# How do you organize your template?



## Mizar (Jan 23, 2017)

So, I'm having a bit of trouble when it comes to organizing things in my template. This is mainly for those of you with the "All in one" mega templates, but anybody is free to chime in. 

When it comes to libraries that have big selections of presets such as Cinematic Guitars, Xosphere, Cinemorph...(any Sample Logic library, really...) or Output plugins like Exhale, Rev, Signal, etc. Do you tend to treat these as regular synths and just load them up and fiddle with them on an "as needed" basis? Or do you save your favorites into the template? 

Do you save your different Strings/Winds/Brass into one template or do you create different templates based around different libraries?

Also, how do you all tend to organize your template folders? Here is a pic of mine:


----------



## Grizzlymv (Jan 23, 2017)

Personnally, all the orchestral libraries that I'm using are loaded in and are mixed, although grouped together. ie: Albion One Strings, CSS, Embertone Strings under the Strings section. Same for Brass and Woodwinds. For Percs, it's a bit different. I've grouped the Swooshes together, the Risers/Downer together and the Big Boom together. Then have the orchestral or more standard percs. Choirs are mixed under the choir folder (I don't use many of them) and same for Pianos and Keys. For guitars, I've separated the Accoustic from the Electric, same for Basses

Now regarding Synths, that's a bit different. when I get a library, I go through all the patches and keep only those that inspire me or that I find useful and leave the rest out of the template for more specific need. I group by style (Pad, Drone, "Key", Rythm, etc) and then I have a set of patches that I like from different libraries for each styles, so they are at hand. I also leave an empty slots for some (Eclipse, Orbit, Output, Photosynthesis) so I can do some sound design/custom patch if needed. 

All tracks are labeled with the library name using a short 3-4 letter codes, then the patch name, so AO-Str Lo-Long (8ves). 

Works fine that way for me. Hope this helps.


----------



## Mizar (Jan 23, 2017)

Grizzlymv said:


> ...Works fine that way for me. Hope this helps.



Indeed it does. I always appreciate seeing how others work, and it helps inspire me.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Jan 23, 2017)

I organize my template by not having one.


----------



## ZeroZero (Jan 23, 2017)

I am experimenting with a new two project method. Cubase 9 here -we should say what DAW. 

After driving people insane with template questions here - buying then rejecting Vienna Ensemble pro. I created a folderized template with 1300 or so tracks. I started with the orchestral divisions - a folder each, then added a folder for guitars (sub folders for steel, nylon, electric and bass), created a folder for world instruments, another for synths. I proceeded much like your pic. I seperated percussion into pitched and non pitched. Drumkits were a subgroup of non pitched.The piano, the organs, glocks, vibrtaphones, harpsichords, marimbas and even music boxes and crotales, got their seperate sub folders. Within the "pitched percussion" master folder. 
So, in woodwinds I have a flute folder and in this it has concert flutes and and alto flutes folders. In the concert flute folder, there are currently 10 flute instruments - from different instruments. All the flutes route to the "Flute" group. Whistles and Piccolos and Worlds are elsewhere. The FLute group routes to the 'Orchestral, master group. My term - 'master group' these are disitguished by colors. 

After loading 1300 tracks, writing expression maps, routing, naming, general set up (for a very long time!) . I set up some mixer views for group and routing purposes. All works. BTW I disabled all tracks as I created them. 

With everything set up this way I then started using the template. Disabled it came to around 4.5 gig or 5.5 gig in Windows task manager. The figures varied and increased as the machine was used, and according to background processes (such as auto downloads). Plenty of room for writing the track

I can now audition all my flutes easily. I simply write a few bars, then drag and drop the event from one manufacturers instrument to the next. Going into Key Editor I can compare one stacatto to the next from another library. It is even quite easy to "Hocket" two or more voices from different flutes. 

All is good but.....

When I started using the project, I soon found that if I wanted to use a specific instrument, though all the other tracks were invisibalised, I was compelled to have all the folders and subfolders open in order to view the instrument. In Cubase there is no way to reveal an instrument that is inside a folder, without also viewing the folder heirarchy for that instrument all as sperate tracks ----yuck!

Solutions:
I can indentify two solutions. Firstly you can drag your track outside the folder. This is quick, but of you simply drag (as opposed to copy) the file from then on will not appear in the 'correct' folder heirarchy. The best solution is therefore to copy the track out, then hide the original - medium click fest - a chore.

Solution 2: 
Keep the master template idea (it's very organised) and simply have a virgin project, then use File/import tracks from other project, and simply import what you need. You can occasionally activate the track, but then you make the master dormant again. The track your working on only has what you actively need in it. If you want to go a step further, make a copy of the master, then strip out all tracks except the group tracks. Use this as your basic template and that way when you import your routing should import too.

I am experimenting with this, running a few tests. It seems the most economical but organised way to work. Media bay track presets are similar but you dont get the ability to utilise the track in a project enviroment, nor the ability to sort your tracks into folders. 

Z


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2017)

Check out http://www.skiswitcher.com/cs2.

Disclaimer: I do have a vested interest in promoting it, but the vest is too small to be consequential. This post is just because it's a great tool for organizing templates. You don't need separate a separate track for every articulation, and it keeps the keyswitches off your score.


----------



## Mizar (Jan 23, 2017)

ZeroZero said:


> I am experimenting with a new two project method...



That sounds almost exactly as my method, even down to the number of tracks. I keep everything disabled except a favorite piano (which I tend to write with). I tend to have the same issue, and it sort of makes it harder to keep track of the big picture as well when you have to keep folding and unfolding to see different things. 

Thanks for the input. 




Nick Batzdorf said:


> Check out http://www.skiswitcher.com/cs2.
> 
> Disclaimer: I do have a vested interest in promoting it, but the vest is too small to be consequential. This post is just because it's a great tool for organizing templates. You don't need separate a separate track for every articulation, and it keeps the keyswitches off your score.



It looks like this is exclusive to Logic, right? I'm desperately waiting for Studio One to implement some sort of expression map feature. I haven't had it in my budget to make the jump to Cubase, but those expression maps make it harder and harder.






Sigh...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 23, 2017)

Ah. Yeah, it's only Logic. Sorry.

I just saw grey and didn't bother actually looking.


----------



## ZeroZero (Jan 23, 2017)

Mizar said:


> That sounds almost exactly as my method, even down to the number of tracks. I keep everything disabled except a favorite piano (which I tend to write with). I tend to have the same issue, and it sort of makes it harder to keep track of the big picture as well when you have to keep folding and unfolding to see different things.
> 
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> ...


----------



## Near Decision (Jan 25, 2017)

Something I've learned, and what I like/try to keep in mind when building any kind of VI template (which is admittedly sometimes a tad difficult), is to think about what you want the template to accomplish.

*"What makes the most sense for me to set up [X], so that I can do [Y, Z] faster, easier, etc.?"*​
For example, since I'm not (yet) doing this music thing full-time, I have but a few "real" requirements, but do like to have some luxuries with the all-in-one approach:

Make MIDI editing quick and efficient (switching articulations, copying data from track to track, etc.)
Be able to print stems easily and consistently (no need for rerouting or complex chains in different projects)
Take only what I need, but have things easily accessible ("zen" focus, but also instant gratification)

*Part 1/2: Organizing Tracks*

I like to keep things simple with tracks and groups. DAWs (and life in general) are complicated enough.

As far as organization, I use *one track per instrument* (ie. Violins I, Violins II, Violas), with all my essential articulations loaded in each. The same principle applies to my synths. These are then put into folders by instrument group, which also handily act as busses (equivalently "Track Stacks" in Logic).





*Advantages:*

"Cleaner" layout/reduced number of tracks (less scrolling, less complicated setup)
MIDI editing and arranging based on regions is made easier (see below)
If I print stems, I don't have to care about rerouting things based on which library I use; they all eventually get routed to the main instrument group.



Spoiler: What about using different libraries together?



Not that I currently do, but If I _did have_ different libraries that use the same instrument groups (eg. EastWest, Spitfire, Symphobia), I would also organize them as *subfolders* under the main instrument group.



> [ Violins 1 (folder) --> Hollywood Strings (subfolder of V.1); Albion (subfolder of V.1) ]








Spoiler: How do I record/control different articulations this way?



To switch between those articulations/patches, I use MIDI channel switching, as opposed to using keyswitches or Program/Bank changes.

It keeps everything "cleaner" for me than having a separate track for each individual articulation, and enforces the physical limitations of playing the instrument (you can't play _arco_ and _pizzicato_ at the same time).


____________


*Part 2/2: Setting up the actual Project*

This is where I practice "take only what I need (at the moment)". Remember that camping trip you went on, and you packed supplies for a full week instead of a weekend? No? ... just me? Okay then....

_Anyway... _the point here is to be lean at the start, but be prepared (like a scout) to take on anything that comes along the way.

When it comes to actually _using_ the tracks in my DAW, I *take a modular approach*: I start with a *blank* project, and then use *track templates* (which would be equivalent to "Track Stacks" in Logic) to call up what I need.

These track templates automatically connect to external instances of Vienna Ensemble Pro, which have everything I need (or can at least fit into RAM) loaded and ready to go.




Spoiler: Show me track templates!












*Advantages:*

Loading and saving projects is much faster (not as many network connections to establish and keep track of).
Tracks can come pre-mixed and pre-wired to busses, based on a certain genre or final application (ie. film, game).

That said, I do have a template file that has _absolutely_ _everything_ in it (still a WIP). Great for when I'm not sure what I want to start with.
In that case, I can just use a toolbar with custom buttons to show/hide various sections based on what I need to work with. This is also useful if a project grows large in size.

​




The nice thing about using track templates in REAPER is that they are completely preconfigured, and retain things like fader adjustments, FX inserts, and structural relationships (ie. folders within folders). This is contrast to Logic which crucially does not preserve volume balances. (n)


That's how I do things, in a nutshell.


----------



## jadedsean (Feb 23, 2017)

Near Decision said:


> Something I've learned, and what I like/try to keep in mind when building any kind of VI template (which is admittedly sometimes a tad difficult), is to think about what you want the template to accomplish.
> 
> *"What makes the most sense for me to set up [X], so that I can do [Y, Z] faster, easier, etc.?"*​
> For example, since I'm not (yet) doing this music thing full-time, I have but a few "real" requirements, but do like to have some luxuries with the all-in-one approach:
> ...




Very interesting read, in the middle of setting up my own template but i'm a little confused on balancing. Just wondering how you do it? I used CC data played into the fist bar and i see you do something similar? Do you use CC7 for this or a combination of all three?


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Feb 23, 2017)

Mizar said:


> It looks like this is exclusive to Logic, right? I'm desperately waiting for Studio One to implement some sort of expression map feature. I haven't had it in my budget to make the jump to Cubase, but those expression maps make it harder and harder.



Actually there is a way to make articulation/expression maps in Studio One


----------



## mjsalam (Feb 23, 2017)

Very interesting stuff. So what about creating a template with instruments vs presets? For example 1 instance of Zebra and then load up presets that you manage either through the DAW or the instrument itself? Or create as many instances/tracks of Zebra as there are presets that you like and use often? (and then disable/freeze them)?


----------



## Near Decision (Apr 27, 2017)

jadedsean said:


> Very interesting read, in the middle of setting up my own template but i'm a little confused on balancing. Just wondering how you do it? I used CC data played into the fist bar and i see you do something similar? Do you use CC7 for this or a combination of all three?



I do things pretty similarly to what you describe, although with a bit more complexity in regards to the overall balancing process.


*MIDI-level Balancing/Setup*

I do balancing in a few different stages, but at that level with the MIDI data -- yes -- I have a small 1-beat-long MIDI region on each track that contains only a couple bits of CC data for default levels. What that level is depends on the instrument, but in actual use, it's between a half to two-thirds of the way up.

I primarily use CC11 and CC1, since that's what my libraries respond to for dynamic crossfading and vibrato intensity respectively. When I'm using a library or patch that doesn't have true crossfading, I use CC11 as the generic volume controller.

Otherwise, I actually don't use CC7 -- mostly out of the fact that some DAWs will pre-wire that controller to the actual fader level on the track, and that can be a real pain in the neck when trying to do bits of automation, or when sharing MIDI data with others who may use their own templates or different DAWs. So, I just avoid it.


*My "Bigger Picture" Balancing*

I mentioned that I do balancing in stages. In addition to the usual balancing between individual instrument tracks, and subsequently whole groups, I _also_ create balance at the patch or articulation level. You can think of it as going from "micro" balancing -- between each individual patch -- to "macro" balancing -- balancing tracks and groups.

I think the micro-balancing step is a particularly very important part of creating balance in a template, and it's one that people may forget or not think of often (myself included). I find that it's especially necessary with some of the bigger and "processed" orchestral libraries that have very wide variances (_Symphonic Orchestra_, I'm looking at you ).

So, let's break it down like James Brown... here's how that would look in practice with my setup:

*1) At the patch/articulation level:*

This is like the atom level of magnification under a microscope. And like atoms, small changes here can significantly affect everything else (though not often resulting in a violent explosion).

If you use the single-track-per-instrument setup like I do, then you would balance each articulation inside the plugin instance itself (PLAY, Kontakt, etc). Set each patch's master volume control relative to your "main" or loudest one, but with each articulation being played at the loudest dynamic possible (127). For me, that's usually the legato patches.

If you use one track per articulation in your DAW, then you can just simply use the faders on each track in the mixer to set relative volumes between your articulations.

*2) At the instrument/track level:*

Continuing the analogy, we're swapping lenses now and zooming out to the level of each individual instrument -- little microscopic organisms made up of those atoms and molecules. Here, we're setting the volume levels between instrument-level groups (eg. Violins, Violas, Celli).

If you use the one track per _instrument_ approach, then simply use the faders to set the starting volume.

If you use one track per _articulation_ approach, first route these articulation tracks to an instrument-level buss (for example, all Viola articulation tracks sum to a track or buss named "Violas"). The instrument-level buss will be used to set the starting volume.

On this instrument-level track, choose a volume level that you want to have as your new "0 dB" mark at your loudest dynamic.
*
But, very importantly*, make sure these instruments in the same group (eg. Horns, Trumpets, Trombones) are at the same or similar _average_ volume (RMS or ITU BS.1770-Fast). *Do not use peak levels to do this*, or you will find yourself out of balance the second you have any change in dynamics. And that will make you (and me) a very sad panda.

This means that I take all of my instrument groups and start with setting them to at an arbitrary level, say, -18 dB RMS, or -18 dB with an ITU-F weighting. Play a passage at the loudest dynamic and have a secondary RMS/ITU metering plugin open while adjusting the fader.

From there, continue to tweak the volume levels until you _perceive_ them to be roughly the same volume. Don't just rely on the numbers and stop there.

*3) At the section level:*

Chuck that microscope into the trash; we're now looking at much bigger things now.

This is the balance between sections -- Strings, Brass, Woodwinds, etc, and it's pretty simple. You should have a track for each of these, with their corresponding instrument tracks routed to them appropriately. The volume levels here can be tailored to taste and according to the style of music.


And that's how I do balancing... in a large nutshell.


----------



## jonathanwright (Apr 27, 2017)

ZeroZero said:


> When I started using the project, I soon found that if I wanted to use a specific instrument, though all the other tracks were invisibalised, I was compelled to have all the folders and subfolders open in order to view the instrument. In Cubase there is no way to reveal an instrument that is inside a folder, without also viewing the folder heirarchy for that instrument all as sperate tracks ----yuck!



Have you tried using the find track command?

If all of your tracks are disabled and hidden, by using CMD-F you can search all tracks, when you select the instrument you want it unhides it, without displaying the rest of the tracks in that folder.

I've been using this a while and it works very well. I give each library a three letter code (ARK, SCS etc) to make searching very easy.

I've also recently reduced the amount of folders to global 'Strings' and 'Brass' containers, as using the above method I found having nested folders was unnecessary and created clutter. It also keeps the project very simple and means you don't have to move tracks around to keep it tidy.


----------

