Am I missing something or is there no way to dismiss the Track Control Settings modal window in Cubase 13 Pro (running on macOS)?
To open the window I right click on a track and select the “Track Controls Settings…” menu option. Selecting this option opens the Track Control Settings window. However, once I click the “Apply” button to make the Track Control changes I want, there doesn’t appear to be any way to close the window. (Clicking “Apply” doesn’t dismiss the window.) There are no standard macOS window Close/Hide/Maximize controls (the three colored “dots”) in the upper left corner of the Track Control Settings window title bar.
Because this is a modal window, I can’t even quit Cubase to get rid of the window. I have to use the macOS Activity Monitor utility to force quit the application. I always hate to Force Quit applications for fear that I am going to lose or corrupt my project file. But I don’t believe this is the case on modern versions of macOS.
Regardless, will someone please let me know if I am doing something wrong and how to close the Track Control Settings window once I have applied my changes.
Ah, thanks. I had lowered the resolution on my M1 Max MacBook Pro display because of my increasingly poor near distance eyesight. This Track Control Settings modal is so large that the Cancel and OK buttons were not visible on the screen. Once I changed the resolution I could see them.
This is a bummer. There is no way to display the name of the VST instrument (as instantiated in the VST Instruments Rack) within the track controls section for MIDI tracks. You would think this is easy enough because Cubase obviously “knows” which VST instrument is being used in that track.
This is really annoying because I both want to name the track something descriptive (e.g., “Bass”) but also see which VST instrument plugin (e.g., Repro-1) is being used to play back that bass part.
The only way to display the VST instrument is to use a Track Instrument. But I don’t like using Track Instruments because whenever you duplicate the track, it instantiates a new version of that VST instrument plugin which is almost never what you want to have happen.
The whole Track vs Rack Instrument thing is dumb, IMO. There is no reason to have both Track and Rack Instruments in Cubase, especially when they do essentially the same thing (and when I always need to “hook up” extra MIDI tracks to Track Instruments in which there is a multi-timbral plugin like HALion instantiated).
These days there’s rarely any need to use a rack instrument. It’s mainly there for backwards compatibility. This has been discussed extensively in various threads recently, so I won’t repeat it all here, but the bottom line is: it’s almost always preferable to use an instrument track, even when using a multi-timbral VSTi.
The problem is that Instrument Tracks are no different/better than Rack Instruments if you are like me, you like to copy the track on which the instrument is used. There are many reasons to do this. In my case, I often copy a track to make a “backup” of it while I am working out the part. I might have several different tracks with variations on the part. For instance, I might have quantized and unquantized versions. Or I might have slightly different chord voicings.
Yes, I could use the Track Versions feature for this. (This is another half-baked feature in Cubase.) But that isn’t as flexible. For example, I might want to cut parts from different MIDI tracks and assemble them into a new, final track. This isn’t nearly as easy to do with Track Versions as it is with dedicated MIDI tracks.
So if I am going to create MIDI versions of the Track Instrument, then what’s the point of Track Instruments? The Track Instrument just IS a Rack Instrument at that point. It’s actually worse, because now I need at least two tracks for every VST Instrument plugin that I want to use - a Track Instrument track and a MIDI track. This is really dumb. Steinberg could easily remedy this situation if they simple gave you the option of not instantiating a new version of the instrument plugin whenever you make a copy of the Track Instrument track. Why they implemented it this way (whereby a new plugin is instantiated) is beyond me.
So by dismissing this issue as “old news” you are failing to grasp the glaringly obvious deficiencies of Track Instruments.
Again, there would be no reason to have both Track Instruments and Rack Instruments if Steinberg had implemented Track Instruments in the right way from the start. But they didn’t and now at users, or at least some users, are left trying to find kluge workarounds to various issues. This is typical Steinberg. They seem incapable of understanding the pros and cons of their various feature implementations. And so they end up leaving users stuck with their poor decisions/designs.
I swear to God I would abandon Cubase for Studio One if I didn’t have so many song ideas (and completed songs that I might need to revisit down the road) in Cubase format. I have hundreds of these.
I’m sorry, but I’m not following what you’re saying is the problem. The midi parts you put in two midi tracks could instead be put in two track versions. And I have to agree with mlib…I don’t understand how copying the instrument would be a problem. Wouldn’t a backup of the track require the instrument to be a useful backup?
The point of Track Instruments is that you have everything contained in one, easy to handle, track type as opposed to Rack Instruments where MIDI and the audio return channels are separate.
No. The MIDI Parts go on the Instrument Track. Rack Instruments on the other hand require two track types—a MIDI Track and the Instrument Track (for the audio returns and automation).
It sounds to me what you’re really looking to do is duplicating the MIDI Parts, not the actual track.
If you need a temporary bin to store various MIDI Parts, just create a new MIDI Track and keep the principal MIDI performance on the Instrument Track. Or, stick with Rack Instruments if those make more sense to you.
I’m sorry to say, but I believe you’re in the minority thinking that Track Instruments are unintuitive and full of shortcomings.
As an info to everybody trying to assist Music_Maven:
They have had an issue with Cubase’s instrument track implementation for more than 10 years. They know how Cubase works, they just don’t want to work this way.
For one year they play the “would migrate to Studio One if I hadn’t 73/100/hundreds of unfinished songs in Cubase” melody.
Maven is not looking for help. They want the developers to change Cubase to their specific desire.
This is not to judge Music_Maven and their proposals. I actually find myself agreeing with some of their feature requests. It is just to give everybody else background info so that they can decide whether to spend their time here or better elsewhere.
I can assure you it just took 10 minutes of my time to collect that info.
I also noticed that you have a tendency to dish out personal attacks to people that don’t comply with your train of thought. It wouldn’t surprise me if you will expose this side of your character now. So, go ahead.
That is exactly my point! If I have to create MIDI tracks in order to create easily accessible variations on the MIDI parts, then there is no point whatsoever in having Instrument Tracks. Just start with the VST plugin in the VST Rack and simply use the “Duplicate Tracks” command as needed instead of having to “wire up” the additional MIDI tracks to the Instrument Track every time. This is all so dumb. No other DAW that I am aware of works this way.
Why is everyone so clueless about this? Whatever. I will just continue working the way I have been until I either switch to Studio One or back to Logic. Those programs work properly.
Big babies might perceive someone pointing out the errors in their thinking as a “personal attack.” It isn’t my problem that these people haven’t thought things through and thus don’t know what they are talking about. Please go away and do something else since you are providing no useful information. Trolling is unbecoming.
Instrument tracks are precisely how other DAWs work. It’s clear there is something you don’t like, but you haven’t shared with us what exactly it is you feel is a shortcoming of instrument tracks. If everyone else seems clueless to you, maybe the problem isn’t with everyone else
First of all, I was just so kind to answer your question.
Then, I agree with you that the design of Instrument Tracks is not as good as it could be. However, I think I also see why it is designed the way it is. Andif my observation and conclusion is correct it would require Steinberg to make a significant to massive rewrite of sections of the code. That requires resources that cannot be spend on other development. It seems Steinberg has to chose between a better design and development in other areas of the software. And for 10 years they have chosen the latter.
My guess would be that in the next couple of years there won’t be any change of the design of Instrument Tracks.
If you prefer other DAWs you should really start any new project in those other DAWs and slowly fade out your usage of Cubase.
Of course, you are free to use Cubase and keep bringing forth this topic every now and then in order to expedite change. Whatever makes you more happy.
Duplicating an Instrument track should create a track that doesn’t create a new instance of the associated VSTi. (Maven never said anything about effect plugins so far.)
A MIDI track that is connected to an Instrument Track (by its MIDI output) should also be marked as an Instrument Track.
I understand that. It’s the “should” that he neglected to explain. In fact, it’s hard to see how that behavior would be an improvement in any meaningful way.
Well, currently I cannot find a way to create a copy of an Instrument Track without creating another instance of the VSTi with just one key command (as “duplicate track” is a single key command).
You can select the Instrument Track, create a new MIDI track. This will then automatically connect it to the VSTi but… the MIDI channel will be one higher than the previous track.
A macro could look like this, without solving the problem of the altered MIDI channel assignment…
