Check out how Pro Tools does it. That’s how it should be done. Create an instrument track, which contains the actual instrument. Create a second instrument track, tell it to direct its MIDI to the first track and to receive its audio from the first track’s secondary outputs.
hi audiocave
I’d not want to have those kinds of settings stored at the Template level, just another preset type similar to the current (missing) functionality in relation to fx/group tracks where there is no such thing.
The new program looks great of course but at the same time has a very long way to go IMV.
Cheers
I pointed out that all we wanted was sharks with laser beams, and he deleted my topic. Maybe Chris hasn’t seen “Austin Powers”.
Yes, that’s what I meant. I called it “template” but it’s just a preset for a certain collection of tracks and settings, plugs, whatever. I think we’re actually talking about the same thing just using different terminologies.
I always liked Steiny XML archives and I always wished they also covered the VSTI rack and it’s output channels. I was in the regular habit of always also exporting XML archives for projects when they were done, inside the project archive folder along with the audio clips and various project files.
Ok, but how could these “templates” be in an XML archive if they don’t even exist?
Not to mention that CA6/CE5 does not support XML archive, even for importation.
The Internet is not the best method of communication. 
I was saying that I’d like to have presets (like you mentioned) for the VSTI rack… or… as another potential option … have XML archives capture the state of the rack which would serve the same general purpose. So it was an “either / or” proposition to reach the same goal… saving and loading the state of an instrument from the rack with it’s channels and settings.
Not to mention that CA6/CE5 does not support XML archive, even for importation.
True, it was always a “full program” format which I never understood since it was kinda proprietary. Us full version users don’t worry about those other guys with Studio (oops, I meant “Artist” 
) and below though. Let them eat cake… 
There’s only one real Cubase, the full magilla. (j/k)
Being more serious though, given the application class / version / feature divisions, something like recalling multi-instrument channel templates - if it existed in the future - probably wouldn’t be in Studio (damn, did it again, “Artist”) and below anyway.
Yes audiocave but you cannot have the cart before horse.
All the best
Does this forum come with a bentley decoder ring?
I regret to say that he lost me too. Maybe he thinks we’re debating or disagreeing about something, not sure… I thought we were in agreement but now I have no idea where he’s going… 
Or what the cart and horse analogy refers to…
I agree to … erhm… remain confused.
Guys
I know I am old school (almost old world in fact) but all this talk of multi-output instrument tracks is getting nowhere like the hmmph “freeze” enhancement feature request.
Until there is a preset mechanism created for the VST Instrument Window, you won’t
a) Get template saving of Rack based instruments
and
b) multi-out instrument tracks
Cheers & good health bros
actually that is incorrect. Mods have confirmed multi-out support is in progress.
Until there is a preset mechanism created for the VST Instrument Window, you won’t
a) Get template saving of Rack based instruments
not necessarily true, but probably the way it would end up working if they add it to VST Rack. But, I doubt that’s what they will do. I’m pretty sure it will be b)
b) multi-out instrument tracks
There is already a preset mechanism for VST instruments. It just doesn’t support saving of the multi-out configurations, which can be much more complicated.
and, no offense … not sure if its a language barrier issue or what, but its hard to follow your arguments. Especially when most of this evenings were basically of the thread crapping variety. Or at least that how it seemed.
As much as I’d like to remain optimistic, essentially what is now being requested is XML archives in CA6/CE5 but this will be unlikely to happen for those applications as there needs to always be genuine product differentiation.
Having said that, I am of the view that most users would prefer simple preset saving via the rack that includes scope for VST i/o management rather than some tacky throw together VST instrument track that would likely not even support any form of automation other than MIDI.
Nobody here (that I can see) every asked for XML archives for Artist or Essential. I’m not sure where you garnered that from. I’m talking about Cubase, the full Cubase, the only version I’ve ever really owned.
I was suggesting that - as one potential option - one mechanism is already there in XML archives. It can already load plugs and instruments and route and pan and most everything, it just needs to do the same for the VSTI rack and it’s audio channels.
I’m not suggesting that it would be easy to do that but the “cart” is (at least in this case) already there. I just wanted to put some more stuff in it.
Cheers. No griping, just random civil discussion… but who said they wanted XML (or multi-out anything) in Artist? Not me.
He didn’t request that feature, he used it as an example. I think language barrier is at play.
Having said that, I am of the view that most users would prefer simple preset saving via the rack that > includes > scope for VST i/o management rather than some tacky throw together VST instrument track that would likely not even support any form of automation other than MIDI.
This is where I get confused. I can make out part of this statement, and I think I agree with you … I think
I think Instrument TRACKS are a waste. But, that’s what they tied presets management to. So, my guess is that’s what will get multi-out support. Just a guess.
But, you can fully automate all VSTi parameters, not just MIDI on an instrument track. That part of your statement confuses me.
Again, no disrespect or flaming is intended.
Look at it from SB point of view, why would they give one group a particular feature while neglecting another group.
There has already been enough problems with file compatibility and so on so having what amounts to an exclusive feature is not in anyones’ interests least of all studio owners as they could potentially have trouble loading projects.
OHHHH, I think I get it now. You would object if the multi-out solution was implemented in a way that only worked in the full version of Cubase?
Dude, I don’t think anyone will argue with you if that is what you are saying. Also, I doubt that was what Audiocave was suggesting.
I’ll end my participation in this very, very strange conversation by observing that the 4 versions of Cubase (down to AI4, 5, whatever it is now) do exactly that now and (IIRC) always have done exactly that. 
You yourself mentioned one years old example … XML archives? There are many more examples.
That’s why they don’t cost the same.
Cheers Bentley. Have a pleasant evening my friend.
That’s right JMCecil but there still is a relative order that must be understood otherwise we end up being frustrated as I think Ed has already pointed out.
Even the sysop at cubendo.com said that is what they’d most appreciate from steinberg, so therefore it’s a relatively safe bet that many would agree.
best