# I don't care for orchestral templates... Your view?



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

I think due to reading a lot from fellow composers and here on vi-control a few years back I got drawn into the whole idea of having templates either on Vienna Ensemble Pro or disabled tracks on Cubase Pro 9.5 which is my main DAW.

I have tried both, a mega template on VEP using so many tracks it became unbearable to maintain, I mean if I wanted to change Cubase Expression maps or such. As of now, I haven't used VEP in like a year since Cubase disabled tracks make it so much easier to keep everything inside the project for future reference.

I have a few gripes against VEP in that it doesn't ask you for the missing IP of the machine you're trying to connect to in the event that it was years ago and you forgot it or changed machines.

_ In this instance, I had an old project that had VEP tracks that were looking for 192.168.0.205 (a static IP I had at the time for the slave) but VEP never told me it was looking for the .205 host. It just failed loading. Kinda scary if you ask me, I change my slave/machines every 2 years or so and I want my tracks to be accessible if a client asks for a revisit... VSL, make your errors verbose!_

I kinda came to the realization that I already know how all my instruments sound, I know their strengths, their weaknesses so why should I care if I take ~10 seconds creating the track, loading the VSTi/AUi and loading the instrument preset?

The other thing that annoys me with templates is the scrolling between tracks, even if everything is in folders. If I write music on the fly and create tracks as I need them, it's much easier to edit many tracks at once without all the scrolling and dealing with visibility.

I hope this wasn't too much of a wall of text, haha.

I'd love your take on this, how you work with templates or not and point to flaws in my thinking, etc.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (May 29, 2018)

I'm experimenting with both approaches. What I like about not having a template is the painterly aspect of mixing a new color when you make a new track -- maybe throw a couple plugins on it, a different reverb as an insert that you might not normally use, pan it a certain way... There's an element of sonic experimentation that for me can lead to the notes. There's something static and dead about having thousands of predetermined tracks that I find uninspiring, but I do think it can be really useful especially for "the orchestra" which is a fairly set thing.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

Jeremy Gillam said:


> I'm experimenting with both approaches. What I like about not having a template is the painterly aspect of mixing a new color when you make a new track -- maybe throw a couple plugins on it, a different reverb as an insert that you might not normally use, pan it a certain way... There's an element of sonic experimentation that for me can lead to the notes. There's something static and dead about having thousands of predetermined tracks that I find uninspiring, but I do think it can be really useful especially for "the orchestra" which is a fairly set thing.



Thank you for your comment Jeremy, I kinda feel the same way. Although I keep an empty template for fx sends such as reverbs.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (May 29, 2018)

Christian Henson has a good video about his template for templates, and why like you, he mostly stopped using them. What I like about having a template for the orchestra is the feeling of being like a conductor on the podium, with all your players ready for you, and all you have to do is give them some non-terrible notes to play...


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

I felt the same way about this. Kind of a way to remind me to use every member of the orchestra (they're there, paid, use them, haha) But in the end, the orchestra sections aren't that huge a thing to remember so I'm thinking I don't need it...


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (May 29, 2018)

I always forget about the violas even with a template.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

Jeremy Gillam said:


> I always forget about the violas even with a template.



Hahaha, Not my case! For some reason I love the forgotten instruments of the orchestra :D I love the viola tone.

I make sure that I always use 5 tracks for my strings, v1/v2/va/vc/db so that helps in not forgetting


----------



## NoamL (May 29, 2018)

The most negative aspect is that it ties you down to one set of sounds. But I think that is outweighed by the ability to balance and conform different libraries to each other ahead of time.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

NoamL said:


> The most negative aspect is that it ties you down to one set of sounds. But I think that is outweighed by the ability to balance and conform different libraries to each other ahead of time.



Glad you replied to this @NoamL I read many of your replies and appreciate them. Regarding balancing, I can use track instrument presets that I made which are already balanced I guess? If using different libraries that require additional balancing, I guess it's not too much of an issue if you like dealing with such things


----------



## robgb (May 29, 2018)

I use track templates rather than project templates. The track templates are triggered by TouchOSC. If I'm in the mood for violins, I touch VIOLINS and go from there.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

robgb said:


> I use track templates rather than project templates. The track templates are triggered by TouchOSC. If I'm in the mood for violins, I touch VIOLINS and go from there.



I work kinda the same way, if I want chamber v1s I hit my L&S Chamber Orchestra or VSL Chamber violins presets in Cubase. I also use TouchOSC but mostly for controlling dynamics and keyswitches. Doesn't really value the idea of hosting 300-400 tracks in my project though


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

@robgb Yeah, I know you use Reaper and it has kickass action scripting. I was amongst the firsts to use Reaper when it didn't even have midi, check my join date in the forums :D

While I love Reaper and its ability to load presets through OSC, its piano roll is where I don't feel at home. But this is for another thread dedicated to choice of DAWs which this is not.


----------



## tmhuud (May 29, 2018)

I have Track Multis ready to go in an instant. I cant live without them. So If I want all of SCS or half of it or just the FX portion I call it in. I haven't used whole templates in years as it stunted my creativity. 

The most fun part of each project is sitting down for a day or two and putting together custom sounds and bringing those into their own separate track templates for a project to bring character to that project. We have a lot of solo instruments on a current project and each one sounds nothing like they did in our previous films. The channel strip is stacked with effects to give each instrument its own unique sound. This wouldn't work with global templates. It would take too much futzing to force the template into doing what we want.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

tmhuud said:


> I have Track Multis ready to go in an instant. I cant live without them. So If I want all of SCS or half of it or just the FX portion I call it in. I haven't used whole templates in years as it stunted my creativity.
> 
> The most fun part of each project is sitting down for a day or two and putting together custom sounds and bringing those into their own separate track templates for a project to bring character to that project. We have a lot of solo instruments on a current project and each one sounds nothing like they did in our previous films. The channel strip is stacked with effects to give each instrument its own unique sound. This wouldn't work with global templates. It would take too much futzing to force the template into doing what we want.



I feel the same exact way, it went against my creativity. I constantly modify parameters in each of my instruments depending on the song so to me it was counterproductive.

Thanks for your reply!


----------



## Garry (May 29, 2018)

Can TouchOSC be used to select patches in Logic? I love the idea of 'hitting violins', and there they are, but I haven't seen a way to do this in Logic (only Cubase and Reaper).


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

Garry said:


> Can TouchOSC be used to select patches in Logic? I love the idea of 'hitting violins', and there they are, but I haven't seen a way to do this in Logic (only Cubase and Reaper).


 Kinda OT, but "hitting violins" would mean what? Violins have sooo many articulations, I'm not sure that would help anything in a template/workflow situation...


----------



## Garry (May 29, 2018)

EgM said:


> Kinda OT, but "hitting violins" would mean what? Violins have sooo many articulations, I'm not sure that would help anything in a template/workflow situation...



Sorry, I was paraphrasing robgp's earlier comment: so, in more detail: I too avoid using templates, and in Logic have found QuickLoad to be a great way to organise all my instruments in a very flexible way, such that I can access them quickly, and organise them according to different groupings. However, I've seen jononotbono's use of MetaGrid in Cubase, and it's incredibly flexible, but relies on scripting features within Cubase, that don't exist in Logic. So, given Robgp's comment, I'm wondering if by 'hit violins', I can have a button that will load up specific libraries and/or articulations, that I can then select from within TouchOSC, rather than having to go into QuickLoad. Is that possible? Manaberry has a kontakt script for selecting articulations, but if I understand correctly, it doesn't load the specific instrument from TouchOSC.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

I'm kinda sceptical of a button that would be "hitting violins" to be honest. When I load a violin patch, I want it to be either legato/port/shorts/trem/mes-trem/pizz/sfz/dyn/trills/etc.

If hitting that one key loads all the articulations of v1, it's not really more different than having a full template which is what I cannot work with...

If I don't need trills, mes-trem, port or such, I would prefer not having them in my track list.


----------



## whinecellar (May 29, 2018)

Man, I totally get the downsides mentioned, and I couldn’t agree more about the VEP gripes - especially the hanging when looking for slave IPs that aren’t present at the moment. I would love to be able to open a cue on my laptop while traveling away from my big studio rig, but it takes ages while looking for VEP servers that aren’t there.

Anyway, I still couldn’t live without my big scoring template because it only consists of my orchestra, which doesn’t change… it only gets added to with new libraries.

That said, I do have a bunch of my go-to orchestral patches on a travel SSD when I want to write with my laptop; in that case it’s a simple matter of loading Logic channel strips as I go...


----------



## muziksculp (May 29, 2018)

Hi,

This is an interesting, and important topic.

I have yet to decide which way to go. 

I'm thinking about setting up a standard orchestral template on my two slave PCs, that I view as a launching pad for getting a project up and running, fast ! I would then use my master PC, to house many disabled instrument tracks (I use Studio One Pro 4) on an as needed basis, and if I need something that's not disabled, I just load it.

I think having a standard orchestral template on slave PCs is not a bad thing, it is just there to get things started, and does not utilize any of your Master PCs CPU, and Memory resources. But, then again, I might end up not liking this approach, given the workflow is bit less direct, but I can't tell yet, anyways.. It is very helpful to read the posts, and different views, and approaches on this topic.

Thanks,
Muziksculp


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

Thank you @muziksculp and @whinecellar, interesting workflow ideas!


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I think having a standard orchestral template on slave PCs is not a bad thing, it is just there to get things started, and does not utilize any of your Master PCs CPU, and Memory resources. But, then again, I might end up not liking this approach, given the workflow is bit less direct



This is exactly my problem. That and the hundreds of tracks I'm not using and scrolling through. Like mentioned a few threads above, I feel that I have to modify parameters of every instrument I want to use depending on the mood/feeling of the song so the template setting will rarely work for me on every song.


----------



## muziksculp (May 29, 2018)

EgM said:


> This is exactly my problem. That and the hundreds of tracks I'm not using and scrolling through. Like mentioned a few threads above, I feel that I have to modify parameters of every instrument I want to use depending on the mood/feeling of the song so the template setting will rarely work for me on every song.



I see where this can get annoying. But, what is the major issue with editing a sound on your template that needs to be modified, then saving it as a new preset, with a different flavor, for later use ? 

Surely, it is a few more steps to go through, so a bit of a negative hit on workflow. 

I also think that deciding on what goes into what I like to refer to as a Standard Orchestral Template (SOT) is the key to a successful template design, and is very important, so you might need to have a few options of the same articulation to choose from in your SOT, depending on the project at hand. 

I'm no expert on this topic, but I'm in the process of finding my comfort zone when it comes to having my sounds ready when I need them. I have a few strategies I'm thinking about for my SOT to simplify things, yet offer a good amount of variations when needed.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I see where this can get annoying. But, what is the major issue with editing a sound on your template that needs to be modified, then saving it as a new preset, with a different flavor, for later use ?
> 
> Surely, it is a few more steps to go through, so a bit of a negative hit on workflow.
> 
> ...



You make a good point.

I am just like you trying to find comfort in composing fast and effectively but so far, adding tracks as I want instruments feels more natural to me.

I go to bed everyday thinking of a better workflow with many ideas, but most only end up being more work than composing...


----------



## whinecellar (May 29, 2018)

EgM said:


> This is exactly my problem. That and the hundreds of tracks I'm not using and scrolling through. Like mentioned a few threads above, I feel that I have to modify parameters of every instrument I want to use depending on the mood/feeling of the song so the template setting will rarely work for me on every song.



1. Re: navigating a large template, now that Logic finally has 32 hide groups available, that solves that problem for me… I have all my instrument groups set up with a simple color-coded button on my iPad. When I want to see violins, I hit “violins” and there they are. That way I see nothing I don’t want to see, and I no longer have the inconvenience of jumping into and out of folders all day long. That has been massive boost for me! If you don’t use Logic, I know Cubase has a similar functionality...

2. If your template is primarily orchestral, what do you feel needs to change per cue? I’ve done all my pre-mixing in VEP, so I never really have to touch a thing as far as orchestra stuff. If I do want to process something further, I simply do a bounce in place and commit to audio...

Hope that helps!


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> 1. Re: navigating a large template, now that Logic finally has 32 hide groups available, that solves that problem for me… I have all my instrument groups set up with a simple color-coded button on my iPad. When I want to see violins, I hit “violins” and there they are. That way I see nothing I don’t want to see, and I no longer have the inconvenience of jumping into and out of folders all day long. That has been massive boost for me! If you don’t use Logic, I know Cubase has a similar functionality...
> 
> 2. If your template is primarily orchestral, what do you feel needs to change per cue? I’ve done all my pre-mixing in VEP, so I never really have to touch a thing as far as orchestra stuff. If I do want to process something further, I simply do a bounce in place and commit to audio...
> 
> Hope that helps!



Thanks for this @whinecellar 

You're making a good point. Re: 2, I change so many things on instruments in every song that it felt tedious and pointless in a template. Things like ADSR, different keyswitches that weren't part of the template and so on.


----------



## KerrySmith (May 29, 2018)

I just set up a new orchestral one again. My logic is that when I do have a job that requires certain sections, I don't like having to navigate to, load, assign and route a bunch of things that I know I'm going to probably need (like Orchestral Percussion - chances are I'll start with the timpani, snares, gran casa, cymbals, gongs, etc...). If I decide to use something _special_, then I don't have a problem with spending the time finding and loading that up. But for basics, it really chafes my bum to have to re-load the same groups, instrument by instrument, that I used multiple other times. I use Pro Tools, so I'd previously had a big "Template" that I rarely ever opened fully, but loaded sets of tracks from. Now I use their Track Presets function (finally). So if I know I'll want, for instance, a section of Chamber Strings, I'll probably load my group of SCS tracks, and their associated auxes and routing, same with "bigger" or solo/quartet strings, Brass sections, Choirs, etc. Those Instruments are standing by live on my VEP server, so I don't have to wait for them to load the samples as well. (Decoupled Instances are a lifesaver in this respect)


----------



## driscollmusick (May 29, 2018)

KerrySmith said:


> I just set up a new orchestral one again. My logic is that when I do have a job that requires certain sections, I don't like having to navigate to, load, assign and route a bunch of things that I know I'm going to probably need (like Orchestral Percussion - chances are I'll start with the timpani, snares, gran casa, cymbals, gongs, etc...). If I decide to use something _special_, then I don't have a problem with spending the time finding and loading that up. But for basics, it really chafes my bum to have to re-load the same groups, instrument by instrument, that I used multiple other times. I use Pro Tools, so I'd previously had a big "Template" that I rarely ever opened fully, but loaded sets of tracks from. Now I use their Track Presets function (finally). So if I know I'll want, for instance, a section of Chamber Strings, I'll probably load my group of SCS tracks, and their associated auxes and routing, same with "bigger" or solo/quartet strings, Brass sections, Choirs, etc. Those Instruments are standing by live on my VEP server, so I don't have to wait for them to load the samples as well. (Decoupled Instances are a lifesaver in this respect)



I second this. I also use almost all orchestral articulations on a regular basis (I might easily use 5 or 6 on a single Violin 1 line to try to get the most realistic effect), so I need to have them at the ready. For Spitfire at least, I had to sort through and load multiple different instances to ensure I could get all the articulations on a single MIDI track (and thus control with UACC). It would drive me absolutely nuts to recreate that every time.


----------



## EgM (May 29, 2018)

driscollmusick said:


> I second this. I also use almost all orchestral articulations on a regular basis (I might easily use 5 or 6 on a single Violin 1 line to try to get the most realistic effect), so I need to have them at the ready. For Spitfire at least, I had to sort through and load multiple different instances to ensure I could get all the articulations on a single MIDI track (and thus control with UACC). It would drive me absolutely nuts to recreate that every time.



Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for multiple articulations for violins and other strings. I feel it's easier to load a track preset of -all- those articulations as needed as I move on in the writing. Compared to say, a 500 track template with instruments I don't plan on using.


----------



## gsilbers (May 29, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> 1. Re: navigating a large template, now that Logic finally has 32 hide groups available, that solves that problem for me… I have all my instrument groups set up with a simple color-coded button on my iPad. When I want to see violins, I hit “violins” and there they are. That way I see nothing I don’t want to see, and I no longer have the inconvenience of jumping into and out of folders all day long. That has been massive boost for me! If you don’t use Logic, I know Cubase has a similar functionality...
> 
> 2. If your template is primarily orchestral, what do you feel needs to change per cue? I’ve done all my pre-mixing in VEP, so I never really have to touch a thing as far as orchestra stuff. If I do want to process something further, I simply do a bounce in place and commit to audio...
> 
> Hope that helps!



you should make a new video of your template using these new lpx features!


----------



## gsilbers (May 29, 2018)

in general for me its been a hassle going back got old projects where the vep session in the pc is apart from the Mac daw lpx stuff. so I try to label it and name it but still, when working on a project with deadlines it just becomes a huge mess. 

also, getting a huge template with a huge blank screen sure stirs up that blank canvas writers block type of feeling


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 29, 2018)

I gave up the whole template thing. I think they're a relic anyway, just like slave machines. They come from a time where you otherwise lacked the processing power to do orchestral mockups. You had to set all that stuff up, pre-configure and route everything and that's where something like VE Pro and a templates come into the picture.

Nowadays you can put togehter a single machine that runs anything you want. With less dependency on slave setups, IMO the need for elaborate pre-configured templates is also gone.

I started to feel that setting up, maintaining and even just navigating these templates was becoming increasingly nerdy and ridiculous, and made things only slower, more cumbersome and unflexible, and anything that keeps me from actually working and being creative is gonna be a problem.

I still need to have certain things set up and ready to go - like my own custom configurations of articulations, expression maps etc. Right now I'm just simply using saved track presets for such instruments. I find it quite liberating actually.


----------



## whinecellar (May 29, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> you should make a new video of your template using these new lpx features!



It’s been on my to-do list for a while... as soon as I’m done with my current project. Should be sometime in June


----------



## gsilbers (May 30, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> It’s been on my to-do list for a while... as soon as I’m done with my current project. Should be sometime in June


Cool!
U do some very thourough research on this type of topics so I’ll be interesting to watch.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 30, 2018)

I've actually been "weaning" off using a slave. I still fire up those epic templates when I think I'll need a lot of that stuff, but surprisingly I've been doing just fine with my MB Pro (and by now, I more or less know what I'll need for any given project). Placing everything on a Samsung T5, connected to USB3, has been a Godsend. Now I just load up what I need, and Komplete Kontrol has been another huge advantage...especially the preview mode. EW Play has also jumped onboard with the NKS format, which is wonderful.

It always boggles my mind why some composers feel the need to have these ginormous templates.


----------



## halfwalk (May 30, 2018)

Template Tweaking: How to spend all week in the studio without writing a single bar of music (and backing yourself into a corner in the process!)


----------



## David Chappell (May 30, 2018)

I'd absolutely hate to work without my template.

Largely because I can't stand losing time to actions that I'd have to repeat over and over multiple times every project. For instance, every single new instrument I'd want would be: create new instrument track, choose instrument, set routings, rename track, find/ load patch, and then there's all manner of quirks for each library that I probably wouldn't even remember. Doing that 100+ times every track... no thanks!

And with some handy cubase functions (disable tracks, and show/hide tracks with MIDI) I don't suffer some of the more common drawbacks to templates, namely, "I'd be using the same sounds over and over", and "I can't navigate a template of hundreds or thousands of tracks".

For me, I have a template with pretty much every articulation I'm ever likely to use. I think it's about 1000 at the moment. All with correct naming, routing, fixes for quirks etc, and all disabled. Load time is less than 10 seconds. Then, I have key commands to show all tracks, enable the tracks, and then hide all tracks except ones with MIDI. So I have every sound I might need just a key command away from being fully ready, but I can then work with only the ones I'm using.

The only drawback I've noticed is project files/ backups are pretty big (~180MB for me). But I'm not that short for hard drive space, and I can delete backups when I'm finished, so all's good.


----------



## whinecellar (May 30, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> It always boggles my mind why some composers feel the need to have these ginormous templates.



To each their own of course, but it’s really very simple: some of us write every day for full orchestra, so it’s a practical matter to have everything loaded and premixed rather than having to stop and load patches every time you want to put a new part down. 

But yeah, there is something to be said for the endless template tweaking… that’s no bueno either!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 30, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> To each their own of course, but it’s really very simple: some of us write every day for full orchestra, so it’s a practical matter to have everything loaded and premixed rather than having to stop and load patches every time you want to put a new part down.
> 
> But yeah, there is something to be said for the endless template tweaking… that’s no bueno either!



And I'm sure you've totally refined yours to a "T"! I've actually used your approach for my own slave setup, and it is brilliant, thanks for that. And if were writing daily for orchestra, I totally see your point.


----------



## dcoscina (May 30, 2018)

I don't use them often either. I'd rather start from scratch each cue or score. Aside from a few choice sounds for a particular score for cohesion and consistency, I would rather avoid using templates. 

For straight orchestral writing, I use Sibelius anyhow along with Note Performer. Great combo.


----------



## Garry (May 30, 2018)

In a similar thread in which I raised the same concern some time ago, @MatFluor convinced me of the benefits to be had. But I still feel that using Logic, and therefore not being able to disable tracks as in Cubase, large templates become unmanageable on a single system and so a huge hassle to setup and maintain. I would then have to manage across multiple computers, and additional software like VEP just to manage this - all to save me a little bit of time. I can see that if that was saving me a little bit of time every day as a professional composer, then it would mount up and could become worth it, but for a hobbyist, I can’t justify the effort and distraction onto technical issues, rather than making music. Personally, I’ve found I’m happiest with QuickLoad in Logic, and occasionally use project stacks (can’t remember the correct name for them) if I want to load up a whole section. I’m sure that’s not for everyone, but it suits my needs and workflow.


----------



## NDRU (May 30, 2018)

Let me be bold here. 

Templates are like your other special half. It can be your nagging wife, your kind girlfriend, .. .. the list goes on. It's a constant love and hate relationship for me.

One can get away from using a template for a short film, but for a feature-length film; not using a template may be a roadblock for consistency and speed; and of course, if you are a composer, and you are working with a professional orchestrator, not having a template = giving them a hard time, if things aren't organized. So if a 'no template' route should be taken, one has to be more responsible and well-organized. Tracks have to be named correctly, colored, bounced correctly.. the list goes one. You don't want to see some MIDI tracks which are bounced with the name 'Kontakt' on it. (These are a just hardcore approach, you can ignore me if you don't like this)

Here is a bad analogy unrelated to music... This is like an analogy of two professional artists hired to paint a figure in front of them. Both are trying to translate the figure onto the canvas with no regards to rule (because the client doesn't care about the rules). 

Artist A goes to the canvas and starts spreading color onto the canvas from the tubes, then starts brushing, then splatter** The artists didn't want to go through the whole process.

Whereas, Artists B started sketching with charcoal, then moving on to mixing his palette, then layering; trying to get the form correct, the color.. .. .. 

Upon finishing the painting, artists A and B produce very different results, and the client loves both!

SO where do we start?? It is like a painting of Monet vs Picasso, each artists translating their own ideal and vision.

What I found useful; I am using Cubase... I utilize the Zone function. It works magic!! The Lower Zone is fixed orchestral templates, whereas for each musical cues, any new tracks I add, like new loops/pads/ethnic instruments uniquely to the cue; I will add it to the Upper Zone, therefore, the new tracks wouldn't affect the Visibility when I switch from Woodwinds>Strings>Brass. Therefore, in the Upper Zone, I have my Tempo, Markers, Time Signature, SFX Dialogue, and the new tracks. Pretty organized! and I am loving the way it is. I do wish Steinberg will come up with a more ingenious idea such as multiple windows for track visibility, one for strings, brass, woodwinds, and fully customizable.


----------



## Tatu (May 30, 2018)

My current template has strings (mural, css, some solo strings and albion patches) and a couple of pianos ready. There's folders/groups/sends for the rest with one kontakt instance under each with appropriate routings. As I need more instruments under each group, all I have to do is duplicate a track and quick load what I need in kontakt.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (May 30, 2018)

I have a huge orchestral template in Logic were everything is balanced. The amount of work I'ld have to do , starting from scratch everytime looks like a nightmare to me when I want to concentrate on composing and arranging. But......very often I start with a very small setup, kind of bus and sfx template, and I just import the instruments or instrument groups I need. Works very well and I avoid having a mess of 300+ tracks.


----------



## WindcryMusic (May 30, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> It’s been on my to-do list for a while... as soon as I’m done with my current project. Should be sometime in June



I second this request. In particular I am interested in if/how you created a template for Logic where a button press can both show the violins and hide all of the other tracks. I've been trying to do the same thing, but haven't had success yet: my first thought was to use "Unhide all tracks" and then hide each track group except the one that was selected by the button, but since Lemur sends all of those messages at once, it didn't work.


----------



## aaronventure (May 30, 2018)

Cool to hear everyone's thoughts here.

The giant template was my first approach when I started doing this kind of music. It sounded good in theory, but it was a pain to work with - scrolling through 700 tracks, then coming back the next day and there'd be one thing bothering me and it'd take forever to find it.

Somewhere along the road I decided that I want to write for a standard orchestra first and foremost, and then add other stuff like textures and supersized sections only if I feel that I need them; now my template consists of libraries that I definitely use every project. These are: Berlin Woodwinds, SM Brass + Adventure Horns, CSS. This gets me through 95% of the work. I can see all these libraries on one screen; I only scroll for percussion, so the workflow is pretty straighforward.

I then load up Kontakt whenever I need something else. I'm pretty familiar with all the libraries so I usually know what I'm looking for.

Generally, I spend almost no time scrolling and most of the time writing. Scrolling is the worst.


----------



## muziksculp (May 30, 2018)

Hi,

For high-Instrument count projects, having no slaves to reduce the load on a master Mac/PC can cause issues, and lots of strain, and even crashes. Given the number of voices the system needs to play at one time, and the amount of disc streaming, and RAM utilization. 

So, for these types of large, and demanding projects having a Slave machine/s imho. is a must have. Unless freezing/rendering tracks is OK for your workflow, but that would be quite restricting, and would be a negative hit to workflow. 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## MatFluor (May 30, 2018)

I was mentioned, so I chime in 

I tried both approaches, and use both. So:

I have a big orchestral template with two slaves (yes, they are not so powerful slaves, that's why I have two) with all my stuff that I want loaded in. Also, My template has stems, effects and all that stuff prerouted and ready to go. So if I do some work, I don't have to think about anything, just arm the track and off I go. Need Instruments stems? done. Need Grouped stems? A Stereo Mix? all ready, set and done.

Then for Librarywork I have a smaller template, some synths, ensembles etc. Also the same approach, all routed and ready to go - so if I need to get my stuff mixed by somebody else, every piece I send over has the same kind of stems, consistent naming etc. Also, to send around to somebody, I can just take "201_Hi-Strings.wav" and go for it. The numbering system is for consistency and import - so order by name always yields the same track order.

Then, at least when I worked with Sonar, I had these kind of Track Templates, where I put e.g. my Celli in, effects and stuff and saved that. When I needed them, load in the track template. Currently, Ye,s I'm relatively fast in setting up my stems and routing - I'm also a tech guy, so I'm not afraid of that. But I find myself often questioning "Is this the most optimal layout for me? Should I divide the synth into four stems instead of three? Should I prepare an effectless master?". A Template keeps me at bay to "roll the way I spend time in optimizing".
Chris Henson's approach of "A template for Templates" is a nice middleway, in which I set up stems and routing and then just add Instruments as I go and route them to the right places. What lacks there is the other preparation (except you work with track templates) like effects, panning, balancing and whatnot.

I host most of the stuff in VEP, also non-orchestral. I only host locally where I need to get my hands on, like Synths or an "all purpose drumkit" where I make changes everytime.

Summed up:
- Big Orchestral template with VEP for detailed orchestral work
- Tuned Library templates for various styles, incorporating VEP as well for some things
- "Prerouted but Empty" template to have some fun with it
- Barebones when I go mobile or have time to kill or for pure experimentation

Every approach has it's benefits - if I'm on a laptop on the train, I obviously don't go with a full-blown Orchestral mockup, but with a library template, and exchange the VEP loaded with local ones.
For me personally, I like no loading times, having all set up and then just "go in and do stuff". For me, a template is like a sheet of notation paper and a pen. just grab it and go - all is ready. The empty thing with track templates feels to me more like a sheet of normal paper - I have to draw the staves in myself, put the clefs in, name the systems etc. Sure, it can be fun, or sometimes the notation paper "directs you" where you have to go, which can be a curse on it's own. But when I have an idea, I want to put it in, and not worry about "should I load this or that".

All that said, I completely agree with the "restriction" aspect, meaning a template gives you the same tools everytime, and you most likely then reach for the same tools over and over. But for Orchestral, I think it's not a bad thing. Now, when I do some experimental modular stuff or library work, then it's less optimal to "have the same drumkit over and over". But that template is set up with these "moving parts". My strings will always be the same essentially (don't burn me for that). When I want to experiment, I go barebones or routed only, but when I want to get work done, I want to get work done.
Depends in project I go either "full Orchestral traditional" with my monster template, or I take my prerouted one and set it up with the sonic choices I want to make for this particular project.

So, different templates for different use cases


----------



## driscollmusick (May 30, 2018)

EgM said:


> Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for multiple articulations for violins and other strings. I feel it's easier to load a track preset of -all- those articulations as needed as I move on in the writing. Compared to say, a 500 track template with instruments I don't plan on using.


I think if your template contains instruments you don't plan on using, you're not doing it right!


----------



## WindcryMusic (May 30, 2018)

I'm currently redesigning my template to heavily leverage Logic 10.4's articulation sets feature (along with ARTzID, Osculator and Lemur). My old template had about 200 tracks and a limited subset of the most common articulations from my main libraries, whereas my new template is currently at only about 50 tracks but has more instrument sections and at least three times as many articulations available. The downside is that it is taking up more RAM, in spite of my Herculean efforts at purging samples, limiting voice counts, and so forth. Too much RAM for my old iMac (maxed out at 32GB) to run it anymore.

Fortunately, the 128GB iMac Pro I got spun up in my studio over the past week should alleviate that memory issue. 

My approach to this new template of mine is that it is easier to destroy than to create. E.g., it takes far less time to delete that Bass Flute track once I know that the cue isn't going to employ that instrument, than it does to get the Bass Flute multi loaded up in Kontakt and everything on the track set properly for it in the cases where I do want it. (I've tried using Logic presets for loading tracks with this kind of stuff set up in the past, and found that process to be too fiddly and inconsistent in practice.) So this time I'm going to leverage all of that newfound space to make my base template fairly complete at the start, and then be willing to whittle it down as needed over time if I want to ease my navigation thereof for individual cues or projects. (I'm not sure how much I'll actually need to do such deletions, since I'm also working toward implementing a scheme using Hide Groups in this template.)


----------



## whinecellar (May 30, 2018)

WindcryMusic said:


> I second this request. In particular I am interested in if/how you created a template for Logic where a button press can both show the violins and hide all of the other tracks.



Sadly, not possible - yet anyway. I don't think they put that much thought into "hide" functionality since it likely wasn't designed for this. Still, while that would be nice, I have zero problem with this as-is. My default screen is essentially empty other than a piano; but I have 22 hide groups all ready to go, and I can instantly see any combination of instrument groups I want. And the fact that everything is on the same level in the arrange window is SO much better than dealing with folders or track stacks!


----------



## whinecellar (May 30, 2018)

aaronventure said:


> ...I spend almost no time scrolling and most of the time writing. Scrolling is the worst.



I couldn't agree more. But as one of the mega-template guys, I can say that at least on Logic and a 4k display, I hardly ever need to scroll. I know Cubase has similar track hiding features that alleviate this.

It really is a pointless debate though - different strokes for different folks. I'm firmly in the camp where we want our entire orchestra loaded, mixed and bussed at all times since that's the foundation of what we do every day.

However, I also readily admit that at a certain point, dealing with multiple slaves and managing a VEP network can be a royal pain. I have 5 machines in my studio and as soon as I'm done with my current project, I'm retooling everything down to just a single Mac Pro with 128 GB RAM and 1 PC slave. Most days I hope to not have to deal with the slave at all - a "big Mac" will run just about everything I could possibly need for most jobs. I can't wait!

Cheers guys!


----------



## WindcryMusic (May 30, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Sadly, not possible - yet anyway. I don't think they put that much thought into "hide" functionality since it likely wasn't designed for this. Still, while that would be nice, I have zero problem with this as-is. My default screen is essentially empty other than a piano; but I have 22 hide groups all ready to go, and I can instantly see any combination of instrument groups I want. And the fact that everything is on the same level in the arrange window is SO much better than dealing with folders or track stacks!



I see. Darn ... I was hoping you'd come up with some magic that had eluded me.

So far I'm actually using both track stacks and hide groups, since the track stacks can double as stems. As it happens, the hide groups I am setting up pretty much parallel the track stacks, so I'm including both the track stack itself plus all of the child tracks in each group, so the whole thing vanishes when I want.

If only Logic had included a "Hide All Tracks" counterpart instruction to the "Unhide All Tracks" command that they already have, then I think it would at least be possible to do this. My thought would be to hide all tracks on the current "tick" in Lemur, and then set a global variable somewhere in the template with the code of the group that the user wishes to see, and then have a separate function look at that on the next "tick" to send the follow-up message with the toggle for the desired group. The problem is that, with only "Unhide All" available, I'd need to iterate over a list of all groups other than the desired group over some significant number of ticks thereafter, toggling one at a time, in order to do this, and I have my doubts about such a lengthy process working out as desired.


----------



## fish_hoof (May 30, 2018)

Guess mine is kind of a hybrid? I used to have a big template... which i realized i wasnt using 3/4 of the stuff i loaded. Then went to a blank session and felt like i was loading the same stuff over and over. So i have core string, brass, winds, etc. that, over time, i know i use over and over. Then I have blank kontakt and omnisphere vi’s ready to go when i want to add more, along with intrument tracks for other stuff waiting to be added. 

Guess for me, less was more. Stick with the core foundation and know your libraries, so when inspiration hits and you need that one sound, you know where to find it and can plop it in your blank VI that is ready and waiting. 

Maybe its not right but works perfectly for me.


----------



## whinecellar (May 30, 2018)

fish_hoof said:


> Maybe its not right but works perfectly for me.



That’s my whole point - if it works for you you then it couldn’t be more right!


----------



## EgM (May 30, 2018)

driscollmusick said:


> I think if your template contains instruments you don't plan on using, you're not doing it right!



Should've said "instruments I don't plan on using in that specific song" obviously


----------



## Mike Fox (May 30, 2018)

I hate templates. Every project is different.


----------



## AllanH (May 30, 2018)

I like using templates for the same reason I like textbooks to have a good index. It simply makes it easier to find things as I've taken the time to organize my most commonly used instruments. I certainly don't include every single articulation in my template, only the key ones I use the most. Also part of the template is all the Groups tracks, common effects, and routing. For me, it simply makes it easier to start something new, and I like the creative process to flow easily when I'm writing.


----------



## MA-Simon (May 30, 2018)

Is it possible to hide all unused tracks from view? That is the only thing preventing me from templates. I am on cubase 8.5.
Like hiding layers in photoshop. They would still be arround, but only the active tracks would be at the top. Like a sort button for tracks with midi information in them.

Would be an awesome feature?


----------



## lucor (May 30, 2018)

MA-Simon said:


> Is it possible to hide all unused tracks from view? That is the only thing preventing me from templates. I am on cubase 8.5.
> Like hiding layers in photoshop. They would still be arround, but only the active tracks would be at the top. Like a sort button for tracks with midi information in them.
> 
> Would be an awesome feature?


Yes, it's pretty easy to make a PLE command for that in Cubase. I think it's already there by default and called "Show Channels/Tracks with Data".
Personally I have set up 4 visibility shortcuts that make navigating a large template a breeze:
- Show all tracks
- Show only selected tracks
- Show all tracks with data
- Show all tracks that are enabled
Works like a charm for me.


----------



## MA-Simon (May 30, 2018)

lucor said:


> Yes, it's pretty easy to make a PLE command for that in Cubase. I think it's already there by default and called "Show Channels/Tracks with Data".
> Personally I have set up 4 visibility shortcuts that make navigating a large template a breeze:
> - Show all tracks
> - Show only selected tracks
> ...


Whaaaaaaaaat. Nice.
I will have to google that. Thank you!


----------



## hsindermann (May 30, 2018)

lucor said:


> Yes, it's pretty easy to make a PLE command for that in Cubase. I think it's already there by default and called "Show Channels/Tracks with Data".
> Personally I have set up 4 visibility shortcuts that make navigating a large template a breeze:
> - Show all tracks
> - Show only selected tracks
> ...



I've basically set it up the same way in Reaper, just using an old spare tablet to trigger the actions, so I don't have to remember the shortcuts  Works really nicely.


----------



## MatFluor (May 30, 2018)

Not to toot a horn here, but DP has a nice integrated search function, which directly filters the tracks, so if you have a 1000 track template, just type in "vio" and you get only the violin/viola tracks on your screen etc. As long as you have a good naming scheme


----------



## GtrString (May 31, 2018)

I get information overload with templates that are very big. I've set up some nice 50 track templates in the genres i mostly do, and just add to those when inclined to do so. A smaller template still gets me started fast, and keeps me creative. But I'm not a typical film composer only. I do select styles of production music and write songs.


----------



## Erick - BVA (May 31, 2018)

EgM said:


> I think due to reading a lot from fellow composers and here on vi-control a few years back I got drawn into the whole idea of having templates either on Vienna Ensemble Pro or disabled tracks on Cubase Pro 9.5 which is my main DAW.
> 
> I have tried both, a mega template on VEP using so many tracks it became unbearable to maintain, I mean if I wanted to change Cubase Expression maps or such. As of now, I haven't used VEP in like a year since Cubase disabled tracks make it so much easier to keep everything inside the project for future reference.
> 
> ...


I don't care for templates either. Well, if they're small templates of simple musical genres, that's one thing (like a string quartet).
Or a starter template for hybrid tracks (with just a few instruments). I am never going to create a huge template because I want to leave room for spontaneity and a flow in a direction that maybe wasn't planned. Just as easy to load up anything I want. One thing I wanted to try is to make a list of all of my instruments and effects and have them written down on a physical piece of paper which I can consult. Sometimes in a computer, because there are so many tools and they cannot be viewed all at once, you forget you have them or don't think about them (out of sight, out of mind). Maybe it could even help with getting ideas of how to combine things in creative ways. So I thought physically writing down or even printing a list (categozied) and having it put up on the wall or something, may be even better than having a template. I don't know, haven't tried it yet. There is so much stuff though, so it may be impossible to put it all on one paper (or just have to pick and choose my favorite instruments and effects). May have to get my whole family to help me make a poster


----------



## Nils Neumann (May 31, 2018)

I use all those commands with Metagrid too, but this one is new:


lucor said:


> - Show all tracks that are enabled



How do you program this in the Project Logical Editor?


----------



## lucor (May 31, 2018)

Nils Neumann said:


> I use all those commands with Metagrid too, but this one is new:
> 
> 
> How do you program this in the Project Logical Editor?







The enabled/disabled parameter has been added pretty late in Version 9 or 9.5, I'm not sure if it's possible in earlier versions.


----------



## Nils Neumann (May 31, 2018)

> The enabled/disabled parameter has been added pretty late in Version 9 or 9.5, I'm not sure if it's possible in earlier versions.


ah I see, I'm still on 9, seems to be introduced in 9.5
Thank you!


----------



## David Chappell (May 31, 2018)

Nils Neumann said:


> ah I see, I'm still on 9, seems to be introduced in 9.5
> Thank you!


There's a preset for it - shouldn't be needing to use the logical editor. Don't think it's set to any key command by default, have a dig around in the keyboard shortcuts (i think it's under 'visibility') and you should find it. It was introduced in v8 i think - I'm on 8.5 and have it.


----------



## Nils Neumann (May 31, 2018)

David Chappell said:


> There's a preset for it - shouldn't be needing to use the logical editor. Don't think it's set to any key command by default, have a dig around in the keyboard shortcuts (i think it's under 'visibility') and you should find it. It was introduced in v8 i think - I'm on 8.5 and have it.


nice, will check that out


----------



## Jacob Cadmus (May 31, 2018)

Still running on a 2012 PC with only 16 GB of RAM and all mechanical drives. That's about as stripped-down as one can get. Oh, and no VEP. Giant templates? Heh, only in my dreams. Though I do have numerous small templates that are genre-specific.


----------



## I like music (May 31, 2018)

Jeremy Gillam said:


> I always forget about the violas even with a template.



What is this 'viola'? Is it a Berlin expansion?


----------



## Mishabou (May 31, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> To each their own of course, but it’s really very simple: some of us write every day for full orchestra, so it’s a practical matter to have everything loaded and premixed rather than having to stop and load patches every time you want to put a new part down.
> 
> But yeah, there is something to be said for the endless template tweaking… that’s no bueno either!



Don't you find the endless opening /closing folders/subfolders and scrolling through pages and pages of sounds to be a workflow and creative killer.

I watched the JunkyXL video and i would go berserk having to constantly scroll up and down/opening folder-subfolders just to find a sound. 

I used to have a 800 track templates and i find myself accessing my sounds just as fast or faster via track presets.


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 31, 2018)

I think the track presets workflow method is great except that in Cubase, Media Bay has become a complete slouch with endless waiting and re-indexing or something going on in the background...


----------



## dgburns (May 31, 2018)

I feel a book coming on-apologies in advance 

In my travels, and imho-

Templates that work are based on past experiences. It is possible that working in a particular style led you to set up your template in a particular way. There is some wisdom in having the need to replicate a consistent score for a particular project, sometimes spanning many years. Templates help.

Templates are also a pain in the ass because you always feel the need to evolve them. So it’s a work in progress that never concludes. How can it? The template is your current reflection of the tools and current tech capability. Could you work without one, sure. But you’ll spend a few weeks setting up a template everytime you start a new score assignment. Unless you’re Clint Martinez. 

Case in point, Mac Quayle uses some pretty unique names for his tracks, conjuring up an emotion or state of mind with his track names, not using instrument preset names from stock patches. This is a good use of a template. Custom made to a specific project. Names that help you identify with the sounds that might not make any sense otherwise. And it helps you write faster when you know the layout.

Orchestral templates are an animal unto themselves. In the quest for the most comprehensive, realistic sample based ‘layout’ capable of recreating something so elusive. So having a large collection of libraries, all laid out with the tracks named and ready to go is better then loading as you go. Or is it? 

Templates funnel your thinking to what you got in front of you. Creativity would maybe be better served if you had a blank slate to re-think your approach. Something in between might be the balancing act.

For my part, I have a full blown template in Logic that has my best current thinking on an orchestral layout, to a point. It’s based on what worked in the past, and I find myself changing it up all the time, but for some reason, the order and layout always get decided by practical day to day use. In other words, I’m always trying to punch holes in the rational behind the layout, but it’s working with it that ends up guiding me to set it up a certain way.

Logic does not have the ability to save multitrack presets like Cubase, but you can create many midi parts, hook them up to a vepro instrument and keep it turned off and unconnected, but ready to go. That’s very low overhead, but you are using up an instrument object, and you have only 250 odd, so it’s not unlimited.

I make heavy use of screensets to get me to a place in the tracks. I also use ‘control’ tracks or track reductions that are the basis of the more expanded midi parts spread across the many tracks needed to make it sound good. The reduction tracks help me keep an eye on the composition when the midi might make it look messy. I also use those control tracks to pull divisi and keep track of what lines get played by what instrument while orchestrating. 

Templates are good for setting up general plugins on your subs etc that tend to be good starting points for getting to the final mix.

I have gotten the template to the place where I can have quite a few tracks hoofing away, and it very rarely gives me level issues across the entire layout. But it took me a long time to get there.

There’s something to be said for getting comfortable with dealing with compositions that have scale.

That said, I’m doing the next project from the simplest no orchestra template I’ve ever used. But it’s taking alot longer, and at some point, I’ll have to compile all my preliminary efforts into something that resembles a score template when the locks come in.

my two cents


----------



## gyprock (May 31, 2018)

When using track presets in Cubase, what do you do about routing? Does anyone store the groups as track presets or is it better to create a template with just the routing/reverb setup and then use track presets only for the instruments?


----------



## Mishabou (May 31, 2018)

InLight-Tone said:


> I think the track presets workflow method is great except that in Cubase, Media Bay has become a complete slouch with endless waiting and re-indexing or something going on in the background...



I mostly use PT but also very comfortable with Cubase as some of my clients use it.

You're right about the Media Bay in Cubase being sluggish and one of the main reason why i still can't completely ditch my template when using CB.

On the other hand, i completely stopped using templates when writing in PT and LOVE it. The workspace in PT is great and lightning fast. For example, loading the full CSS library with all routings and plug-ins is under 5 seconds, it takes me as much or more time to find it on my CB / template rig.

Another big advantage...as my composition grow, all the tracks are right in front of me instead of endless scrolling. Imagine trying to edit a part on track 20 nested in folders/sub-folders while you're writing on track 750 :(


----------



## samphony (May 31, 2018)

WindcryMusic said:


> I see. Darn ... I was hoping you'd come up with some magic that had eluded me.
> 
> So far I'm actually using both track stacks and hide groups, since the track stacks can double as stems. As it happens, the hide groups I am setting up pretty much parallel the track stacks, so I'm including both the track stack itself plus all of the child tracks in each group, so the whole thing vanishes when I want.
> 
> If only Logic had included a "Hide All Tracks" counterpart instruction to the "Unhide All Tracks" command that they already have, then I think it would at least be possible to do this. My thought would be to hide all tracks on the current "tick" in Lemur, and then set a global variable somewhere in the template with the code of the group that the user wishes to see, and then have a separate function look at that on the next "tick" to send the follow-up message with the toggle for the desired group. The problem is that, with only "Unhide All" available, I'd need to iterate over a list of all groups other than the desired group over some significant number of ticks thereafter, toggling one at a time, in order to do this, and I have my doubts about such a lengthy process working out as desired.



I’ve made a feature request including mockups regarding exactly that plus suggesting a similar feature set like Cubase employs. 

Anyways there is a way to hide all and show only specific groups of tracks. 

I’ve assigned all my tracks to a group called “all” plus all tracks assigned to their individual sections like synths, Brass etc 

If you now trigger the key command for group “all” followed by key commands for the sections like strings, brass etc you can easily hide all tracks quickly and show only certain sections. Now that we can finally assigne key commands for more than 9 hide groups you could create groups for any situation you can imagine. 

But in my opinion an overhaul and integration of a groups independent show/hide facility is long overdue as is a real tracks cpu offload disable feature and “unlimited” tracks for all track types!


----------



## whinecellar (May 31, 2018)

Anhtu said:


> Don't you find the endless opening /closing folders/subfolders and scrolling through pages and pages of sounds to be a workflow and creative killer....



You must not have read the rest of my post(s)... I rarely if ever have to scroll, even with a 750 track template, thanks to Logic's hide groups function. It makes navigating even the biggest template a no-brainer. For me, it's the fastest way of working I've found, and gives me the best of both worlds: everything I want loaded and ready to go, and instant navigation. No folders, no track stacks - just a pure, streamlined environment and nothing slowing me down


----------



## Phillip (May 31, 2018)

For people with sluggish Media Bay in Cubase. There are few posts on Steinberg forum about rebuilding database file, which really helped my Media Bay to be very snappy.


----------



## Mishabou (Jun 1, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> You must not have read the rest of my post(s)... I rarely if ever have to scroll, even with a 750 track template, thanks to Logic's hide groups function. It makes navigating even the biggest template a no-brainer. For me, it's the fastest way of working I've found, and gives me the best of both worlds: everything I want loaded and ready to go, and instant navigation. No folders, no track stacks - just a pure, streamlined environment and nothing slowing me down



Ah that's cool, so i guess you use hide tracks feature to show only the ones with information on. How do you get/find a particular instruments ? Don't you still have to scroll and/or open/close folders ?


----------



## whinecellar (Jun 1, 2018)

Anhtu said:


> Ah that's cool, so i guess you use hide tracks feature to show only the ones with information on. How do you get/find a particular instruments ? Don't you still have to scroll and/or open/close folders ?



Like I said, I rarely have to scroll. I have 21 hide groups that cover all my instrument categories, and they're mapped to my iPad using TouchOSC (top rows of the attached pic). So when I want to see violins, I simply hit the violins button and they instantly appear. And on a large 4k display, I have plenty of room for a lot of tracks in each category - no scrolling required! So, I don't use any folders or track stacks at all - Logic’s hide groups let me see just what I want, in any combination.

So again, it's the best of both worlds for me: I have my entire orchestra loaded and premixed - I'm never slowed down by having to stop and load samples - but my template is also very clean and sparse visually; I see just what I need to see. I'm all about speed and efficiency


----------



## Mishabou (Jun 1, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Like I said, I rarely have to scroll. I have 21 hide groups that cover all my instrument categories, and they're mapped to my iPad using TouchOSC (top rows of the attached pic). So when I want to see violins, I simply hit the violins button and they instantly appear. And on a large 4k display, I have plenty of room for a lot of tracks in each category - no scrolling required! So, I don't use any folders or track stacks at all - Logic’s hide groups let me see just what I want, in any combination.
> 
> So again, it's the best of both worlds for me: I have my entire orchestra loaded and premixed - I'm never slowed down by having to stop and load samples - but my template is also very clean and sparse visually; I see just what I need to see. I'm all about speed and efficiency



I basically have the same set up when using Cubase and still find it cumbersome, maybe i'm missing something.

Let say, you hit the violins button on your iPad and end up recording on 2 tracks out of the 40 odd tracks that make up that group. Now, repeat that process many times and you end up with lots of tracks within your 27 show/hide groups. Now, What happen when you need to see several parts at once (Let say my percussion tracks in relation with some of the horns hit) ? And at the end of your composition, when it comes time to mix, how do you manage to only see the tracks with data, without having to go into your 27 groups and make those tracks visible ?


----------



## muziksculp (Jun 1, 2018)

I think it would be useful to add a Poll to this topic.


----------



## stevedeath (Jun 1, 2018)

I HATE templates absolutely kill inspiration to do something different.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jun 1, 2018)

stevedeath said:


> I HATE templates absolutely kill inspiration to do something different.


Another reason I don't use them.


----------



## StephenForsyth (Jun 1, 2018)

I don't have enough ram to make a template so this is not a question I need to worry about. 

I still want to build one though, hopefully I'll have a decent one set up for when they come back around in vogue and we all love them again in 2 years.


----------



## NoamL (Jun 1, 2018)

What some of you are talking about sounds like the concept of a Fleet In Being

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

If you have a bunch of saved channel strips, that is effectively a template, except you can load it piece by piece as needed.

My curiosity though: doesn't this make it very hard to work with VEP?

EDIT: also, regarding scrolling, JunkieXL showed off a very cool feature of his tablet workflow where he can hide all tracks except the ones that have MIDI or audio regions _*at the current playhead*_. (if I remember correctly). That's pretty damn cool. I wonder if that's a stock feature of Cubase or if he had to get it custom programmed.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (Jun 1, 2018)

It's a stock feature in Cubase. "Show Tracks with Data at the Cursor Position."


----------



## NoamL (Jun 1, 2018)

Sigh... If only we could sort of smush the two DAWs together to make Cubogic. Or Lojbase.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 1, 2018)

Templates are wonderful. Send me some.....


----------



## The Darris (Jun 1, 2018)

For the work I do, a template is necessary. I'm not the creative lead. My boss, the Head of Department (HOD) has already figured out the character and overall thematic material for the film by the time I start working. If they have determined that the themes will require any specific instruments or sound design to use, they usually give us those samples to add to our template. From there, after I write my first cue, I save a new template for that project and work for there on out.

I specifically work on projects where we are writing for a full orchestral compliment which means the template is pretty basic. I simply use the same template from project to project, minus the caveat I mentioned above. The idea that you will tend to write the same stuff or gravitate to the same gestures musically with your template is really a concern for the creative lead. For instance, I'm not at that level of HOD yet except when I work on low budget indie shorts which I do fairly consistently for some of my film-maker friends. In those cases, I always start with a blank slate and build a template over the course of the first few cues. This might include creating my own samples and building instruments out of those. If I was ever allowed to share that music publicly, you'd notice it doesn't sound anything like the work I currently do as a score programmer. 

tl;dr - It really varies from project to project. If you want to write for the full orchestra and not really explore new and interesting musical concepts like incorporating sound design, then a simple template will work well for you. I find my template to be a necessity as a score programmer. If you want to experiment and try out new things, always start with a blank canvas. 

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## EgM (Jun 1, 2018)

muziksculp said:


> I think it would be useful to add a Poll to this topic.



I agree! Thanks for the suggestion. Done!


----------



## EgM (Jun 1, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Like I said, I rarely have to scroll. I have 21 hide groups that cover all my instrument categories, and they're mapped to my iPad using TouchOSC (top rows of the attached pic). So when I want to see violins, I simply hit the violins button and they instantly appear. And on a large 4k display, I have plenty of room for a lot of tracks in each category - no scrolling required! So, I don't use any folders or track stacks at all - Logic’s hide groups let me see just what I want, in any combination.
> 
> So again, it's the best of both worlds for me: I have my entire orchestra loaded and premixed - I'm never slowed down by having to stop and load samples - but my template is also very clean and sparse visually; I see just what I need to see. I'm all about speed and efficiency



I do my own TouchOSC templates myself too, but I still couldn't work that way. I guess this shows how many people work very differently: some people like a fixed view of things while some others play things dynamically, I'm into the 'dyn' field, but both are correct as long as they write music and are effective at it!


----------



## Manaberry (Jun 1, 2018)

I guess this is not mandatory to use or not use template. You can do both. In my case I just finished my template to get the touchscreen working with articulations and to have my workflow improved on the automation side, with all the orchestral instruments I have on my PC. It's a huge time saver. And time is maybe the most precious thing we have (with coffee).

Also templates tends to change over time (depends of the project/library/composer). If you want to be consistent on the sounds for a specific project, obviously you will do a better job by using a template.
A template is a matter of workflow, made by a composer for his work, for a very specific purpose.
I don't think we are "stuck creatively" because we do use templates.

There is so many color shades but we all have a favorite color, and it is very personal. It's the same for preferences of work to me.


----------



## Maxime Luft (Jun 2, 2018)

Hi @EgM , I think it depends on what piece you're writing. If one starts a rather intimate or minimalistic piece then yeah, I'd absolutely recommend putting all VIs one by one in order to get a unique, specific mix of sounds and instruments which will make the end result stand out.

When writing for feature films or orchestras, I prefer having all my instruments and articulations already loaded and ready to go. Quite the same as what @The Darris said.
The job is then mainly to translate what one hears in his head into his template


----------



## Syneast (Jun 2, 2018)

My take:

Loading patches has become a non-issue, at least with Kontakt, so loading on the fly is not a problem.

Loading on the fly lets me try different layerings, libraries and techniques with each new track I make, which keeps me constantly evolving.

During the creative process I can sort of hear which libraries would fit the best at any given moment. Sometimes I need a staccato from a different library than the longs, for instance. Loading on the fly keeps the template from being bloated with both "template instruments" and "on the fly instruments".


----------



## novaburst (Jun 2, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> It always boggles my mind why some composers feel the need to have these ginormous templates.



I have never felt the need for templates ever.

But don't forget some composers write huge pieces, (orchestral pieces) and will have server machines too, it is easy to misunderstand why composers do things a certain way when some one else does it differently.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Nowadays you can put togehter a single machine that runs anything you want. With less dependency on slave setups, IMO the need for elaborate pre-configured templates is also gone.



If your writing pieces that don't requires servers it is very easy to think no one needs them, the Intel i9 is out now ok maybe that will stop the need but I doubt it, the middle of the road i7 6 core just want cut it with out freeze, and bounce, then on top of the tracks slap a few effects on top including waves abby road plate reverb, then watch your processor start screaming, pop snap and where's the sound gone.

Composers out there are doing crazy stuff, and servers and templates makes life easier.

Yes you will write pieces that don't require a lot of power, and if you are doing that for most of the time then what's the point of a server,


----------



## WindcryMusic (Jun 2, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Sadly, not possible - yet anyway. I don't think they put that much thought into "hide" functionality since it likely wasn't designed for this. Still, while that would be nice, I have zero problem with this as-is. My default screen is essentially empty other than a piano; but I have 22 hide groups all ready to go, and I can instantly see any combination of instrument groups I want. And the fact that everything is on the same level in the arrange window is SO much better than dealing with folders or track stacks!



Sorry for the momentary detour from the topic, but I've gotten the otherwise-unsupported "show one group" functionality to work fairly well in Logic with Lemur now, via maintaining a state vector expression in Lemur containing the visibility state of all of the groups as far as Lemur knows it. Then I use a pad array to select the group I want visible; making a selection from it examines the current state of the group visibilities using that vector variable and then toggle the visibility of just the groups necessary to accomplish the desired outcome.

While the internal state vector expression can get out of sync with Logic if one shows or hides tracks via other means, I have my Unhide All button in Lemur set to both unhide everything in Logic and reset the state of the vector, so I can always bring things back in sync using that button.

(I actually did first get this working via a larger series of messages that didn't rely upon an internal state vector, but the flurry of messages made the faders of my MCU Pro jump all over the place for half a second or so on every switch, which I didn't like. This approach with the internal vector is far kinder to motorized faders.)

I plan to make a video (or several) on this Lemur/template setup once it is finished.

Back on topic, I think templates really shine when integrated with external controls like this that leverage the known, predictable layout a template offers. In cases where one is solely working with the computer's UI, the perceived value of a template may be lessened somewhat.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jun 2, 2018)

novaburst said:


> If your writing pieces that don't requires servers it is very easy to think no one needs them, the Intel i9 is out now ok maybe that will stop the need but I doubt it, the middle of the road i7 6 core just want cut it with out freeze, and bounce, then on top of the tracks slap a few effects on top including waves abby road plate reverb, then watch your processor start screaming, pop snap and where's the sound gone.
> 
> Composers out there are doing crazy stuff, and servers and templates makes life easier.
> 
> Yes you will write pieces that don't require a lot of power, and if you are doing that for most of the time then what's the point of a server,



I truly wonder what kind of music these people are writing to require servers just to be able to do it. If I'm being honest, I believe it's simply nerdism and geeking out on gear, because a certain type of personality gravitates to that kind of thing. I can do a 40 track full orchestral multi-mic library piece with several instances of, let's say, EW Spaces and then Adaptiverb and the odd delay on top and a single i7 machine with 64 GB RAM can handle it. I remain skeptical.


----------



## novaburst (Jun 2, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I truly wonder what kind of music these people are writing to require servers just to be able to do it. If I'm being honest, I believe it's simply nerdism and geeking out on gear, because a certain type of personality gravitates to that kind of thing. I can do a 40 track full orchestral multi-mic library piece with several instances of, let's say, EW Spaces and then Adaptiverb and the odd delay on top and a single i7 machine with 64 GB RAM can handle it. I remain skeptical.



40 tracks is ok and effects what about that, do you layer, have you gone past a 100 tracks with effects, I don't think its geeking I think its need



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> truly wonder what kind of music these people are writing to require servers just to be able to do it.



You can do it on windows XP 32 bit 100 tracks and more if you want, but you will struggle a little.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jun 2, 2018)

novaburst said:


> 40 tracks is ok and effects what about that, do you layer, have you gone past a 100 tracks with effects, I don't think its geeking I think its need



I do layer strings. Most of the time, I got two string libraries running, sometimes three. No sense in layering woodwinds IMO. Sounds bad and doesn't make sense. Brass sometimes. Percussion a lot. 
I use many instances of EQ plug-ins. 2-5 instances of different reverbs. Effects not so much, because honestly they're rarely needed. But I easily could add more.

I can see the need of having tons and tons of stuff when you're doing full feature length and have all cues in one project. But other than that - the music itself should never require such an overkill. If it does, something's very off with the writing, or it's some intergalactic nonsense music.


----------



## MatFluor (Jun 2, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I truly wonder what kind of music these people are writing to require servers just to be able to do it. If I'm being honest, I believe it's simply nerdism and geeking out on gear, because a certain type of personality gravitates to that kind of thing. I can do a 40 track full orchestral multi-mic library piece with several instances of, let's say, EW Spaces and then Adaptiverb and the odd delay on top and a single i7 machine with 64 GB RAM can handle it. I remain skeptical.



Yes, I geek out on gear - and one of my slaves is one of my former homeservers, the other my old main machine. Repurposing is key for me here 

Well - a i7 machine with 64 gigs of RAM, absolutely doable (as long as it's not the full Berlin ensemble you're trying to load). What about an i3 machine with 16 GB of RAM? I have two of those as my slaves (one with 16 the other with 32 gigs of RAM). As said, on of those was my old main machine, i3 16 GB RAM. I couldn't load the whole orchestra in in that thing without having to purge the whole time or freeze - which killed my workflow.

I can do a full Orchestral thing without freezing, unbloading or anything the like. with my old main, before I went with slaves it crackled pretty quickly, I was not able to do a mockup with WW, Brass, Perc and Strings playing together without freezing stuff down.
Now I can do that - plus more. I hate freezing, bouncing and all that unless it's absolutely necessary.

So in my case it was more "spending $250 for VEP and my problems be gone, or spend $1.5k for a new main machine".



stevedeath said:


> I HATE templates absolutely kill inspiration to do something different.



It depends what "something different" means to you. Sonically? I agree. Melodically, not so much. Standard full Orchestral means I have a set and fixed roster of instruments - that's what I'm doing with my full template. If you mockup up film music or classical works or just standard composing for orchestral ensemble, that's what I need - the inspiration to see that Bassoon there and think "Hey, I can use that!". If you are doing a lot of Hybrid stuff or non-orchestral,as said, I agree with you.


----------



## vewilya (Jun 2, 2018)

NoamL said:


> Sigh... If only we could sort of smush the two DAWs together to make Cubogic. Or Lojbase.


Hide unused (empty) tracks in Logic! No? And show all tracks on another key command. Works just the same way!


----------



## dgburns (Jun 2, 2018)

whinecellar said:


> Like I said, I rarely have to scroll. I have 21 hide groups that cover all my instrument categories, and they're mapped to my iPad using TouchOSC (top rows of the attached pic). So when I want to see violins, I simply hit the violins button and they instantly appear. And on a large 4k display, I have plenty of room for a lot of tracks in each category - no scrolling required! So, I don't use any folders or track stacks at all - Logic’s hide groups let me see just what I want, in any combination.
> 
> So again, it's the best of both worlds for me: I have my entire orchestra loaded and premixed - I'm never slowed down by having to stop and load samples - but my template is also very clean and sparse visually; I see just what I need to see. I'm all about speed and efficiency



-pardon the slight off topic commentary-

Always interesting to see what commands are set up and how it’s arranged. Gives some insight into your methodology. I find it particularly interesting that you grant so much real estate to that one function ‘toggle select region by track’. Never felt the need to toggle that one, I leave it one mostly.

carry on


----------



## novaburst (Jun 2, 2018)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I can see the need of having tons and tons of stuff when you're doing full feature length and have all cues in one project. But other than that - the music itself should never require such an overkill. If it does, something's very off with the writing, or it's some intergalactic nonsense music



I guess we all have a preferred method of application of music due to some form of experience.

Now then lets get back to that Intergalactic,............... captain at the bridge..........engaging warp drive ....destination sector 2 3 9 1 4 on the far side of the universe


----------



## JohnG (Jun 2, 2018)

Innovation and "doing something different" start with intention, not whether or not you use 18th century instruments, pots and pans, or modular synths.

Part of the reason I maintain a "running" template is

1. The fastest way to get out of the groove, for me, is looking for a patch in some sub-folder. That falls into the "most likely to provoke a shoot-the-breeze-over-nothing call from your long-lost friend John" category.

2. With so many libraries available I find I can forget stuff -- a template can include a folder with "weird string sounds" or other descriptors that I find handy;

3. I trudge through new libraries, listening carefully, and load the stuff that I think sounds good / useful on to VE Pro on either my main DAW or PC slaves. I add them to a template and then, if they are not "standard / likely to be used constantly," turn off their folder on VE Pro.

I don't think it matters that much how you get it done -- but I do think you have to decide, up front, to try to innovate if that's your goal.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jun 2, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> So in my case it was more "spending $250 for VEP and my problems be gone, or spend $1.5k for a new main machine".



That makes sense of course. In my case, it was kind of the other way around - I fucking hate computers, electronics, software, interfaces, panels and buttons, can I build just a big fat one and get away with using less of everything?


----------



## whinecellar (Jun 2, 2018)

Guys, forgive what may sound like cranky cynicism, but the more I read threads like these, the more it seems that creating a poll should include the option "who cares?!?" Honestly, does it really matter whether anyone else uses a template or not? Clearly they work for some of us, while others hate the idea. And that's OK! If your way of working gets *your* jobs done fast and you're happy with your work, more power to you! There really isn't a right answer to stuff like this.

Now having said that, the idea of a template being an "inspiration killer" is kind of silly to me. By that logic (no DAW pun intended!) couldn't the same be said for any composer who uses a traditional orchestra for every score? For most of us in the template camp, that's all these things are: our orchestra, sitting there ready to play. I can't for the life of me see how that stifles creativity or puts you in a rut. For me, all it does is give me instant access to my entire orchestra - all flavors, all articulations, ready to go.

The bottom line for me is that for the *orchestral* part of my work, it is by far the fastest way of working. My job is often delivering spot-on orchestral mockups and even finished tracks that need to sound as convincing as possible. That means that in the heat of writing, I need to rapidly audition my options in context. Having to load those options first from multiple libraries, even if they take just a few seconds each - *THAT* would be a creativity killer for me. I can’t speak for them of course, but I suspect that’s why guys like John Powell use big orchestral templates too. 

Now, for the *non*-orchestral parts of a score, or scores that aren't heavily orchestral, sure - I get why templates don't make as much sense. And certainly it's possible to geek out endlessly on creating monsters. I know there are some of us for whom it's a sport, and very little else gets done. I don't think that's what anyone is advocating here.

But whatever the case, I guess I'm just curious - why does this matter so much? I know what's proven to work best for me, you know what works best for you... so shouldn't we be spending our time discussing far more valuable things, like what the best reverb is? Or DAW? Or the lack of melodic themes in current film music? I mean, something that hasn't been discussed before? 

And *ding*, my current stems just finished rendering, so back to work for me...

Cheers my friends!


----------



## whinecellar (Jun 2, 2018)

dgburns said:


> -pardon the slight off topic commentary-
> 
> Always interesting to see what commands are set up and how it’s arranged. Gives some insight into your methodology. I find it particularly interesting that you grant so much real estate to that one function ‘toggle select region by track’. Never felt the need to toggle that one, I leave it one mostly.



Ha - well, that shot just happened to be of a temporary layout I was working on - that monstrous button for that one function was just a placeholder


----------



## vewilya (Jun 2, 2018)

The Darris said:


> For the work I do, a template is necessary. I'm not the creative lead. My boss, the Head of Department (HOD) has already figured out the character and overall thematic material for the film by the time I start working. If they have determined that the themes will require any specific instruments or sound design to use, they usually give us those samples to add to our template. From there, after I write my first cue, I save a new template for that project and work for there on out.
> 
> I specifically work on projects where we are writing for a full orchestral compliment which means the template is pretty basic. I simply use the same template from project to project, minus the caveat I mentioned above. The idea that you will tend to write the same stuff or gravitate to the same gestures musically with your template is really a concern for the creative lead. For instance, I'm not at that level of HOD yet except when I work on low budget indie shorts which I do fairly consistently for some of my film-maker friends. In those cases, I always start with a blank slate and build a template over the course of the first few cues. This might include creating my own samples and building instruments out of those. If I was ever allowed to share that music publicly, you'd notice it doesn't sound anything like the work I currently do as a score programmer.
> 
> ...


Hey Chris 

I was listening to your interview with Don Bodin and subsequently to your DawCast (On Laughter - Silvered Wings).

Do you work on one machine only? I saw you use Cubase on PC.... 
Greetings
U


----------



## ctsai89 (Jun 2, 2018)

I wish there is a perfect template where all you need to do is sit and play the notes in without having to mix around and do the engineering. 

Really it takes a lot of energy and creativity to just write inspiration melodies and harmonies sometimes. Why put that energy to waste in order to spend it on the engineering?? 

For electronic music though, I don't care for template. The soundscape is part of the creativity


----------



## The Darris (Jun 2, 2018)

vewilya said:


> Hey Chris
> 
> I was listening to your interview with Don Bodin and subsequently to your DawCast (On Laughter - Silvered Wings).
> 
> ...


Yes. I've always been a one machine guy. I believe, in that DawCast, I was using disabled tracks which I've moved away from. Now I'm using VEPro 6 on one machine. The biggest reason for this was due to how large my session files would get. A single session file would be around 300-400 mb and since I was using a shared dropbox folder with the rest of the music team I was working with, my backup uploads would kill their bandwidth so my boss said I needed to figure out how to get my session sizes down. Since they were all using a slave PC with VEPro, I just figured out a way to make VEPro work for me on a single machine. The best thing about that is not only the smaller session sizes but I don't have to continually load and unload samples from session to session. It's increased my workflow quite a bit. 

Best,

Chris


----------



## mcalis (Jun 2, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> Not to toot a horn here, but DP has a nice integrated search function, which directly filters the tracks, so if you have a 1000 track template, just type in "vio" and you get only the violin/viola tracks on your screen etc. As long as you have a good naming scheme


Cubase has this too. Jist use Ctrl+F. I use it ALL the time.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Jun 3, 2018)

Having no template is like standing in the podium with no musician ready to play upon your command.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 4, 2018)

I have an old cheese grater Mac hooked up to a Mac Mini through VEP. I have a few orchestral templates-usually for different strings (for example, one has SCS, another Hollywood Strings.) My winds stay the same, my brass is usually Hollywood Brass and sometimes includes Sample Modeling, my perc is a set of various things I use. I try to stick with simple choices and get the most out of them. Other than that, I have a few electronica templates, a big band setup, a few others. I use them (templates) as necessary.

All of that said-my default "new project" in Cubase has a piano, Trilian, Omni, a few drum sets and a few tracks of electric guitar audio tracks with Guitar Rig loaded on each. If I'm not planning on any of the aforementioned styles, that's where I usually start.


----------



## mcalis (Jun 4, 2018)

leogardini said:


> Having no template is like standing in the podium with no musician ready to play upon your command.


...and so you start singing!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 4, 2018)

For me, when I use the big templates via my slave and VEPro, the biggest advantage is not having to reload anything between projects. So when I`m working on several cues (projects) it`s a huge time saver.


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Jun 4, 2018)

mcalis said:


> ...and so you start singing!


It won't be a problem if your voice pleases your client.


----------



## lucianogiacomozzi (Jun 4, 2018)

I just go with the flow, whatever I have in my head, I'll load up and go from there. Usually I start with piano and orchestrate it later, but no template because it just varies too much.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 4, 2018)

I like and use templates, but setting them up is a PITA and you're never done - over years.

There's always some reason you can't just load and play.


----------



## tmhuud (Jun 4, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I like and use templates, but setting them up is a PITA and you're never done - over years.
> 
> There's always some reason you can't just load and play.


Yep, and if their in Logic, often times over the years they go corrupt.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jun 5, 2018)

i think i finally have something i enjoy working with.

i setup a VEP6 server session with several instances of VIP and KONTAKT and even Audio for my Amplitube 4 stuff.

then in Studio One Pro 3.5.6, i simply add a VEP6 instrument and connect to whichever instance i need at the time.

works great...

so far.

AND, it's extending the life of my meager laptop.


----------



## TimCox (Jun 5, 2018)

Right now I basically use two templates. One for symphony orchestra and the other for chamber. I like writing with the limits in place. It requires less micromanaging on my part ('this can't do this because they're already doing that') which I used to run into a lot before my template was established.


----------



## EgM (Jun 5, 2018)

I caved in and remade my old template... One of my major gripes with them was that I had more articulations available than I could manage, especially with the VSL full libraries which I love. I had to sit down and actually write on paper a static plan that would work for all libraries and it's starting to make sense.

In this instance, I made a plan to use keyswitches from C-2 to D#-1 that Cubase triggers through its expression maps helped with TouchOSC. With those constant 16 articulations with variables, I think it's gonna be more fun to write with a template. I will most likely stick with Cubase's disabled tracks, I have VEP6 but I fear it not telling me what IP my slave had 4 years ago or such ~ I want my songs to be accessible anytime.

I sincerely have to say, THANK you to all of you who contributed to this thread with DAW hints and such, I'm pretty sure it will help someone who feels the same way I do!


----------



## Per Boysen (Jun 6, 2018)

On this Win system the vst was installed at "OS (C / Program Files / Steinberg / vstplugins". At this location the Labs instrument was not detected by the DAW. So, I moved the vst to "OS (C / VstPlugins" and then the Labs instrument showed up in my DAW. It's simply about telling your DAW where to look for the vst. 

For the Soft Píano I'd like to change the CC1 assignment from the Dynamics to the Expression parameter. It seems hardwired, but does anyone know if it's possible to change that? (for the Strings the default assignment makes perfect sense though)


----------



## alexkishmusic (Jun 6, 2018)

I've recently switched DAWs from Cubase to Pro Tools, and changed how I set up my template.

In Cubase I had VEP on instrument tracks, with midi tracks going out and aux returns coming back in. Also had expression maps for every instrument. This worked for a while, but I began to feel very limited in my flexibility, especially when I wanted to render just one midi track in a multi to audio, and other issues that come with using expression maps. 

Now in VEP I have all my instruments loaded, but in Pro Tools my template only consists of basic routing (aux tracks with the VE plugin, verbs, section auxes, etc) which is mostly hidden and inactive, and nothing else loaded. When I want to add a sound, I load up an instrument track preset for that category (strings short, pitched percussion, etc.) which is pre-routed to it's appropriate auxes, then connect the midi out and audio input to the desired sound in VEP. Working pretty well so far with initial testing, gonna see how it holds up. 

So basically scaled down to a half loaded template: sounds loaded in VE, but no sounds in my DAW on startup.


----------



## TimCox (Jun 6, 2018)

I’m curious, what made you decide to switch to Pro Tools?


----------



## JonAdamich (Jun 7, 2018)

This post somewhat confuses me.

Are you saying it's better for you to load up and set a patch up (verb, eq and all), rather than scroll for a sec in a template, because it saves you time? Maybe I'm not understanding.


----------



## alexkishmusic (Jun 7, 2018)

TimCox said:


> I’m curious, what made you decide to switch to Pro Tools?



A lot of it has to do with the audio routing options in PT, specifically with being able to have the midi going to VEP and the audio return coming from that instrument on one track. Also the fact that I prefer to mix in PT has a lot to do with it as well.

Not having to switch between DAWs is a big plus for me, as this was always a huge hassle in the past, especially if I found that I needed to change the midi in Cubase because I missed something: close PT, open Cubase, make the change, export the new stem, open PT, import the new stem. My new method will hopefully save me from that some of that hassle.

I do miss some of the midi editing features of Cubase, but I've found that I can do basically the same stuff with a few workarounds. Just takes a bit of getting used to a new workflow.


----------



## alexkishmusic (Jun 7, 2018)

JonAdamich said:


> This post somewhat confuses me.
> 
> Are you saying it's better for you to load up and set a patch up (verb, eq and all), rather than scroll for a sec in a template, because it saves you time? Maybe I'm not understanding.



In my PT template, the verb tracks are already set up, and the instrument track presets I've made for different types of sounds I want are already pre-routed to their appropriate aux sends. I don't have preset eq's for different instruments because I like to customize those based on what kind of track I'm writing, though I can definitely see how it would speed up a workflow to have those preset. 

One of my main reasons for adopting this new workflow was due to me feeling too constrained/ inflexible with the way I had been doing things for so long. I didn't feel as creative because I had everything set up already. I still have a bit of this with the new template, but it just feels so much more freeing to write this way. 

I've also adopted the approach of taking an hour or two to create a template of sounds in PT (setting up instrument tracks which I connect to VE patches) depending on what kind of project I'm writing for, if I'm going to be using the same set of sounds for a project that requires a bunch of cues that are going to have a similar sound. 

This new template approach is definitely still a work in progress, but I'm enjoying the results so far.


----------



## ptram (Jun 8, 2018)

I've only recently came to real orchestra simulation. Previously, I did use a few tracks, and had no need for an orchestral template. Then, my sound library increased, I did personalize everything, and a template became the obvious solution to start working immediately.

I don't use Vienna Ensemble, despite liking the latest version. I'm currently using a template in Logic. Maybe I will have to move everything on VE to use orchestral sounds on other apps, but at the moment I'm happy with using NotePerfomer on notation programs, and bigger libraries in Logic.

What I put in my template is the full VSL orchestra, with all samples unloaded. The memory footprint is very small. Then, I have some placeholder for Kontakt-based libraries (that I could move to VE, to unload samples from these too). Kontakt-based libraries, like Spitfire, Soundiron, Tarilonte or XSample, are recalled on demand. I'm building some mini-templates with sets like all the preview presets in Spitfire's Uist, from which I would choose a real preset when needed.

It seems to work well enough for me. Preliminary work done once, never repeated.

Paolo


----------



## MarcusD (Jun 8, 2018)

My personal view of templates is, they are great providig you are not spending a great deal of time starting from scratch when building a new one, loading patches, naming, setting up cc stuff, routing, grouping etc... etc... is a nightmare to do every time, espeshially if there's no means of build them quickly. 

This is obviously down to your DAW, Cubase (thankfully) is great for building templates in less than 5 mins with the media bay and track presets, provided you've invested the time in setting everything up . Worth it though, once done it means no more headaches in the future.

If your DAW does not allow you to do that, then I can see how having everything loaded is beneficial. But massive templates can be like a shot of deodorant to the eyeballs...


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jun 8, 2018)

Studio One v4's new 'Import Song Data' has redefined my workflow.


----------



## samphony (Jun 9, 2018)

Zoot_Rollo said:


> Studio One v4's new 'Import Song Data' has redefined my workflow.



One downside to the currently implemented solution: tracks you import get appended at the end of the tracklist and not after the last selected track. Even if you secondary click onto a song in the browser to show its contents and drag and drop tracks.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jun 9, 2018)

samphony said:


> One downside to the currently implemented solution: tracks you import get appended at the end of the tracklist and not after the last selected track. Even if you secondary click onto a song in the browser to show its contents and drag and drop tracks.



I see it doesn't import MIDI track channel assignments either.

Still, a good step.


----------



## EgM (Jan 18, 2019)

Just a follow up on this thread, I have since decided that Cubase 9.5 Pro is unlikely for me. As nice as expression maps are, Cubase's interface most likely was a component to my July depression, haha.

_What pissed the hell out of me regarding Cubase is #1, super hyper fast mouse scrolling out of control (Win & Mac), #2 overloaded UI, feels like Reaper, needs a total overhaul. #3 bad project asset management, customers send me projects only to have .wav or .aif missing. #4 unnecessary clicks all across the board (i.e. add send, send is disabled by default, have to click on it to enable it -- If I clicked to add the send why is is disabled?)_
*
OK, getting on point, this thread was about templates!*

I have tried many diverse ways of handling templates, disabled, VEP, and so on but it is not for me.

I come from a background of Voyetra Sequencer on DOS > Adlib Visual Composer > Scream Tracker/IT > Voyetra Digital Orchestrator Pro > Cakewalk Sonar > Reaper > Logic Pro > Studio One 3 > Cubase 9 and many others in between.

I've come to the point where I don't care about templates at all. They have never worked for me. I am not a film composer, I hate movies, don't even watch them these days! (They suck!) I do orchestral videogame music on demand and such but most of my stuff is hybrid so a realistic venue sound is not my immediate concern and will never be.

Since june, I have moved from Cubase 9.5 Pro to Studio One 4 Pro and I am amazed everyday in how it feels nice and fast! Terrific UI and user experience (UX). Sure it has bugs, it's a new player in the DAW game, but they're hungry! It's so nice reading the changelogs unlike reading some of the other players' lackluster updates.

So... TL;DR
http://gamemusic.ca/gifanim5.gif
I just drag crap from the right to the left when I need an instrument 

********************
Feel free to tell me how your experience is, and I do know that templates are vital for film composers! I don't deny it.

Thanks for your feedback.

Remember, this is only my personal opinion! Yours is just as valid!


----------



## Akarin (Jan 19, 2019)

I love templates. I'm a template geek and am always looking at improving my workflow and production speed. One of my goals with template is to approach the computer as a musical instrument. A sit-and-play thing. My background is in programming. When I do music, I don't want to be doing IT and bother about routing, loading patches and so on.


----------



## Phillip Dixon (Jan 19, 2019)

EgM..
.I just drag crap from the right to the left when I need an instrument ...

i' am with you there... Tried cubase and ,
built large template... just added to my confusion.. certainly did'ent make me more creative... love studio one......


----------



## Ben (Jan 19, 2019)

I made a template with the things I need regularly. After starting a project, I remove all VEP instances that I know are not needed (the VEP instances are loaded disabled in my template). And if I need something that is missing in my template, I just add it quickly. Works for me.

I'd like to see this instrument dragging feature from StudioOne 4 in VEP. This would be awsome.

Regarding Cubase: It's my favorite DAW. Sure, there's room for improvement. But 10 is going in the right direction.
(I make orchestral music, virtual instruments mixed with recordings)


----------



## Brian Nowak (Jan 19, 2019)

I made up a template for the project I'm working on, which is an orchestral action cues album. I just decided on which pool of instruments I was going to use and that's that. 

I tried making a massive template up and that really didn't work for me (or my slowly aging computer).

Aside from that, I've set up a blank template with all my routing configurations, so when it's time to start fresh I can just go into that template and build another one for the next project. 

I am not sure I'll ever build a super massive template unless I have a really kicking machine and my workflow calls for it. I know a lot of working composers use them because they have deadlines to meet. If they started from scratch every time they needed to write a cue in sometimes as little as a few hours, they'd never keep up with their work needs.


----------



## Akarin (Jan 19, 2019)

Ben said:


> I made a template with the things I need regularly. After starting a project, I remove all VEP instances that I know are not needed (the VEP instances are loaded disabled in my template). And if I need something that is missing in my template, I just add it quickly. Works for me.
> 
> I'd like to see this instrument dragging feature from StudioOne 4 in VEP. This would be awsome.
> 
> ...



If only S1 had a proper articulation management feature, I could switch from Cubase.


----------



## Architekton (Jan 19, 2019)

I absolutely hate large templates! I load VIs/libraries on fly, as I know them very well and I know what I need at the moment. With templates, 400 tracks, puts unnecessary load on pc, 75% of tracks are never used...so they just sit there doint nothing but taxing performance. Not to mention scrolling up and down all the time, than zoom
In, zoom out. I am glad I got rid of my template!


----------



## Akarin (Jan 19, 2019)

Architekton said:


> I absolutely hate large templates! I load VIs/libraries on fly, as I know them very well and I know what I need at the moment. With templates, 400 tracks, puts unnecessary load on pc, 75% of tracks are never used...so they just sit there doint nothing but taxing performance. Not to mention scrolling up and down all the time, than zoom
> In, zoom out. I am glad I got rid of my template!



Disabled tracks don't consume resources. As for scrolling, I built a set of macros to navigate/hide/show specific tracks. Really fast, I barely need to touch my mouse


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 19, 2019)

I have only one template, and this is my samples hard drive.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 19, 2019)

Saving software instrument set ups (including routing, effects etc) is a neat function in Logic. I have pre-made kontakt set ups which I can load at the click of a button. If I need SFA's full strings for example, it's there in the blink of an eye and in the correct space and with the correct routings.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 19, 2019)

Akarin said:


> If only S1 had a proper articulation management feature, I could switch from Cubase.


I wish I could edit midi in S1 without the zoom arbitrarily and automatically resizing the view when I’m editing. Or the view in the piano roll moves to the beginning of the song and automatically turns off follow play when I change instruments. It’s annoying and I’ve found no way to lock the zoom or force it to go to the current playhead position when changing instruments. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. Maybe there’s a way around these irritations but the manual is at best rudimentary, it gives no guidance on these issues, and shift Z, which is supposed to fix the zoom, only lasts until the next time S1 automatically resizes the zoom.) it’s these little irritations in midi editing that prevent me from using it more, even though I love its arranging functions and its sketchpad.


----------



## EgM (Jan 19, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> I wish I could edit midi in S1 without the zoom arbitrarily and automatically resizing the view when I’m editing. Or the view in the piano roll moves to the beginning of the song and automatically turns off follow play when I change instruments. It’s annoying and I’ve found no way to lock the zoom or force it to go to the current playhead position when changing instruments. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. Maybe there’s a way around these irritations but the manual is at best rudimentary, it gives no guidance on these issues, and shift Z, which is supposed to fix the zoom, only lasts until the next time S1 automatically resizes the zoom.) it’s these little irritations in midi editing that prevent me from using it more, even though I love its arranging functions and its sketchpad.



That's odd, I don't have any of those issues here with SO4 and Win10. Piano roll view is always the same zoom level and it doesn't move randomly. A setting somewhere maybe?


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 19, 2019)

EgM said:


> That's odd, I don't have any of those issues here with SO4 and Win10. Piano roll view is always the same zoom level and it doesn't move randomly. A setting somewhere maybe?


I'm on a Mac and it may well be related to the Magic Mouse, as the shifting of the zoom level is always correlated with some kind of mouse movement. But not every mouse movement has this effect and even the same mouse movement does not always have this effect. Maybe a setting, but where? The manual is not good for things like this...


----------



## Phillip Dixon (Jan 19, 2019)

theres a lot of mac users on presonus forum.. i'am sure someone will set you straight...


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 19, 2019)

Phillip Dixon said:


> theres a lot of mac users on presonus forum.. i'am sure someone will set you straight...


Good thought. I haven't visited the Presonus forum in awhile.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 19, 2019)

I've spent the last few years trying different things. I'm definitely a fan of templates in theory, but many have pointed out the hurdles to be overcome. For me, the critical things to balance out are speed of getting what you need at your fingers, versus 800 troglabytes of stuff consuming resources and slowing you down that you only need 1% of. Most of my various attempts at doing this have failed, usually because of missing Cubase functionality or bugs.

I'm currently quite optimistic though as I have a shiny new approach. All orchestral instruments areehosted in VE Pro, but disabled. This loads in a handful of seconds - in fact VE Pro itself and the template are loaded before Cubase has even got to the Hub screen. The Cubase template is based round rack instruments, all connected and decoupled so autosaves are instant. The load too is pretty speedy - the orchestral part of it loads in about 15s, and there's another 15s for the rest of the stuff I want loaded in the project like Kontakt and Omnisphere. Every section of every library is in its own folder, further arranged into strings, brass etc. So its nimble, light on resources, and all the tracks are hidden away - no endless scrolling or fiddling with visibility agents that never quite do what you want.

Only slight problem - nothing yet makes any sound at all. So for my next trick, for every single track in the template I have mapped two pads on my controller to trigger note events, that in turn enable or disable the VE Pro instrument. This varies considerably in time as to how long it takes, but its usually between 2-5 seconds I'd say - totally depends on the instrument, sample player and how many instruments are grouped together in each player. I've found composing very quick, I'd rather not wait those few seconds when trying a new library, but its not a buzzkill. Finally, once I've finished work on a track or cue on my first session with it, I use Cubase's visibility agent to show only tracks with midi between the locators. On bar 3 of every track I have muted Note On events that trigger the VE Pro enables, so I unmute all those tracks that I'm actually using. Next time I load the project, everything I need is then loaded in one hit.

One of the big advantages of this system is that I can have everything ready to go, even the obscure stuff, because it takes next to no resources. About 50% of my sample libraries were going unused because I kept forgetting I even had them. There's stuff in the Kontakt Player tabs, stuff in Quick Load, stuff on Play, stuff in VSL, UVI, Engine... it's a huge plus of a big template that you can see exactly what you're options are all the time, and doing it this way means you can do it without 14 slaves or scrolling through 1,000 tracks. Its actually such an efficient way to work that most of my stuff so far has only used about 10gb of ram (I also run purged dfd patches). It's also great and simple to add stuff to the template over time. Old projects won't see the new, but all the existing instruments work just fine.

The downsides. Setting up the VE Pro automation takes FOREVER, but once its done its done. I've also very occasionally had occasional full scale deflection on additional Kontakt outputs when enabling / disabling, which is terrifying. Hasn't happened for a few days, but I have a case in with VSL.

Overall, I'm nervously pleased as punch. The thought of setting up Hollywood Strings for example every time is hellish to me - I've mapped CC modifiers as well as audio tweaks. I always ended up not using them as a result, but now its a breeze.


----------



## jneebz (Jan 19, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> for every single track in the template I have mapped two pads on my controller to trigger note events, that in turn enable or disable the VE Pro instrument.


This is where I'm getting hung up, and may just be missing something. 

The only way to get the benefit of RAM/CPU savings in VE Pro is to disable the *main* instrument track...which in some cases (e.g. FORZO) is ~5GB with the traditional brass patches loaded, but samples _purged_. So in my writing session, if I want to use the "Tubas" patch, I can't just enable that patch and MIDI track in my DAW...I must enable the entire instrument which now adds 5GB to my project, correct?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 19, 2019)

jneebz said:


> This is where I'm getting hung up, and may just be missing something.
> 
> The only way to get the benefit of RAM/CPU savings in VE Pro is to disable the *main* instrument track...which in some cases (e.g. FORZO) is ~5GB with the traditional brass patches loaded, but samples _purged_. So in my writing session, if I want to use the "Tubas" patch, I can't just enable that patch and MIDI track in my DAW...I must enable the entire instrument which now adds 5GB to my project, correct?



If there's a patch that's 5GB purged, I'm steering well clear of it. That's crazy bonkers.


----------



## Tice (Jan 19, 2019)

For me, templates are a great way to get projects to sound consistent. I strive to create a new one for each large scale project to ensure it gets it's own consistent 'feel'. I won't add multiple libraries for the same instrument or that consistency will break.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 19, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Saving software instrument set ups (including routing, effects etc) is a neat function in Logic. I have pre-made kontakt set ups which I can load at the click of a button. If I need SFA's full strings for example, it's there in the blink of an eye and in the correct space and with the correct routings.


Could you explain how you’re able to do that? Are you referring to just saving individual channel strips, or is there some way Logic can load in multiple pre-configured tracks (such as an entire string section) all at once?


----------



## kevthurman (Jan 19, 2019)

When I started out, I didn't. It wasn't really necessary to wait several minutes to load the entire EW hollywood orchestra to write a short cue, and was a bit less tedious to call up instruments or articulations as the voice leading calls for them. I have since changed this because the cinematic studio series is all key-switch based. It's better for workflow in the long run to have a template with some consistency to mix.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 20, 2019)

Gingerbread said:


> Could you explain how you’re able to do that? Are you referring to just saving individual channel strips, or is there some way Logic can load in multiple pre-configured tracks (such as an entire string section) all at once?



Yes, channel strips. Sounds like you know about them, but just in case you don't, I have fully loaded up Kontakt with (say) sfa's violin 1, added any room settings, eq, etc. then saved the strip. Everything is recalled on subsequent load ins. So in effect, Logic can load in an entire string section, depending on how you save your kontakt configurations.


----------



## Garry (Jan 20, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> Yes, channel strips. Sounds like you know about them, but just in case you don't, I have fully loaded up Kontakt with (say) sfa's violin 1, added any room settings, eq, etc. then saved the strip. Everything is recalled on subsequent load ins. So in effect, Logic can load in an entire string section, depending on how you save your kontakt configurations.


Oh wow, I didn't know about this, but just tried it out - amazing! Thanks!

Quick question (before I go and completely re-do my template!) - the way I have set my template up is as follows: I have around 200 tracks all named, color coded, EQ'ed, effects on sends, panned, etc. So, I save this as a template in Logic, but my system (i7 Mac, 32Gb, 4.2Ghz, no SSD/VEP/slave) isn't powerful enough to hold this with all instruments loaded (even purged) without overloading during use. So, I've found I can get around it by having the Kontakt instance loaded, but not loading the instrument into Kontakt, and also having each Kontakt instance switched off. So, when I want a Spitfire solo cello, let's say, I go to that specific named track, turn the Kontakt instance on and then use QuickLoad, where I've carefully catalogued all my libraries for easy access, to load the instrument. So, I can have the instrument loaded up quickly within a couple of clicks, and I get all the benefits of a large template with all settings stored and ready to use, but it's not costing me huge amounts of RAM for instruments just sitting there unused.

So, would I be better off using the channel strip method, or is what I describe getting me essentially the same via a different route? 

I think if I'd have known before, I would have used the channel strip method, since both instrument and settings are stored together. However, having set it up the way I describe, I think I still get the same, but settings are stored in the overall template, rather than with the instrument - so, same outcome (instruments loaded as needed, with settings saved), or are there benefits I may be missing? I guess one benefit would be if I have several instruments on 1 track, but there I use the same method I described, but open it as a multi through quick-load, rather than as an instrument.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 20, 2019)

Swings and roundabouts methinks Gary. Your set-up is more flexible than mine and so might suit you better. For me, these days I am only writing orchestral concert music and so once I have my sections organised, that does me until I add new samples sets and then I just make new kontakt or VSL instances, save them and they are there on standby.





Garry said:


> Oh wow, I didn't know about this, but just tried it out - amazing! Thanks!
> 
> Quick question (before I go and completely re-do my template!) - the way I have set my template up is as follows: I have around 200 tracks all named, color coded, EQ'ed, effects on sends, panned, etc. So, I save this as a template in Logic, but my system (i7 Mac, 32Gb, 4.2Ghz, no SSD/VEP/slave) isn't powerful enough to hold this with all instruments loaded (even purged) without overloading during use. So, I've found I can get around it by having the Kontakt instance loaded, but not loading the instrument into Kontakt, and also having each Kontakt instance switched off. So, when I want a Spitfire solo cello, let's say, I go to that specific named track, turn the Kontakt instance on and then use QuickLoad, where I've carefully catalogued all my libraries for easy access, to load the instrument. So, I can have the instrument loaded up quickly within a couple of clicks, and I get all the benefits of a large template with all settings stored and ready to use, but it's not costing me huge amounts of RAM for instruments just sitting there unused.
> 
> ...


----------



## samphony (Jan 20, 2019)

Akarin said:


> If only S1 had a proper articulation management feature, I could switch from Cubase.


Not to mention a good show/hide facility that can be deployed with key commands or controllers.


----------



## samphony (Jan 20, 2019)

For logic users who want to add entire sections of tracks including routing etc there are multiple approaches. One way would be to put certain tracks into summing track stacks and save these as patches. Another approach would be to create projects for all your food groups and import the sections you need through the Import Logic Pro Project option.

Also keep in mind that a barebones template for routing and grouping makes sense as well. Especially groups can’t be imported. So if you wanna use groups for showing/hiding tracks a basic template is necessary.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 20, 2019)

Are there some who still don't like keyswitching?


----------



## Gerbil (Jan 20, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> Are there some who still don't like keyswitching?



After using libraries like Sample Modeling and Caspian Brass, keyswitching feels like wading through treacle.


----------



## EgM (Jan 20, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> Are there some who still don't like keyswitching?



I don't mind them. Although, I can understand the annoyance if you're trying to do notation directly from the project file.


----------



## bradleybboone (Feb 3, 2019)

Like @Guy Rowland and others, I’ve been working on an enable/disable template in VEPro as a rack instrument in Cubase. All Kontakt instruments are purged and disabled until required. The instruments are multi out in Kontakt (shorts & longs) and bused in VEPro to 2 stereo outs by library (again, shorts & longs). I have also used 2 stereo outputs per instrument directly to Cubase, but I don’t always need that granular access in Cubase when I can control inserts, sends, and levels in VEPro. The enable signal is sent via iPad Pro with Metagrid or Lemur (they also manage track visibility). See threads by @marcodistefano and @jononotbono on this board and YouTube for their enable & track visibility methodologies. Lastly, as my composition begins to exceed my system resources, I render tracks that don’t need further editing and disable those tracks in VEPro.


----------



## TomislavEP (Feb 5, 2019)

To template or not to template is a question I'm still not totally certain about ever since I've started with composition and music production.

Personally, I have to say I often cringe when I see those huge orchestral templates some people are using, not only containing every single instrument and / or articulation but also every single library they have. Not only they often seem daunting at first sight, they also demand quite a hardware resources.

I can understand the allure of such templates if you need to start working very quickly. Personally, I don't have such time restrains for now, so I'm striving toward having as little elements possible in my sessions, although I have quite a few of Kontakt libraries now.

As a REAPER user, I usually start with blank track template for Kontakt with multiple number of MIDI channels and outputs - 4, 8, and 16 - depending on my needs. I then use Kontakt favorites, snapshots and multis to organize and load the instruments I use on a daily basis. Though I like to have as little things as possible in my template, I prefer working with seperate articulations instead of keyswitches.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 5, 2019)

I've put up a 3-part video on the Cubase / Disabled VE Pro thing. Part one is just a 5 minute intro to what it does, part two how its put together and part three why its worth the bother rather than other methods. Just linking part 1 here, the other parts are linked in the info.


----------



## arcy (Mar 27, 2019)

I like templates because make me feel like an orchestral director that can manage instantly all the players. I like to open my Logic session and have my personal orchestra ready to go. I just think to play music and not reinvent the wheel with settings, imports etc...


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 27, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I've put up a 3-part video on the Cubase / Disabled VE Pro thing. Part one is just a 5 minute intro to what it does, part two how its put together and part three why its worth the bother rather than other methods. Just linking part 1 here, the other parts are linked in the info.




Great videos, thank you!


----------



## curtisschweitzer (Mar 27, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> Are there some who still don't like keyswitching?



Yup


----------



## jononotbono (Mar 27, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I've put up a 3-part video on the Cubase / Disabled VE Pro thing. Part one is just a 5 minute intro to what it does, part two how its put together and part three why its worth the bother rather than other methods. Just linking part 1 here, the other parts are linked in the info.




Thanks! Going to check this out later!


----------



## curtisschweitzer (Mar 27, 2019)

arcy said:


> I like templates because make me feel like an orchestral director that can manage instantly all the players. I like to open my Logic session and have my personal orchestra ready to go. I just think to play music and not reinvent the wheel with settings, imports etc...


 
Arcy and I have the same reasons. I just hate duplication of effort. If I started every project with a blank template, I spend a huge amount of time re-loading go-to libraries (especially orchestral ones) that I use on every project. In my own personal workflow, this is a massive waste of time when I could otherwise have just saved a template with things that I always use. The orchestra itself is a kind of template that has such an infinite range of textures and styles, so why, as Arcy says, reinvent the wheel?

Having said that, I do create "RESERVED" tracks in all sections of my template to give myself flexibility to put in something new (perhaps an articulation) should I need it for that specific project.


----------



## averystemmler (Mar 27, 2019)

I like anything on a slave in VEP to be part of my template, regardless of which DAW I'm working in. All that stuff is static anyways, and the tedium to get all the mic positions routed and grouped would prevent me from ever bothering to use the slaves at all.

I used to have literally every sample I own disabled in VEP instances. It was fun to scroll through the project and see everything, but it got ridiculous. Doing anything remotely disruptive to the structure of a project was a comedy of errors and it really ended up costing me more time than it saved.

So, now I've just taken to loading the bare minimum in a base template - the basic routing, stem configurations, and CSS/CSSS/CSB via a VEP slave - and developing per project templates from there as needed. Being able to save track templates helps immensely too.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Mar 27, 2019)

The one and only reason I want a VEP slave is in order to leave a bunch of samples loaded pretty much 24/7 that I tend to use a lot, then I can quickly setup a new project in LogicPro without having to load any samples, nor wade through a huge starting template.

I don't think there is any right or wrong approach here, its great to hear everyone's experience and sometimes consider another approach. I personally tend to write differently enough every day that a single starting template would probably not work well for me. On the other hand, a basic VSL orch template is not a bad way to get started, I have not yet had the patience to sit down and really create a single ideal template. If I was a working pro that needed to crank out trailer music or something with a lot of the same sounds on a daily basis, I would probably make a template though. Or a few.


----------

