Create MIDI track within VSTi folder

Hi, when adding a rack instrument and being asked about the option to Create an accompanying MIDI track, is there an option to select to make that MIDI track automatically be contained with the VSTi folder?

I don’t think there is - but would be a good one.

But in general I would suggest stop using rack instruments - and move towards track instruments.
You can assign midi to those too and they support multi outs VSTi.
And they are supported as track archives - if wanting to make templates to reuse.

So a basic instrument in a folder with everything that goes with it, including busses(group channels) ready to use.

I pretty much consider rack instruments as deprecated by Steinberg.

Thanks man

I second this. Instrument tracks are the way to go, you can also open up additional midi tracks and audio outputs for multi-out synths, but, imho, Instrument tracks are a more efficient way to work.

I have tested this out the last couple of days, it’s nice and clean as it doesn’t create the MIDI tracks, just the instrument tracks and it has all the MIDI info on it and you can put any insert you want.

However, my only concern is for multi-part VSTi’s, isn’t this a CPU killer since for every new instrument track there is another instance of the VSTi? As opposed to Rack instrument, where there is only one…

No, no - just create midi tracks and route to this instrument track - done.
There is no duplication.

All the outs can be extended as needed - either in sidebar to the right, or in inspector.

It should be less demanding on the CPU to use more instances of the plugin. It will of cause use a little more ram, but that has become more irrelevant now we all are using 64Bit.
Every track in Cubase runs on one thread, so instead of potentially overloading one tread/core using one instance of the plugin, it is usually better to spread the load to more tracks /threads.
There are as always some exceptions, mostly plugin and workflow related.

Following is a rather important factor I’ve discovered and why, in many cases, I prefer Rack Instruments, even for single stereo output synths.

Let’s take a Goove Agent SE four-bar drum loop as an example. All notes have been recorded to a single MIDI track but you’d like to Dissolve the Part and edit just the high hats.

Problem 1 – Dissolve by Pitch will put the HHats or other notes on different tracks or in different lanes. Thus, HHats using Exclusive Groups will no longer respond correctly now being played by a new stances of Goove Agent; notes using glissando will not interact correctly; and there are other similar issues. Notes that should be interacting are now not seeing each other.

Problem 2 – Dissolve by Pitch used on an instrument track will create new instances of the instrument for each note[/u]. This can create havoc particularly if a complex Drum Kit is loaded – one that uses multiple outputs and complex internal bus routing. The original kit might use 5 or more tracks, so if you Dissolve that, you’ll wind up with a five output kit for each note of the loop. However, the good news is that if the Kit is loaded as a rack instrument, Cubase dissolves to MIDI tracks all routed to the single kit.

Here’s an example of such a kit:

Same problem when using the Midi Logical Editor. If selected notes in a MIDI part are “Transformed” in the Midi Logical Editor with “Copy” or “Extract” and an Instrument Track as been used, Cubase will create new instances of the instrument for each note!, but if it’s loaded as a Rack Instrument, Cubase will create a new MIDI track and NOT a new instance of the Instrument for each note. So, a HHats pattern that uses an Exclusive Group in GA will still cut each other off correctly. Notes that need to interact in some way, if placed on different instrument tracks with different instances of the instrument, will not be able to.

So, Rack Instruments are a very important feature in Cubase given how it currently operates. I’d disagree that Rack Instruments are deprecated. The program operates as it does and at times a Rack Instrument is the better way to go. That said, I often find it is easier and more convenient to use Instrument Tracks.

In the end, I often load Groove Agent SE Drums and other Parts I think I’ll be dissolving or extracting/copying notes from as Rack Instruments to avoid track clutter and instrument over population. Mostly I prefer the compactness and ease of use the Instrument Tracks provide, but for some Parts the Rack Instrument Option is the better choice, even for single output instruments, like, Retologue or Padshop. The Rack or I.T. decision is determined by the Part and how it will be edited more than anything else and that is determined by how Cubase operates.