I think this would be a good idea. At present I have to
Make a fodler
Put the tracks inside it
Make a Group
Select all tracks in the folder and assign the outputs to the group.
I could have just
Made a Folder with Associated group channel at the same time
Move my tracks inside the group folder and all audio goes to the now created group. The name of the folder would listen to the group channel name and vice versa
Iâd love this to be added. Being able to select a group from the folder would be great.
I think a lot of people here are confusing several different things.
âI donât need this.â
âI wouldnât use this.â
âI donât want this implemented even as an option.â
âI think this would be very difficult to implement.â
Those are all different arguments, and just because someone brings up the last point doesnât mean they think nobody should have the option.
I would say the benefit of the folder tracks is purely organizational. However, IF it is organizational, it should also apply to the mixer view.
Abletonâs solution combines both, as you describe. Itâs a very fine solution but serves a different purpose.
I donât mind the Folder tracks. However, I am a big fan of Abletonâs Group tracks.
Ok, for me in post (Nuendo) I can have for example SFX A audio tracks be controlled by a VCA fader and go into SFX A group track. SFX A group track goes into another group called SFX GROUP along with SFX B/C, NAT FX, and Backgrounds. SFX GROUP goes into the Music & Effects group track together with music group track. Music & Effects group track goes into MED group track together with dialog group track.
Now I move my SFX A audio tracks into a group folder. What should happen to their routing? Does it stay routed to SFX A group track, or does it re-route to a default output? What if I include the group track when I move them into that folder, do the audio tracks still output to the group?.. and the group track changes output to default? What if I grab the entire chain up to and including M&E, but excluding MED? What if I add one âsetâ after the other?
Those are examples of decisions that need to be made when programming this functionality, and as someone else pointed out a while back some other DAWs wonât allow ânestedâ routing in these types of folder tracks which leads to why it is of limited use for some of us.
And on the topic of flexibility: One of the reasons Pro Tools was on top for such a very long time was that us professional engineers could go to any PT studio and sit down and know exactly what to expect. Everything from routing to key commands was locked down and âinflexibleâ⌠but predictable. So it seems one reason for why some here wouldnât use this folder feature is related to that - if you sit down in front of someone elseâs project what do you actually expect and what do you see? If it complicates everything it will slow things down and thatâs not really a good thing.
Having written all of that Iâll just say that Iâm not against other people having an option here but I too might not use it. More importantly though development resources are better spent on other things I think. From fixing some bugs, some âquirksâ that need redesign, and some new features.
Definitely.
âMake folder tracks act like groupsâ. Fight me.
âAllow groups to hold other tracks.â Sure. Sounds reasonable. I wouldnât use it, but itâs not going to impact my workflow., template, etc.
I donât think anyone could argue those are different things. I certainly agree theyâre different.
but some posts in here definitely strike me as actually advocating against the idea âbecause reasonsâ.
I think those are all great questions, but if it was an on-by-default thing, it doesnât need to be all that complicated. allow nesting. route new groups to the groups that contain the new group, or if youâre not creating a group inside a group, to the master channel.
the question becomes, how to handle legacy projectsâthere are too many ways that could be addressed to bother speculating, but it can certainly be done.
as for which things they should be directing developer attention to, thatâs of course totally subjective. for my money, the current implementation of folder tracks is one of the few glaring weaknesses Cubase has, so I very much hope they are focused on improving it.
yes as an option this would be great!
also for VSTi, to just make it one channel so you can layer synths easy
i use folders to organize BIG projects, so how would you organize if everything routes to a group automatically?
i also use folders for other stuff too, like marking/coloring pieces
i also use folder to organize ideas and stuff i dont want to see
i actually use folders for much more than intended, because its much faster and easier than going through all these other functions and optionsâŚjust use folders
what he saysâŚ
Cubase users sometimes have hundreds and hundreds of tracks, with different routings.
The folder function is great to organize this, without touching the routings.
I think most points against this feature-request could be avoided by making it a new track type altogether. Call it Grolder Track if you must (no, actually find a better name please).
It combines the function of a folder (visual arrangement) and a group (bussing).
Any track dropped into a Grolder gets automatically routed to it.
How about a âlinkâ button added to each folder track with a dropdown of all available group tracks?
If the link button is off, the folder track works as it does now. If turned on and linked to a specific group, any tracks inside that folder are automatically routed to that group?
This way, both those for and against this feature have the option with the click of a button.
And please, Macro knobs.
I dont think we need a new track type but on the dialog that creates a new folder to have some options to have the folder use groups or just be an organisational folder. As someone suggested perhaps a searchable bar to start typing your associated group name if the option to âsync folder with a groupâ is checked. And an area to create a new group to sync with this folder if there isnt one existing. It shold get same name as the folder.
Accidentally tapping that button could f-up your routing significantly. Imagine all the support requests coming from that. No thanks.
I think I might be in favor of a separate category actually. I think it would be neater that way in terms of organization. You could then make that track type available as a target for visibility agents.
I just think that this hypothetical new feature would be potentially confusing if itâs a change of something rather than something new.
Not necessarily, the dropdown could have a ânoneâ option. When a group is selected, its routing overrides the individual routing selections of each track in that folder.
If you select a group in the folder by accident, just set it back to ânoneâ and the individual tracks will go back to their own routing.
Sounds like a potentially annoying thing to program, having to remember all prior routing in order to undo a mistake.
Iâd still vote for a separate new track / folder category rather than changing what we have.
And I repeat; Make folder tracks = Group tracks - Cubase - Steinberg Forums
I absolutely would not want all my folders to always go to a bus. Logic allows both behaviors - for a folder to be a folder, or to be a bus - and I would absolutely want the option.
Honestly, Steinberg would NEVER implement folders in such a way that they MUST be a bus anyway, especially given that busses add a fair amount of strain on the CPU / additional latency.
??? I donât understand that part. I am under the impression that busses and group tracks add very little strain on the CPU and introduce next to no latency.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the actual topic.
In and by themselves yes, they donât add a lot of latency or anything.
âŚyepâŚ