Looking for Workflow Suggestions when Working with Large Templates

[Doc McCoy]

Firstly, I have watched Lukas's video on working with large templates.

I have just finished building out a 450+ template. All tracks, except for a sketch piano are disabled and I'm happy with the load time for a new/existing song. In the Piano Roll view Track List, I've named all my instruments using their corresponding Track Names in Arranger View (thanks Lukas).

When I'm writing and want to see multiple instruments in the MIDI window, my current workflow entails a lot jumping back and forth between the Arranger View and the Editor View with occasional side trips to the Track List filter to search for a track. The Track View in the Editor seemed like it held a lot of promise, but endless scrolling to find the track I want to show in the MIDI window is pretty tedious. That being said, once I have chosen all the tracks I want to use, then things become a lot simpler...but, while composing, it feels like there ought to be a better/simpler way of getting there. If only the Track List and the 2 Track Views were aligned I'd be a happy camper.

So, what am I missing?

Anybody using macros to shortcut this jumping around between views?

Question? Thoughts? Opinions?

as always, thanks in advance for any help

 

[SwitchBack]

The elephant in the room: Why would you need 450+ tracks in an arrangement? Feels a bit like going on a holiday carrying one's entire library of 450+ books. But you may have a good reason and from that maybe there's a smoother workflow to be found

 

[Doc McCoy]

This the size of the starting template, not the eventual song. Once I have finalized the instruments / sound design I want to use then I dump the other stuff and save the song as a much smaller file. Hope that cleared up your question

 

[Trucky]

I use colors and filter views in my templates to help organize and improve overall workflow.
The Color Toolbar 3 add-on script for Studio One is designed to help with this.
The website, videos and manual cover all it can do...

Color Toolbar 3

 

[Doc McCoy]

yes! I use Color Toolbar and love it. I'm also a pack rat in that I pack everything in folders. I was wondering about Scenes. I've never used them and not sure I really understand how they should be used.

Anybody using Scenes regularly?

 

[SwitchBack]

This the size of the starting template, not the eventual song. Once I have finalized the instruments / sound design I want to use then I dump the other stuff and save the song as a much smaller file. Hope that cleared up your question

Then let me rephrase: Why start with a template with 450+ tracks in it if the goal is to end with way fewer? It could be so you don't forget to consider using each of those tracks/instruments in every song. A checklist could do that too. Or maybe you have particular FX chains set up for each of them in your template as to save time setting it up. Maybe that's something missing in Studio One, to insert a complete instrument track + color + instrument + FX chain + routing from a user configurable list, which then also acts as checklist, which then makes that overcrowded template obsolete too. Or maybe you have another reason? Just thinking aloud here...

 

[Doc McCoy]

I write mostly orchestral stuff and it's standard to have large templates to accommodate all the articulations of all the instruments of all the libraries that you own.

 

[SwitchBack]

I write mostly orchestral stuff and it's standard to have large templates to accommodate all the articulations of all the instruments of all the libraries that you own.

OK, if you say so. Yet I feel that there's room here for a clever audition system, to A/B (parts of) tracks using you favourite instrument setups. That should make it possible to arrange with a track/folder count which resembles the number of musicians in the orchestra.

 

[lokeyfly]

So at the risk of

I have just finished building out a 450+ template. .......

Oh-kay

So, what am I missing?

Anybody using macros to shortcut this jumping around between views?

Question? Thoughts? Opinions?

as always, thanks in advance for any help

Thanks ahead of time, for detailing your current setup workflow.

I do have a great suggestion, and it involves having a literal database for your sounds. You can often use wildcards, abbreviations, aliases, and sometimes colors and groupings. Interested?
Great! Its called dont start with a 450 track template. Now, before you inform me of an orchestra environment, or what is deemed "standard", I truly dont see the logic behind a 450+ track template. The whole embodiment of a DAW is in its ability to track. Thats not to say seting up a few desired templates for 10-20 brass, oboes or woodwind sections, various strings, of violas, cellos, and violins, of some 10-20 each wouldn't hurt. But I'm sorry, a 450+ track template only to whittle down, says more about what not to do. And your having a little difficulty in the tracks window???? Thats because the track window doesn't shine with 450+ line items (plus respective volume, pan, and other lanes which is its purpose).

But in the nicest way I can convey, I was truly serious about sound libraries being excellent databases and patch librarians. Vienna Symohonic Library being one of the very good ones. Native Instruments, and FXpansion Orchestral, another

Now, Lukas has a very nice way of building, and coloring such tracks. Macros and articulations and all. Thats cool. Only there are limits.

Orchestral work has no corner on going back and forth from arranger to editor, so Im not even sure why you'd have added that. Maybe it was in the same light as feeling the need for 450+ tracks. Just trying to understand the intent. I've not heard a good reason from anyone, when going this route. Some workflows are best left lean, leaving the sound library to do the heavy lifting, but mileage will vary.

Lastly, many sound libraries today allow for previewing before the sound(s) are even loaded! Seems to have filled the real need, or the emphasis wouldn't have been placed on it. Finding sounds in libraries simply works. You can even favoritise.
Anyway, good luck.

 

[Lukas]

Large templates with hundreds of tracks are a perfectly standard workflow in orchestral composing. It’s how many professionals in film and game scoring work every day. It's nothing strange or over the top.

Robin Hoffmann has an orchestra template with more than 1000 tracks.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

My current template for orchestral work has around 800 tracks.

When I'm writing and want to see multiple instruments in the MIDI window, my current workflow entails a lot jumping back and forth between the Arranger View and the Editor View with occasional side trips to the Track List filter to search for a track. The Track View in the Editor seemed like it held a lot of promise, but endless scrolling to find the track I want to show in the MIDI window is pretty tedious. That being said, once I have chosen all the tracks I want to use, then things become a lot simpler...but, while composing, it feels like there ought to be a better/simpler way of getting there. If only the Track List and the 2 Track Views were aligned I'd be a happy camper.

I agree that the Track List in the Note Editor could benefit from some updates to make it more useful when working with larger templates.

What I usually do is select the events I want to edit in the arrangement and double-click them to show them in the Note Editor (for example: violins 1, violins 2, violas, celli, basses). Then I use the commands included in my Scoring Tools product to toggle between these parts.

Scoring Tools: New features coming soon

I'm working on some new features and improvements for an upcoming Scoring Tools update. Unfortunately, the multi-track editing commands (Edit Next/Previous Instrument Part/Toggle Single Track Editing) stopped working in Studio One Pro 7. So I not only worked on a workaround, but also added some...

studiooneforum.com

So far, this workflow works quite well for me, and I don’t even always keep the Editor Track List open - since I already know which parts I’ve selected in the arrangement. I also use the built-in Find Track command in Studio One quite a lot.

Could you describe your workflow in more detail or perhaps share a screenshot or video showing why you need to jump back and forth so often to find a track? Are you mostly searching for tracks that already contain events (parts of your current piece), or also for empty ones in your template?

At the moment, I’m considering designing a dedicated version of my Track Navigator (planned for Scoring Tools 2.0) for the Note Editor, to make selecting or multi-selecting the right parts easier. The idea would be a context-sensitive track filter - so if you select clarinet 1, for example, it could automatically show you clarinet 2 and other woodwinds on adjacent tracks in the same folder. But I'm still collecting ideas for that.

 

[SwitchBack]

Large templates with hundreds of tracks are a perfectly standard workflow in orchestral composing...

So far all answers to the question 'Why do you use these huge templates' have been some form of 'We always do it this way'.

Standard workflows partly are what they are for lack of better alternatives or tools at the time of conception of the ‘standard’. If a workflow exhibits a consistent problem (like this lack of overview) it is time to take a step back and ask: ‘Why?’. It is a rare profession where a craftsman spreads out all his/her tools and options before starting any job. What is the actual purpose of starting huge for what could be relatively small in the end? Is there something that can be done to prevent the overview problem from happening in the first place? Is there a clue in the average end result which suggests a better workflow, and what is missing then to make that easy? 'If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.' [Tony Robbins]

The OP was asking for 'thoughts'. I think these are fair ones from one who's not used to work this way

 

[lokeyfly]

Thanks for that info Lukas. Yes, the actual need will set the demand, as mentioned, mileage will vary.

I think Lando (OP) is doing the right thing by working from a template and maintaining a consistent guideline for these purposes. Your template is excellent for this.what that size of a template should be, remains questionable. Particularly when starting one out for relevent needs. For professionals such as yourself, you have a set template. It's understood, and it likely works for your usage.

I'm sure a Robin Hoffman who does day in and out film scores needs to pull the trigger on immediate orchestral sections, and detailed embellishments so much that, such a workflow for immediate turnaround would make sense.

Whittling something down or building something up is a personal choice. A project on a professional filmscore might influence the process of that choice. That can often involve starting small. I'm fairly certain Robin Hoffman isn't searching through a track window and unsure why he cant view all he needs to. No, it would seem like he has a clear and consistent repertoire on how that's done. Even no template (for us mere mortals) is still best served having a consistent color and/or icon path to streamlining and understanding how to stay ahead of the guesswork. Good shortcuts to navigate, scale and edit all add up to a workflow advantage.

My suggestion to Lando still holds, involving having a literal database for sounds, using wildcards, abbreviations, aliases, and same colors and groupings to sort.
Of course in a time critical work environment, one will be looking for any advantage they can. Also, build on their own strengths. What works for Robin Hoffmann may not work for the next guy, even doing the same type of film scoring. Although it doesn't hurt to ask them.

I'll end with a simple and hopefully useful quote:
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Vocalpoint]

With track templates and all the other workflow tools in S1 now - have to be honest - I have never understood the need for any of these giant templates here in 2025.

Clearly many in here have never worked in less 'excessive" environments - like staring at a 24 track analog tape machine and getting on with the work.

I am more about "If the final mix works with 18 tracks - why have 364 at the ready?"

But that's just me and my background. Some habits are hard to break.

VP

 

[Doc McCoy]

Large templates with hundreds of tracks are a perfectly standard workflow in orchestral composing. It’s how many professionals in film and game scoring work every day. It's nothing strange or over the top.

Robin Hoffmann has an orchestra template with more than 1000 tracks.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

My current template for orchestral work has around 800 tracks.


I agree that the Track List in the Note Editor could benefit from some updates to make it more useful when working with larger templates.

What I usually do is select the events I want to edit in the arrangement and double-click them to show them in the Note Editor (for example: violins 1, violins 2, violas, celli, basses). Then I use the commands included in my Scoring Tools product to toggle between these parts.

Scoring Tools: New features coming soon

I'm working on some new features and improvements for an upcoming Scoring Tools update. Unfortunately, the multi-track editing commands (Edit Next/Previous Instrument Part/Toggle Single Track Editing) stopped working in Studio One Pro 7. So I not only worked on a workaround, but also added some...

studiooneforum.com

So far, this workflow works quite well for me, and I don’t even always keep the Editor Track List open - since I already know which parts I’ve selected in the arrangement. I also use the built-in Find Track command in Studio One quite a lot.

Could you describe your workflow in more detail or perhaps share a screenshot or video showing why you need to jump back and forth so often to find a track? Are you mostly searching for tracks that already contain events (parts of your current piece), or also for empty ones in your template?

At the moment, I’m considering designing a dedicated version of my Track Navigator (planned for Scoring Tools 2.0) for the Note Editor, to make selecting or multi-selecting the right parts easier. The idea would be a context-sensitive track filter - so if you select clarinet 1, for example, it could automatically show you clarinet 2 and other woodwinds on adjacent tracks in the same folder. But I'm still collecting ideas for that.

View attachment 1191

Thanks for this. I'll definitely look into Scoring Tools and looking forward to SC 2. As for why I've developed the "jumping around" process (I'm regretting that turn of phrase), it's really both existing and looking for new.

For example: say I've got a BBCSO Stacc. Cello and Sus. Bass and I want to add in the Pacific Solo Cello with a different cello line as well as add in a Berlin Ensemble. Of course, they are all in different folders, different locations. and then I want to see them all in the Editor. So to use the Editor Track List to view them requires scrolling up and down to find and select them. If there was an option where the Editor Track List limited itself to Show Tracks with Events then life would be grand.

Hopefully this makes some sense and thanks for weighing in.

PS Since you are the video guy (and not me!) here, maybe you could do one and show how you navigate through a large template using a scenario similar to what I outlined...or not. Just a thought

 

[Lukas]

Thanks for the explanation!

If there was an option where the Editor Track List limited itself to Show Tracks with Events then life would be grand.

I'm working on that.

PS Since you are the video guy (and not me!) here, maybe you could do one and show how you navigate through a large template using a scenario similar to what I outlined...or not. Just a thought

It's a good idea for an upcoming tutorial - thanks!

 

[SwitchBack]

The remark about articulation had me thinking. Multi-articulation libraries have the same instruments played in different ways, as can be done with a real instrument: One musician, multiple articulations/tracks. Would it be an idea to have Studio One automatically collapse these articulation tracks into a single track per instrument/musician when nothing in those tracks is selected? The compound track would show all the active (notes playing) sections of the collapsed tracks, highlighting overlaps, and as soon as you select a section the compound track expands with the track with the selected section selected.

The same feature can be used when arranging for a multi-instrumentalist, to make sure that exclusive instruments don’t overlap. You can group instruments/tracks by 'musician' and Studio One does the rest. So it would work a bit like folders but not quite. There is the automatic collapse/expand and the compound track should look like a sequence of events with content, unlike those blank folder ‘events’. Interesting?

 

[apessino]

Large templates with hundreds of tracks are a perfectly standard workflow in orchestral composing. It’s how many professionals in film and game scoring work every day. It's nothing strange or over the top.

Robin Hoffmann has an orchestra template with more than 1000 tracks.

...

Indeed, they are. With other DAWs it is generally the best option available. That's how I worked in Logic and Cubase. Studio One, on the other hand, with its awesome track presets, makes the benefits of these sluggish, monolithic track lists unclear to me.

My "modular template" is just an empty project (other than I/O, global sends and master/listen setup). All of my "modules" are track presets I create, update and drag on as needed, be it by library, section or whatever else I need. Generally, I have what I like of a library setup as a folder with one or more instances of Kontakt, Sine, etc. the instrument tracks and all of their names, routings, sound variations, FX, sends, etc. One drag and drop and a few seconds to load is all I need and I can start playing in. To me, this is by far the most productive, performant and maintainable way of structuring the work, and it is only possible with Studio One.

Is there a reason I am missing to stick with the giant disabled track list option?

 

[Doc McCoy]

The remark about articulation had me thinking. Multi-articulation libraries have the same instruments played in different ways, as can be done with a real instrument: One musician, multiple articulations/tracks. Would it be an idea to have Studio One automatically collapse these articulation tracks into a single track per instrument/musician when nothing in those tracks is selected? The compound track would show all the active (notes playing) sections of the collapsed tracks, highlighting overlaps, and as soon as you select a section the compound track expands with the track with the selected section selected.

The same feature can be used when arranging for a multi-instrumentalist, to make sure that exclusive instruments don’t overlap. You can group instruments/tracks by 'musician' and Studio One does the rest. So it would work a bit like folders but not quite. There is the automatic collapse/expand and the compound track should look like a sequence of events with content, unlike those blank folder ‘events’. Interesting?

There are two schools of thought when it comes to articulations. What I use, which is a large template with a one-to-one articulation per track. The other is called key-switching which is what you are basically describing. Key-switching is where a single instrument/track contains sample information for several articulations and you use pre-programmed keys or, in S1 case, Sound Variations to swap in and out articulations. They each have their pros and cons.

It's just personal preference (or what you are used to)

 

[Doc McCoy]

Indeed, they are. With other DAWs it is generally the best option available. That's how I worked in Logic and Cubase. Studio One, on the other hand, with its awesome track presets, makes the benefits of these sluggish, monolithic track lists unclear to me.

My "modular template" is just an empty project (other than I/O, global sends and master/listen setup). All of my "modules" are track presets I create, update and drag on as needed, be it by library, section or whatever else I need. Generally, I have what I like of a library setup as a folder with one or more instances of Kontakt, Sine, etc. the instrument tracks and all of their names, routings, sound variations, FX, sends, etc. One drag and drop and a few seconds to load is all I need and I can start playing in. To me, this is by far the most productive, performant and maintainable way of structuring the work, and it is only possible with Studio One.

Is there a reason I am missing to stick with the giant disabled track list option?

You're right about Track Presets and I've been experimenting a little with that approach.

 

[SwitchBack]

There are two schools of thought when it comes to articulations. What I use, which is a large template with a one-to-one articulation per track. The other is called key-switching which is what you are basically describing. Key-switching is where a single instrument/track contains sample information for several articulations and you use pre-programmed keys or, in S1 case, Sound Variations to swap in and out articulations. They each have their pros and cons.

It's just personal preference (or what you are used to)

Actually my idea has one-to-one articulation per track look like key-switching. Select nothing and the articulations collapse into a single track; Select something and the articulations expand to the one-to-one tracks they really are. Arranger window/visible tracks space saved is as with key-switching, except for that one instrument selected. And you can use it for multi-instrumentalists too. I can even see some of Studio One's comping features come into play with this, like selecting, promoting and cross-fading.