Doug B's Forum Page

@Zynewave wrote:

So group and folder tracks are perhaps different things in Cubase. The scenario with group tracks I talked about earlier (where you have to select the group track as a destination on the individual channel mixer strips) was how I remembered group tracks from earlier Cubase versions. These group tracks were placed in a separate part of the mixer window, next to the bus channels. However they did not behave like folder tracks.

From the Cubase SX 2.2 Help files:

Folder Tracks:

“Just as the name implies, a folder track is a folder that contains other tracks. Moving tracks into a folder is a way to structure and organize tracks in the Project window. For example, grouping several tracks in a folder track makes it possible for you to “hide” tracks (thus giving you more working space on the screen). You can solo and mute several tracks in a quicker and easier way, and perform editing on several tracks as one entity. Folder tracks can contain any type of track including other folder tracks.

Moving tracks into a folder

You can move any type of track into a folder by using drag and drop:

1. In the Track list, click on a track that you want to move into a folder, and drag it onto a folder track.

A green arrow pointing to a folder appears when you drag the track onto the folder track in the list.

2. Release the mouse button.

The track is now placed in the folder track, and all parts and events on the track will be represented by a corresponding folder part (see Working with folder parts), that is a graphical representation of all parts and events in the folder.

Since you can move any type of track into a folder track, it is possible to create sub-folders by moving one folder track into another. This is called “nesting”. For example, you could have a folder containing all the vocals in a project, and each vocal part could have a nested folder containing all the takes, in a subfolder for easier handling etc.

Muting and soloing folder tracks

One of the main advantages of using folder tracks is that they provide you with a way to mute and solo several tracks as one unit. Muting and soloing a folder track affects all tracks in the folder. You can also solo or mute individual tracks in the folder.

Muting a folder track

You can mute a folder track (and thereby mute all tracks within it) the same way you mute other tracks by clicking in the Mute (“M”) button in the Track list.

Soloing a folder track

You can solo a folder track (and thereby mute all tracks outside the folder) the same way you solo other tracks, by selecting it and clicking the Solo button.

Soloing or muting tracks within a folder

This can be done by showing the tracks in the folder and using the Mute and Solo buttons in the Track list as usual for any tracks inside the folder. “
***********************************************

Group channels

You can route the outputs from multiple audio channels to a group. This enables you to control the channel levels using one fader, apply the same effects and equalization to all of them etc. To create a group channel, proceed as follows:

1. Select Add Track from the Project menu and select “Group Channel” from the submenu that appears.

2. Select the desired channel configuration and click OK.

A group channel track is added to the Track list and a corresponding group channel strip is added to the mixer. By default the first group channel strip is labeled “Group 1”, but you can rename it just like any channel in the mixer.

3. Pull down the Output routing pop-up for a channel you want to route to the group channel, and select the group channel.

The output of the audio channel is now redirected to the selected group.

4. Do the same for the other channels you wish to route to the group.
Settings for group channels

The group channel strips are (almost) identical to audio channel strips in the mixer. The descriptions of the mixer features earlier in this chapter apply to group channels as well. Some things to note:

You can route the output of a group to an output bus or to another group with a higher number.

You cannot route a group to itself. Routing is done with the Output Routing pop-up menu at the top of each channel strip.

There are no input routing pop-ups, monitor buttons or record enable buttons for group channels.

This is because inputs are never connected directly to a group.

Solo functionality is automatically linked for a channel routed to a group and the group channel itself.

This means that if you solo a group channel, all channels routed to the group are automatically soloed as well. Similarly, soloing a channel routed to a group will automatically solo the group channel.

One application of group channels is to use them as “effect racks” – this is described on Using group channels for insert effects. “
******************************************

Hope that helps!

🙂

@Zynewave wrote:

@acousmod wrote:

and if you can nest group tracks within group tracks, and if solo/muting the group track affects all tracks in the group, then yes.

I have Cubase SX 2.2. And the answer appears to be YES

Nesting group tracks ???
Are you sure ?
I’ve only seen group tracks on the same level, no group track inside a group track…

Folder tracks LOOK very similar and are very useful because they can be nested, but it is only a way to group sequences in the timeline and has no impact on the connexions and effects. They remain a track by track assignment.

But I’m not a specialist of Steinberg’s softwares…

I googled for Cubase SX folder tracks, and it appears you can nest folder tracks. Solo/mute/record on the folder track will also toggle the tracks within the folder. But I could not find information that said the folder track appears in the mixer and has the same mixing possibilites as a normal track.

There are folder tracks and group tracks. I don’t know if they can be nested in the mixer. I’ll check tomorrow when I wake up.

Cheers

@Zynewave wrote:

I’m interested in Fritz’s (or any users) arguements as to why the Podium ‘heirarchy’ is better

When I’m mixing, I like to work on different levels, sometimes mixing the sections, and sometimes mixing sub-sections or individual tracks in a section. With the hierarchy approach I can do this.

Very useful in the setting that you describe, I’m sure. But not that big a deal for working with smaller numbers of instruments. BTW-am I wrong or is what you describe above the same as Cubase SX’s group tracks? It sounds like it has the same function.

The job that remains is to make it more accessible in the UI.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that out. It’s obvious that this alternate heirarcy business is very important to you, in fact it seems like a central focus. To me it seems like worrying about the colour of your shoe laces when you are about to make an important speech.

This isn’t a case of right or wrong, just different work methods. Let’s just agree to disagree. As an owner of Podium I will continue to watch and see how accessible Podium becomes.

Cheers

@Conquistador wrote:

It is the classic subjective topic Improv. Good old Sequencers. 8)

You are probably right. However Fritz must have had something different in mind, otherwise he would not have started coding Podium. He would have just gone out and bought Cubase! 🙂

What I am trying to figure out is what that ‘something different’ is and how why users can benefit. The main Podium feature that keeps getting mentioned as being a big deal is the heirarchy. I fully realize that choice of a sequencer/host is subjective, but that is not the concern here. I’m interested in Fritz’s (or any users) arguements as to why the Podium ‘heirarchy’ is better. Not theoretically better, but how can it be more useful than other software 90% of the time that it is used. More versatile routing is not necessarily useful all the time after a certain point. If a user (anyone) only uses that feature 10% of the time s/he creates music, then it’s no big deal. So is that it-this much vaunted ‘heirarchy’ sounds good in theory but is seldom used?

I’ve read the web site and help plus watched the videos. What strikes me is that Podium is a useful alternative to the established software such as Cubase and for those that don’t like Tracktion. I may well use Podium more for that reason alone. HOWEVER, I cannot see that the ‘heirarchy’ of Podium is going to turn my musical life upside down any more than any other synth/host.

Here are some interesting threads that may answer some of your questions

Thanks, I’ll have a look when I get time later.

as to why Podium may (or not) be better for you, note, not just better, but for you. Only you know the answer to that.

It’s not so much what is better for me, I still cannot see the huge advantage of using Podium’s heirarchy for day to day use over Sequencer/host A, B, or C. And I’m talking major block busting features, not the fact that you can change gui colours! BFD! 🙄

I was a bit surprised initially that to add say a standard combo of a compressor and an EQ to a synth that you would have to wrap two tracks around the synth. Of course in Tracktion for instance only one track is needed. So for example a 20 or 30 tracks project in Tracktion or Cubase could very well end up having 60 – 90 tracks in Podium. This may actually be a bigger turn off for new users than understanding the hierarchical engine.

This was a problem for me initially, but not anymore.

This does seem awkward and counter-productive, especially for new users who find they have to jump through hoops before getting on with the recording of their music. Very un-inspirational. 🙁

It’s possible that Podium’s enigne is actually more CPU efficient than other hosts and therefore does not produce a heavier CPU load even with more tracks, don’t know though as I have not really tested this theory.

With dual core and X2 and Athlon64 coming into use more and more, this becomes fairly moot. I mean, how many tracks do you want to use? Or are you writting a symphony for 208 piece orchestra? lol!

@Conquistador wrote:

…all this provided of course they have a desire to try something different.This appears to be the problem. It’s seems too radical for many.

I’m extremely open minded and merely await a convincing arguement that Podium is so much better. Radical concepts do not scare me, I only want to know why Podium is so darn radical. Radical does not always equal better. Sometimes it just means different.

At this point, I don’t even know what is so much better about Podium. BTW-I have owned Podium for sevral months, mainly as a gesture of support. Why is it radical? How? If this is a huge benefit, more people would be switching to Podium.

I don’t know how many more ways to say it-re read my previous messages for my position.

I remain unconvinced of Podium’s superiority and or usefulness of it’s ‘radical’ nature. However I am open to being convinced with objective arguements that can demonstrate a better way of doing things.

@Conquistador wrote:

The only thing I can suggest is to really lower the learning curve to match the very simplest of hosts out there like Trackion but of course keep the more advanced features.

There is no need to dumb down Podium. After a couple of years there are still constant problems from many users trying to learn Podium. At this point, we have to question if all this info is getting through, and if not why not? Why is Podium better, what is the benefit of the workflow-in practice, not in theory. In theory, Podium appeals to me. In practice it seems very awkward-still.

@Conquistador wrote:

Having said that, although difficult to understand initially, it is still a great idea. I guess it’s a case of how to turn this great idea into something everyone can get into and understand quickly.

We could start here: Why is it a great idea and better than existing methods?

Some of the most flexible and powerful things in life require a good deal of time and effort to learn them. The benefits at the end of the learning curve with Podium far outweigh any initial difficulties faced trying to understand it in the first place.

Obviously. But hiding behind the excuse that it is complex and powerful is an excuse, not a reason. The complex and powerful can be made to be understandable if taught properly. As they say this is not rocket science. More like unintentional obfustication.

When I have had no trouble learning other host/sequencer software, I really do have to ask if it’s Podium or me that is being awkward. And I am not alone in this.

If Podium is so worthwhile (and it may well be) then something needs to be done now to capture the readers attention. No matter how worthwhile and powerful and complex Podium is, if it takes several months just to grasp basic concepts, then it simply is NOT a productive use of a new user’s time. The user will gravitate towards a host/sequencer that actually allows them to make music. (What a concept! 🙂 )

However, clearly not everyone can or will give that time to learn before giving up so…

See above. People have limits on their time and other responsibilities-jobs, families, chores, a life away from the computer,etc. It simply is NOT a case that a person merely needs to apply themselves to the learning of the software. Users do not like bashing their head against a wall for whatever reason.

The reason why many gave up was because they were unfamiliar with the workflow in Podium.

And also because it was not sufficiently explained to them.
As much as I would like to support Podium, I also own Cubase SX, Tracktion 2, eXT and Chainer. Users have options and they will go with the software that lets them realize their musical ideas. THAT is the more powerful way in practice. Demonstrate that Podium can do that and I think many potential users will be convinced.

a. The current problem with people giving up because they simply do not understand the *way things work* in Podium will vanish because a structure similar to Tracktion is far simpler to get into and is already very familiar with most users.

Ok, so why use a Tracktion clone/wannabee. I already own the real thing-Tracktion 2.