Instrument track vs. separate MIDI + Audio tracks

The Simple Instrument Track works fine if you have a single non-multi-timbral synthesizer being driven by a single MIDI track. And you don't mind losing a few of the controls.
 
But if you're seriously into software synthesizers it's only a matter of time before you'll run into the limitations of the SIT. You may want to overlay two patches, slaving a second synth off the same MIDI track as the first. Can't do that with a SIT. You may want to use a multi-timbral sampler such as Kontakt for convenience and better CPU efficiency. Can't do that with a SIT. 

All of the above, plus I'll add I like the organization of having them separate. I put all the synth audio tracks into a folder at the bottom of the project. This way I can MSR them as a whole. Then I put the MIDI tracks into folders grouped by instrument type (DRUMS, BASS, GTR...) Often times I'll have separate parts of the same synth that I'll keep on separate MIDI tracks for ease of workflow when arranging which helps tremendously. In music like electronica, where you tend to write by building up huge arrangements and then trimming down this is great. 
 
That said, inserting a synth is a pain becuase you have to do a bit of organizing, and bouncing down is a pain because you have to select both the MIDI AND the audio track (srsly, I wish they'd fix that). 

bitflipper
slaving a second synth off the same MIDI track as the first.

Aha.  I didn't think of that.  Thanks.

sharke
process the left and right sides of a synth's stereo output differently,

That's way beyond my skill level at this point, but I can see that could make a difference.

Many drum VSTs have multi outs - separate outs for kick, snare (top & bottom), overheads, room, toms, etc.
Each will typically have different fx added to them - comps, eq, verb "wetness".
 

cparmerlee

SuperG
Drums - can never get them just right in a single stereo track. That's plenty of reason to split them out into multiple audio tracks.

Can you please explain a little more about that?  Do you send them to two different synths?

One or more MIDI tracks go to a single synth that has many audio outputs.

Jeff M.
Many drum VSTs have multi outs -
Each will typically have different fx added to them

OK.  Makes sense.  Thanks.
 
 
And another question along those lines.  It has always been a truism that the best studies were distinguished by using the most expensive, exotic microphones.  While I don't question that the most expensive mics can capture subtleties that other mics might miss, I wonder if a closet full of really expensive mics is as important today as it used to be.

It might make sense for a studio owner or big-time producer, but for Joe Homeslice, probably not. I'd bet a wooden nickel you could trip up a few folks using  A-B blind comparos against Chinese and east European knock-offs. Of course, there are mic modeling plug-ins, such as the one Antares produces.
Then again, those exotics are quite nice, and vanity has never been a sin in the music world...

bitflipper
The Simple Instrument Track works fine if you have a single non-multi-timbral synthesizer being driven by a single MIDI track. And you don't mind losing a few of the controls.
 
But if you're seriously into software synthesizers it's only a matter of time before you'll run into the limitations of the SIT. You may want to overlay two patches, slaving a second synth off the same MIDI track as the first. Can't do that with a SIT. You may want to use a multi-timbral sampler such as Kontakt for convenience and better CPU efficiency. Can't do that with a SIT. 

Actually, you can (I know it works, I've done it), but you shouldn't.  Reason explained in my other post preceding this one.
 
JG
www.jerrygerber.com
 

I always use separate audio and midi tracks.

• I find it more logical. Audio is audio and MIDI is MIDI, my simple brain finds the simple instrument track harder to comprehend.  For example I never quite get what the volume and pan faders do on an SIT, do they turn down or pan synth using MIDI or alter the volume and pan on the audio track. I suppose i could easily find out but it just seems easier to use a method where its all clearly layed out.
• A lot of the time I use multi out and/or multi-timber synths. For example an instance of Kontakt may contain eight instruments, with 8 stereo outs, driven by eight midi tracks, An Instance of an hammond Organ VSTi (B4 II) with one audio track and three midi tracks (upper & lower manuals and pedels) or Superior drummer with one midi track and a multitude of audio outs.
• Track templates make the setting up of these scenarios easy.
• The "clutter" can be managed, X2's auto track zoom is a great feature. Track folders are another big help One solution is to hide the MIDI tracks in consul view and hide the audio

 
 

charmerlee - I don't know about your skill level playing your material, but my skill level on keys needs extra help - which is why I never use simple instrument tracks.

With separate midi / audio tracks I clone the midi track as often as I want, so that I have multiple take tracks. They all route to the same audio track. So I can do bits and pieces of my performance and get clean parts, but they sound seamless to the audio track.

You could do the same thing with Take Lanes I suppose, but I'm not an adopter of those yet. If not using Take Lanes, the approach I've mentioned above only requires one instance of the synth say for five take tracks. If you had five alternate take tracks with SITs you'd have five synths loaded, which takes up unnecessary CPU.

Today I decided to experiment a little more in this area.  Before ramping up on SONAR, I had purchased the Garritan Jazz and Big Band library for use with Finale.  The latest version of that library comes with the Aria player.  I added Aria to the VSTs synths available in SONAR.  And this has the side-benefit of including the basic orchestra voices that Garritan bundles with Finale 2012.
 
When I added Aria to my project, I had a choice of "regular" Aria or "multi" Aria.  I think this means that the regular one has a single stereo output, and you can only select "0/1" as the output for each Aria channel.  I presume this means that Aria mixed based on the MIDI channel inputs.  That all makes sense to me, as it should be a pretty efficient way to run a lot of similar instruments, and they will all dump to the same audio track.  In other words, that would be a pretty clean solution if you wanted the same effects (collectively) on all the instruments running through Aria.
 
But when I selected "Aria multiple" (and further selected the option for mono outputs), I ended up with 32 audio tracks in SONAR.  I can see that this would certainly be flexible because each of those 32 outputs could theoretically have its own effects chain.  But what a mess visually!  And it seems to me, so far at least, that lots of effects can be the enemy of a glean mix.
 
So at least I think I understand what is possible, but I an not so sure this will lead me to a better result as the master bus hits the eardrums.  I do have a 25" monitor (plus a smaller second monitor), but that doesn't seem nearly large enough to make these really complicated routing scenarios coherent.

Bob, if I may ask, what do you tick in the Insert Soft Synth options box and why? I have always used the Simple Instrument Track option (as well as the Synth Property), but a lot of what is being said on this thread makes sense. So much so that I am considering changing my methods to suit.
 
Dennis
 
 

Well, I wouldn't normally choose to do that, as I would want the ability to control each trombone voice completely separately in Sonar, rather than within Kontakt.
 
For instance, you could not apply automation to individual trombone voices if you had them all combined within Kontakt to one output channel, nor could you apply any Sonar audio effects to individual trombone voices - reverb, EQ, delay, phase, etc. (you would only get to use what was in Kontakt).
 
If I had a bunch of brass instruments to deal with, I would likely load them all into a unique instance of Kontakt 5, route each instrument to its own audio output, and to corresponding audio tracks in Sonar, along with individual midi tracks, all grouped under a track folder for Brass.  That keeps everything grouped, where you could expand/collapse as needed, AND preserve complete control over all aspects of each brass instrument's sound.
 
Bob Bone
 

While waiting for Bob, try this
 
for the equivalent of a SIT check "MIDI Source", "Synth Track Folder" and "First Synth Audio Output"
 
For multi-out synth check "MIDI Source", "Synth Track Folder" and "All Synth Outputs: Stereo"
 
For multi-out synths with mono outputs you could also use "All Synth Outputs: Mono" instead of "All Synths Outputs: Stereo"

I did miss your question, joden - sorry.
 
The options in the Insert Soft Synth dialog box are there to do some of the work for you, and which ones you use are entirely up to you.
 
As Scook posted above, to auto-generate midi/audio tracks per the scenarios he describes would work, and there is nothing wrong with setting them that way.
 
My own personal preference is to simply leave all boxes un-checked, except for the one to open the synth properties page, because for me and my brain, inserting a single midi and one or two audio tracks for a synth that I am only using 1 set of outputs for is super fast, and I would NEVER myself choose to use the ALL outputs choices, because I would invariably end up with a whole bunch of extra tracks I would have to go back and delete.
 
Also, the synth I MOST often load multiple instruments with multiple midi channels and multiple outputs is NOT properly handled anyways by any of the options - for how I use tracks.  I am referring to Kontakt 5, which is usually the synth I use that supports multiple instruments and multiple outputs.  (Battery 3 is my other one, but I already have a bunch of custom kits and customized routing assignments for that set up as project templates).  
 
So, for Kontakt 5, if I have loaded up multiple instruments for a given instance of it, then NONE of the check boxes would have it generate multiple midi tracks (I would want a separate midi track generated for each loaded instrument, and the check box choices do not support that), and NONE of the check box options would generate the precise number of audio tracks I would need, as I personally choose to limit the number of loaded instruments into a single instance of Kontakt 5 to either 5 or 6, because of some quirks in Kontakt's audio Output Section and how it displays tracks for Input assignment for audio tracks in Sonar.  
 
So, since I limit myself to 10-12 outputs, there is no check box combination that would auto-generate that precise number of audio tracks, and I would end up with manual work anyways, either adding or deleting tracks.
 
And, lastly, I don't feel like checking and removing checks each time I am inserting a synth (depending on the synth containing multiple instruments or not), I just prefer to do the track insertions manually.  I also, in ANY case, have to go manually rename each track, set panning, and for midi set channels for synths with multiple loaded instruments going to multiple midi channels, so I just do the whole thing manually, and I rarely, if ever, miss doing something, where I might if a lot of that was auto-generated.
 
Again, this is all my own preferences, and the reasons behind them.  Other folks use or do not use particular checked boxes for their approach.  My approach works for me, and is always the same - set up needed midi and audio tracks manually, to exactly match what is needed for each instance of an inserted soft synth.
 
I hope any of that helps, it is really just personal choice - the above are the choices I made, and the rationale behind them.
 
Bob Bone