I am interested to know what the difference is between a Rack Instrument and an Instrument Track. I have been learning Cubase just this past year, so I am still kind of a newbee.
I read in multiple places that a rack instrument is for Multi-Timbral vsti’s and a Instrument Track is for one sound, one output per instance. So I as understood it, the difference was that a Rack inst can be Multi-Timbral, but they can’t be used as Track Presets and can’t be imported using File > Import > Tracks from Project. In contrast, Track instruments can be track presets and imported, but can’t be multi-timbral.
Today I learned that it is not true that only Rack Instruments can be multitimbral. Instruments Tracks can also be multi-timbral (have muliple outputs), at least as far as Kontakt in concerned. Multiple outputs in an Instrument Track can simply be enabled by clicking on the Output section in the Track inspector of the Instrument track. Wow. This means you can have a Multi-Timbral instance of Kontakt that you can also use as track templates and can import the tracks from projects.
So if a multi-timbral instance of a Kontakt Instrument track does it all (multi-timbral and importable) , what is the purpose of Rack Instruments?
Reading and watching many views on this topic, I’ve concluded that Rack was originally used to preserve cpu and possibly ram, which is no longer an issue with todays computers. Only in the last year or so have I changed my workflow to Instrument tracks (old habits die hard), but I still find it handy to use it for sketching an arrangement using one Rack instrument with a 16 instrument preset in it. Instrument tracks are easy to treat like an audio track pretty much right away, whereas Racks have to be separated, assigned separate outputs, etc. According to my research, there is almost no difference in resource use, so Instrument Track it is for me.
With Kontakt, I think using one instance as a rack might save loading more of the same instrument which would likely save on ram usage. I’ve tried both but haven’t done a big enough test to challenge my computer; maybe someday.
My conclusion is use individual instrument tracks if you have the power and the ram. There is probably better reasons out there, so I’m ready to be wrong here. It’s just what works for me.
Not really, it’s more mundane than that. For a long time only MIDI Tracks & Rack Instruments existed & to make them work together folks had to manually manage the routing & relationship between MIDI and Audio. Then Instrument Tracks were introduced to combine the MIDI & Audio into a single integrated Track type. Basically the advantage of Instrument over MIDI Tracks is they are simpler & easier to use and less susceptible to misconfiguration.
But neither Rack or Track Instruments are better or worse for performance reasons. For strictly performance purposes the important element is if you are using the VSTi for multi-timbral sounds or not - this is for both Rack & Track Instruments. For example having 8 instances of Kontakt each running 1 instrument is preferable to 1 instance of Kontakt running 8 instruments. This is because the multi-timbral instance will be confined to using one single core of your CPU. This increases your chances of overloading that single core. But when using 8 instances of Kontakt the same work can be spread across multiple cores - reducing the risk of glitches and dropouts. The other advantage is having each Track be a single Instrument is easier to use when mixing etc.
So in general (and with plenty of room for exceptions):
Use Instrument over MIDI Tracks because they are simpler & easier to work with.
Avoid multi-timbral VSTi use to reduce potential performance problems
Just for clarity on the subject, multiple audio outputs does not equal multi timbrality. An instrument is multi timbral when it accepts MIDI data on multiple MIDI channels and internally routes them to different sounds/patches. You can have a multi timbral instrument that only has a single stereo output. On the flip side, a non multi timbral instrument can benefit from having multiple audio outputs. One such example is a drum instrument where each drum sound has its own output.
Thanks for the help on this topic Raino. The multi-core aspect didn’t occur to me when using Kontakt…or anything really. Plus the history which directed this Rack/Instrument evolution. Good to know.
I just came across a video that backs up what Raino is saying (for the suspicious out there) (it’s old cubase 11, but i suspect the technology behind should be the same)
Given that Track Instruments can now be multi-timbral, there would no reason to ever use Rack Instruments again if it were not for Steinberg’s unbelievably stupid decision to copy the associated VST instrument plugin when duplicating a Track Instrument thus requiring more RAM and making it a total pain to keep the duplicate Track Instrument “in sync” with the original track.
Here’s the use case:
You write a part using a Track Instrument. But then you decide to play in an alternate version of the part to try to improve your performance while keeping the original part. Or perhaps you want to try out different chord voicings, for instance, in a polyphonic part. So you duplicate the track in the arrangement window and record the alternate part on the duplicated track. At this point Cubase will duplicate the associated VST instrument, your multi-timbral Kontakt plugin, for instance. This will obviously duplicate potentially scores of RAM-hungry instruments within that Kontakt instance.
But it gets worse. Let’s say that after you record the alternate part, you decide to select a different sound for the part and tweak this new sound. You will now have to make the same edits on both tracks because each track references its own separate VST instrument plugin.
This is completely idiotic. It is NEVER what you want to have happen. Duplicating a track with a Track Instrument should reference the original VST instrument plugin, not duplicate it! The fact that Steinberg engineers apparently didn’t (and still don’t) understand this is mind boggling.
So as it stands, Track Instruments are only useful insofar as you never duplicate the track. You can of course get around this limitation by using the cumbersome Track Versions feature when you are trying out different versions of a part. But. that’s an unnecessary kluge.
At that point you are better off just using Rack Instruments. It’s more of a pain to create a new MIDI track and then connect that to the “source” Track Instrument than it is to just duplicate the Rack Instrument MIDI track. You are basically just using Rack Instruments at that point. All the advantages of Track Instruments are lost.
Again, I cannot believe Steinberg didn’t think this through.
I’m not sure that adding a number of midi tracks via a key command is any more work than duplicating an instrument track (via a key command?). The midi rtracks are automatically routed to the vsti.
Yeah, but like I said, you are then just using Rack Instruments for all intents and purposes. The source Track Instrument essentially becomes the reference “rack.” You get none of the benefits of Track Instruments when you are using MIDI tracks connected to a Track Instrument. Using Track Instruments in combination with MIDI tracks is arguably worse than using Rack Instruments because there is no single repository (the Rack Instruments list) for the referenced VST instruments.
Steinberg engineers apparently failed to understand this obvious fact. I swear, if a developer on my team demonstrated such poor critical reasoning skills, I would have him or her fired. I’m not joking. Anyone who lacks a basic ability to think one or two steps ahead in a simple thought process will undoubtedly screw up even more egregiously in the future.
Can you use the Track Archives feature on the corresponding MIDI tracks? Or do you mean on the “source” Track Instrument track?
What I don’t like about using Track Instruments along with MIDI tracks is that I then have an extra track (the Track Instrument track) in my arrangement window. I suppose I could drop all of the Track Instruments in a folder track to keep them out of the way and then just the MIDI tracks which I can freely duplicate. This folder would then be my VST “Rack” (that I can organize more easily than the actual VST Rack which can’t even be sorted alphabetically). But that’s a total kluge.
The solution is SUPER simple. Don’t copy the VST plugin when duplicating the Track Instrument! Or give users the option whether to duplicate the plugin where the default behavior is to NOT duplicate the plugin. (Use a key command to duplicate the plugin when duplicating a Track Instrument.)
And then just get rid of Rack Instruments altogether because they will serve no purpose at that point. I realize I sound annoyed (because I am). But this is really not that complicated. Steinberg developers have not thought this through and have created a convoluted, half-assed system that is confusing to everyone. It’s embarrassing.
This Track Instruments vs Rack Instruments debacle reminds me of the way Steinberg revamped the windowing system in the Windows version of Cubase around version 9 or 10. In older versions of Cubase, all windows were contained within a “container” program window. This was an older paradigm used by Excel and lots of Windows programs of that era.
When Steinberg finally broke free from the constraints of this goofy, nonsensical system, they did it in the most half-assed way possible. There was this weird, “hidden” window container that included the program title bar. If I remember correctly, it was never clear how to actually close the program. I believe you had to click the “X” icon in this title bar container to actually exit the program in the Windows version. I no longer use a PC so I’m not sure if Steinberg eventually fixed this or not. But it was just so dumb.
Track Instruments are the same for me. Great idea. REALLY stupid implementation.
You should be able to use Track Archives on MIDI Tracks connected to an Instrument Track.
I agree that having MIDI Tracks connected to a Track Instrument feels unintuitive and like an afterthought. It’s in part why I gave up on using instruments in a multitimbral manner. I only use Instrument Tracks and one Instrument per track.
I just tried saving a Track Preset for a MIDI track connected to a Track Instrument referencing Padshop. When I reloaded the Track Preset on an empty MIDI track, it did not instantiate Padshop.
So it’s not like you can open an empty project file and load a Track Preset that was created using a MIDI track and have this automatically create a Track Instrument with the “source” VST instrument. You have to create all of this first. That’s a pain in the ass and not the way Track Instruments should work.
The system (if you can call it that) is totally broken for people like me who often duplicate their parts to try out different variations. The only way you can use Track Instruments without going insane is to never duplicate anything. That might work for some people. But not me.
