Make folder tracks = Group tracks

Not really sure what purpose folder tracks serve above just making a group track with a fader and channel capabilities / inserts for the selected contents.
I think the current implementation just leads to messy projects that are harder to navigate.

As in ableton, far better solution is: Select tracks --> group, automatically have DAW send them to their own bus with fader on the group track. Click the group track in arrange window, it shows contents just like a folder track would. Way more elegant solution surely? Good to have hotkey for collapsing all groups / show groups only etc.

Does anyone prefer having folder tracks and group tracks as seperate entities? I cant think of a scenario, but everyone’s different!

4 Likes

No

hell no

I think the current implementation just leads to messy projects that are harder to navigate.

this is not the case,
since folders are only visible in the project window

I group sample patches of different library devs in folders, but I don’t necessarily want to route them all to the same group. I agree with you, that in many scenarios it would be useful to have folders equal group tracks, but not always.

+1000
It is very useful and by far my most wanted feature for Cubase but there are already several requests about this.

The obvious solution is to implement it like in Logic and Studio One - as an option that you can activate folder by folder. That way it won’t affect anyone who still wants to use the old workflow or perhaps only use it with some of the folders.

Even Avid added it to Pro Tools recently being the most requested feature due to its benefits.

I do not get the against vote for this feature.
It is optional in Logic and Studio One.
You do not have to use it if you do not want to. What is the deal?

Haters gonna hate.

Having too many options creates workflow discrepancies between collaborative users and makes the signal flow topology confusing. The program needs some level of consistency.

There’s already an extensive discussion here that could have been found by searching “group folder”

There’s a couple problems here.

I use folders within folders within folders sometimes within folders. You referenced logic, well, logic doesn’t have folders within folders (or so I’ve heard). Folders feeding audio to folders, feeding audio to folders, feeding audio to folders - sounds annoying.

Secondly, I don’t always have only audio tracks in folders. duplicate tracks, FX, Group, etc. I don’t necessarily want them all funneled to the same place. That would be annoying.

Third, Folder Tracks currently have none of these properties. They don’t show up in MixConsole, they don’t have inserts, t hey don’t have automation, they don’t show up in export, etc. Folder Tracks are also used for block editing.


I actually think this idea would be a step backwards in organization. The point of folders is to be plain and simple organizational utilities with no audio properties.

4 Likes

I stand corrected then! It seems there’s lots of users finding benefit for folders after all. Agree then with above comment that having it as an option would be helpful rather than an absolute.
(My bad for not looking out the previous discussion too)

The other issue is this

What if you have audio tracks routed to groups inside a folder, or a complex series of routings. Are these going to break? Is this audio routing to a Folder a split routing or a hard routing? Does it toggle override current routings within the folder or does it break them? What about the tracks in the subfolder in the folder? Does this option go all the way down a deep folder tree, or do folders within folders ignore the parent-folder preference?

Also, what if you have a folder with the preference on, and you drag in an audio track that is already routed to a group somewhere else?


So to me, even as a preference, it could still be confusing within the Cubase topology. Cubase is designed to handle very big complex projects, with complex routings so the simplicity of the Folder tracks is actually beneficial in my mind - they don’t do anything other than what they do - Fold tracks.

2 Likes

Please. Just because you can’t grasp or handle a new feature doesn’t mean that no one else can.

If Steinberg had used the same reasoning behind ARA it would never have been implemented.

  • “I don’t want ARA, it’s just going to confuse everyone! How will I know if ARA activated on a track? What happens if I move an ARA region to a track that doesn’t have ARA? ARA is way too complex even for smart people! I just want my tracks the way they always have - only play Audio the way I am used to!”.

Trust Steinberg to sort out the implementation if the feature gets added.

1 Like

+1
Exactly. If Apple, Presonus and Avid can do it Steinberg can do.
Those programs are not less advanced or complicated than Cubase. Also Cubase is not the slickest, cleanest DAW around so no need to be afraid of it to be messy or cluttered. There are other features that do that job for it :smiley:
If they decide to add it, It is their job to figure it out how and get over the problems. I am sure they have more knowledge about it than any of us.
So how about we leave out guessing the possible problems for Steinberg? It is their job :slight_smile:

Huh? It has nothing to do with “trusting” Steinberg, ARA2 is something completely different. This is likely just not a good idea or good use of resources we could put into other ideas. That’s my opinion.

”Likely just not a good idea” :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I like the way you use the word ”we” as if you have some kind of decision power or authority on the subject when you can’t even see the point of the feature while a huge number of daw users already do and use it daily to great satisfaction since it’s a popular and useful feature implemented in all the major daws already - for obvious reasons.

Yet you feel the need to oppose it? It’s just obtuse. :thinking:

‘We’ isn’t exactly a term of decision power or authority…

You can’t see the point that some things are better left as they are for various reasons than to change them because “DAW XYZ” has it while DAW XYZ is nothing like Cubase, doesn’t do what Cubase does, isn’t used like Cubase is used, etc, etc. I get the feature request dude, do you not get the opposition? I don’t feel the need to oppose it, I have logical tangible reasons as to why I am opposing it. It seems you’re the only one being obtuse.

OK boomer.

Case in point

Having an option to use Folder track just as a Folder (current implementation) or as a Group Track would be great. It works this way in Logic or Pro Tools and I consider it a great approach to let the user decide what is better for him.

1 Like

LoveGames, I don’t think you understand how this feature works in DAWs like Studio One.

First of all, there is an option that, if you select several tracks you can “pack them into a folder”. Then, it creates a common folder with all your tracks. Much faster than cubase (in which you create the folder first and then you drag the tracks inside the folder for achieving exactly the same thing).

Then, you have the option to create “transform” the folder into a bus. Not every folder has to be a bus and not every bus has to be a folder. But you have the option to do it and it’s very fast.

It’s much better than the double function of the mouse copied directly from Studio One (I think), which I hate (range tool and click in the same place, please no). Luckily this one was optional too.

But you guys are so negative about this function because you don’t understand how they work. And every time you say the “bad things” about this function, it’s clearer that you don’t really understand it. Because it wouldn’t affect your workflow and it wouldn’t make collaborations more complicated.

2 Likes

I really don’t understand why people are against this even being an option. It could just be implemented as another track option. Assuming Steinberg implemented it as many people have suggested, it wouldn’t effect the traditional folder and would speed things up for many people. Literally no negatives. All the points of opposition I’ve read above are quite frankly a stretch and not hard to deal with.

1 Like