These obstacles have always been there in the music industry because each one works differently and each client is differently organised or sometimes not organised at all. Maybe you ‘re at the beginning of your career and you just haven’t still realised that so I don’t blame you. But you just have to cope with it and find solutions by well communicating to colleagues and clients and agree on a common line on how to organise the project you will be working on. Some people (including myself) thought that editing, mixing or mastering etc is the hard part. Nope. Communication between all the parties is the most hard part of a production IMO. So, if you are complaining about DAW features appealing and requested by other users and you demand a DAW to implement ONLY the features you care about, then you’ re gonna have a hard time (you already have apparently) in this industry. You are not alone using Cubase.
A large part of mixing these days is project organisation. It’s probably the first hour’s worth of a 4-hour mix. Folders are the only thing that keeps things any way possible to handle instrument categories and inside that groups of multi miked instruments for large track counts.
To address your request - I’m not sure if a F older track could have an optional feature to route all tracks in a folder to somewhere which would either disable the track routing inside the folder or how that would work. Backward compatibility could be an issue. I def wouldnt want to see their current function be fundmentally changed. Something bolted on the side as an option perhaps.
Hi @mart!
What is your complete routing decision/signal path when you have the following tracks for mixing:
Audio Track: Kick Recorded
Instrument Track: Kick Enhancement from drums library of choise
Instrument Track: Kick Sample from your sample pack of choise
Audio Track: Snare Recorded
Instrument Track: Snare Enhancement from drums library of choise
Instrument Track: Snare Sample from your sample pack of choise
Hi Zodiac,
Usually I would put all of those tracks into 1 folder Called drums. Inside that I would perhaps then create a
KICK folder sync’d and put:
Audio Track: Kick Recorded
Instrument Track: Kick Enhancement from drums library of choise
Instrument Track: Kick Sample from your sample pack of choise
these tracks would be likely sent to a KICK group, which would be sent to a drum group and on from there to other buss groups
and a SNARE Folder sync’d and put:
Audio Track: Snare Recorded
Instrument Track: Snare Enhancement from drums library of choise
Instrument Track: Snare Sample from your sample pack of choise
these tracks would be likely sent to a SNARE group, which would be sent to a drum group and on from there to other buss groups
Hi @mart
Would your routing that you just described look like the following then?
Update: This is more correct actually since Group Tracks are not collapsable (that’s exactly what some users are asking for)
->Drums Folder
------->Drums Group | Output: Stereo Out
------->Kick Folder
------------>Kick Group | Output: Drums Group and/or Other Groups
------------>Kick Recorded | Output: Kick Group
------------>Kick Enhancement | Output: Kick Group
------------>Kick Sample | Output: Kick Group
------->Snare Folder
------------>Snare Group | Output: Drums Group and/or Other Groups
------------>Snare Recorded | Output: Snare Group
------------>Snare Enhancement | Output: Snare Group
------------>Snare Sample | Output: Snare Group
Almost…
->Drums Folder
------->NO OVERALL OUTPUT INORMATION. Possible Syncing for editing only
------------>Kick Folder
------------------->Output of all within would be a KICK Group and from that group to a Master Drum Group and onward to final buss Groups
-------------------------->Kick Recorded | Output: Kick Group
-------------------------->Kick Enhancement | Output: Kick Group
-------------------------->Kick Sample | Output: Kick Group
------------>Snare Folder
------------------->Output of all within would be a SNARE Group and from that group to a Master Drum Group and onward to final buss Groups
-------------------------->Snare Recorded | Output: Snare Group
-------------------------->Snare Enhancement | Output: Snare Group
-------------------------->Snare Sample | Output: Snare Group
Actually…I got a licence for Studio one V5 and notice too that there is a routing combo box on folders. Now I’m starting to wonder about the usefulness for such an addition to folders
On your first post you wrote:
This in Cubase translates to the scenario I described you:
UPDATED:
->Drums Folder
------->Drums Group | Output: Stereo Out
------->Kick Folder
------------>Kick Group | Output: Drums Group and/or Other Groups
------------>Kick Recorded | Output: Kick Group
------------>Kick Enhancement | Output: Kick Group
------------>Kick Sample | Output: Kick Group
What do you mean now???
Anyway, I was trying to smoothly bring to you my point in order for you to understand the benefit of the feature request which reduces the total amount of tracks keeping the same organising benefit like now BUT being able to process the Folder Track with inserts etc. And this feature request which can be as an option like in Pro Tools goes as follows:
->Drums Group (Collapsable Routing Folder w/ Fader, Inserts, Sends etc) | Output: Stereo Out
------->Kick Group (Same as Drums Group) | Output: Drums Group
-------------->Kick Recorded | Output: Kick Group
-------------->Kick Enhancement | Output: Kick Group
-------------->Kick Sample | Output: Kick Group
------->Snare Group (Same as Drums Group) | Output: Drums Group
-------------->Snare Recorded | Output: Snare Group
-------------->Snare Enhancement | Output: Snare Group
-------------->Snare Sample | Output: Snare Group
Wow!
These discussions about adding features to Cubase that exist in other DAWs are very interesting. The debates are not always logical, but fun.
Seriously, look around the forum and you’re going to find an overwhelming amount of requests where users would like SB to add this from Logic, another from Studio One, this one from Pro Tools and etc.
What I deduce is a lot of Cubase users who have used other DAWs would like SB to add to this one all the features of other programs that they liked and that are not found in CB. To put it simply, CB must be CB, Logic, Studio One, Pro Tools, Ableton Live, Reaper, etc. It’s quite an adventure …
I think it’s asking a lot of SB to get CB to be able to be all of these programs at once. I can’t even imagine the time and money it would take to meet everyone’s requests, not to mention the money to fix all the bugs it might cause. In addition, there are already a lot of things that should be fixed and improved in the current version.
Couldn’t CB just be CB and trust the planning (and it’s a secret) that SB has established for what’s new to come and improvements to be made in future releases?
But you are also right to make all these requests, who knows. However, be aware that the planning is in the hands of SB.
Its a discussion about the usefulness or use cases. Steinberg may or may not ever check on this thread but nonetheless over the past years you will find Protools taking Cubase features and Cubase adopting some things from Studio One or Cubase - or whatever.
It has come to the point that I aquired a licence for Studo One 5 last week. Once I opened it I was shocked at how close it was to Cubase layout. to the point that I would have been comfortable to try using it straight away.
Protools introduced clip gain many years after Steinberg introduced the concept. More recently they brought in Folder tracks to Pro Tools. Again it was part of Cubase for years.
Steinberg introduced a playlist-like feature a few releases ago akin to Protools playlists.
So no Cubase cant just be Cubase. The DAWs will continue to take each others best bits because at the end of the day some of them are just great ideas no matter where they start and are really useful for user workflow.
This current discussion about adding routing and processing ability to a Folder track is interesting and not something I had thought much about before seeing it in other DAWs.
You are right mart. Each company must make sure it is competitive if they want to keep the interest of their users.
However, I did not say that the discussion was uninteresting and pointless. On the contrary, it is pleasant to read everyone’s arguments, but when you know the large amount of requests addressed to SB in this forum, you should not expect everything to be done or integrated in the weeks, months or years that will follow. SB has its own priorities too.
I will take this opportunity to give my opinion on this subject. Personally, I would not want to have to manage options and preferences related to this type of track. I’d rather have a new choice in which tracks to insert into the project, something like an “Add Folder Buss” command. A Folder track dedicated to a Buss, obviously there is a need to define this Buss when creating the track. In this way, you can create as many Folder Buss as you want and insert all other types of tracks that will be automatically assigned to this Buss.
If you only need one track filling tracks, then use the “Add Folder Track” command.
Lets stop calling it “folder tracks acting as group tracks” which triggers some users 
Instead call them container tracks (with routing abilities) and leave the folder tracks alone
Everybody should be happy, except some users opposing with the argument that there are already too many track types 
Actually, the contrary… Personally I want foldable/collapsable Group Tracks Much simpler I think!
+1 for this as an option. Flexibility is good
Hi @Adonde and welcome to the Cubase community! If you would like this as a feature you can hit the vote button at the top of this topic (if you haven’t done yet)!
Ozinga, is the term Container appropriate? This is already used for the MIDI Containers of MIDI tracks and Instrument Tracks. This does not risk creating ambiguity.
I don’t hate Zodiac’s idea of having group tracks that serve as both Folder or Container and Buss for a set of tracks. A simple dragging of tracks on this group and these tracks are automatically assigned there and the group becomes suddenly a Container or a Folder, to the satisfaction of each one.
That would be cool!
The more I think about this issue, the more I think it’s just a case of Group tracks (FX and VCAs by extension) being very weakly represented in the project window, where tracks rule all.
What meaningful data does a group track offer right now? A volume automation lane that we try to avoid altogether, lest we make an unwanted change by mis-click.
The “container” part that people want (from what I gather, and what I too would like), is simply the ability to see which tracks are routed to a group at a glance, and then act upon these tracks locally, right there and then.
I don’t know if such a group track located at the bottom of the project should “summon the ghosts” of the tracks routed to it from the four corners of the track list temporarily when pressing a button (with full functionality, as if we moved them there by hand), or have the actual tracks rigidly fixed to (or… contained within) it forever.
In the first case (summon tracks), all tracks routed to a group could very well be in many different folders (with the current cubase meaning of folders), but when summoned by the group they would show up together under it.
In the second case (permanently contained tracks due to routing), it’s not possible for the tracks to be in two places at the same time. (Both a routing folder and another folder)
But then, for the first case it’s “just” cleverly manipulating visibility agents and moving tracks, and giving group tracks the ability to do this from a button. (A visual aid to signify the “containment”, “connection”, “relation” between the group and its sources surely wouldn’t be bad at all.)
/Thinking aloud off.
I agree, that would be my preference too
For me that workflow works better for me. So I totally understand the suggestion here. The ideia of expand/collapse a group/folder like we have in logic/ablation is great. Especially for the mixer window which in cubase we can’t do it at all.
This is the reason why I finally moved to Ableton half year ago.
It is a simple Feature but Cubase still does not have it.
Don’t understand why, during other DAWs evolving much better over the past years.
Don’t really miss Cubase until now.