Yes, I implement a rack I call “Processing Rack” as the output stage of every other rack, rather than using “Stereo Speakers” for instance. It has a compressor, EQ and its inherent volume control in it, and outputs to the “Stereo Speakers” at its output end.
Terry
and this strategy will also control plug-ins, not just racks within songs?
Yes - I send ALL outputs to the processing rack. Anywhere single-source management of some parameters is useful I create a rack for that.
Terry
Also, if you engage “Processing mode” for the rack, it will remember changes you make within the rack for different song states. Or you can just have it ignore song states and stay consistent always.
Terry
Hey, you nicked my “Master Rack” 
! But I’ve gone one step further 
- I have a “Main Keys FxVolumeRack” in most of my setups that allows me to control a total of my mixed basic keyboard sound (mostly piano, e-piano, string layer, organ to taste), including effects, with one slider. My main keyboard racks send their outputs to this rack, including parallel routes for delay and reverb, which sit inside the FxVolumeRack. The whole (rack outputs + FX) gets mixed into one FreeG fader within this rack - controlled by a physical slider on my keyboard. Solo synths are kept separate from this (they actually have a separate slider), so I can adjust the mix of a pretty complex layered setup with two sliders.
Cool, huh 
?
Cheers,
Torsten
Definitely cool! I am using two plugins for my processing rack, with a slider bound via midi to the output of that rack. I should look at FreeG as I’ve seen it mentioned quite a few times. I’m using Boost11 – a volume control and limiter by Cakewalk – fed into the free version (at the moment) of Tokyo Dawn Record’s TDR Nova. (Probably should have them the other way around!) I like all of their stuff! http://www.tokyodawn.net/tokyo-dawn-labs/
I’m exploring other breakout uses for racks as well. Gotta get some reverb and delay racks going most likely! (Though all my synths have on-board effects, it is nice to use a single reverb to glue everything together in a common space.)
Terry
Build 3153 introduces a new rack option to prevent a rack from being controlled by it’s loading song letting the rack maintain it’s state across multiple songs.
So for example, if I want the same volume level for a clavinet rack each time I insert it in a song, I would turn off the “Let the parent song control this rack…” option. Correct?
You could also lock the background rack file. 
Now I’m interested to see a screenshot for studie purposes
OK, here you go:
First, the Main Keys Rack:
It contains a delay, a reverb, and a volume fader which is MIDI-controlled.Each of the racks in my main layer send their output to the rack’s main input, plus, optionally, a separate route to the reverb or to the delay. This way, I can have different levels of reverb/delay for each element in my main layer!
Now, the volume fader controls the sum of all layers, plus both effects. This way, I can easily raise or lower the volume of my main sound with ONE fader, maintaining the balance between all elements, and without affecting the volume of any solo or effects sounds. Cool, huh?
Next, the Master Rack:
All my keyboard sounds are finally fed into the Keys Input of this Rack, all guitar sounds into the Guitar In. Each of these inputs is then processed by a master EQ, plus a master volume, and finally a limiter to avoid distortion.
Since this rack is pre-loaded in my setlists and set to ignore state changes from the song, its settings stay persistent across all songs, i.e. when I make an EQ setting in the Master Rack, it will stay in place across all songs. Same with any volume change I make here via a dedicated fader on my keyboard: when I lower the overall volume of my keyboards, because I believe they are too loud relative to my guitar sounds, this setting stays permanent for the whole gig (or until I push it back up later in the gig…)
Hope this is educational 
Cheers,
Torsten
Oh yes, just to explain the LUFS meters (currently de-activated) in the Master Rack: there is a second state for the Master Rack called “Metering” that activates these two plugins and also brings their GUI forward. These two are super-helpful for volume calibration; for every new sound I build, I run a quick calibration check against these plugins to give it a rough level of -26 dB LUFS. Then, I fine-tune against a backing track and lock down the level in the rack; final fine-tuning will then be part of the song -level gain setting per rack.
Cheers,
Torsten
This has nothing to do with the background rack - it’s about my master rack, which is part of every song.
But if your comment is about write-protecting the Master Rack file: I will want to make some edits to my Master Rack once in a while - don’t want to fiddle with its file properties (also not sure how that affects propagation across Dropbox). But since @brad has created the option to “only save on significant changes”, that’s taken care of - it now ignores all the changes made by pushing faders.
Cheers,
Torsten
I need to studie some hours on your rack 
Very well done.
I’m only starting so this helps me allot. Thx
I’ve also used a similar approach but it always concerned me that I could mash the fader all the way up or down and cause havoc. I’ve used Cabtabile’s midi filters to limit the range of the nominated faders and find that gives me ‘safer’ mix ability.
Personally, I’ve never missed a dedicated mixer in Cantabile.
Me neither up to know.
The software doesn’t have an out of the box solution for background tasks. And that’s the complaint i guess for new users.
It doesn’t look musical enough. Also it’s thinks logically otherwise. We are used to see faders vertically not horizontal.
But underneath is a very powerful and open structure. It’s the way of cantabile and we need to guard it that way.
Maybe we/some should write some tutorials how to setup background mixing and other basic or advanced interesting stuff.
It certainly doesn’t look like a DAW. That’s its strength.
What do you mean by background tasks / background mixing?
I personally don’t care whether it looks “musical” or not, if it does what I need. It seems there’s an expectation for music software to have accurate visual renderings of real musical hardware - perfectly rendered knobs that cast shadows, faders that look photographically identical to those on a real console, even beautifully-designed screws holding this virtual control panel in place. Software that uses 80% of the screen on a picture of a grand piano (why?!). It all looks cool, but we should remember that computers allow us to redefine how we work with musical tools. We’re no longer constrained by the physical limitations of physical controls, and software allows much more powerful control systems instead. But we are constrained by screen space.
We’re used to mixing desks with vertical faders only because real consoles typically have many dozens of faders, often as many as 96 or more, which would never work hotizontally. It makes sense to have vertical channel strips on a mixer because each strip just has knobs/buttons, which are narrow. Cantabile “strips” need text for plugin names, patch names, notes etc., which would just waste space if done vertically. Personally, I think if the faders can be controlled easily and accurately, that’s the main criterion. If Cantabile doesn’t look like a physical mixing desk, that’s fine because it’s not a mixing desk - it has other, very different responsibilities. A mixing desk’s main job is mixing levels - faders are king. On Cabtaile the plugins and their patches are king.
Neil
If I could like that x1000 I would.
I fully agree with that.
That’s why I suggest to make some good tutorials to get people started?
The insight of Torsten is a good start already.
