Starting templates

[cryophonik]

Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread, but I wanted to describe my other main template for tracking vocals. I collaborate with several local singers/songwriters, so I record their vocals pretty regularly. For each song, I have a dedicated template for tracking vocals that uses a bounced WAV file of the background track to minimize latency. I'll try to share some screenshots of these templates after work this evening, but the vox template is pretty simple and makes things very efficient. It's basically a blank audio track for the backing track, a folder with a dozen tracks that are pre-routed with a dedicated input on my Apollo/Focusrite ISA channel strip for lead vocals and to a vox buss in my DAW, and another similar folder with tracks for backing vocals. The tracks in each folder include the main track for recording that has a reverb send instantiated for the vocals and the remaining tracks are blank and muted for storing individual takes. Basically, we record a take, I drag the recording to a blank/muted track and we record again. I also have the metronome routed to a channel strip for easy access when needed, and a basic piano instrument instantiated for working out alternate melodies, harmonies, etc. as needed. Most of the singers I work with prefer to record one take at a time, rather than looping it, but my template can easily accommodate either approach.

I've used some variation of this template for many years on many DAWs and it makes for a very quick and efficient workflow. It's funny because a few months ago I was recording with one of my long-time collaborators and she was complaining about how much slower it was when she worked with other people, because they would take forever between takes and it really made the recording process take forever. Our recording sessions go very quickly, largely because of my template-based workflow and that keeps the flow going and the singer comfortable. Basically, I just have the mic set up when the singer arrives, a quick warmup and levels adjustment, then we record a take, move it to a take lane, record another take, rinse/repeat, move to another section and rinse/repeat..., go back at the end to see if there's anything to redo and, bam, done.

[whyterabbyt]

Im not disputing that some people use them, just would prefer more evidence for 'most people'
Unlike the claimant of 'most people', it seems, I also have plenty of hardware, but its primarily modular, or desktop units which dont need MIDI, and/or are sequenced from hardware step sequencers. Ive got 24 channels of IO and 3 patchbays.
At present Im primarily using Bidule, and the one single template I use, ever, has the correct audio device in it, and a single MIDI->plugin->limiter->mixer chain because I use it for testing plugins. Everything else I need in Bidule, from IO right down to the recorder, gets wired up exactly from 'an empty studio' basis. Now admittedly, Im not currently actually bothered about retaining anything, but I barely used templates when I was.
The empty studio analogy doesnt convince me for 'regular' (linear or clip-based) DAWs, though; you already have tracks, mixer, input, output all basically auto-configured as needed by the click of an 'add track' button or menu item. Something modular like Bidule where there's no such thing as tracks or submixes or any of that, is that empty studio, exactly, though where you do have to do all the setup and routing, and generally, I do do start with that....
Closest to a template Ive ever really use in a regular DAW is the equivalent of the default '2 audio channels, 2 MIDI channels' in Live, or whatever. Or I may not even use that; I dont use them at all if Im using PT, since its track creation dialog let me set up multiple tracks of multiple types all in one go.
I dont think anyone would expect a studio to build their input->mixing->recording chain from the ground up, but the number of articles with producers Ive read where they talk about adding a second desk or 24-track recorder? Its not unhead of. Maybe those kinds of templates, in terms of track counts and basic routing, are more analogous to choosing which studio to use based on what they can handle.
I particularly doubt a studio would be able to do the hardware-wrangling kind of template you're using, eg with plugin editors, preconfigured MIDI channels etc. given that a lot of the gear won't be theirs. They'd have to do that on the fly if they do it, that kind of template is more of a benefit to an individual's studio.
As you seem to be saying, though, Im also not sure anyone would expect a studio to use the same mic and processing for every band, and, as I say, templates for handling an instrument are a different thing again, so I guess there's a differentiation in intent/use/whatever between the 'architecture' template of the underlying recording chain, the 'instrument interfacing template' for setup of a fixed hardware roster, and the 'signal chain' template within a track, even if those are potentially part of a single template within a DAW.

[Biscotto]

Track 1: Serum
Track 2: Diva
Track 3: Hive
Add/Remove/Substitute as needed.

Master: Elephant

[cryophonik]

Im not disputing that some people use them, just would prefer more evidence for 'most people'
Unlike the claimant of 'most people', it seems, I also have plenty of hardware, but its primarily modular, or desktop units which dont need MIDI, and/or are sequenced from hardware step sequencers. Ive got 24 channels of IO and 3 patchbays.
At present Im primarily using Bidule, and the one single template I use, ever, has the correct audio device in it, and a single MIDI->plugin->limiter->mixer chain because I use it for testing plugins. Everything else I need in Bidule, from IO right down to the recorder, gets wired up exactly from 'an empty studio' basis. Now admittedly, Im not currently actually bothered about retaining anything, but I barely used templates when I was.
The empty studio analogy doesnt convince me for 'regular' (linear or clip-based) DAWs, though; you already have tracks, mixer, input, output all basically auto-configured as needed by the click of an 'add track' button or menu item. Something modular like Bidule where there's no such thing as tracks or submixes or any of that, is that empty studio, exactly, though where you do have to do all the setup and routing, and generally, I do do start with that....
Closest to a template Ive ever really use in a regular DAW is the equivalent of the default '2 audio channels, 2 MIDI channels' in Live, or whatever. Or I may not even use that; I dont use them at all if Im using PT, since its track creation dialog let me set up multiple tracks of multiple types all in one go.
I dont think anyone would expect a studio to build their input->mixing->recording chain from the ground up, but the number of articles with producers Ive read where they talk about adding a second desk or 24-track recorder? Its not unhead of. Maybe those kinds of templates, in terms of track counts and basic routing, are more analogous to choosing which studio to use based on what they can handle.
I particularly doubt a studio would be able to do the hardware-wrangling kind of template you're using, eg with plugin editors, preconfigured MIDI channels etc. given that a lot of the gear won't be theirs. They'd have to do that on the fly if they do it, that kind of template is more of a benefit to an individual's studio.
As you seem to be saying, though, Im also not sure anyone would expect a studio to use the same mic and processing for every band, and, as I say, templates for handling an instrument are a different thing again, so I guess there's a differentiation in intent/use/whatever between the 'architecture' template of the underlying recording chain, the 'instrument interfacing template' for setup of a fixed hardware roster, and the 'signal chain' template within a track, even if those are potentially part of a single template within a DAW.

No disagreements with any of that. I guess my point is really just that my templates are designed to save *me* time doing the tedious things that I need to do for the majority of my projects. And, it's certainly customized to my studio, my gear, interfaces, etc. and that's the beauty of it. My templates would be useless to anybody else, though. My other point is that I intentionally avoid including anything in my templates that would limit my creativity or trap me into a workflow. It's just a starting point and, aside from some reverbs and delays pre-inserted on some sends, there are no plugins (instruments or effects) instantiated, aside from a basic piano that I find convenient for noodling around with ideas. And, I also should add that I don't always start with a template, sometimes it is easier to just start with a blank project if I know the project doesn't lend itself to it.

The other thing I didn't mention is that I'm probably borderline OCD when it comes to organizing my files and projects. I want things routed, arranged, colored, etc., in a certain way, but with flexibility (e.g., collapse/expand folders to stay focused on a given track or to quickly change screensets) built-in, so my custom templates are generally designed with my own abnormalities in mind.

[whyterabbyt]

The other thing I didn't mention is that I'm probably borderline OCD when it comes to organizing my files and projects. I want things routed, arranged, colored, etc., in a certain way, but with flexibility (e.g., collapse/expand folders to stay focused on a given track or to quickly change screensets) built-in, so my custom templates are generally designed with my own abnormalities in mind.

I seem to have two gears for that kind of thing. One can be a bit like that, where I can spend far too much time 'optimising' the setup and arrangement of stuff. The other is to avoid that sort of thing completely, and do as much on the fly as possible.
The first one basically winds up a displacement activity, instead of the thing I want to do, so actual productivity comes from the latter. I think the only thing I do keep quite rigorously organised are the structure of my plugins folder and my sample libraries. And I dont ever f**k about trying to make them 'better.'

[cryophonik]

Here is my main Logic template showing my three main screensets on two monitors (mixer+PRV, MIDI editing, drum step sequencer on right monitor):

6AA809A0-0DB0-4BEE-9A79-4FDEA5303414.jpeg

21875D0B-2F95-4409-A5B9-8295379B2EE4.jpeg

01C6D73D-1FDB-434C-8288-49E90CFC725F.jpeg

My Logic vocal tracking template:

4DBD5E1B-60D8-4F5E-AF63-59127A9BE620.jpeg

And, here’s my main Studio One template (mixer+PRV on right monitor):

4905AE5D-5D1A-4CF1-A937-FDF4CFFC9156.jpeg

[fairlyclose]

I do not use a template for Reaper but I do use fx chains, so in my FX browser I can see something called KONTAKT Bowed Glass (or whatever) and that will load all the Kontakt instruments I have that are made from bowing (or rubbing) glass. Each instrument is muted so I can run the midi track I am working with and hit SOLO as I work through the instruments. Very efficient for what I do.
Note - maybe I have some Falcon or SFZ instruments as well, in which case the FX chain will have Falcon and Kontakt and sforzando/ whatever
Also - there is no problem for an instrument to be in multiple categories, a lot of stuff is really hard to categorise or the isntrument might be quite broad. This is a system to make work easier, not a universal classification

[xbitz]

Bitwig, master track 'Quik Master' from the 'Space, Time, Color' package and a reference track with

[chk071]

My starting template: Empty project with protection limiter on the master track. Go.

[apoclypse]

I've tried to create templates before but I rarely/never use them. I created this pretty detailed template for S1 then recreated in Bitwig and Logic. I used them a handful of times but mostly just stick to doing everything from scratch. I do use the S1 template now and then because it has my hardware routings already setup and that's a little harder to setup in S1 than say Bitwig.

[kritikon]

Whyterabbyt made a point that what I suspect many h/w users do is not focused on the DAW but on the hw connections. I'm much the same...patchbays, even a midi patchbay is probably more of a core to my setup than the DAW (though obvs the DAW is where I organize it all into a song). The patchbays took over from how a mixer used to be the central hub. If I were to go the mixer route again, I would likely mix patchbays and the mixer for best of both worlds. TBH I find the DAW pretty irrelevant to that side of things. When I play around with the hw I think I spend more time patching than I do in front of the laptop.

Kinda like...if I wanted to spend effort and time mapping/patching/routing in sw...I probably wouldn't be the type that would get into hw in the first place. When physical connections are your concern...sw and DAWs is almost a separate thing.

[sQeetz]

I have a Logic Template barebones with 2 screensets. One for when using the Macbook docked and one for when using it "standalone".
The difference being the exact amount of options/controls on the upper control bar. If you leave Logic to decide for you once you leave the big screen (docked) is IMHO not optimal

[jancivil]

I used to very ad hoc create smaller, to the purpose templates because I didn't have enough muscle to load an all-purposes thing.
Now I have a template from over a year ago that evolves, and much of the time it's overkill by orders of magnitude. Every piece is going to do something the last one didn't, even as it does a lot of things the same... so it's replace this with this other one.

A DAW template, well, if it's going to use quite a few of the same things, it's the last project with some replacing. If it's not the same assignments there's little point to a DAW template. It's VE Pro-centric. But at this point I'm ready to go after stuff loads, and decisions are fun.

[Bombadil]

I have 2 Logic templates: one M1 Native, 1 Intel, with some overlap (not enough, mind). A long time ago, I built a custom drum editor in the environment for ADD, which is my main drums. A few audio trax, a few amp sim tracks, a B3 track, Alchemy, Sampletank, Hive2, Synthmaster 2 and One. There's also a hidden Drummer set to ADD. Oh, and Strings and Horn sections. The amp sim I use in my Native template is a few Scuffham amp patches, including 1 for bass. In my Intel, Amplitube 5 and Scuffham.
This is my tabula rasa.

[vurt]

mine opens with my 8 inputs armed and ready, with a two track recorder in the master.
i press record, on the two track recorder, noises, convert to mp3. post.