# How many tracks in your template and when its TOO much



## gsilbers (Dec 25, 2010)

having every single instrument sample available on our template would be cool but track count starts to get annoying in several different ways. 

now with omnisphere, sample logic evolve etc. thereis even more. .. and tonehammer and cinesamples coming into play(well, in the last 5 years) , there is even more than ever... and more in the future for sure. 

how many tracks u have, what type of intruments u always have loaded vs loading for individual projects and when do you think (by personal experience) is the track count when things get too much


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 25, 2010)

The VSL VI is still way ahead of everybody {I think anyway} as far as a player is concerned because you can have a single midi track for all the articulations of an instrument. If you want to have more you can but I have sure liked having a minimum of midi tracks compared to the old days when you could have 20 or so for a single instrument.

I've heard that Hollywood strings is going to update their player so you can do something like that (custom key switching) but I'm not exactly sure what they're planning on doing.

It's up to the operator as far as too much because everyone has their workflow preferences. I don't like more than 3 or 4 per instrument and that's in the case of 3 or four brass players like four fr hrns. I have a single channel for 1st vlns, single for 2nd vlns and same with other strings with 1 for basses.


----------



## midphase (Dec 25, 2010)

With the speed of which Kontakt opens any instrument, I find the idea of a template increasingly unnecessary vs. just pulling up what I need when I need it. The time it takes to pull up a new instrument is not much different than the time it takes to navigate to a specific track in a huge template, and this way my computer runs extremely efficiently.

Logic Pro is key in my ability to do this, and I don't know if other DAW's offer the same streamlined approach to pulling up tracks.


----------



## dfhagai (Dec 25, 2010)

> The VSL VI is still way ahead of everybody {I think anyway} as far as a player is concerned because you can have a single midi track for all the articulations of an instrument.


Cubase 5 VST Expression feature does that exactly, for more then a year now


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 25, 2010)

dfhagai @ Sat Dec 25 said:


> > The VSL VI is still way ahead of everybody {I think anyway} as far as a player is concerned because you can have a single midi track for all the articulations of an instrument.
> 
> 
> Cubase 5 VST Expression feature does that exactly, for more then a year now



I figured others are doing things like that but even so that's a single dedicated sequencer. The question applies to whatever DAW you're using. Lots of folks are still having to use far more channels than they would like.

btw: Are you saying that you can access all the articulations in Play on a single midi channel play any that are loaded (as you can with the VSL VI?)


----------



## dfhagai (Dec 25, 2010)

> btw: Are you saying that you can access all the articulations in Play on a single midi channel play any that are loaded (as you can with the VSL VI?)


Yes.


----------



## cc64 (Dec 26, 2010)

I never was very much into templates as i always found that scrolling through hundreds of tracks was more frustrating than anything else. But with the new computers, the inertia effect of Mac's Magic mouse and also in newer versions of DP the ability to scroll up and down at blazingly fast speeds i'm getting more interested in templates. At least for the bread and butter orchestral stuff. Special thanks to Mike Patti's tutorials too ; )

Obviously for instruments like Omnisphere, Stylus, Evolve, Sample Logic and other creatively used synths, IMO there's no use in having a template for those unless you always use the same drum loop or synth pad/FX...

Best,

Claude


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 26, 2010)

Very nice df. I've heard East West is going to make Play work like that.


----------



## dfhagai (Dec 26, 2010)

Incase anyone is interested, I've mapped all EWQLSO Platinum Plus into VST Expression


----------



## lux (Dec 26, 2010)

for orchestral i tend to have barebones templates with basic articulations loaded (mostly sustain and staccato and a few swells) plus a full percussions setup. Then i load additional articulations one by one as soon as i need them.

for non orchestral i basically prefer not to have any template, except with some mastering eq and compressor presets. That helps sculpting the sound from scratch according to what is the piece i'm creating and the idea i have in mind. Also helps experimenting a bit with different sonics.

Luca


----------



## madbulk (Dec 26, 2010)

I have about 350 tracks in my template. And somewhere well south of there is too much.
I need to build a template that lies in between... a little of the big structure where all the orch sects are where you expect to find them, but greater reliance upon Logic presets to just call it up as you need it.
And like Lux, my non orch templates are nearly empty -- just some structure.

How many damn products are too much? I'm only here because Komplete 7 was burning a hole on my desk. I need 90% of these dvd's like I need a hole in the head.


----------



## handz (Dec 26, 2010)

lux @ Sun Dec 26 said:


> for orchestral i tend to have barebones templates with basic articulations loaded (mostly sustain and staccato and a few swells) plus a full percussions setup. Then i load additional articulations one by one as soon as i need them.
> 
> 
> Luca




Same here, I also have some basic template and loads what I need at the moment on the go.
In the end my template hardly reaches 1OO tracks... 


madbulk: 350?! thats huge...


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 26, 2010)

This is obviously a matter of personal preference, and you gotta go with what works for you. Kays has a great point - and thankfully Kontakt has made huge leaps recently which make loading very fast.

Still, I'm of those who likes having all my bases covered when I sit down to work - I hate having to navigate through menus to load sounds when the creative juices are flowing, and I also abhor Kontakt's microscopic interface so I don't want to see it any more than necessary.

That said, my current "trailer park" template contains 300 tracks and includes everything I'll likely use in a big cue. However, with creative use of Logic's screen sets, folders, multiple monitors and window linking, I'm never more than a key command away from any group of tracks and I rarely have to scroll. I have everything in folders so project navigation is a breeze.

Again though, whatever works for you...

Cheers!


----------



## midphase (Dec 26, 2010)

Jim, I like the Kurzweil 250 styled buttons on your web site!


I think an additional benefit (for me) to not using a template is that I'm more likely to explore new sounds than if all the tracks were already in place.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 26, 2010)

Less is more.


----------



## IFM (Dec 27, 2010)

rJames @ Sun Dec 26 said:


> midphase @ Sat Dec 25 said:
> 
> 
> > With the speed of which Kontakt opens any instrument, I find the idea of a template increasingly unnecessary vs. just pulling up what I need when I need it. The time it takes to pull up a new instrument is not much different than the time it takes to navigate to a specific track in a huge template, and this way my computer runs extremely efficiently.
> ...



+1 for me too. I've tried the 'many track' method but instead have organized everything into channel strips.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 27, 2010)

lux @ Sun Dec 26 said:


> for orchestral i tend to have barebones templates with basic articulations loaded (mostly sustain and staccato and a few swells) plus a full percussions setup. Then i load additional articulations one by one as soon as i need them.



Yup, that's what I do too (largely the sustains are cc1 velocity). Sonar doesn't have anything too clever such as the VST Expression, and I only have a handful of VSL. I'm on around 90 tracks I think, on 2 32 bit XP rigs - this leaves around 1.5gb for loading additional stuff per project. Pretty tight, but covers most of the bases. And basses.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 27, 2010)

Ashermusic @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> Less is more.



Well-I agree with this. More or less.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2010)

My template - 624 tracks and counting. And that's without choirs. I like having everything (ok, well not _everything_) at my dispoal, so when I decide I want x, I can just click on x's track, and away I go. No pausing, and wasting time and interrupting my creative flow trying to find stuff, which is the big thing for me. Plus, if I am not sure what I want, it is really easy to audition sounds - rather than look at the list of what i have available, and then say, "hmmm...let's see here..."



Ashermusic @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> Less is more.



How so? Sometimes, sure. But when you need a full-blown, huge, epic orchestral trailer peice with multiple artics, layers and layers of pounding drums, staccato violas and violins, screaming horns and trumpets...less is _not_ more.



cc64 @ Sun Dec 26 said:


> .....i always found that scrolling through hundreds of tracks was more frustrating than anything else.



I hear that, but if your template is organized "properly" (relative term there), and once you get used to your template, and you know where everything is, finding stuff is a breeze. My template is laid out like a score page, so if I am laying down some piccolo (trks 1 & 2 at the top) and then I want some violins - I know to not only scroll towards the bottom of the template, but how much.

Cheers.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 27, 2010)

you guys dont have different template for different styles or type of programming?

like i have an electronic based template , another for big orchestral , another hybrid, for TV. etc... 


having so many tracks is cool but scrolling is a dud. id like to see how u guys dealw this in logic. i made a separate arrangement window thatr only has folders and everything else hidden. in the main arrangement window i have all the instruments so clicking a folder will take me to that group of instrument.


----------



## handz (Dec 27, 2010)

Sorry but 624 is insane i could compose symphony before you just scroll from up to down and try to find the right track 

"? Sometimes, sure. But when you need a full-blown, huge, epic orchestral trailer peice with multiple artics, layers and layers of pounding drums, staccato violas and violins, screaming horns and trumpets"

Lets try..
Drums - 10 tracks
String Stacs 5 tracks
Horns - 3 tracks 
Trumpets 3 tracks

8) 




RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> My template - 624 tracks and counting. And that's without choirs. I like having everything (ok, well not _everything_) at my dispoal, so when I decide I want x, I can just click on x's track, and away I go. No pausing, and wasting time and interrupting my creative flow trying to find stuff, which is the big thing for me. Plus, if I am not sure what I want, it is really easy to audition sounds - rather than look at the list of what i have available, and then say, "hmmm...let's see here..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dinerdog (Dec 27, 2010)

I have a basic template, but hate hearing the same sounds every time, so it's channel strips (in Logic) or at least an empty one of everything (Omnisphere, Kontakt, Battery etc.) Though I do miss the old days of using a fine tuned multi in the 760 or 5080. I do this with Sampletank sometimes, but I'd still love an EXS multi as I have sooo many sounds I use from that.

I'd LOVE to see some screenshots if anyone would share.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2010)

handz @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> Sorry but 624 is insane



No - YOU'RE insane!!!  :lol: 



handz @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> i could compose symphony before you just scroll from up to down and try to find the right track



HA! Wouldn't doubt it!  



handz @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> Lets try..
> Drums - 10 tracks
> String Stacs 5 tracks
> Horns - 3 tracks
> Trumpets 3 tracks



Right - that's how many tracks may wind up getting used, but you have to have more available....if you are going to use 10 tracks of drums, do you really want 10 drum tracks in your template? No - you want way more, this way you can pick and choose which drums you want with each track you compose.


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 27, 2010)

gsilbers @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> you guys dont have different template for different styles or type of programming?
> 
> ...having so many tracks is cool but scrolling is a dud. id like to see how u guys dealw this in logic.



I have different templates, sure - but I think that's what's missing in this discussion: we all do different things, so the conversation is probably pointless. I had the pleasure of chatting with Jay Asher on the phone a few months back and we touched on this issue. Jay mentioned that he doesn't do much of the big trailer-type stuff, so the small build-as-you-go method works for him; having a huge template isn't helpful.

However, for those of us who do regularly work on big Hollywood-type stuff, it's a head-scratcher that we WOULDN'T want our entire orchestral palette loaded and ready to go.

As for how to approach it in Logic, I put up some screen shots of an older version of my template here:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5772046-post15.html

The rest of that thread might give you some more ideas as well:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... whole.html

Logic really makes large templates a breeze once you start taking advantage of screen sets, folders, window linking, etc. As I mentioned earlier, even with 300 tracks in my template, I do very little scrolling.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Dec 27, 2010)

Oh i have around 100 instrument tracks in my template....each one containing the entire respective library or section ...so my Violins 1 is the full extended contents of VSL appass Violins ...and so forth.
I change articulations with KS`s and controllers, im a strict ONE midi track per section kinda guy.

And i always load the entire library into my template, so i can always do whatever i want without ever loading anything at all later.
Its all premixed as well.

And everything is suborganized into folder tracks...where i matched the eq and setup\ks scheme...so for example, the first violins folder contains 5 complete Violin sections\tracks in different sizes and timbre, all set up to react exactly the same to every KS, xfade , velocity and whatnot..., 

So i can go in and select a individual library..., or several for Divisi....OR i can just activate the entire folder track and play them all in unison for a super layered huge sound  
And all the eq is such that they blend in timbre and according to section size .

And offcourse Copy and paste works as well 

Took alot of time, and alot of resources to get right, i think im at template variation number 352 or something, lol.

I have no clue how many individual patches my template consists of, i would assume its atleast over 1000 , since each track has 12 keyswitches, each containing atleast 2-3 articulations or variations each . 

Downside....It takes 45 minutes to load :/

I dont ever think its gonna get too much, altho i started loading some kontakt stuff into purged mode, cuz i dont use all that stuff at once offcourse...but i like having every nuance and variation available, setup, mixed, and eq`d in case i need it.

oh and the best part:
I set up a rather complex bus system via VEPRO, so that when i am done i can hit record, and have all the stems recorded to individual tracks in one pass. 

Not only that...but i get 3 trax pr section: one with the dry signal, and 2 different reverb depths, all separated for each section and phase free.
And those are the final stems i deliver, super easy to mix and adapt to any mix situation.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2010)

Here - scrolling made easy:

http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/Scrolling.mp4

About 7MB

Sorry about the zooming - haven't yet figured out how to control that....


----------



## midphase (Dec 27, 2010)

I dunno...with the richness of today's libraries, the whole idea of layering like crazy seems not as necessary as it used to be.

Back in the 90's....you had to layer in order to get something useable...but today?

I mean, you pull up some of the StormDrum 2 stuff or Tonehammer and Drums of War and those are already so thick and rich that layering actually makes it sound smaller since you run out of headroom and you might induce some phase problems between the low end stuff.

For me, this whole idea of running tons of tracks is counter productive, but I realize that different people work differently than I do.

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding....if having all those tracks yields great results...then more power to you (literally).


----------



## dinerdog (Dec 27, 2010)

whinecellar - thanks for the screenshots and links. Some excellent ideas there. : >


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 27, 2010)

You're more than welcome. Be sure to read the descriptions of those screenshots though - otherwise they won't make much sense


----------



## IFM (Dec 27, 2010)

This thread is one of the good ones. Personally I always like to see how others are managing their setup. I see still some of you are still running one track per articulation. What I've been doing in Logic for the PLAY part of the setup is just changing the channels of certain notes to whatever articulation they are supposed to play. Logic also lets you draw in and view controller data, velocity, etc on specific channels within a single track. This keeps things less cluttered for me anyways.
Chris


----------



## sbkp (Dec 27, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> scrolling made easy:
> 
> http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/Scrolling.mp4



Hey, RiffWraith... Why no folder tracks? Just don't need them?


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 27, 2010)

Dragonwind @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> This thread is one of the good ones. Personally I always like to see how others are managing their setup. I see still some of you are still running one track per articulation. What I've been doing in Logic for the PLAY part of the setup is just changing the channels of certain notes to whatever articulation they are supposed to play. Logic also lets you draw in and view controller data, velocity, etc on specific channels within a single track. This keeps things less cluttered for me anyways.
> Chris



how do u set it up?

i have an environment layer in logic which does keyswitches. 
so i add a bank in kontakt (VEP on a slave PC) so legato is always slot1 , stacc slot2 etc.


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 27, 2010)

sbkp @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Dec 27 said:
> 
> 
> > scrolling made easy:
> ...



I dunno....enlighten me - what advantage would there be to using folder tracks?


----------



## Peter Alexander (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm not the Logic maven you are with the Environment, but here's how I'm approaching my own template for orchestral.

1. I don't build a single massive orchestral template, instead I create a series of templates depending on what I'm writing AND the size of the string section needed. By size, I mean by numbers of players recorded (bigness) and the basic articulations needed to create an effective linear string line.

2. I create the strings first because strings are the backbone of the orchestra. And what I pick depends on the articulations availaò  ý   H)ç  ý   H£¦  ý   H£Ú  ý   Jt  ý   J½  ý   J¦ô  ý   J§  ý   K1í  ý   K2'  ý   KS  ý   KS  ý   Kv&  ý   Kv:  ý   K÷%  ý   K÷  ý   L_´  ý   L_ã  ý   Làt  ý   Là§  ý   MQ  ý   M‰  ý   NZ§  ý   NZÀ  ý   NèZ  ý   Né+  ý   O‡7  ý   O‡¡  ý   O×æ  ý   OØ_  ý   PÔ  ý   P‹1  ý   Q&  ý   Q&¨  ý   QK¹  ý   QKú  ý   QVµ  ý   QVø  ý   Rsî  ý   Rt&  ý   Rt–  ý   RtÒ  ý   Rñ?  ý   Rñ‹  ý   U)a  ý   U)˜  ý   V’  ý   VŽ  ý   Vý‰  ý   Výé  ý   WŒ  ý   WÕ  ý   Y  ý   YO  ý   Zp$  ý   ZpX  ý   ]ÄH  ý   ]ÄT  ý   ^g¹  ý   ^h  ý   _Æ}  ý   _Ç  ý   _ì›  ý   _ì¼  ý   `ƒÉ  ý   `„  ý   `Ø  ý   `ØF  ý   bZË  ý   b\¡  ý   bvM  ý   bv`  ý   bÛU  ý   bÛŒ  ý   cW  ý   cà  ý   c(M  ý   c(Ž  ý   d ¥  ý   d ñ  ý   dÝ›  ý   dÝü  ý   e  ý   eZ  ý   gI  ý   gq  ý   i?³  ý   i?ò  ý   iFž  ý   iGŒ  ý   i§f  ý   i«Õ  ý   kð£  ý   kðÕ  ý   lÃä  ý   lÄ0  ý   m§Ì  ý   m§ö  ý   nO…  ý   nOç  ý   oØ/  ý   oØ–  ý   pÚ°  ý   pÛS  ý   rSä  ý   rT  ý   s‘U  ý   s‘¢  ý   s¦±  ý   s§;  ý   s»Ó  ý   s¼h  ý   sé3              ò  ý   sðÙ  ý   sñ3  ý   tkù  ý   tl¦  ý   vçÆ  ý   vè1  ý   |±  ý   |¼  ý   |c¼  ý   |d  ý   }"æ  ý   }"ý  ý   }/U  ý   }/  ý   ?  ý   À  ý     ý   †  ý   ©E  ý   ©›  ý   ‚w/  ý   ‚w{  ý   ‚§  ý   ‚§Å  ý   ‡4Þ  ý   ‡5  ý   ˆP  ý   ˆP_  ý   ‰<i  ý   ‰<â  ý   ‰ÑK  ý   ‰Ñ`  ý   ‹»H  ý   ‹»†  ý   ‹Ôc  ý   ‹Ô¦  ý   Œu  ý   Œu}  ý   Ûÿ  ý   Ü;  ý   Ží  ý   ŽíF  ý   ’
æ  ý   ’
û  ý   ’mb  ý   ’m¦  ý   •ÌÀ  ý   •ÌÔ  ý   •êr  ý   •ê¸  ý   •ò»  ý   •òâ  ý   •ûá  ý   •üE  ý   –¶;  ý   –¶  ý   –â¶  ý   –ãl  ý   ˜¯Ç  ý   ˜¯î  ý   šÔ@  ý   šÔÏ  ý   œŠÜ  ý   œŠõ  ý   œ”  ý   œ•Ž  ý   žL“  ý   žLû  ý   žÑ  ý   žÑ6  ý   žè“  ý   žèÏ  ý   ž÷ì  ý   žøg  ý   Ÿp  ý   ŸpŽ  ý   Ÿá#  ý   Ÿá…  ý    \1  ý    \Ò  ý    Þ>  ý    ÞG  ý   ¢d  ý   ¢  ý   £J‚  ý   £J   ý   ¥„ï  ý   ¥…  ý   ¥§œ  ý   ¥§Ë  ý   ¦sh  ý   ¦tr  ý   ©	ï  ý   ©
Š  ý   ª–r  ý   ª–Ä  ý   «h#  ý


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 28, 2010)

Yeah, well my new template will be 1,632 tracks.

Sonar probably isn't the best DAW for large templates I think. In an ideal world I'd love to see everything so I can see what's going on at any one time, but I realise that's impossible. Using track folders really helps here for me though, I quite like working on a section with everything else collapsed. Also, if I need to mix 10-28-01 - 10-28-20, I need to select all the clips in that region only. The higher the track count the more unwieldy that operation can become (though I may be talking rubbish here, cos collapsing all the sections first makes it pretty simple). But if a section is larger than a screen height, that's something I'm not so keen on.

Riff's little quicktime was useful though, it doesn't look TOO bad (though gadzooks I'd use folders). Great thread, this.


----------



## IFM (Dec 28, 2010)

whinecellar @ Mon Dec 27 said:


> You're more than welcome. Be sure to read the descriptions of those screenshots though - otherwise they won't make much sense



Although I've been working with channel strips, you've made me rethink about setting up a template with all VE Pro sets for the orchestral parts. I don't like Logic's folders as much as Cubase's but they do work.
Chris


----------



## rgames (Dec 28, 2010)

My orchestral template is about 150 tracks - about half of that is unpitched perc.

I can't imagine doing orchestral work without a template - I see three main advantages:

1. Most often I start with a basic piano reduction and orchestrate from there. With a template, it's a simple matter of dragging parts around to the different tracks. The only mod I have to make is the VST expression markings.

2. Also very handy for doubling parts or adding harmonies - drag to another track and the doubling is instant. Also, using VST expression makes it easy to transpose (octaves, thirds, whatever) because keyswitches don't get transposed.

3. The template also helps with the mixing process: everything in my template is panned and mixed to give a good sound. So I don't have to re-establish reverb sends, EQ, panning, etc. every time I start a new project.

I've never understood the "multiple tracks for each articulation" approach - that seems to be a very cumbersome way to work. The only time I do that is for runs because VSL screwed the Horizon series owners and took away the runs in the "upgrade" to the VI version. So I still have those on separate tracks when I use them.

rgames


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 28, 2010)

sbkp @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> It would be arrogant of me to presume I could enlighten you. o-[][]-o



HA HA! :lol: 

Ok, I see where you are coming from, but...



sbkp @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> All of that is based, I suppose, on my feeling that I'd rather click than scroll. Or at least I'd like to scroll less. It also let's me keep tracks taller if I like, without increasing the scroll distance too much.



But then it's click AND scroll, no? Ok, scroll less, but as you see from the vid, scrolling is not that bad. I guess the fact that I have the tracks very thin helps; I could see that - as you alluded to - if you had the tracks expanded quite a bit, why the scrolling thing would be a pain in the arse.

Allright, so I have just put some stuff into folder tracks. Really don't see how this helps. If I click to expand the folder track(s), then the template is as it was before. For example, I have 115 tracks of percussion - yeah, if that folder track is collapsed, it is in fact a bit easier to get to everything else. But only if what I need is not in a collapsed folder track; if it is, then i have to expand that f.track to get to the tracks inside it. And then I want percussion - now I have to *scroll* to that f. track, click to expand it, (I have just performed MORE work) and then what happens - the 115 tracks take up more than the screen can handle - so I am back to scrolling anyway. Counter-inutative if you ask me. I am not naggging on you for the way you work; hey - whatever works for you (or anyone) is cool. But for me, the f. tracks create more work. Oh, and one more thing on the scrolling: there are four ways to scroll: scroll bar (hardle ever use it), clicking in empty space and dragging the mouse to the top or bottom of the project (hardle ever use it), turning the mouse wheel, or clicking and holding the mouse wheel - that last one is very useful for short distances - especially if you are familiar with the template and know where everything is.

Cheers.


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 28, 2010)

Dragonwind @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> I don't like Logic's folders as much as Cubase's but they do work.



Agreed. I've been bugging some friends at Apple who are pretty high up the chain about Logic's folder implementation for ages... even a simple expand/collapse approach would be a huge improvement over the "go into/out of" paradigm!


rgames' point about premixed templates (orch elements in particular) is a huge one for me too. I can't imagine having to do all that on a per-project basis! I've got all my different libraries EQ matched, blended & sent to their respective verbs in my template, so much of the orch mix is already done when I sit down to write. Another side benefit of that (at least for OCD types like me!) is that it keeps me focused on writing rather than mix issues


----------



## IFM (Dec 28, 2010)

whinecellar @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> Dragonwind @ Tue Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like Logic's folders as much as Cubase's but they do work.
> ...



I see the point. Using channel strips are unmixed typically apart from my insert plugins. I own Cubase and have been testing the waters again after the last update. Maybe as I am about to do a new project that this is the time to give it another go. VST Expression seems quite interesting. I also like multiple lanes in the editor, that's very useful. Media bay isn't as sexy as as channel strips, but still usable. Thanks for everyone's insight.
Chris

EDIT: Hmm, after a few hours I'm still happier in Logic but hey that's what I'm used to I guess. Still though I am going to set up a full orchestral load template in it for this next project.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 28, 2010)

oh yes, cubase and nuendos folder tracks are waaaaaaaayyy better than logics. 

wish logic folder tracks where like nuendos.


----------



## sbkp (Dec 30, 2010)

RiffWraith @ Tue Dec 28 said:


> Allright, so I have just put some stuff into folder tracks. Really don't see how this helps. If I click to expand the folder track(s), then the template is as it was before.



I tend to work on certain groups of things at a time. So if the other folders are closed, I'm often looking at relatively few tracks. Occasionally I end up with most or all folders expanded, which is fine, and when I'm focusing on certain stuff again later, I'll collapse the unneeded folders.

It's much like "focus on staves" in Sibelius, but more flexible.

But I'm not trying to tell YOU how to work!


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 30, 2010)

I've switch over to the articulation per track idea, not for everything but for most of it. So. I end up with 300 or so midi and audio tracks. I'm getting a lot of longer save times with Cubase, like 3 or 4 seconds but I always feel a crash coming; it rarely does though, but it's still annoying. Is the only way to get past this to reduce track count? Also, I'm using a dozen instances of VE Pro from three slaves.


----------



## IFM (Dec 31, 2010)

As I'm setting up a a new full template, I find myself wondering what you do if you have to load the project back in but your VE Pro templates have changed? Do you save seperate Meta frames for each project, re-couple VE Pro then save, or maybe just add on and keep instruments out of order? I was thinking it would be easier to load one VI per track instead (in Logic) so I could still save everything as channel presets so I could build new templates for smaller projects or call in instruments when working on non-orchestral projects.
Chris


----------



## whinecellar (Dec 31, 2010)

Dragonwind @ Fri Dec 31 said:


> what you do if you have to load the project back in but your VE Pro templates have changed? Do you save seperate Meta frames for each project...



Yes. If there's anything in my VE Pro setup that I've changed for a cue, I save a metaframe with that cue right in the Logic project folder.


----------



## IFM (Dec 31, 2010)

whinecellar @ Fri Dec 31 said:


> Dragonwind @ Fri Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > what you do if you have to load the project back in but your VE Pro templates have changed? Do you save seperate Meta frames for each project...
> ...



Ah didn't think about saving it in the Logic project folder. That makes perfect sense. It would also be useful to add this to the NOTES tab for future reference (in Logic).
Chris


----------



## Walra48 (Jan 1, 2011)

givemenoughrope @ Thu Dec 30 said:


> I've switch over to the articulation per track idea, not for everything but for most of it. So. I end up with 300 or so midi and audio tracks. I'm getting a lot of longer save times with Cubase, like 3 or 4 seconds but I always feel a crash coming; it rarely does though, but it's still annoying. Is the only way to get past this to reduce track count? Also, I'm using a dozen instances of VE Pro from three slaves.



This "long save time" with high track counts is something that has annoyed me in Cubase for years. I often work with high audio track counts in 1 hour tv shows. (300-400) and YES, Cubase save times become long and sluggish with more tracks in a project. Funny thing is - there's a "disable track" option for each audio track - but it has no effect on the load that the track has on the system. I've created templates with approx. 200+ audio tracks (all empty) and the long save times and perceived instability are there. It seems that just the very _presence_ of empty audio tracks puts a heavy load on Cubase. There should be a feature that _truly_ disables audio tracks - sort of a freeze/off-load that would bring snappiness back in to the app when cues are mixed down.


----------



## rgames (Jan 1, 2011)

[quote:c5af65cb3a="Walra48 @ Sat Jan 01ò    Û]l    Û^Û    Û`ä    Ûa    Ûd[    Ûd”    ÛeÂ    ÛeÌ    Ûhâ    Ûi    Ûi?    ÛiE    Ûix    Ûi    ÛiÝ    ÛjU    Ûk’    Ûk´    Ûlê    Ûlû    ÛnQ    Ûn…    Ûu—    Ûu³    Ûv¿    Ûwb    ÛxŠ    Ûy'    Û}š    Û}±    Û½    ÛÔ    Ûþ    Û‚:    Ûƒ@    Ûƒä    Û‰    Û‰=    Û‘     Û‘    Û“‡    Û“¬    Û•    Û•º    Û—    Û—U    ÛšÑ    Ûšé    Û›    Û›*    Ûœd    Ûœk    Ûžþ    ÛŸ    ÛŸÿ    Û J    Û¢Ô    Û£d    Û¥B    Û¥]    Ûªà    Û«4    Û­Å    Û®    Û°†    Û°Þ    Û±D    Û±ª    Û¶½    Û¶å    ÛÁ
    ÛÁ<    ÛÁ¯    ÛÁâ    ÛÅ    ÛÅ)    ÛÅå    ÛÅí    ÛÊò    ÛË     ÛËe    ÛË¹    ÛËÝ    ÛËå    ÛÌ    ÛÍ!    ÛÏ¨    ÛÐd    ÛÒ¶    ÛÒù    ÛÔF    ÛÔÂ    Û×7    Û×I    ÛÚZ    ÛÚç    ÛÛ¢    ÛÛÏ    ÛÝï    ÛÞn    ÛãÐ    ÛäA    Ûå    Ûå[    Ûæñ    Ûç    ÛìÜ    Ûí    ÛíG    Ûíl    Ûí•    Ûí°              ò    Ûî}    Ûïr    Ûï~    Ûù)    Ûù—    Ûùü    Ûúj    Ü	Ê    Ü
7    Üá    Ü    Üß    Ü\    Üª    Üõ    Ü!    ÜÕ    ÜJ    Ü    Üw    Ü;    ÜG    Ü"ì    Ü#     Ü$    Ü$j    Ü%?    Ü%I    Ü(^    Ü(    Ü+Â    Ü+Ý    Ü,ù    Ü-&    Ü/V    Ü/m    Ü1    Ü1    Ü1Ë    Ü2‡    Ü5Ž    Ü5ë    Ü61    Ü6r    Ü7=    Ü7À    Ü<ª    Ü=     ÜG?    ÜGP    ÜGÚ    ÜH/    ÜLœ    ÜM    ÜM„    ÜMý    ÜSî    ÜTP    ÜT§    ÜTÅ    ÜUá    ÜUï    ÜWM    ÜWc    ÜWt    ÜWƒ    ÜX1    ÜXæ    ÜY}    ÜY÷    Ü`w    Ü`‹    Üa©    Üb    Ük    ÜkÖ    ÜwÊ    Üwë    Ü€Y    Ü€    ÜK    Ü`    Üƒ 


----------



## rabiang (Jan 3, 2011)

very nice thread, ty all.


----------



## futur2 (Jan 3, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Jan 01 said:


> My save times with as many as 200 tracks are never more than a few seconds (consistent w/ other quote - I think that's plenty fast by the way...).





Walra48 @ Sat Jan 01 said:


> Normally my save times are 1 sec or less -with 200+ audio tracks the save times go up to 5-6 seconds.
> Its not a game killer - more of a PITA. Sure wish Steinberg could find a fix for this.



this sounds about the same to me, just a different percepetion of it :mrgreen:


----------



## IFM (Jan 3, 2011)

whinecellar @ Fri Dec 31 said:


> Dragonwind @ Fri Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > what you do if you have to load the project back in but your VE Pro templates have changed? Do you save seperate Meta frames for each project...



Yes. If there's anything in my VE Pro setup that I've changed for a cue, Iò     îTA     î^Ù     î_7     î`h     î`â     îdŒ     îd¶     îkÖ     îkù     îxß     îy'     îzh     îzÏ     î~¶     î‚Z     î‚‹     îŠ     îŠ"     îŠÎ     îŠÓ     î‹      î‹     î‹q     î‹—     î—     î¹     î×     î


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 3, 2011)

Dragonwind @ Mon Jan 03 said:


> Do you have VE Pro set up as standalone, with Bidule, or as VE Pro sever?



I'm running all VEP servers. (1) 32-bit dedicated to PLAY, (1) 64-bit hosting Kontakt & Vienna instruments (both on my main Mac) and (1) 64-bit on each of my slave machines...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 9, 2011)

Somebody PMed me and asked about how I set up templates and like a dolt I accidentally deleted it so whoever it was, please PM me again .


----------

