If you’ve watched Sara Carter (of SimplyMixing) three part YouTube video series, breaking down and detailing her mixing template, here is a Cubase version of her template I put together. It follows her track routing and naming conventions.
SC Cubase Template 2025.cpr (2.2 MB)
Nicely done. Looks clean.
I saw Sara using two tracks for printing, normal and loud. Did you leave out the loud one on purpose?
Personally I don’t get the passion for print tracks in the PT community. I guess in Cubase you would rather create two output busses instead.
Not having used Pro Tools for a mixing session I have to say - some things in that software are just weird and overcomplicated. Master Fader? Busses 1-128 and 129-256? Gee…
Print tracks is probably a leftover from the older TDM architecture in PT. IIRC you couldn’t do faster-than-realtime bounces back in the day so whether you bounced “offline” or not it took the same amount of time. People would then just record onto tracks instead of bouncing because you would listen down to the mix a final time anyway, so rather than listen then bounce you could just listen and print at the same time, and if you wanted changes you just punched-in on the printed mix. Faster. Though the old automation system behaved somewhat differently between on-/off-line.
Master Faders make some amount of sense within PT.
Yeah, exactly. Within PT.
I just looked at the video from Sara and went “why are they doing this way? what’s the point?”. And with they I mean Avid. But I am sure there are plenty of things in Cubendo that others DAWs have a good laugh about.
“The busses are like patch cables”. Really, you have to use patch cables in PT? I’m using a DAW to get away from all these cables.
Mattias, you are everywhere on the net: Isn’t there a place where people describe the most ridiculous concepts of their DAW so that everybody can have a laugh about it?
PS: Before anybody gets upset. I think PT is a great piece of software. It has certain strengths… but also some downsides.
Yeah, I’ve sat in on film re-recording mix sessions even recently where they will print an entire atmos mix while screening it to the director/producers (after addressing notes), and then if there do happen to be any final notes they just “punch” in/out for that bit. I’ve always found that a bit odd but perhaps that explains why, coming from always-realtime days. (P.S. I’m assuming you’re based in NYC, last mix/screening I attended like this was at Postworks in Tribeca!)
I used ProTools (and Logic) for years and once I moved over to Cubendo it was a HUGE sigh of relief for me once I learned how routing works, and I don’t have to fuss with endless bus numbers and routing setup menus. “What’s on Bus 157 again?” That’s one thing I feel Steinberg got right, busses/groups are semantic and easily searchable, and I don’t feel like I have to set up a complex patch matrix just to connect a reverb or subgroup 
I have a question about Templates. WAV files can be imported into a project either by dragging them directly from the Desktop or by importing them into the File Pool. In both cases, to insert them into an audio track already existing in the Template, I have to do it one by one, especially if the file is organized like the Template proposed here. I can’t import them in batches on tracks that are in different folders.
It is not easier to have a Template containing all the group tracks and effects tracks without any audio tracks and simply import all the audio tracks and assign them to the groups to which they belong.
In fact, I wonder about the relevance of empty audio tracks already existing in a Template. If I have to populate them one by one, I might as well import them in batches and assign them according to their specificities.
I’m not sure why I left out the “Loud” print. I don’t do much printing myself although I do like the point Sara makes which is your perspective changes when you are listening to something being “committed” in real-time. Reminds of the feeling of playing a mix to a friend or relative: I usually end up hearing something I feel needs to be addressed that I was missing when working the mix.
Cubase used to provide monitoring when doing an Export which kind of was like listening to what you are printing. Never understood why that got removed.
If I’m reading this correctly… the template does not have any “real” audio tracks. The way Sara does it is she creates “placeholder” tracks - they’ll end up holding the VST plugins for the type of instrument the track is representing.
The audio tracks will come from the files you import into the template. So the workflow is to import the tracks, move them so they are logically placed next to the placeholder tracks and then route them to their groups/subgroups. Then mixing can begin and the VST plugins typically used are available and sitting in the “placeholder” tracks. No need to be spending time looking for that compressor, EQ or whatever. And even more time saved if they have already been set up with the right preset/parameters for the task at hand.
Yeah but the point I’m making is that on the surface it may seem that we’re all doing the same thing so why do it another way, whereas if you look more closely you’ll find cases where a different approach makes sense. For example the “patch cables” make perfect sense. To us who are used to output buses, FX tracks and group tracks it makes little sense to futz around with PT buses but that’s often just because we’re used to thinking about things the Steinberg way.
By doing what PT does you get access to a bus by selecting it as a destination and from a bus by allowing tracks to tap that bus and use the signal as an input. In other words in PT you can take for example all dialog tracks and set the output to a bus, and then any number can use that summed signal as an input. In Cubendo that’s not possible. You can send to a Group Track but other group or outputs can’t select that group track as a source. This means you are limited to the 8 direct outputs to get that group track signal to various destinations (plus sends).
To you “buses like patch cables” seem pointless because why would you use them. To a PT engineer the limitation in Cubendo might seem pointless because why have that limitation?
Yes definitely part of it may be “legacy” workflows. The lack of faster than realtime export was one reason, and then there was also this workflow in cinematic mixing where you do pec/direct switching and punch in on the fly because the mix console didn’t have enough capability to re-record automation and match the previously recorded mix pass.
As for Atmos specifically: I might be remembering this wrong, but doesn’t the Atmos standalone renderer for cinema (RMU) require a realtime export?
@Zeid, the audio tracks in this template do not contain any inserts. No predefined processing. As for a track preset, it can be loaded on any track. In reality, we do not really need a template with completely blank audio tracks.
Mattias, just use a (output) bus in Cubase. 
Yes, it is the Cubase patch cabel.
Nah, I’m just kidding. Cubase Group tracks don’t have an input. So they cannot fetch a signal from a channel, the channel has to actively send to them - and there lies the limitation.
If you want a signal to feed more than 16 group tracks (Sends + Direct Routing), you’re doomed.
Of course, using audio tracks in between you can cirumnavigate the problem but that’s not really a fast and slick workflow, is it?
I don’t know if you have watched the linked video. Sara explains her motive really well and it seems Zeid has just made a Cubase project/template out of it.
It is just her style of working. You can use another style, of course.
OK, the link above is only the first part of a series of 3 concerning Sara’s Mix Template. Indeed, it is relevant to have audio tracks if they are already loaded with plugins intended to process the tracks in question. But as you mention, it is a way of doing things. We can indeed choose our way of doing things.
After skimming over the 3 parts, I find her approach very interesting. I will take the time to rewatch these three videos and delve deeper into what she has to offer. She is very interesting.
@Rene_L Yes, those “audio” tracks are meant to contain plugins to do the processing and the template I personally use is fully populated with my choices of plugins that I’d want to use. I can’t assume that sharing my own template would work if I left all the plugins loaded - unless they were all native which in my case they are not.
So really the last step in completing the template is that you add to it your own favorite plugins - for processing drums, bass, keys…etc .- and save that as the final template.
And I agree she has a very interesting approach. Worth checking out I feel.
