# LOGIC X Track Stacks ?



## synthpunk (Feb 2, 2017)

Has or can anyone find a way to put a track stack inside another track stack so in other words I guess you would say nested track stacks ?


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 2, 2017)

AFAIK you can only nest summing stacks in folder stacks.


----------



## anp27 (Feb 2, 2017)

stonzthro's reply is the correct answer.


----------



## synthpunk (Feb 2, 2017)

TX. Logic feedback form sent


----------



## jonnybutter (Feb 2, 2017)

Umm..there's no nesting of either kind of stack in Logic, unfortunately. I wish there was. Unless there's some trick I don't know...


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 2, 2017)

jonnybutter said:


> Umm..there's no nesting of either kind of stack in Logic, unfortunately. I wish there was. Unless there's some trick I don't know...


There certainly is.
1. Make a Summing Stack
2. Make a Folder Stack
3. Open the Folder Stack and drag the Summing Stack INTO the Folder Stack


----------



## synthpunk (Feb 2, 2017)

Thank you Stonz. That works!



stonzthro said:


> There certainly is.
> 1. Make a Summing Stack
> 2. Make a Folder Stack
> 3. Open the Folder Stack and drag the Summing Stack INTO the Folder Stack


----------



## samphony (Feb 2, 2017)

In my opinion the devs should consider to have the ability to put summing stacks into summing stacks into folder stacks and vice versa also with key commands not just drag and drop.

They should also consider to save folder stacks as patches not only summing stacks.


----------



## jonnybutter (Feb 3, 2017)

Thanks stonz! That is handy! Also agree with everything samphony says.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 3, 2017)

samphony said:


> In my opinion the devs should consider to have the ability to put summing stacks into summing stacks into folder stacks and vice versa also with key commands not just drag and drop.
> 
> They should also consider to save folder stacks as patches not only summing stacks.




Gee, I'll bet none of that ever occurred to them


----------



## dgburns (Feb 3, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> Gee,. I'll bet none of that ever occurred to them



Nested folders are a good idea, but you can also get carried away with it. Personally, I still use regular Logic folders and don't usually go more then one folder deep.
The main reason to still use old style folders is that screensets will locate to inside one if the folder is stored as the level viewd in the arrange. Usefull and still valid if the folder location is moved up or down the arrange list.
I sometimes use folders to aggregate recurring cues that need to be part of a template, so I can mute the folder but have access to the midi/audio right from inside the template. Tempo variations need to be worked out,but it works well.
Folder stacks for organization are cool, but it would be more usefull if there was a command to open/close them, or have the state stored as per a screenshot. Correct me please if I'm wrong about this.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 3, 2017)

You mean like these?


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 3, 2017)

dgburns said:


> Personally, I still use regular Logic folders...
> The main reason to still use old style folders is that screensets will locate to inside one if the folder is stored as the level viewed in the arrange. Usefull and still valid if the folder location is moved up or down the arrange list.



Totally. It's funny - I begged for track stacks for YEARS and when it finally happened, I found myself still using old-style folders for exactly this reason. It's really the best way I've found to quickly navigate a 1000+ track template. Each instrument group/category is in a folder, and each folder is assigned a dedicated screen set. So when I want to work on violins, I just hit the key command for that screen set, and all windows are laid out accordingly, including zoom levels, controller lanes, etc.

I do love the idea of track stacks for the obvious advantages, but I quickly found that navigating fast went out the window in actual use, given the way I like to work...


----------



## dgburns (Feb 3, 2017)

whinecellar said:


> Totally. It's funny - I begged for track stacks for YEARS and when it finally happened, I found myself still using old-style folders for exactly this reason. It's really the best way I've found to quickly navigate a 1000+ track template. Each instrument group/category is in a folder, and each folder is assigned a dedicated screen set. So when I want to work on violins, I just hit the key command for that screen set, and all windows are laid out accordingly, including zoom levels, controller lanes, etc.
> 
> I do love the idea of track stacks for the obvious advantages, but I quickly found that navigating fast went out the window in actual use, given the way I like to work...



Great minds think alike!!

@Ashermusic ,oh good find! I should've really known to look for that. thnx man.

@whinecellar ,One thing that bugs me about the orch stuff in separate folders is that too many times I want to see what's written in one section against another. These days, I've created "split screen" arrange windows, tiled one above the other looking into different folders for this very reason.Especially useful when used with the "hide unused tracks". I keep all my orch stuff into one folder with screen sets that display the relevant section in my view. Almost the same thing as you though.


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 3, 2017)

dgburns said:


> One thing that bugs me about the orch stuff in separate folders is that too many times I want to see what's written in one section against another.



Yep, exactly the reason I begged for track stacks for years!



dgburns said:


> These days, I've created "split screen" arrange windows, tiled one above the other looking into different folders for this very reason.



Same here. Great minds again


----------



## samphony (Feb 3, 2017)

whinecellar said:


> Yep, exactly the reason I begged for track stacks for years!
> 
> Totally agree I mix and match both approaches since LPX before I had a similar workflow to Jim.
> 
> ...


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 10, 2017)

dgburns said:


> have the state stored as per a screenshot.



This alone would be an awesome feature for people who have large templates. 

@Ashermusic - do you know if the Logic team has beta testers that consistently use larger templates (read huge)?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 10, 2017)

stonzthro said:


> This alone would be an awesome feature for people who have large templates.
> 
> @Ashermusic - do you know if the Logic team has beta testers that consistently use larger templates (read huge)?



I can't talk about what I may and may not know about the members of the beta team, sorry.


----------



## tav.one (Feb 11, 2017)

Rearrange that sentence and you get the answer (Not sure, but feel very strongly):


stonzthro said:


> Do you know if the Logic team has beta testers that consistently use larger templates (read huge)? - @Ashermusic


----------



## stonzthro (Feb 11, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> I can't talk about what I may and may not know about the members of the beta team, sorry.



Sure.

I would hope the Logic team takes into account that we do exist and Logic is not very accommodating to larger templates, but it COULD with just a few ideas implemented such as 

Track search by name
Hide/View options based on track names w/20-30 key commands 
Being able to save Folder Stacks as presets with notes 
and of course AV3


----------



## synthpunk (Feb 11, 2017)

Stonz, the Apple Logic Pro Feedback form does work. I hear back often from Individual project managers on the team from feedback I submit and have even developed several friendships over the years from submitting that feedback.


----------



## MusicInclusive (Aug 16, 2017)

I have recently been trying to do some organization in the latest Logic Pro X where I used nested track stacks and I have something like the following just fine. (I bus the tracks in the mixer and don't use the automatically generated buses - per my comments on the track names). 

However, I watched a video from 2014 ( http://quick.as/mdj3tn7e (http://quick.as/mdj3tn7e ))where someone was able to nest track stacks to more levels, but when I tried to replicate what they did it didn't work. Was that just a bug in Logic that got removed so that only 2 levels are now possible again?


----------



## synthpunk (Aug 16, 2017)

Does this explain it?
http://vi-control.net/community/threads/logic-x-track-stacks.59575/




MusicInclusive said:


> I have recently been trying to do some organization in the latest Logic Pro X where I used nested track stacks and I have something like the following just fine. (I bus the tracks in the mixer and don't use the automatically generated buses - per my comments on the track names).
> 
> However, I watched a video from 2014 ( http://quick.as/mdj3tn7e (http://quick.as/mdj3tn7e ))where someone was able to nest track stacks to more levels, but when I tried to replicate what they did it didn't work. Was that just a bug in Logic that got removed so that only 2 levels are now possible again?


----------



## MusicInclusive (Aug 16, 2017)

synthpunk said:


> Does this explain it?
> http://vi-control.net/community/threads/logic-x-track-stacks.59575/



No - not really  I read the rest of the thread before I posted. I was curious as to how the person in the video managed to nest to more than 2 levels (If you look at the video at 30s in you'll see what they have accomplished - 3 nested levels Folder -> Folder -> Summing). 

Can you do it as they did it? Or is that a feature that Apple have removed? 

I have tried to duplicate exactly what they did and can't get more than 2 levels - i.e. a summing stack inside of a folder stack as I showed.


----------



## morphido (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm fine with the organization right now. I use folders for general organization of instrument categories and summing for patch combinations or VEP multi-instruments. As summary, I use them as categories and sub-categories of tracks, keeping it simple.


----------



## Soundhound (Mar 15, 2021)

Old issue and maybe this has been answered a billion times, let's see if anyone actually sees this post. I created a summing stack and inside it created a new aux track, routed some AC guitars to it and then routed it to the summing stack aux. Voila, summing stacks inside summing stacks. Am I crossing the streams Dr Venckman? Will I wind up being transported through a wormhole? Or everybody's already been doing this for years?


----------



## G.Poncelet (Mar 15, 2021)

I'm using this method for my new template, it works :


----------



## Soundhound (Mar 16, 2021)

Thanks for that! Seems as if it's might just be the Track Stack options that prevent nesting summing stacks, the old Apple making things easy and simple by ruling some stuff out? Hopefully something bad isn't going on in the environment—where I have never and will never tread—or deeper. Until then I'll just keep making summing stacks in summing stacks unless and until I face some kind of Logic/VEP7 nesting apocalypse.


----------

