Make folder tracks = Group tracks

If I am correct Wavelab 11 now has track groups!
I hope it makes to Cubase 11.5 as well

I hate that cubase does not have this feature

Cubase Pro has become the Microsoft Word of DAWs. It’s so bloated and complicated because the Steinberg Product Managers and Engineers just couldn’t say no to every “plausibly useful” feature request. IMO, Steinberg should be fixing long-standing bugs, cleaning up the UI, and consolidating features rather than adding even more. That I would pay for.

No. folder tracks purpose is for project organisation - nothing more and its something I love about the software and the notion of folders being associated with routing information would disable their purpose.

I may have a folder called Guitars that contains all of the guitars. But in subfolders inside that I have multimiked guitars of different kinds (acoustics, lead, verse rhythm, heavy chorus rhythm, bass etc) and I would want them to be going off to different groups inside their own folders.

2 Likes

I don’t understand all the people so vehemently saying ‘No’ to this request. It would just be an option, you don’t have to use it and can still do things the same way you’re doing now.

Personally, this is one of my top feature requests for C12. Hope it’s coming soon.

1 Like

My reason for objecting is because a feature request shouldn’t at the expense of another feature.

This is not just a feature request, rather it’s a suggestion which seems to be based on confusion over the purpose of folder tracks (for project organisation, as @mart has explained) that they be re-engineered for signal routing.

It’s a bit like someone sitting into a car and going “I don’t know what that steering wheel is for, I’d rather use it as a spare wheel”. Perhaps what we should be looking for is a slicker way to manage routing and group tracks.

1 Like

Noone is confused about the purpose of folder tracks for project organisation (at least not me). In fact if they could also act as group tracks, they’d aid project organisation even MORE than they already do.

For example, in my orchestral template every instrument family (Woodwinds, Brass, Strings etc.) lives in their own respective folders. Each of them also have their own group tracks at the bottom of the template. Since that template is quite large, it’s very tedious to reach them, to a point where I actually had to build some visibility macros to access them more quickly.

If I could just use the folders as my groups, I would not only be able to access them much more quickly I would also have a lot less tracks in my template, which, in fact, would make my project more organized.

And again, if you don’t like that way of working, you could still keep working the same way as before, because normal group tracks and folders aren’t going anywhere.

Again, that analogy is just off. The purpose of folder tracks (=project organization) would still be the same, they would just get an additional and optional (!) functionality, that, depending on your way of working, would help the main purpose of organization even more.
A more appropriate analogy would be if the steering wheel would get an additional gear shifter behind the wheel. Main purpose (=steering) is still the same, but you could also choose to use it to shift gears, instead of using the usual gear stick.

How many options do we need in order to make music?

With this suggestion, Folder Tracks would then also need to be displayed in the mixer. By no means is this at all a simple request.

What about backwards compatibility? If this were added to Cubase 12, how would Cubase 11 open and translate this new Folder Track? It couldn’t. So I doubt this will ever happen.

Talking about ‘options’, what about the importance of a baseline consistent user experience where everyone is on the same workflow page. This is why ProTools is an industry standard, if you have learned ProTools, you can use it comfortably in any studio across the world without feeling like the studio has thrown 1000 curve balls at you because their ProTools preferences are so completely different.

Last year Protools added folder tracks with the optional ability to act as a group track (like the request here). So it is not really a good example.

3 Likes

Yes, but only once you activate the ‘Make into Group’ option on a particular folder track. Otherwise they can stay out of the mixer. Shouldn’t be too hard to implement.

Why not? As long as you don’t ‘transform’ a folder track into a group track, the ‘normal’ folder track would still be there just as before, so there shouldn’t be any backwards compatibility issue.

Almost every big DAW out there (Logic, Studio One, Ableton, Reaper, yes even ProTools) DOES already have this option to use folders as group tracks. So if you want a ‘baseline consistent user experience’, that would be another reason to implement this functionality into Cubase, because it’s one of the few DAWs lacking behind in that regard.

3 Likes

If you’re only wanting to be able to convert a folder track into a group track, I don’t care… But what has been discussed in here from what i’ve seen, is people suggesting giving Folder Tracks the same functionality and purpose as Group Tracks.

You’re stretching here, Logic last I checked didn’t support Folders within Folders within Folders. Neither do some of those other DAWs I’m pretty sure. So yeah, no baselines consistency there, and it doesn’t even really make sense for you to put it in that context because… there is no baseline consistency across DAWs apart from rudimentary tools and adding a track… and there’s even differences there.

Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting as well. Just check out how it works in Studio One: you add a folder track just like in Cubase, and if you want you have the option to click a sort of checkbox that makes the folder also function as either a group or VCA.

What does this have to do with nested folders all of the sudden? YOU were talking about baseline consistency across DAWs, and it’s a matter of fact that ‘Folders that can also act as Group Tracks’ IS and has become an industry standard in almost all DAWs. So if you really want and care about baseline consistency across DAWs, adding this feature would be one step towards that.

So after years of Folders being just folders, I get a project with 1000 tracks and hundreds of folders… and I now have to discern which are just folders, and which are folder groups? no thanks.

Also, you have to look at the entirety of Cubase before jumping on these ideas - like PLE is a big aspect of Cubase for some people and Folders are specifically targeted in some instances, as are Groups. Combining these makes a mess of some serious time people have put into scripting PLE.

If you need a group, create a group. if you need a VCA, create a VCA? Why would you even be creating a folder that you need to be a group? It doesn’t make sense.

I never said I care about baseline consistency across DAWs, go re-read what I said. I couldn’t give two shits about baseline consistency across DAWs. I care about baseline consistency between users and studios who use the SAME DAW. I don’t want to walk into a studio or receive a project and feel like I’m working in an entirely different DAW than the one I’ve been using for 20 years.

The DAWS that have this Folder Group feature, at least some of them, don’t have nested folders.

People are so intent about adding every feature possible in a DAW, from Clip Launcher to Folder Groups… why… WHY… WHY? Seriously! WHY? WHY CAN’T A FOLDER JUST BE A FRICKN FOLDER!

Tim_Dillon Because…

Distracting and confusing to look at.

How to tell which nested folders are meant for audio and which are meant just for organization? Terrible design, a headache. Probably why people don’t use ProTools to compose 1000 track scores.

It’s really ugly to, all the displaced meters. And the FolderGroups have greater height than the audio tracks? Looks horrendous and poorly organized.

What might be destructing and ugly for you it isn’t for others. By the way in PT you can chose wether you need a simple folder for only organisational purposes which is great for you (currently how Cubase deals with folder tracks) BUT you can chose the ROUTING option folder which acts both as collapsable folder and as a group (w/ fader and inserts etc). Like that everyone is happy. No?

2 Likes

No

This is actually a good folder related feature request that makes sense and is more Cubase:

Folders as they are in Cubase act as nice separators and differentiates between groupings of track types/instruments, it’s all very clear and organized. that PT picture looks like a hot mess.

Everyone in this thread should reallocate their vote to here:

Tracks hight size is flexible. The sceenshot of PT with short height audio tracks are a choise and what the user decided. I mean, that goes without saying. I don’t know based on what you assumed that the hight of these audio tracks in PT aren’t adjustable…? You recommendations about track height has nothing to do with the post we’re in.

1 Like

Still as ugly as

The link pertains too how great it would be if folders could be as minimal in size as possible, instead of trying to turn folders into groups and making the GUI more convoluted and confusing.

This is a problem right here, multiple people working on the same project and everyone treating folders differently is annoying af. It’s hard enough just getting people consistent in their track naming and revision notes taking. Now I’m dealing with a 500-1000 track project that has a mix of normal folders and GroupFolders??? NO THANKS