, 2019)

I'm using track instruments..._instrument tracks_ (mixed it up, sorry) with different articulations loaded into different midi channels, controlling them with the expression maps.

With this I think it's really "the best of both worlds"- I'll get to tweak the articulations one by one, but they are also used from one track only.


----------



## stigc56 (Feb 15, 2019)

bcarwell said:


> Try these among others to confuse you further:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for your input. It seems though it's hard to find inf. about HOW to use the different systems.
So let me sum up what I until now have learned: Rack instruments combines the midi & audio side of one instrument into a simple and useful track, really well suited to "house" one instrument. It can be saved & loaded, disabled/enabled. Several midi tracks can be connected to the instrument, which can be a multi-timbral instrument (Kontakt, VEPro ex.), and if the VI supports it, it can be routed to extra outputs/new channels. Cubase has alleged problems with "remembering" the details about all these connections, and what have irritated me and others is that the naming procedure is a bit clumsy, - the "mother" instrument can of course be renamed, but this will clutter up the naming scheme, because the first channel will hold BOTH the midi and the audio side. The sub-audio outputs 

Rack instruments on the other side simply contains a number of midi tracks, and a number of outputs from the instrument. All of them can be placed and renamed however one likes it. You can have ex. a midi track with a corresponding audio channel below, or you can move the audio channel to the bottom of the arrangement or hide it. You can save & load the rack instrument, but the midi tracks will not be included!! Stupid! For the VEPro set-up it's very convenient especially if you use the trick with remote controlling the VEPro on/off channel function from Cubase.

About creating a template with the rack instrument I suddenly find that if I create a VEPro set-up with ALL my string libraries (all VSL, LASS, SSS, SCS) and route them to combined outputs like: 1. violins/2. violins and so on, then I can have ALL my 1. violins (group a & b) routed to the same channel in my mixer. So this leaves me with ex. 10 audio channels that holds all my string libraries.
I know this is possible too with track instruments, but I think the big picture is much more clear with the Rack instrument.


----------



## greggybud (Feb 16, 2019)

stigc56 said:


> I know this is possible too with track instruments, but I think the big picture is much more clear with the Rack instrument.



IMO, I think it really depends on your workflow and use of multi-timberal. 

Initially everyone used Rack Instruments because there was no option. So you develop a mind-set based on the past. 

Eventually, I used Track Instruments for single midi VSTI's and reserved Rack Instruments for Kontakt, Halion, or any multi-timberal VSTI's. However ultimately after a few years I became frustrated because there were always 2 continual methods being used, and I felt my workflow speed was a bit hampered because of 2 different methods, my thought process, automation, and how they show up in the mix window. 

A couple years ago, composers started using hundreds of single instances, claiming there isn't much of a processing difference, so (with the exception of Toontrack where I had invested a good amount of time configuring many templates that only work under Rack Instruments using the Cubase feature Save Selected and Load Selected. Save Selected/Load Selected only work with Rack Instruments) for simplicity reasons I decided to go with Track Instruments. 

I'm happy with the Track Instrument method, however Guys issue of enable/disable and Track Archive Export/Import and resulting messed up midi assignments, clearly show a difficult bug which is a drawback. I think the difference between myself and those with hundreds of Track Instruments is that while I disable/enable tracks, I'm not using Track Archive Export/Import combined with Enable/Disable. I have been using this method for well over a year, however disable/enable is not an every-day function since I only use EWQL Gold and limited Kontakt orchestral tools. I'm not a orchestral composer, just mostly pop and integrating occasional orchestral.

To sum it up, I guess it's really how your mind works, what you are used to, and how you wish to address multi-timberal instruments.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Daniel James (Feb 16, 2019)

I use Instrument Tracks. 

I forget when I moved over from racks but I remember why. For me I swapped over because for some reason the Render In Place feature would only work in multitimbral situations with the instrument rack. If I tried to render in place with Rack Instruments it would try to render every routed midi track from the rack.... Instrument Track only bounced the clip I had selected (even if it was a midi track in multitimbral mode with other things playing) I think at the time it was a bug, but I never went back. Also whenever I am writing and just want a synth or something I always add an instrument track, seems to get me going quicker, and I can route midi tracks and use it multitimbral too.

-DJ


----------



## shomynik (Feb 16, 2019)

I'm also running a hybrid setup with multitimbral instrument tracks. I like that I can select the instrument track which is then automatically selected in the mixer as well. You can't do that with midi. Also, that instrument track serves me as a folder for other audio outs for the same instance. Not as clean as midi only, but you use to it.



Daniel James said:


> I use Instrument Tracks.
> 
> I forget when I moved over from racks but I remember why. For me I swapped over because for some reason the Render In Place feature would only work in multitimbral situations with the instrument rack. If I tried to render in place with Rack Instruments it would try to render every routed midi track from the rack.... Instrument Track only bounced the clip I had selected (even if it was a midi track in multitimbral mode with other things playing) I think at the time it was a bug, but I never went back. Also whenever I am writing and just want a synth or something I always add an instrument track, seems to get me going quicker, and I can route midi tracks and use it multitimbral too.
> 
> -DJ


Daniel, I'm having that problem with instrument tracks too if I render with "dry/transfer all settings and plugins" option. It renders every output from the instance. Did you maybe find a way to solve that? Or you use only "render the whole chain" option which doesn't do that?


----------



## bcslaam (May 22, 2022)

Hi all I've recently come from Reaper and was on Nuendo 11 with same issue and now in Nuendo 12 and I am still getting the midi assignments lost issue Guy talked about. That bug hasnt gone away 3yrs later! I use VEP v7 on slaves almost exclusively for all my vsti (orchestral template) so that my main DAW only deals with FX and automation. I learnt this the hard way over the last months. I even run a video slave. My main daw is windows 11, 12900k/32gb. My 2 slaves are same spec but with 128gb and 64gb ram.

I currently use track instruments only (except the test racks) and I use them multi-timbrally exactly how you would use a rack since now it's "possible". With multiple virtual ports too. Hence I only use VEP VST3 version.

One day Ill open my template (now has all my tracks enabled) and assignments are all over the place (except my one or two test rack instruments) and another it'll be mostly correct except a few, inexplicably. Then another day it will be all correct. To add to that, sometimes there is no virtual midi link between nuendo and the slaves at all. Even though the instance plugin in nuendo shows its connected and I can change the name/settings and they relfect. Just no midi playing the instruments. And this is happens in nuendo only since I can play the same remote instance in Reaper fine in the same session. It's driving me crazy.

It seems related to the rather arbitrary initial scan and load of VEP instances and their order of loading, if they take longer or not, and of course if I had a track enabled or not in Nuendo (which I dont disable now because of this issue)

I think the reason we can't re-order rack instruments is because cubendo relies on the ID number for midi assignments. Now, as they try to get track instruments up to speed they still havent addressed this elephant in the room. Changing track instrument order on arrange page, or if theyre disabled then enabled, and possibly even if midi i/o ports coming in or out have changed or been reset, are all reasons I've found to cause this bug to rear its head. Its making things unworkable for me.

My qu

1. Are people still getting this midi assignments lost or jumbled issue with huge templates still in v12?

2. Should I spend the enormous amount of time (mid film project I might add) to convert all my track instruments to the seemingly more stable rack instruments. Or will this be a waste of time because once there are many VEPro rack instances the same thing happens?

3. If this is more a track issue than a rack issue should I avoid mixing the two? Becuase some vsti instances vepro or local are project/cue specific and really are better as coupled vep instances on a track instrument.

Also I thought rack instruments will eventually be discontinued hence another reason not to go there. Despite their apparent stability.

Currently I have to do something because it's a major block in getting things done.


----------



## bcslaam (May 25, 2022)

Anyone?


----------



## Greeno (May 25, 2022)

I'm keen to know


----------



## greggybud (May 25, 2022)

bcslaam said:


> My qu
> 
> 1. Are people still getting this midi assignments lost or jumbled issue with huge templates still in v12?
> 
> ...


I don't think there is any improvement with C12, but I could check and get back to you within a few days. I created a simple but effective .gif demonstrating a similar problem. In a nutshell, after the first instance, and creating further Instrument Track instances, _when you disable then enable_, the midi assignments are lost. They know.

Guy a couple years ago pursued this and at one point I'm pretty sure most issues were fixed. But the fix, if it was really a stable fix was very short lived. It's quite exasperating.

I have never heard of a planned elimination of Rack Instruments. When users get set in their ways, and something like that happens, you get a lot of negative feedback. 

Definitely ask around here about how others are managing. I too am curious. I don't do large count tracks, so I would not know. But there have been multiple threads here about these issues. Or you could create a new thread for 2022 if you think that works better. 

Good luck! It's been on-going for many years.


----------



## tressie5 (May 25, 2022)

It's amazing - the things you learn in the twilight of your life. I had no idea about this Racks or Tracks business. After watching the instructional video, the first half anyway, I fired up Cubase 12, located the Racks section, loaded the small string quintet in Amadeus SO in Kontakt, and quickly created six midi tracks which Cubase saw fit in its infinite wisdom to pre-assign all the midi channels for my convenience. And here I was, yesterday, fiddling around with Blue Cat's Patchwork to create a similar parallel outfit. Mankind is redeemed!! Mediocrities of the world, I am your patron saint. I absolve you. I absolve you.


----------



## bcslaam (May 28, 2022)

Glad this thread has somehow helped @tressie5 

As for me, once I get a few cues submitted to the director I think I will convert all my mainstay VEP instances from track to rack. Yesterday I had another episode of N12 losing assignments to several VEP instances (seemingly arbitrarily) and its doing my head in. With 760 odd tracks its a nightmare trying to find these needles in a hay stack.

This means I have to commit to racks and to always use a big template containing ALL of them. Since they wont properly import (a long winded workaround described below)
Rack instruments dont get saved in track archives, but track presets dont keep folders or buss or fx assignments.
It will take at least 2 days to swap over to racks. I sure hope I wont be wasting my time. It feels like Im going backwards to a framework that might dissappear.

Workaround once converted to Racks
After that, if I want to work in a more modular way (ie not from a huge all encompassing template) and import libraries as I go, a possible method is: to store the set of busses, fx tracks and folders as an archive, then store the rack instrument and midi tracks as a multi preset. Then in a new project import that preset first, import the archive second, drop the rack instrument/midi tracks into the imported archive folder group, re-assign instrument outs to the instrument busses.

Dam Steinberg they just dont get that these long standing issues are really messing with people!


----------

