How To Add A Mixer Channel For An Instrument Track Studio One 4

What's the difference between a rail and a channel? In Studio I, this is not a play a trick on question...

Many DAWs, including Pro Tools, maintain a one-to-1 correspondence betwixt tracks in their arrange or edit views, and channels in their mixer views. Studio I does things differently, and its organisation has its own pros and cons.

Studio One'due south mixer, which is referred to as the 'console' in some contexts, is at centre the user interface for the actual sound engine, while tracks in the arrange view are basically glorified edit determination lists (EDLs): instructions every bit to which bits of sound should exist played at which time. Other control data such as fades, issue levels and automation are also stored as part of tracks, merely those, likewise, are just instructions. Behind the scenes, the audio channel is where information technology all actually plays out — both figuratively and literally.

In that location is a 1-to-one correspondence between sound tracks and mixer channels; every audio track has ane mixer aqueduct. As we shall shortly see, however, virtual instruments are a dissimilar story, and tin can exist responsible for a skillful bargain of variation in track and aqueduct quantities.

Linking Upward

Tracks and channels both have solo and mute buttons, but their actions are linked only for audio tracks. Muting or soloing an audio rail besides mutes or solos its channel. Just virtual instruments use both an musical instrument track for performance data (MIDI) and a mixer channel for audio. These are different entities with unlike functions. As a result, the solo push on an instrument track also solos the instrument mixer aqueduct because both functioning data and sound are needed to solo an instrument, simply the mute buttons are not linked. To understand why, consider the post-obit example.

Let's say I'm working on a piece using Latin percussion and have a virtual instrument playing a percussion preset with a different sound on each notation. The percussion is active and important, so I split notes playing the congas, tambourine and cowbell to their own tracks. As a upshot, I accept iii tracks all playing the same musical instrument on the aforementioned MIDI channel (Screen 1), using different notes to go the desired percussion sounds. Now I can mute the conga track and hear how but the cowbell and tambourine are working together. If I'k composing, I can experiment with instrument combinations.

If my virtual musical instrument has a unmarried stereo output, all of those instruments are mixed in the musical instrument and fed through a unmarried stereo mixer channel. This results in more tracks than channels.

The rails/aqueduct disparity becomes more than acute with a multitimbral instrument that still merely has a stereo output. For instance, I go a lot of use from the AIR Instruments Xpand2 musical instrument, which tin host upwards to 4 presets, each on its own instrument (MIDI) channel, with the audio outputs of all four presets summing to a unmarried stereo output (Screen 2). With four presets I tin load two different percussion or pulsate instruments, each on its ain channel, plus 2 more than sounds on the other 2 channels. I finish up with quite a few more tracks than channels.

Spreading Out

Screen 3: This MOTU MachFive3 multi (centre) has ten parts, each of which gets its own track. Eight MIDI channels are used to control it, and information technology results in five audio channels in the mixer. Multitimbral, multi-output VIs tin go a flake complicated at times. Multitimbral, multi-output instruments take the track/channel outcome to another level. With multiple sounds, MIDI channels, and outputs, annihilation can happen. Advanced samplers such as NI Kontakt and MOTU MachFive3 are good examples: I have a MachFive multi with iii channels for violins, two for violas, iii for 'cellos and two for basses (Screen 3). I used this preset on 2 different projects. One was a hard, fast, cheap job, for which submixing to a stereo strings mix in MachFive3 was user-friendly. The other project required more detail, then I used one-to-one routing to allow for dissimilar controller data for the diverse instruments, plus greater flexibility in the mix.

Like multitimbral, multi-output instruments, Studio One'south multi-instruments are sophisticated structures; and, like multitimbral virtual instruments, they can require more channels than tracks. Unlike multitimbral instruments, though, I can't recall of an instance where information technology makes sense to have more than one runway playing a multi-instrument.

When a multi-musical instrument is created, a mixer channel for it is created at the aforementioned time. By default, audio outputs of all of the private instruments in the multi-instrument are submixed to this aqueduct. But if you desire to break out the instrument outputs to separate mixer channels, each can exist independently routed to a bus channel, FX channel or output: simply open the editor for the multi-instrument and click on the instrument y'all want to road to select it. To the left of the main graphic area is a channel strip bearing the proper name of the currently selected musical instrument. The output drop-down bill of fare assigns that instrument to the destination you choose. Yous can select each instrument in plow and re-route it this manner.

Screen 4: By default, all the virtual instruments in a Studio One multi-instrument sum to one stereo mixer channel, but each one can be selected and re-routed individually, as shown here. Screen four: By default, all the virtual instruments in a Studio One multi-instrument sum to one stereo mixer channel, but each 1 can be selected and re-routed individually, equally shown here. Elsewhere in the mixer, bus channels, FX channels and outputs do not comport audio from sound or instrument tracks, and then take no corresponding tracks. Or do they?

If I want to automate a bus channel such every bit a submix, even just its mute, I need to create an automation track to practise it. And that leads to organisational bug. If I accept iii different FX channels for lead guitar, do I desire a carve up runway for each, or am I going to have ane 'guitar fx automobile' track for all of them? I generally lean towards consolidating onto fewer automation tracks, simply just including direct related functions, like the guitar effects example.

Get Organised

The down side of giving yourself access to finer granularity (particularly every bit regards private musical instrument outputs) is that information technology necessarily injects a greater quantity of both tracks and channels into your session, which increases complexity and slows things down. The best tactic to combat this drag on creative flow is to apply organisation. Studio One'southward folder tracks tin be very powerful in managing tracks and channels. All those strings tracks tin exist combined in ane folder track, and even accept their sound routed to a unmarried motorcoach channel, VCA channel or output.

Colour-coding is available for tracks in the arrange view, but I find colour-coding most meaningful in the mixer. This is specially true in low-cal of Studio One's handling of aqueduct placement in the mixer, which can vary with grouping and preferences. Good colour-coding is helpful for clarifying the part of a channel, even if the order in the mixer does not make that clear.

Screen 5: My MachFive3 strings multi fully organised in the adapt view. Tracks are colour-coded, including different colours for instrument and automation tracks. Annotation the automation tracks at the top; these tracks crusade the submixes and reverb channels in the mixer to collapse forth with the instrument tracks, assuming evidence/hibernate is linked betwixt the mixer and adapt views. Studio Ane has no 'channel folders', but track folders can reach good management in the mixer, as well, when they are linked to mixer channels. Click the wrench icon in the upper right of the mixer to open up the mixer options dialogue, and be sure the Link expand/collapse of folder tracks with prove/hide box is ticked. Now, collapsing a folder in the arrange view also hides the associated mixer channels, but it only hides channels for tracks in the folder. If I have an FX bus render in the mixer sitting between two tracks that are in the same folder, collapsing the binder will hibernate the two tracks and exit the FX bus return, because it has no track in the folder. If this bothers you, create an automation track and assign it to control some parameter of the effect on the FX bus or its plug-ins. Now the FX bus has a track that can exist put in the desired folder, afterward which it will hide when the binder is complanate. I detect this kind of utility indispensable.

The decoupling of tracks and channels in Studio One can need a bit of idea to deal with, but it is logical, offers valuable advantages, and is rapidly assimilated. Virtual instruments and audio effects tin can smashing the numbers of tracks and mixer channels, sometimes unequally, but this actress overhead tin can exist managed with good organisation, peculiarly using folder tracks. It can be difficult to keep up your organisational systems when you're on the firing line of product, but a well-constructed session can be a keen asset in promoting creative flow past taming technical particular.