I have rendered a file and set the name but Cubase names it as “Stereo Out”. It is anoying, please fix this Cubase!
automatic naming of the channels the same as rendered files in Cubase would save a lot of time – if the channels were automatically named as rendered files instead of “stereo out”
The file is named according to your settings.
The track is named after the output through which the file was rendered. This is by design and not a bug. You can convert this into a feature-request if you want the behaviour to be changed.
EDIT: I see that you actually did this in another topic already. I guess this one can therefore be closed?
Yes, I did post it in feature request and realised it was already posted 2 years ago. Just surprised nobody finds this bothering that they have to rename the same event twice - such a waste of time.
Oh, I think it is poor design, too. One could argue that if one imports an audio file into an empty project the newly created track will receive the name of the file. It does not do so with Render in Place, thus Cubase’s behaviour is inconsistent.
Additionally your point is also good - just a waste of time. However, I wonder if there are some users out there who actually asked Steinberg to implement it this way as it makes their life easier. No idea, but it is possible. Maybe recording engineers or post pro folks. Different people have different needs.
I assume there is not much support for this request as some people might be happy with the current design while others like me put their feature request votes into more pressing subjects. There are bigger fish to fry than this one.
Like what features? I mean this is a basic feature I don’t think it requires much coding to add a file naming connection.
Check it out yourself.
And as I said - different people have different needs and different priorities.
A hunch here for why it works the way it works - suppose there’s a track with many different file name-types on it, i.e. not only “Bass” but maybe a bunch of different sound effects for a movie. When then naming the resulting audio would it not be possible to end up with a bunch of different names? Say “Door slam 1” and “keys on table 43” etc…? If so, how is the resulting track to be labeled? “First come first serve?”
@MattiasNYC brings up a good point.
Also, the same audio file can be referenced on multiple tracks. A batch export in such a case could make it tricky to sort out what’s what.
Objection your honor. It cannot as this is about creating the audio file with Render in Place.
This doesn’t stand up rendered filles allways get a new channnel besides all it would take is to just tick a box how you want your naming scheme to behave.
But when you render a file it always gets assigned a new channel I don’t see where is the connection with existing files on one track?
I also see top requests there that have been posted 4 years ago so I am not sure how much Steinberg is taking those votes into account. I can understand some complex requests might require a lot of work but I don’t think adding a naming option requires a lot of coding. This could most probably implemented in less than 1h
Objection sustained.
There is none. I misread. Sorry!
But not if you don’t do “as one event”, correct? If you do as separate files you still get only one track but with all separate events, yes?
(When you wrote “new channel” you meant “new track”, right?)
It all dsepends how you do it and if the rendered files come form the same track or multiple tracks regardles of the method you end up with multiple tracks called “output… of course if you want the outcome to be seperate files than it would make sense to have option to assign different names that is missing too so I am referring to one file.” New channel I mean new track yes, I am not sure why I wrote new channel. Also, why would you want to put Door slam and keys on the table on one track? If you do FX only for door, you have to automate so the other sound doesn’t have that fx, etc, I don’t see the point. Isn’t just better for each sound to have their own dedicated tracks?
If you’re working on a TV show for example, even just a 30 minute show with a modest amount of effects (lifestyle, doc, sports) then you’re going to have enough effects that having them all on their own tracks is just a bit counterproductive, in my opinion. Instead you automate EQ, level and sends on a few FX tracks. In other words, no reason not to have fewer tracks share effects.
I agree. It’s ludicrous that you can’t get the rendered track to have the same name as the unrendered track. I’ve just ended up with 10 rendered tracks all called “Stereo Out”.
So how would rendering multiple files affect your workflow by having the option to name the track when you can’t even assign multiple names to rendered files, anything that is being rendered lands on a new track anyway? I don’t understand your argument.
I wasn’t arguing for anything, I was just speculating that perhaps there’s a reason for why it is the way it is. If I was rendering-in-lace many events at the same time and choosing to have them appear as individual rendered events rather than one long consolidated file then even if I get a new track as a result that track would have multiple evens on it, and it’s not clear to the software what my preference would be for what to label the track.
So all I’m saying is that perhaps this was a case where the programmers saw more than one workflow and thought that there wouldn’t make sense to complicate things on their end. That’s all. I’m not arguing that it should be the way it is.
Even if you choose multiple events those events have the same name with added number for distinction so how is that not clear for the software? Sorry, your answers sound to me like you have never actually used render in place with custom name.
