What are you trying to do?
Hi,
The shown Inspector is for the selected âMIDIâ, which is the Instrument Track. The Channel is for the Audio Return. The same would be, if you would select a MIDI Track routed to an Instrument Track. Itâs totally logical and consistent.
I think the intention of the UI design is the opposite of that: the fact those two menus are not grouped together is intended to be a way to avoid the implication that they are linked.
The selection in the upper one is connected to the e button next to it. The lower menu always shows the routing for the one return that is always active.
Hi,
Iâm going through carefully and I can confirm, it doesnât make sense.
I have the following tracks:
- Instrument Track (HALion Sonic SE) with multi-outs enabled.
- MIDI Track routed to the given HALion Sonic SE Instrument Track.
Select the Instrument Track:
- Channel Shows the âMain Outâ routing of the Instrument.
- The Inspectorâs Routing tab shows the âMain Outâ routing of the Instrument.
Select the Audio Return Channel of the Instrument (the Automation track, other but the 1st one, as the 1st one represents also the âMain Outâ).
- Channel Shows the given Audio Return Channel routing of the Instrument.
- The Inspectorâs Routing tab shows the âMain Outâ routing of the Instrument.
- The Select multi-out instrument return channel field in the Inspector > Routing shows the associated Audio Return Channel. This is the confusing part, because in the Inspector, we are mixing two channels in fact.
Select the MIDI Track
- Channel Shows the given Audio Return Channel routing of the Instrument. You can change it there.
- The Inspectorâs Routing tab shows the given Audio Return Channel routing of the Instrument.
I am trying to find a way to use instrument tracks in a multi-timbral context, this without scratching my head too much and, more important, WITHOUT any added MIDI track, as instrument tracks are supposed to manage all incoming MIDI messages, already. Otherwise, using instruments rack is still the way to go.
If not possible, then the whole instrument track implementation is useless, when using muulti-timbral VSTIs and needs an urgent overhaul. Iâll let aside the visibility/hide issue for nowâŚ
The main reason I abandoned Rack Instruments is they canât be exported/imported.
Despite some inconsistencies and bugs with Track Instruments, I still feel itâs the way to go.
I suppose you could use different lanes for your different voices.
But why on earth do you persist involving a MIDI track ? AFAIK, instrument tracks are supposed to manage incoming MIDI date by themselves. The following routing doesnât make sense to me :
MIDI track (incoming MIDI) â> Instrument track (incoming MIDI + outcoming audio)
Donât you think that there is redundant issue, here ? All the purpose of an instrument track is precisely to avoid the use of any MIDI track. Otherwise, itâs simple : the instrument rack manages all this much more efficiently, when multi-timbral VSTIs are involved.
We are not mixing anything : what is happening is that, selecting a âsecondaryâ bus, the Output Routing setting doesnât reflect the actual routing of the selected bus, seeable only either in the MixConsole or the Channel strip.
And, more tests on the matter show these :
- No matter the bus we are selecting among several ones, the track inspector is unable to update the different settings related to it, contrarily to what happens when using instrument racks.
- The last output routing selection done will be displayed in the track inspector for ALL the activated busses of the VSTi involved, instead of just the output buss involved, no matter the actual routing set.
Sincerely, instrument rack all the wayâŚ
Sorry for repeating myselfâŚbut if, like the OP, you want a simple and clean combination of midi and audio, you will never find it with a multi-timbral instrument. Thatâs a logical impossiblity in the general case.
Instead, if youâre trying to achieve the simplicity and convenience of that combination, you should be using the multi-timbral instrument mono-timbrally on multiple instrument tracks.
They can. You can have all 16 MIDI Channels represented in a single MIDI Part if you wish.
Exactly how do you envision multi timbral instruments should work on a Track Instrument?
Something to test in a more in-depth way : honestly, I havenât thought of this. Thanks⌠
What I am expecting first, is a reliable Output Routing display : when selecting a given output bus in the arrange past track list, the whole settings applied to it should be displayed immediatly, as with an instrumenrt rack bus. There should be no ambiguity about the output routing set between the âChannelâ strip and the track inspector.
Ok. But what about MIDI?
The info for the return channel is displayed immedatelyâŚin the adjoining Channel zone, where there is room for it. For additional details on the channel, press the âeâ button next to the menu.
Hi,
Because I want to save CPU usage, therefore Iâm using multi-timbral setup. And I donât want to have all the MIDI data in one MIDI Part and set the MIDI Output Channel of the Instrument Track to Any (one of the reason, I donât want to do this is, that then the Ramp curves donât work in the Controller lanes). So I need multiple separated MIDI Tracks.
Thatâs often not true. I know itâs a long thread, but that was already discussed above. Itâs often a more efficient use of cpu to use multiple instances of the plugin mono-timbrally on multiple instrument tracks.
Even if thereâs a slight cpu cost, it has been shown many times in this thread that the UI will be much easier to deal with if you use mono-timbral instrument tracks.
That isnât because of any deficiency in the instrument track UIâŚitâs just the inevitable nature of multi-timbrality.
Hi,
But I was talking about the CPU efficiency, not about the user friendliness. In this case, I prefer the CPU efficiency, because I know what I do and I can use Cubase. Moreover In using heavy template, so I donât have to deal with the routing again and again.
I agree, for the beginners, itâs easier to use single-instrument scenario.
I donât think the people in this thread are beginners. I think they are advanced users looking for an efficient workflow.
And as Iâve mentioned a number times, your preconceptions about cpu efficiency are not necessarily true.
Hi,
Iâm courious about this. Do you have any measurements, please?
I have tested your solution with more or less same setup as my previous ones. For this, I have only launched the Windows Task manager and paint.net (for the screenshots). The routings are exactly the same for the three busses, and I have played exactly the same chord (a C#maj inversion), at (more or less) the same velocity (seeing the screenshots, itâs not obvious, but wellâŚ) :
- Using your solution : 3 HS7 instances, each having its own routput routing and MIDI channel
- The same setup as previously, with the three output busses routed to different destinations (Stereo Out, Guitars and REVelation FX track) :
AFAICS, there is no significant differences between the two. Tha Audio performance panel (not visible, here), showing more or less the same activity amount (difficult to be sure, because when playing, itâs rather âjumpyâ). FWIW, and maybe with more output busses/instances, a meaningful difference between the two could arise.