Track Instruments vs. Rack Instruments in Cubase 7.5

16 x Fantasia preset :sunglasses:

Oh man, not every violin of a symphonic orchestra needs its own Kontakt instance. :blush:

Of course you have to combine what belongs together. This is what i called “task”: one task - one instrument. Of course such a task may contain sub tasks, like drum instruments within a drum kit.

Most symphonic Kontakt multi instruments are just layers of 32+ instruments with key and keyswitch ranges. Of course they belong together in just one instrument. Didn’t know to have to explain this…

This is Cubase. Cubase eats CPU even for empty instrument tracks, which of course only stands out with hight track counts.

In Reaper I can have 100 Kontakt tracks. If they don’t play (Kontakt effects don’t consume CPU when idling), the CPU shows only 5% (on an old I3 530 CPU).

Unfortunately, things aren’t that clearcut. In the olden days, it was always recommended to use one multitimbral instrument (Rack Instrument) in order to conserve processor power. However, this changed when multicore processors came on the scene. First, it depends on how the DAW deals with instances of a plug-in instrument and, second, if the instrument itself is multicore aware. Most DAWs “assigns” one core/instance. (I haven’t been able to find out how Cubase handles it)

Let’s say you have a quad-core processor. If you use one instance/track (Track Instruments), the DAW spreads these out over the various cores. On the other hand, if you use one instance (Rack Instruments), then one core is tasked with handling all the tracks.

The Track Instruments option increases the overall processor workload (multiple instances). The Rack Instruments options may lead to problems, because one core becomes overloaded while the others runs idle. This won’t show in the performance metering either, since that measures the overall load. One core being asked to run at 130% (overloaded) and the others running at 10% each, will only show up as 40% in most performance meters.

Granted that this is a highly simplified description. The point is that neither Fantacyzer’s or Music Maven’s arguments are right or wrong. Both have merits. It’s not a question of using one method or the other. The trick is to find the right balance between Rack and Track instruments. The fact that Instrument Tracks now are multitimbral doesn’t really chance anything. It’s still the number of instances that is important!

If I were to receive a 32 channel orchestral arrangement from Fantacyzer, I would merge these into 3 or 4 Instrument tracks (the new multitimbral kind) and assign one instance of the Instrument to each. If I were to receive the same arrangement from Music Maven, I would open 3 or 4 instances in the Rack. I reached the same results, coming from two different directions.

Figuring out the correct balance of instances can be a dark art. Good luck becoming dark magicians. :wink:

You misunderstand me. I will have Mix Console tracks/faders named Omnisphere A, Omnisphere B, etc. for the separate outputs of Omnisphere. But my MIDI tracks will be named descriptively as Bass, Pad, Bell, etc.

Maybe your Kontakt multis are set up this way, but mine aren’t. So before you smugly tell people to get with the times, why don’t you first stop and consider for a second that your simplified “Cubase for Dummies” way of working is a non-starter for professional composers creating large orchestral scores for film and television.




I don’t understand this too…

When I got the e-mail about the 7.5 release and I read the part about “rack/instruments” I was really happy! I thought the same like all you guys. Finally there’s a way to merge midi into an multi out instrument track. But I was wrong I guess. In my opinion nothing has changed really.

For me it’s not really an option to create a seperate instrument track per output. I use this with Battery (Drum Sampler) I can’t make a vst just for bass, a vst just for a clap, a vst just for a snare etc… It would take to much CPU but more important. I want to edit my drums in the same window so I can quickly adjust stuff without switching to different Battery’s (which take 3,4 seconds to open)

My workflow:

  • Since I dont want 32 channels on my mixer for 16 channels I’ve hidden all the midi channels because I can’t do nothing with them. Can’t add automation and can’t add inserts. I Only use midi parts on my timeline.
  • If I want to add or adjust inserts I do this in the mixer (this is great about 7)
  • I also hide the audio channels in my timeline. I want to keep things as minimalistic as possible. This means I can’t really add automation if I want to. Only if I route an audio output to a group channel. (more work, less Visibility)

An integrated/merged system would be very welcome. By the way, I keep on thinking I’m missing something regarding this story because it actually sounds dumb :slight_smile:

Is this supposed to mean something? Or are you just trolling? If the latter, please stay in your cave and let the adults have a conversation.

Use your head!

You misunderstand me. I will have Mix Console tracks/faders named Omnisphere A, Omnisphere B, etc. for the separate outputs of Omnisphere.[/quote]
That doesn’t make it any clearer. What is Omnisphere A, Omnisphere B, etc. Clearly naming your tracks and files are the most important things to avoid future problem.

If it works for you, fine. But I do not recommend using this naming scheme for any project that anyone else is about to work on! If I were to receive such a poorly organized project, I would send it back for you to sort it out! (Or tell the client that he has to pay me to sort it out.)

Uh, seems pretty straightforward to me. Have you actually ever used Omnisphere? Because if you had, you would know that it uses the letters A, B, C, and so on to designate its individual audio outputs. So you are saying that following standard naming conventions is poor organization? You have a strange idea of what constitutes a well-organized project (something that no other serious Omnisphere user would understand).

This is exactly what I meant with my previous comparison of statements. If someone claims he is a “professional composer creating large orchestral scores for film and television”, and then tells us he labels his mixer tracks “Omnisphere A” and “B”, something is wrong here. If I deliver a mix with such a naming scheme, every film and TV production company would beat me round the head with it.

It may for you, if you have worked this way and, for example, always put the Bass on Omnisphere B. A, B and C are simply the first three letters in the alphabet. They convey no information what so ever about what the track contains. If I were to open your project and the first three tracks (in the mixer) read Bass, Guitar and Tuba I would know what the tracks contained at a glace. If they read Omnisphere A, Omnisphere B and Omnisphere C it would tell me…absolutely nothing! I would have to waste time figuring out what is what.

Imagine if I gave you a project to work on, where all tracks were named Track 1, Track 2…to Track 64. (I have seen such projects.) Good luck sorting that out. It’s quite a chore. I know! I’ve done it!

Undecipherable naming schemes are and will always be equal to poor organization.

As I’ve already said “If it works for you, fine. But I do not recommend using this naming scheme for any project that anyone else is about to work on!”.

Ok, Svenne. If you are ever running for Chief of the Naming a Police, I will be sure to vote for you.

I never claimed to be a professional composer. However, I have done sound design and mixing for some of Hollywood’s top composers. And I can tell you for a fact that they would all laugh you out of the room if you suggested they instantiate a separate instance of a plugin for every instrument in their orchestral palette. They would look at you as someone who clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

Maybe Fruityloops is more your speed?

Can you please enlighten the rest of us what that remark has to do with “Track Instruments vs. Rack Instruments in Cubase 7.5”, or are you just ranting because you’ve run out of arguments. That’s usually when ignorant people starts throwing insults around.

You’re joking, right? How does telling people how to name their tracks have ANYTHING to do with the subject of this thread? When you are done trying to impose your OCD “worldview” on the rest of us, go back in your cave - and stay there.

You really has run out of arguments, haven’t you? F.Y.I. I don’t live in a cave, do you?

Isn’t that where knuckle-dragging trolls live? Or maybe you’re under a bridge somewhere???