I use templates extensively for my recording projects. They save a lot of setup time and allow me and others to start new sessions quickly—but one crucial aspect is missing: the record-arm status of tracks cannot be stored or recalled by templates.
This limitation disrupts the workflow significantly. Here’s the practical impact:
I often sit down with my guitar, get an idea, and want to record it immediately. I open Nuendo with my preferred template—everything is ready except the armed tracks. If you’ve ever recorded guitar, you know how uncomfortable it is to hold the instrument, avoid scratching it on the desk, and reach over to operate the DAW. Every step that accelerates the recording process and reduces manual tasks is essential.
The same issue affects anyone using large templates with many tracks in combination with recording with several musicians waiting. In short, it’s slow, awkward, and unnecessary.
Templates already store many useful settings, yet they omit something as fundamental as the track record-arm state. I regard it as a bug that this is not yet part of templates.
Be so kind and fix this as soon as possible. It would significantly improve the workflow and make recording sessions much smoother.
This is not something I would want or use in a template but if it were selectable then why not. In the meantime, how about using “Enable Record on Selected Audio Track”? This is a setting (settings>project and MixConsole).
Sorry, but enable record on selected Audio Track” is not what I want and has nothing to do with template handling. I do not want to say that it might not be useful for the one or other, but it is not related to my issue. Neither is it a viable workaround, nor does it fix anything in this matter.
Sorry, but this makes my issue really to a feature request and blows the whole thing up to a big thing. This is NOT my intention. If YOU want to make this to a feature request, then please raise your own.
What I want is pretty simple. I want that a project that has been saved as template is simply being restored as you prepared and stored it.
And a template for recording purposes needs to honor the armed-for-recording track status. I am myself wondering that this is not part of implementation. It is IMHO that this should be in the scope of a template implementation.
Therefore, I regard this as an issue and not a feature request.
Whether it’s a template or simply a saved project file the result in this regard is the same.
Saving the record armed state of a track is not a feature of the software, and its lack does not mean there was an error in program code, which, strictly speaking, is what a bug is.
I can think of one good reason why Record Enable isn’t saved across closing/opening a project. There is the possibility of a microphone or pickup suddenly feeding back upon opening the file. I’m not saying I know that’s the reason, but it does make sense.
You should reply asking "Why then is “the active state of track Monitor saved then??”
Anyway, this is a feature request, and not a bug report.
I’m not talking about saving a project—that might be a different case for specific reasons, as you mentioned. What I’m referring to is saving as a template, which is a distinct use case where it makes complete sense.
I consider this a bug: a template should be flexible and serve multiple purposes, allowing users to decide how best to use it. It’s quite obvious that this functionality would be extremely helpful when creating templates for recordings. And honestly, there are already so many elements that can be saved and restored from a template—it’s hard to understand why arm for record is excluded.
If you don’t see it as a bug, that’s your perspective. As a paying customer, I’m entitled to my own opinion, even if it differs from yours. I appreciate your motivation to help in the forum, but I don’t want my post to be altered to reflect your interpretation. That, for me, crosses a line.
But a Template is simply a project file, and doesn’t have any special properties aside from the fact that it opens as an untitled project.
The fact of anyone telling you something they know, or even think they know, doesn’t bear upon what you’re entitled to here.
You post has not been altered. A tag was added.
This is a public forum. We use the Discourse Trust Levels here, those who reach TL3 can add tags to posts which is what happened. Your post content was not altered in any way.
If you wish that no one “alters” your communication in this way, you should write to Steinberg via the support portal, so you have a private conversation with the staff.
To be fair - I exchanged the “issue” tag for the “feature-request” tag.
Tags are there for administrative purposes of the forum, not for expressing one’s own opinion. That is what the content of the post is for, and you have made good use of it with, what I would consider, valueable ideas and interesting descriptions of your points of view.
Tags help to organize posts in a certain way and can be altered by those, who gained a substantial amount of experience with how the forum (and Steinberg) works.
