Your Orchestral Templates - Workflow - Grouping ?

Welll thanks guys thats saved me alot of time. Cant believe I didn’t try it. Still, i would have thought it made more sense for the reordering of tracks to work outside of that vst folder where people are doing the sequencing.

I guess now i can only ask Steinberg that they allow arranging tracks within the Mixer itself. Although Ive seen people requesting that for years!


It would be really nice to be able to name each VI instance upon activation, instead of 50 Kontakts - you can name them - Choir, Bass, Strings etc.


Also do any of you know why Cubase is limited to 64 Virtual Instrument Slots ?

I’m still not quite clear on what you were doing wrong . . .

Were you trying to move them somewhere other than the Project Window?

Personally, I don’t really mind moving tracks only in the Project Window (though you’re right - this has been mucho requested). On my dual monitors it’s always open and accessible . . .so . .

What I REALLY want to see is the same “hide/show tracks” thing and “agents” implemented in the Project Window.


as for moving track order directly in mixconsole,i saw a topic where helge says its not yet implemented which means they are going to do it i future i guess.

as for the subject. the midi channel as nothing to do with the actual audio output signal of that vsti.
think the vsti in rack as an hardware synth, u use the midi track to sequence(record the midi info) and that synth(or vsti) has also other audio output that goes to audio channel to hear it.

on the other hand Instrument Track is combined, u can record midi to it and also the audio output is there, the disadvantage is of course that is limited for one voice/output. so u cant use for example record/use more then 1 channel in multi timbral vsti as kontakt. see here the differences.Cubase 5.5: Instrument Track vs Midi track - YouTube

yes, and nowadays it doesn’t seem to make much difference if you use 16 separate instances of Kontakt/EW Play/Halion etc each with one sound or 2 multitimbral versions with 16 channels. In the past multi timbral VI’s were a necessity due to low power/memory computers of the time and probably as a legacy of hardware devices. I’ve been using multiple versions of VI’s now for a while with no performance issues.

I will point out though my template isn’t as large as your guys and I tend to use key switching in EW play so will load all articulations for each instrument track.


Thanks for the explanation, i used vst5 score for so long and jumped ship throughout the sx series, then dived in at Cubase 5 so must have missed some glaringly obvious changes. I was using those outputs for automation, didn’t register they would serve to reorder but when you put it like that its obvious :confused:

Hugh i was trying to reorder project Midi channels instead of the ones inside of Vst Instruments. So in the image below i thought i could just reorder the channels outside of the vst instruments folder - my main sequenced stuff - spics/stacs/drums/synths etc.

I would find that way of doing it far quicker and cleaner, especially considering you can’t rename the VST Instrument instances (have to count through 50/60 channels that all say kontakt!). I noticed you can move them but it would be nice for those outputs to be combined (like instrument tracks) for a cleaner UI. Although i can imagine some cons aswell as the pros to that.

Hi Norbury,

Although Its abit OCDish the main reason i need so many outputs is because i just cant mix nowing i don’t have full control of a multi with just a single out (plus i hate keyswitching), and with the ammount of Instruments in strings libs such as Lass and huge woods/brass libs it adds up. I realise you can use VSL/Play etc to mix, like kontakt, but i like everything inside of the DAW mixer. With only 64 counts of Vst Instrument channels in Cubase im forced to combine everything in patches.

Steinberg - why only 64 instances of Vst Instruments ?