Would you like to be able to move instruments in the instruments panel?
0 voters
Hi who would like to be able to move instruments around the instruments panel, so you can organise them into groups or whatever. Basically you’d be able to click and drag an instrument and move it to a different position (similar to how you can move insert effects now). 
A poll for the indecisive? 
Sorry I’ve not set up a poll before. Thought it would be a nice feature though if you use the instrument rack a lot like i do.???
A poll for the indecisive?
When I read the title of this post, it happened to coincide with a problem I recently encountered with a client.
I was given a series of older SX3-created Projects, where the client had originally loaded in about 30 different plugins into the rack. Apparently, this was his “template” back then. He only used 4-5 of them and the rest were shut off.
After I removed all the unused ones, what remained was scattered up and down the list. So I’m thinking: wouldn’t it be nice if I could drag them all to the top of the list. Then I read this post and voted yes, because, in some instances, the suggestion has merit.
And why not having presets for the rack, too?
I’ve always wanted this.
-1
You still use the VST rack? 
Maybe try instrument tracks, and use vst rack only for multitimbral vsti’s?
Or is there any other valid reason (besides being old school) why anyone would use vst rack over instrument tracks?
@L.F.
Besides primarily using multitimbral instruments … I like to group and subgroup my midi tracks and instruments in the project window separately in order to simplify the project window and arrange the order of midi tracks and instruments in the mixer to my liking.
I pretty much never use instrument tracks.
Como
Bump
I prefer the VST rack and using separate MIDI tracks any day of the week. IMHO instrument tracks feels like a “garage band”-feature with a lot of shortcomings.
So what you’re saying is that you mostly use multitimbral instruments, and use so much of them to fill up the vst rack and find it hard to navigate through it?
I’ve got a 22" monitor and can fit around 40 plugins in the vst rack per screen. So if 90% of multitimbral VST’s use 8/16 parts (let’s say 8) you’d be using at least 320 parts before having to even scroll the vst rack. this is overkill even for most orchestral music.
What shortcomings? Enlighten me.
I’m hearing a lot of old school, stuck in it’s ways talk, but still not hearing any actual advantage to using vst rack (besides multitimbral instr. which will never fill much of the vst rack). Instrument tracks, on the other hand, have plenty of advantages:
disadvantages of instrument tracks
we all work different, and both methods of plugin in VSTis have their advantages and disadvantages.
I voted “yes” but, instead, I’d rather have a solution for the disadvantages of both methods:
MIDI channel of MIDI send to the instrument track VSTi like the MIDI channel selector in MIDI track
availability of ANY instrument tracks VSTi audio outputs as audio input to the instrument track itself and to any audio track Input as well
availability of an instrument tracks VSTi midi output to any midi track input
availability to route MIDI of a midi track to any instrument tracks VSTi midi input
media bay preset handling (".rackreset") for one or multiple VSTi rack slot(s), containing plugin, plugin settings, VST audio output setup and all mixer channels for the VSTi and busses any mixer channel is routed/send to for this setup including mixer channel settings like inserts, eqs
plus the ability to store .rackpresets along with a miditrack .trackpreset of a midi track routed to a rack VSTi, and the ability to extract the .rackpreset from the trackpreset etc…
Thank you for the explanation. I stand corrected.
However, this could all be summed up to instrument tracks not receiving/sending midi. Also, since we’re talking about ways to enhance instr. tracks, I’d like to ad the obvious one; making them support multitimbral instruments (similar to a folder track; having the multitimbral instr. track open up to reveal the XX separate channels, for example). Rack presets are a good idea, but it wouldn’t be much of a time-saver without loading the connected midi channels/audio channel effects. So it would be only a semi-solution IMO.
In the end, both have advantages, depending on the way of working, but I’ve found from experience that many cubase users avoid instr. tracks for no real reason other than habit and, sometimes, ignorance. Hence the reason to, one again, point out the advantages they offer, hoping more will try them out and learn the benefits for themselves. Steinberg gave us instr. tracks not to simplify cubase for newcommers, but to make working with vsti’s faster and more intuitive. And IMO they succeeded for the most part.
Still, they’re not perfect, but if SB continues to work on them, they could soon be better than the vst rack in most scenarios.
not quite. A instrument track can only send MIDI ch#1 and only receive stereo audio ch#1.
but then again, you would be limited to ONE track sending MIDI to the VSTi. What about a VSTi that play violas in the higher key range and celli in the lower key range, ON THE SAME MIDI ch#, as en example?
I’d want at least TWO MIDI tracks, routed the same VSTi on the same MIDI ch#.
I’d suggest to consider a VSTi in an instrument track as if it was inserted into a VSTi rack" slot, and behave like an ordinary VSTi instrument track does now: being a MIDI track without a mixer channel, sending MIDI on an adjustable ch# to the VSTi and being an audio track with a mixer channel, receiving any VSTi audio out and route it through its mixer channel.
allow creation of instrument tracks using the same VSTi instance already instantiated in another instrument track
Make that VSTi’s MIDI and audio i/o available to ordinary MIDI/audio track i/o.
as I said, a .rackpreset has to include the plugin settings and the enabled VSTi outputs, thus, the corresponding mixer channels (audio tracks, if you like) and their settings. A .rackpreset could also include MIDI .trackpresets of MIDI tracks routed to that VSTi rack slot. You should be able to extract the .trackpresets from .rackpresets etc.
As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, it is common knowledge Instr. tracks are for monotimbral instruments only. And nobody was suggesting to use them for anything except single output VSTi. Hence the limitations you’re mentioning do not apply unless you expect them to work with multitibral instruments. 99% of VSTi’s out there need only 1 midi input on a single midi channel and a single stereo output. Exactly what intr. tracks have, making them ideal for most plugins on the market. And making vst rack essential only for the remaining 1%:
multitimbral and 5.1 instruments.
[quote=“L.F.”]
…talking about ways to enhance instr. tracks, I’d like to ad the obvious one; making them support multitimbral instruments (similar to a folder track; having the multitimbral instr. track open up to reveal the XX separate channels, for example)…
[/quote]but then again, you would be limited to ONE track sending MIDI to the VSTi. What about a VSTi that play violas in the higher key range and celli in the lower key range, ON THE SAME MIDI ch#, as en example?
I’d want at least TWO MIDI tracks, routed the same VSTi on the same MIDI ch#.
Again, if SB were to make instr. tracks multitimbral, they would, obviously, have multiple midi channels and audio outputs contained within it. My suggestion was for a kind of a “unified” track which, when expanded, had all the midi channels available within itself. Similar to using a folder track for storing midi channels now, but instead, a folder being the multitimbral VSTi.
I’d suggest to consider a VSTi in an instrument track as if it was inserted into a VSTi rack" slot, and behave like an ordinary VSTi instrument track does now: being a MIDI track without a mixer channel, sending MIDI on an adjustable ch# to the VSTi and being an audio track with a mixer channel, receiving any VSTi audio out and route it through its mixer channel.
I disagree on making the instr. track a glorified midi channel, as that is what a midi channel is for. The fact instr. tracks make a stereo output on creation is exactly what makes them better; one can ad XX number of instr. track and preload some basic effects (comp/EQ for example), route them to a group as save this as a template for quick access later. Also, and this is key, without that mixer channel, replacing the VSTi “on the fly”, a feature only instr. channels have, would not work.
allow creation of instrument tracks using the same VSTi instance already instantiated in another instrument track
Make that VSTi’s MIDI and audio i/o available to ordinary MIDI/audio track i/o.
That would be covered by enabling instr. tracks to send/receive midi/audio input.
guess you’re right and I’m one of these ignorant people who simply can’t use instrument tracks for way more than 1% of his monotimbral plugs.
however…
Do you mean that literally? Or just that many are that way?
Either way, most of the VIs I use are multitimbral, so, to me, it doesn’t matter how many VIs aren’t.
And, does a high proportion of available mono-timbral instruments imply that there’s a high proportion of Cubase users who don’t use multi-timbral instruments? Doesn’t seem at all like an obvious conclusion, to me (though I’m not saying it can’t be true).
Also, amongst the several ways of dealing with different articulations in sample libraries, one method involves using a different MIDI channel per articulation. So that means several MIDI channels for just one instrument. (Not the way I prefer, but I did that once with solo violin in HSO - load the wanted articulations into the player, with different MIDI channels, initialise all MIDI notes with the MIDI channel corresponding to the most commonly required articulation, and then where particular notes are to be played with a different articulations, change their MIDI channel.)
Because I mainly use multi-timbral instruments, I haven’t bothered with instrument channels - just 'cause it’s easier when eveything’s the same. If there were multi-timbral instrument channels, I’d give them a try, though I’d be cautious about a wholesale changeover.
And I do hope there’s never a version of Cubase that won’t accommodate existing cpr files that have VIs in the rack - though perhaps it would be sufficient if Cubase was able to translate a MIDI-with-VST-rack track into a “new improved” instrument track (on importing an old cpr file).
Meanwhile, I would like to be able to move the instruments in the rack - have wanted that ever since I started using the rack.
As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure 99% is not far off. It’s simple really; most vsti plugins are freeware, of those most are VA synths. And almost all of them are monotimbral. It’s an educated guess, based on 12 years of using/testing tons of VSTi’s, but whoever wants exact numbers visit k-v-r, list all the instruments (around 2000+ are listed ATM) and check.
And, does a high proportion of available mono-timbral instruments imply that there’s a high proportion of Cubase users who don’t use multi-timbral instruments? Doesn’t seem at all like an obvious conclusion, to me (though I’m not saying it can’t be true).
I think you misunderstood my posts. I’d say pretty much all of us use at least one multitimbral VSTi (Battery/kontakt/omnisphere, etc.), except those who work with audio only. That’s not the point.
My point is that most users will not load 40 instances of kontakt, each with 16 channels, unless they’re slightly insane 
So the only way to pile enough VSTi into the vst rack, and hence need the option to re-arrange them, is if the user loads an additional 30+ “classic” VSTi’s. And it is these stereo, monotimbral VST’i that are perfect for the instrument tracks. There are no disadvantages for using stereo monotimbral VSTi in the instrument tracks. Only advantages. And yes, there will always be the odd, 1 in a 1000 plugin who will be the exception to the rule, but that is irrelevant. If odd plugiuns and ways of working were reasons for updates, then cubase would have billions of features by now.
Point is: if your vst rack is filled with dozens of VSTi’s, it’s your choice, but there is a better way, and one SB gave us for a reason. 
There’s always one, isn’t there?
No. I gave up and changed my vote for the sake of those who feel they need this feature. Go vst rack! 
P.S. I still stand by my original point, just realized I’m wasting my time. So I say: To each his own. And I hope SB adds this feature for you.