MIDI tracks to 'instrument tracks' in Cubase 5

[koolkeys]

KB + Jan - thanks, I'm aware of the old way of doing it... its fine, but such a mess having both ways included and incompatible, and makes teaching it a total drag. Compare Ableton or Reaper's streamlined workflow and it just looks incredibly bad.

Uhhhhhh.....what? What's wrong with having multiple ways of doing something? And then you say Reaper is streamlined?

It just goes to show how very different our preferences can be.

Typical Stainberg, they need to hire some programmers who are 20 years younger and used to using decent, modern apps IMO.

How do you know how old the programmers are? And age wouldn't make a difference.

Look at Studio One. Coded by those who DID code for Steinberg until about five years ago. Many people think the Studio One interface is refreshing and streamlined. Same people.

Brent

[koolkeys]

Sorry, it may seem like I'm trying to be argumentative, but I just don't understand some things people say. I know it's ALL personal preference, but sometimes statements like those in this thread just come across as quite odd.

No offense or disrespect meant.

Brent

[Uncle E]

geroyannis - nothing, just I have to teach this crap and Stainberg's convoluted methods leave my students in a daze of confusion half the time.

I teach a college course based around Cubase. The myriad possibilities tend to make things confusing for my students at first, too, but they're usually cruising along briskly by the end of the semester. What's cool is seeing how different people will gravitate toward different ways of working, which is the beauty of all that flexibility in the first place.

Interface has been in need of a major overhaul for 8 years tho IMO..

They must be doing alright in your eyes then, given that the interface was completely reworked in the first SX 7 years ago.

[Uncle E]

forgot about 'instrument tracks', I don't even know what it's supposed to do, I think it's for noobs just starting out so they don't even have to learn how the program works, and they can get an instrument that comes with cubase to respond to a midi track,

Yes, this is exactly correct. Instrument tracks lock instruments to the tracks specifically to avoid problems.

[concealed identity]

I think what he's getting at isn't that there's two ways to do it, but that each of these two ways have cons that don't really need to be there in the first place that force you to use both ways when you don't really need to.

For example:

If you want to have multi-outs, you have to use the VST rack. Even though in the VST rack you can choose which outs you want to appear, there's no way to do this with an instrument track (as everyone knows). Logically, this is kind of weird; why can't you just choose them like you can with a VST rack?

So it results in me using both the VST rack and instrument tracks. I like instrument tracks because the VST automation moves with the midi events, so it's a lot easier to keep track of things, but then I have to remember to manually move all of the automation with the MIDI tracks assigned to the VSTs in the VST rack.


I'm not complaining, and I don't really mind doing this, but I can see what he means; you have two ways of doing something that are essentially doing the same thing in principle, but you can do some things with one that you can't do with the other for no reason other than that they didn't program it in. I just figured I'd offer this viewpoint for the sake of discussion.

[hibidy]

What would truly be best would be for instrument tracks to behave as vst instruments.

@beginners using instrument tracks.......false. Many instruments are really only needing one-clean-line without midi tracks and clutter.

[present]

Ah! Thanks Lawrence that looks useful - so can you have multiple instrumental parts on one 'instrument track' or is it just for mono-timbral drum parts?

eg. does this mean I could, with an Instrument Track, have a 'chords' part and a 'melody' part for piano?

[present]

edit

[present]

'Concealed identity' - thanks for summarizing my position so eloquently. It's confusing, messy and badly done. Any cubase users who don't understand why I am saying this, you really need to check out the competition.

Uncle E - SX seemed little different to previous versions to me, I didn't like it much when it came out compared to Logic back then. Apple have done with Logic 9 what I always hoped Steinberg would do - sort out their messy interface.

Don't get me wrong, I used to LOVE Cubase when I first started using it around 1995. It's just that IMO they haven't really upped their game much since then, especially in terms of the interface. I know a lot of you love it, but I'm just not impressed - every time they added a new feature they just cluttered it up with more mess.

UltraJv -
1. You misunderstood my question, it had nothing to do with MIDI channels

2. I'm asking these questions as I've just been dumped into a new role teaching Cubase - I've avoided this program as much as I could since apps I preferred came out.

I guess it's just a matter of preference and when you're used to using an antiquated, messy interface and have built up dedication to a program, you tend to like it and defend it.

Sorry for the ageist comments but since Ableton came out I always felt like Cubase was an old-skool pile of crap. Still, each to their own eh, all just IMHO, YMMV etc. - if it works for you, well, great!

[fandango]

I'm just not impressed - every time they added a new feature they just cluttered it up with more mess.

This is actually something I've always felt Steinberg were able to do well compared to much of the competition. The implementation of VariAudio directly into the editor is seamless. VST Expression slots into the Score and Piano Roll views with minimal fuss. Compare this to something like V-Vocal in SONAR which has to sit in a seperate editing window with a completely different UI from the surroundings.

What would truly be best would be for instrument tracks to behave as vst instruments.

Interestingly, SONAR's rather quirky implementation of Instrument Tracks turned out to be one of it's major strengths. You could add a VSTi as an instrument track, but because it was just single track cover for something loaded in the synth rack, you could just split it into audio/midi if you decided you later wanted to, or even merge an existing VSTi with seperate audio/midi into an instrument track. Without having to un-load your VSTi, and then re-load it again as a different track type.

Would've been nice in Cubase if you could, rather than deleting an Instrument Track, have it split into audio/midi and just popped into the VST rack.

[koolkeys]

Obviously, YMMV. But making vast assumptions like "when you're used to using an antiquated, messy interface and have built up dedication to a program, you tend to like it and defend it" just go against the whole idea of opinions. You're assuming that people must be defending it because they don't know any better or something.

But really, Cubase is more refined than most apps. However, it's a very deep app. It does take some getting used to since it's changed some things over the years. But in the end, most things are well thought out and not just tacked on top of everything else.

But again, to each his own, IMHO, as you say. And I will never make the assumption that you like your favorite host for any other reason than it works best for you. Because that's really all it is. Nothing more.

Good luck with the teaching though. You are teaching a very powerful app and one that is extremely widely used and it will no doubt help the students in the end. That's something to be happy about, even if the program isn't your favorite. Cheers!

Brent

[yellowfever]

I love Cubase and have CS4. Personally I've never used an instrument track as I find the vst rack and individual midi tracks work fine. Why change something if it already suits your needs?

@present - how on earth can you say cubase interface is messy???

[bobbybland]

What would truly be best would be for instrument tracks to behave as vst instruments.

@beginners using instrument tracks.......false. Many instruments are really only needing one-clean-line without midi tracks and clutter.

Yep..

[LawrenceF]

@present - how on earth can you say cubase interface is messy???

It's not. People just don't use the available customization options. Try this in most daws if you have a control surface and prefer key commands to mouse tools. Notice what's not shown and what is shown.

Notice how many inspector panels are open. Notice that there is still track metering. Look how clean the overall view is.



Point being, if I were teaching Cubase in a class (as if ) I'd turn a lot of the default stuff off at first to not overwhelm the newbies. The interface can morph all over the place.

[Uncle E]

I think what he's getting at isn't that there's two ways to do it, but that each of these two ways have cons that don't really need to be there in the first place that force you to use both ways when you don't really need to.

What cons are there to using the VST Rack?

So it results in me using both the VST rack and instrument tracks.

Why would you use Instrument Tracks at all? It seems to me the only benefit of using Instrument Tracks is they're failure-proof.