Would you say this was a variant on working with stems? I'm talking at the mix level and not the mastering level.

Boswell, post: 453447, member: 29034 wrote: Would you say this was a variant on working with stems? I'm talking at the mix level and not the mastering level.

Yes, I'm speaking of mixing and not mastering, pal... and I suppose that in a way, it is similar to stems, in that you have control over certain "sections" of instruments - except with the "FMR" workflow, you still have control over the individual instruments on the track level as well.
So, while Drums and Bass might be routed to the "rear" buss, which controls the master level of those tracks as a whole, you still have control over just the kick, or just the snare, or just the bass, or whatever tracks reside in that bus. So you can still EQ the individual tracks in that bus, or add compression, or adjust balances and panning.
I think that's probably the only difference between this Front-Middle-Rear bussing and Stems - which are usually premixed - or at least rendered - as stereo sections, right?
(I've actually never worked with stems - I'm probably the only guy on this forum - or maybe in the world -LOL -who hasn't, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.) :)

It's just a thought that occurred to me yesterday, during a long drive to a gig... and remembering that it was something I used to commonly do back in my days on desks... it was taught to me by my instructor at the time.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was a "game-changer", because you still need great-sounding individual tracks to begin with ... but it did open up options, in terms of inserting a particular GR or EQ device for just that bus, allowing you to select different types of GR or EQ for each bus without effecting the other busses.
Actually, Bos, one of the things that I just this very moment remembered about that workflow, ( that I'd obviously forgotten about) , is that I recall that I always ended up using far less processing on the Master 2 Bus when working with the FMR setup.
Now, whether that's advantageous - or not - LOL - would be totally subjective to the individual engineer. I honestly don't know why I stopped working that way, especially since it's so very easy to set up on any DAW mixer.

Location-wise, I like these FMR busses to reside as the last three "tracks" on the mixer, just before the Master Bus. I don't think it would really make any difference where you actually put them, I guess you could put them right after the tracks that you are sending those tracks to, but for me, it seems easier to place them on the end, because I always know where they reside, and they are F-M-R, right in a row.
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud about it. I thought it might be a fun topic to talk about. :)
-d.

I don't use buses nearly as much as I used to. On an analog console I did it mostly because I didn't have enough compressors for every channel. When I switched to DAW mixing I did it out of habit. There is the convenience factor of being able to raise/lower the whole drum kit.

One of the reasons I stopped using them so much is that I like to keep my projects a simple as possible. I prefer to use one or two shared reverbs, and when drums are bused the reverb doesn't follow changes in level done at the bus level. I would have to go in and readjust the sends from all the drum channels every time I moved the drum bus fader. So now I use groups to get the same convenience but with better function. In Pro Tools they are just called Groups. In Vegas Pro they are called Track Groups. They work something like the VCAs (voltage controlled amplifiers) found in large analog consoles, and so act on the channel controls directly rather than on a mix of the signals from multiple channels.

Also, I usually like compression at the track level rather than the group level. Once in a while I'll submix and compress vocals to even out lead vs. lead+backings, but one could just as well automate things at the track level.

My personal flow has included BUSes for various things over the years. I always have a Delay and a Reverb BUSes that I feed stuff to. Usually the Reverb is the overall mix feed, I do have separate ones if needed for say a plate on a snare, or a special effect on a vocal etc of course. I used to put the Reverb on the Master BUS, but then I thought about it and decided AUX was the best way to go. Now that I have Ozone 8 Advanced and the mixer it provides too, I get level sends per track and then visual mixing too. The visual mixer is quite something, takes all the guess work out. But, yes Donny, BUS and BUS some more ;).

Without going into detail, in Sequoia or Samplitude we or I, may do things a bit different to the other DAW workflows simply because of how Object Editing deals with a track.
Being said,
my idea is to put the effect I'm shooting for like (comp, delay reverb) on the furthest post of a mix so it is a blanket statement on the (Bus, Aux or master lane) of a mix (less is more) rather than (prematurely) on the individual channels (thus creating a swirly mash up). Mind you, there are exceptions which as an example would be a slamming snare so then of course I would get the slam on the channel first.

This imho gives the most accurate relationship of the song (overall performance (emulated or real time) of the overall imaging glued to the acoustic (real or emulation) space. In other words, (generally speaking) I set mix levels and surgical EQ on the channels (usually do that on the objects), and apply comps and ambience processing on Bus or master lanes.

Bus' are a beautiful thing. Love them. They are used for gluing and sending committed (groups) off to the main image of the song which is what the audience/ mastering end is all about.... They are the room (mood, color, venue, concept of the virtual moment etc) imho.

audiokid bouldersound Boswell @Makzimia, (et al)

It's not that I haven't used busses in the DAW, I do all the time, grouping drums, or backing Vox, horns, 0r guitars. This workflow I'm thinking about doesn't exclude using those types of busses; it doesn't involve using this "FMR" idea as a substitute for normal busses, I see it as being in addition to the regular busses most of us use. The thought is that it would sort of "wrangle everything together" into three final busses... I guess I sort of picture it visually in my head as the backline of a stage, does that make sense? I could probably just get away with a Rear and a Front bus, it was my idea to add another (middle) in between them for further control of instruments that aren't necessarily considered to be "classic" rhythm tracks, but are also not the front-focal stuff, which would be lead and backing Vox...(although I guess you could also put the BV into the middle bus instead of the front bus...)
I have no clue if the idea I see in my head is going to work the way I imagine or not. But I'm
gonna at least try this workflow and see what happens - or more accurately - hear what happens. :)

bouldersound, post: 453453, member: 38959 wrote: I don't use buses nearly as much as I used to. On an analog console I did it mostly because I didn't have enough compressors for every channel. When I switched to DAW mixing I did it out of habit. There is the convenience factor of being able to raise/lower the whole drum kit.

One of the reasons I stopped using them so much is that I like to keep my projects a simple as possible. I prefer to use one or two shared reverbs, and when drums are bused the reverb doesn't follow changes in level done at the bus level. I would have to go in and readjust the sends from all the drum channels every time I moved the drum bus fader. So now I use groups to get the same convenience but with better function. In Pro Tools they are just called Groups. In Vegas Pro they are called Track Groups. They work something like the VCAs (voltage controlled amplifiers) found in large analog consoles, and so act on the channel controls directly rather than on a mix of the signals from multiple channels.

Also, I usually like compression at the track level rather than the group level. Once in a while I'll submix and compress vocals to even out lead vs. lead+backings, but one could just as well automate things at the track level.

I pretty much agree with boulder but use stems to avoid processing tracks as much as possible.

I use 2 bus processing along with master aux’es to reduce even more individual processing as much as possible.

One stereo reverb, one master comp for an entire mix comes to mind.

Yeah... simple is what I aim for all the time.
Good post boulder.

DonnyThompson, post: 453459, member: 46114 wrote: audiokid bouldersound Boswell @Makzimia, (et al)

It's not that I haven't used busses in the DAW, I do all the time, grouping drums, or backing Vox, horns, 0r guitars. This workflow I'm thinking about doesn't exclude using those types of busses; it doesn't involve using this "FMR" idea as a substitute for normal busses, I see it as being in addition to the regular busses most of us use. The thought is that it would sort of "wrangle everything together" into three final busses... I guess I sort of picture it visually in my head as the backline of a stage, does that make sense? I could probably just get away with a Rear and a Front bus, it was my idea to add another (middle) in between them for further control of instruments that aren't necessarily considered to be "classic" rhythm tracks, but are also not the front-focal stuff, which would be lead and backing Vox...(although I guess you could also put the BV into the middle bus instead of the front bus...)
I have no clue if the idea I see in my head is going to work the way I imagine or not. But I'm
gonna at least try this workflow and see what happens - or more accurately - hear what happens. :)

You have the same thinking as me only you've put it in a different way. I suppose it also comes down to the style of music and if one is summing OTB , they would likely always stem groups and do the processing there. In my case, I prefer using two DAW's, grouping drums, bass, guitars, vocals, keys, percussion, effects regardless of external hardware being used. I've come to the conclusion, whats good for me would be ridiculous for someone else.I find bus' very useful for a variety of reasons and can't imagine a mixer without them.

Listening to your work over the years, I think you are on the right track :)

Bussing was one of the best things I learned to let my drums cut through dense mixes. Prior to that my snares always seemed a bit buried or the guitars had to be a bit buried. I generally get a working balance on the individual track level, and leave their busses at unity. I’ll continue to make track by track adjustments, clip/region level adjustments, and small adjustments to the track busses. I find this helps simplify things when there’s all kinds of random tracks like backup ad libs, or samples, I can make small adjustments on the bus level, or it’s eq or whatever. It’s much more organized, and lighter on CPU.

I assimilate bussing to stems or summing. I think the busses help sum stuff in stages leaving less calculation for the master bus. I have no proof of that technically, just that’s what it sounds like to me.

My bussing is like this, kik bus, snare bus, tom bus, and over head stereo track, stereo room track, feeding a stereo ‘drums’ bus. I use eq/compression on both the track by track level, and bus. Effects, generally time and space based, are sent from Auxes, to their associated effect bus. 8dly, hall verb, ect.

With drums, and even in general, I find spreading the compression between the track and bus, allows for lighter compression at each stage, as I work towards the relatively heavy compression modern drum sounds have.

Bass and bass DI, and sometimes distorted bass, feed a mono “bass bus”

Rythym guitars get their own stereo bus. any add lib, lead , or other guitars like clean, or acoustic, also get their own mono or stereo bus.

Same for vocals and everything else.

With a lot of songs there’s a lot of sporadic vocal ad Libs or guitar overdubs, and the bussing helps keep a single bus’s channel strip in charge of things.

I wonder if I’ll be changing this when I get into object based editing.

I like to feed a pretty consistently leveled signal to a compressor to avoid articfacts, so I have spent a fair amount of time on clip gain. That said I feel like compressors also add their own inherent eq curve, and they do effect the envelope, sustain, and punch of the sound, so I don’t look at compression as pure volume adjustment.

bouldersound, post: 453453, member: 38959 wrote: I don't use buses nearly as much as I used to. On an analog console I did it mostly because I didn't have enough compressors for every channel. When I switched to DAW mixing I did it out of habit. There is the convenience factor of being able to raise/lower the whole drum kit.

One of the reasons I stopped using them so much is that I like to keep my projects a simple as possible. I prefer to use one or two shared reverbs, and when drums are bused the reverb doesn't follow changes in level done at the bus level. I would have to go in and readjust the sends from all the drum channels every time I moved the drum bus fader. So now I use groups to get the same convenience but with better function. In Pro Tools they are just called Groups. In Vegas Pro they are called Track Groups. They work something like the VCAs (voltage controlled amplifiers) found in large analog consoles, and so act on the channel controls directly rather than on a mix of the signals from multiple channels.

Also, I usually like compression at the track level rather than the group level. Once in a while I'll submix and compress vocals to even out lead vs. lead+backings, but one could just as well automate things at the track level.

Can you explain what you mean about the drums effects not following the moves made at the bus level? I’m not clear what you mean. I haven’t used reverb on drums in like 8 years, since using room mics mostly, but I’m going to be using it again on my new rig, so I want to try and avoid a potential mistake.

Makzimia, post: 453455, member: 48344 wrote: My personal flow has included BUSes for various things over the years. I always have a Delay and a Reverb BUS that I feed stuff to. Usually the Reverb is the overall mix feed, I do have separate ones if needed for say a plate on a snare, or a special effect on a vocal etc of course. I used to put the Reverb on the Master BUS, but then I thought about it and decided AUX was the best way to go. Now that I have Ozone 8 Advanced and the mixer it provides too, I get level sends per track and then visual mixing too. The visual mixer is quite something, takes all the guess work out. But, yes Donny, BUS and BUS some more ;).

How do you like ozone 8? I didn’t upgrade from seven since the cost was relatively high compared to the insane deal I got on the projection pack last year. I haven’t done much beyond mess around w ozone since my setup isn’t up, so that was the other reason.

Did you upgrade from 7?

Do you feel 8 has some ‘essential’ features to it that would merit and upgrade?

audiokid, post: 453461, member: 1 wrote: I pretty much agree with boulder but use stems to avoid processing tracks as much as possible.

I use 2 bus processing along with master aux’es to reduce even more individual processing as much as possible.

One stereo reverb, one master comp for an entire mix comes to mind.

Yeah... simple is what I aim for all the time.
Good post boulder.

How do you employ stems? Do you submix them thru your summing matrix, then bring them back to the session?

audiokid, post: 453462, member: 1 wrote: You have the same thinking as me only you've put it in a different way. I suppose it also comes down to the style of music and if one is summing OTB , they would likely always stem groups and do the processing there. In my case, I prefer using two DAW's, grouping drums, bass, guitars, vocals, keys, percussion, effects regardless of external hardware being used. I've come to the conclusion, whats good for me would be ridiculous for someone else.I find bus' very useful for a variety of reasons and can't imagine a mixer without them.

Listening to your work over the years, I think you are on the right track :)

When you sum, do you have a mono only, and L/R thing going on? Like things that are mono like snares and kick and lead vocs, do they get sent to the summing rig as a mono signal, then summed to a stereo ‘master’ on the 2trk daw?

I’m trying to visualize how the tracks are sent out of daw 1 to the mix down converter/daw.

I always wonder if I’m doing damage to my kick and snare when I send their mono kick and snare busses into a stereo ‘drums’ general buss.

I’m starting to wonder if I should have a mono drums bus, and stereo drums bus, which feed the master bus for the song. Eventually I’ll go dual daw, but i have to start more conventionally due to budget and space.

I think what Boulder is describing is the classic dilemma that VCA's were employed to fix .. that as you automated a track's volume, its effect - if you had an aux on that track feeding an effects bus (and/or return) wouldn't follow the volume changes you would make to the dry track, meaning that you could turn down the level of the track, but you'd still have the FX returning with the same level, leaving the FX for a track still very prominent in a mix.
DAW VCAs seem to take care of that, so as you adjust the levels of the dry track, the FX Returns follow accordingly and equally.
Before VCA automation became a feature of DAWs, I used to put the FX return adjacent to the track being effected, and the I would couple/link the fader of the dry track with the fader on the FX return, so that, if I had reverb on a Snare and I was adjusting the volume of the Snare, the fader on the FX return would follow - up or down - keeping the wet/dry ratio of the effect the same.
But Boulder should chime in here, he may be referring to something else related. I'm just mentioning what I do. ;)

Ok that makes more sense to me. I can’t believe after this long I’ve never noticed that or considered it a problem. Part of it is I view effects almost as a separate like layer or independent of the source to some extent. But most of the reason is I’m a caveman.

In the analog realm where noise is a stronger consideration and effects units are limited, I can see where sending a strong signal thru the aux and then setting the level at the return would make sense.

I wonder if there’s a way to link the track fader and six level.

VCA is new to me, I haven’t used them yet. If it’s linked to the return wouldn’t that raise a problem if you were sending say vocals, guitar, and snare (drums) to say the same 8th not delay bus? Would turning down the vocal VCA turn down the delay return / bus, which would also effect the amount of audible delay for the drums and guitar?

Actually, it's the problem with any shared parallel effects loop when the channels sharing it go to different mix groups. Say you've got one reverb that all the channels are using. Each channel sends to the reverb via a post-fader aux send, the output of the reverb returns to the main bus. If you raise or lower the vocal submix group bus, the level of the reverb doesn't change, so the vocals get dryer or wetter.

Post-fader aux sends take care of the problem Donny describes.

Other solutions to the shared parallel effect/multiple submixes problem are:

- Use separate reverbs. That uses more processing, and if you want to change one you have to change them all to keep things in the same space.

- Use an aux send from the bus. Not all DAWs do that (a limit to Vegas Pro that doesn't actually bother me most of the time). And maybe you don't want the same amount of reverb on the lead vocal as you do on the - backings, or as much on the overheads as you do on the snare and toms.

- Put the reverb on the bus itself. This has all the problems of both of the above. And it's unnatural to change the level of the output of a reverb during a song (as when you automate the bus level). It's much more natural for the reverb to react to changing inputs.

kmetal, post: 453472, member: 37533 wrote: How do you like ozone 8? I didn’t upgrade from seven since the cost was relatively high compared to the insane deal I got on the projection pack last year. I haven’t done much beyond mess around w ozone since my setup isn’t up, so that was the other reason.

Did you upgrade from 7?

Do you feel 8 has some ‘essential’ features to it that would merit and upgrade?

kmetal
Feel like I'm hijacking the thread a little here, sorry DonnyThompson , I actually upgraded my existing upgrade (package deal) I did about a month ago... I was on Ozone 5 Advanced. I got a great deal including Vocal Synth, Trash, Neutron 2 Advanced, Ozone 8 Advanced, already had Nectar 2, also got RX 6 standard this time <-- something I've wanted for ages to fix some old videos etc. For someone like me with engineering phobia, the new intelligent starting points after analysis plus the visual mixer and tone control all add up to pure gold. While my ears have definitely gotten better over the last few years, the tone control proved that to me, if you rely on the curve it shows to keep bands of frequency in.

Back to BUSes. Logic Pro X has object editing and VCAs etc.. As audiokid mentions above, I too am trying to keep things simple though. I think the only exception to relative simplicity is now using automation stuff. As one guy I followed recently on YouTube, Warren Huart says, automation is one of the big things that separate people like me from the pros. In the old days someone rode the faders, now you can just draw it in. BUS use overall as others have already said, sum, control, special stuff as needed. Ultimately it all ends in the same spot. It's what you want along the way :). I guess, LOL.

Tony

Makzimia, post: 453476, member: 48344 wrote: kmetal
Feel like I'm hijacking the thread a little here, sorry DonnyThompson , I actually upgraded my existing upgrade (package deal) I did about a month ago... I was on Ozone 5 Advanced. I got a great deal including Vocal Synth, Trash, Neutron 2 Advanced, Ozone 8 Advanced, already had Nectar 2, also got RX 6 standard this time <-- something I've wanted for ages to fix some old videos etc. For someone like me with engineering phobia, the new intelligent starting points after analysis plus the visual mixer and tone control all add up to pure gold. While my ears have definitely gotten better over the last few years, the tone control proved that to me, if you rely on the curve it shows to keep bands of frequency in.

Back to BUSes. Logic Pro X has object editing and VCAs etc.. As audiokid mentions above, I too am trying to keep things simple though. I think the only exception to relative simplicity is now using automation stuff. As one guy I followed recently on YouTube, Warren Huart says, automation is one of the big things that separate people like me from the pros. In the old days someone rode the faders, now you can just draw it in. BUS use overall as others have already said, sum, control, special stuff as needed. Ultimately it all ends in the same spot. It's what you want along the way :). I guess, LOL.

Tony

Cool Tony. I got the similar package with ozone last year with the special pricing on 7 upon its release. But they didn’t include RX standard, which is by all accounts excellent. I think I’ll hold off on the upgrade since Samplitude has some pretty awesome spectral editing. I’ll have to look deeper into RX to see how it compares w sams features. I too have embarked in a massive archiving of things so I’ve already encountered some blips and errors it’d be useful for. I’m 12hours deep into file transfers and that’s about the first quarter of transfers. Never mind organizing it, and getting all the audio into the new DAW sessions. I think it’s gonn take months.

That vocal synth pluggin is really one of the coolest things out there if you ask me. Can’t wait to play w it!!! Let me know how you like it.

As far as automation goes, it’s less necessary with clip gain, and object editing, but certainly a good final measure. I’ve personally always found it a bit cumbersome to make small changes to it with faders, even in latch mode. I also dislike that it doesn’t follow the region should you have to slide something a bit. It’s a case where editing the iniatil fader automation pass with the mouse seems to be the easiest way, at least for me anyway. Certainly an area of audio I can improve in.

This bussing convo is really making me hurt my head trying to remember if I used pre or post sends, and exactly how I was setting up effects.

Either way it seems to me that bussing really reduces masking in the mix. Though I’d be interested in technically how the gain staging is being effected either positively or negatively.

Great thread . Im always trying to come up with a workflow that can address as many things at once in the simplest way.
The last home project I mixed the snare drum seperate from the drum bus ,so I could place it where I wanted at the
end of the mixing process , and not have to backtrack to bring it out .( I was happy with result )

So from what has been said here , is it correct in thinking that the more auxes a single track goes to , the more smeared
the track becomes ? .
I guess its good to smear something if we want to make another element seem clearer ..lol.

kmetal, post: 453474, member: 37533 wrote: wonder if there’s a way to link the track fader and six level.

Depending on your DAW, you could place the aux return channel directly adjacent to the track - or bus - and then couple the Aux return to the dry track, so that any level change on your dry track would bring down the aux return level by the same amount. Do keep in mind though, that when you couple adjacent tracks, the coupled track will follow ALL the moves of the dry track, including EQ or pan changes.
You could also set your Aux sends to post, as Boulder mentioned.
I can only speak for Samplitude, but you could also couple the dry track or bus with its aux return regardless of where the return is on your mixer, by clicking on your dry track, and then Ctrl/click the aux return, which temporarily couples them for volume level. This is a workaround to having to have the aux return adjacent to the dry track.
There are several different ways to skin this particular cat, you just need to find what works best for you. ;)

I spent some time this morning setting up a template in Samplitude using this F-M-R bussing idea I've been thinking about (Front - Middle - Rear).
The Front Bus will have lead and backing Vox, perhaps even solos; The Middle Bus will have guitars, keys, synths, horns, B3, etc.
The Rear buss will have drums, bass and percussion routed to it.
I took it a bit further, and decided to add two additional busses, one I titled "Space" and the other is "Depth". My thought for the Space buss was to add a natural sounding verb for Ambience - rooms, chambers, etc., while the "Depth" buss will have more "supernatural" reverb ( such as hall or plate, or delays).
I haven't yet mixed anything through this new workflow ( I realize it's not "new" in general, I mean it's "new" to me) ;)
I can't list any pros or cons until I actually mix something.
Stay tuned... it's either going to benefit me, or turn out to be a collossal waste of time. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 453484, member: 46114 wrote: Depending on your DAW, you could place the aux return channel directly adjacent to the track - or bus - and then couple the Aux return to the dry track, so that any level change on your dry track would bring down the aux return level by the same amount. Do keep in mind though, that when you couple adjacent tracks, the coupled track will follow ALL the moves of the dry track, including EQ or pan changes.
You could also set your Aux sends to post, as Boulder mentioned.
I can only speak for Samplitude, but you could also couple the dry track or bus with its aux return regardless of where the return is on your mixer, by clicking on your dry track, and then Ctrl/click the aux return, which temporarily couples them for volume level. This is a workaround to having to have the aux return adjacent to the dry track.
There are several different ways to skin this particular cat, you just need to find what works best for you. ;)

Is it common to do a lot of mixing to the effects bus fader? Originally started this way, then switched to using the sends because that’s how the studio showed me. I recall one video with a commercial mixer who’s name escapes me, saying he mixes the bus fader level, because “he likes a good strong signals to thru the send”. I could see on an analog mixer where noise could be a factor, and a unity gain send setting could make sense.

I’m guessing for things like vocals or drums or whatever adjusting the bus would be no issue. On more global effects I guess send is the only way?

I really wish there was a way to link the track fader and a send. Can’t wait to get set up and try these things!

Smashh, post: 453479, member: 45856 wrote: So from what has been said here , is it correct in thinking that the more auxes a single track goes to , the more smeared
the track becomes ? .
I guess its good to smear something if we want to make another element seem clearer ..lol.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case in general. Although instances of smear can result from pluggin delay compensation or lack there of. And also from parallel compression. In Digital Performer 7, it wouldn’t compensate for delay unless there was a pluggin on the actual track. So for parallel compression using an Aux, you had to instansiate a pluggin on the track itself, just for the auto delay compensation. So I used to use the ‘trim’ pluggin with the parameters set flat (or no gain adjustments).

I think however that none of this is perfect in reality, and a good rule of thumb in analog or digital, is use things for a reason.

kmetal, post: 453513, member: 37533 wrote: Is it common to do a lot of mixing to the effects bus fader? Originally started this way, then switched to using the sends because that’s how the studio showed me. I recall one video with a commercial mixer who’s name escapes me, saying he mixes the bus fader level, because “he likes a good strong signals to thru the send”. I could see on an analog mixer where noise could be a factor, and a unity gain send setting could make sense.

I’m guessing for things like vocals or drums or whatever adjusting the bus would be no issue. On more global effects I guess send is the only way?

I'm starting to lose the intended meaning of some of these statements. What do you mean "mixing to the effects bus fader"? Using sends (post fader aux sends, sometimes specified as effects sends, on a mixer) is how it's usually done. It still works in a DAW, and it qualifies as "mixing to the effects bus" so contrasting them doesn't make sense to me.

Using standardized descriptive terminology rather than a given DAW's random proprietary terms would help. Hence my use of "submix group bus" or parallel effects loop" instead of the obscure "aux track" (Pro Tools' generic term for either).

kmetal, post: 453513, member: 37533 wrote: I really wish there was a way to link the track fader and a send. Can’t wait to get set up and try these things!

How is a post fader aux send not doing exactly this? That's what they were invented for, so when you move the channel volume fader the signal to a parallel effect (e.g. reverb) follows. The send fader doesn't need to move because it receives the signal after the main fader raises or lowers it. It's been a standard mixer feature since the 70s.

bouldersound, post: 453523, member: 38959 wrote: What do you mean "mixing to the effects bus fader"?

What I meant was “adjustment to the effect buss’s fader” as opposed to adjusting the send level. Example “I want less delay” would you turn down the send(s) or the return (bus).

I’ve seen it done one way, the other, and both ways at once.

bouldersound, post: 453523, member: 38959 wrote: How is a post fader aux send not doing exactly this? That's what they were invented for, so when you move the channel volume fader the signal to a parallel effect (e.g. reverb) follows. The send fader doesn't need to move because it receives the signal after the main fader raises or lowers it.

It does. But then your stuck altering the effects (send) level every time you make a fader adjustment for volume. The ability to “link/unlink” the fader and aux (send) would allow more versatility. I don’t think switching back from pre/post fade on the send would accomplish this. Or would it ?

Boulder mentioned the difference earlier in the thread...Setting your aux sends to post means that adjusting the level of the fader also adjusts the aux send accordingly. If you wanted to keep the aux send the same regardless of fader level, for say, a cue/monitor send where you don't want any adjustment of the fader level to affect the level of the aux send, you would set the aux to pre. Post fader aux sends are typically set for effects. This isn't proprietary DAW nomenclature. It's worked this way since consoles.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the "FMR" bus workflow I'm setting up, though. What i was mentioning was more about controlling "sections" of Instruments, no different than working with any sub group bus... But The thing I was curious about is using three main busses ( not counting the master stereo bus) as opposed to having half a dozen ( or maybe more) sub groups for every instrument section crowding the mixer GUI. So instead of having a drums subgroup, an electric guitars subgroup, same for keys, then for horns, then for backing vocals, it would instead be reduced to just three. The Rear would be for drums and bass, the Middle would be for guitars, keys, horns, synths, etc, and the front would be vocals only. That's the idea, anyway. Whether this workflow turns out to be helpful to me or not remains to be seen. ;)
FWIW

kmetal, post: 453524, member: 37533 wrote: It does. But then your stuck altering the effects (send) level every time you make a fader adjustment for volume. The ability to “link/unlink” the fader and aux (send) would allow more versatility. I don’t think switching back from pre/post fade on the send would accomplish this. Or would it ?

Well, no, once you set the post fader aux send for a given channel the ratio of effect to dry signal on that channel stays constant, even when you adjust the channel fader*. That's the whole point of post fader sends. If you want less reverb on the lead vocal than on the backings, its aux send will be lower than the aux sends on the backings. The aux sends set the relative amount of effect between channels, the effects bus fader (and often the plugin's internal level setting) controls the global amount of the effect.

*A time based effect will lag, but that's natural. If you whisper then yell then whisper, the yell's reverb tail will not be lowered just because you switched to a whisper. So I don't like to automate reverb outputs or compress them unless I'm being clever about hiding the artifacts.

DonnyThompson, post: 453529, member: 46114 wrote: Boulder mentioned the difference earlier in the thread...Setting your aux sends to post means that adjusting the level of the fader also adjusts the aux send accordingly. If you wanted to keep the aux send the same regardless of fader level, for say, a cue/monitor send where you don't want any adjustment of the fader level to affect the level of the aux send, you would set the aux to pre. Post fader aux sends are typically set for effects. This isn't proprietary DAW nomenclature. It's worked this way since consoles.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the "FMR" bus workflow I'm setting up, though. What i was mentioning was more about controlling "sections" of Instruments, no different than working with any sub group bus... But The thing I was curious about is using three main busses ( not counting the master stereo bus) as opposed to having half a dozen ( or maybe more) sub groups for every instrument section crowding the mixer GUI. So instead of having a drums subgroup, an electric guitars subgroup, same for keys, then for horns, then for backing vocals, it would instead be reduced to just three. The Rear would be for drums and bass, the Middle would be for guitars, keys, horns, synths, etc, and the front would be vocals only. That's the idea, anyway. Whether this workflow turns out to be helpful to me or not remains to be seen. ;)
FWIW

Ok, now I get why your using “just three” buses. Sorry I’m sidetracking this thread.

bouldersound, post: 453530, member: 38959 wrote: Well, no, once you set the post fader aux send for a given channel the ratio of effect to dry signal on that channel stays constant, even when you adjust the channel fader*. That's the whole point of post fader sends. If you want less reverb on the lead vocal than on the backings, its aux send will be lower than the aux sends on the backings. The aux sends set the relative amount of effect between channels, the effects bus fader (and often the plugin's internal level setting) controls the global amount of the effect.

*A time based effect will lag, but that's natural. If you whisper then yell then whisper, the yell's reverb tail will not be lowered just because you switched to a whisper. So I don't like to automate reverb outputs or compress them unless I'm being clever about hiding the artifacts.

Right. I get pre and post fader sends. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Example.

Post fader reverb send set up on vocal to taste. Happy with amount of reverb, but want to turn vocal down without effecting how much vocal verb is in the mix.

Do I briefly switch send to pre, adjust vocal fader, then switch back to post? Would that essentially set and maintain my new ratio of vocal to effect send? Or would it somehow get messed up? Is there another way to accomplish a simple vocal level adjustment without effecting the send, then immediately having them “linked” <~ (non official audio vocab) again?

Not trying to be a putz, I just can’t try it out since my rig is in cardboard boxes.

kmetal, post: 453534, member: 37533 wrote: Right. I get pre and post fader sends. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Example.

Post fader reverb send set up on vocal to taste. Happy with amount of reverb, but want to turn vocal down without effecting how much vocal verb is in the mix.

Do I briefly switch send to pre, adjust vocal fader, then switch back to post? Would that essentially set and maintain my new ratio of vocal to effect send? Or would it somehow get messed up? Is there another way to accomplish a simple vocal level adjustment without effecting the send, then immediately having them “linked” <~ (non official audio vocab) again?

Not trying to be a putz, I just can’t try it out since my rig is in cardboard boxes.

Ah, I get it. That's just conceptually different from how I approach it, and how effects sends are meant to work. In that case you would have to make the compensating move with the send, or use pre fader sends and manually match the changes. Pick your poison. I can see how a VCA-like latching feature would be cool for that. But normally you put X amount of reverb on a channel and let it follow. If you want more or less you tweak the send.

Note that pre fader sends might be pre other things, like plugins. On analog consoles pre fader usually means pre eq as well, and are frequently pre insert.

Pre fader sends are mostly used for stage monitor mixes or headphone mixes. For stage monitors you don't want to inadvertently trigger feedback when boosting highs, hence pre eq as well on live mixers.

kmetal, post: 453534, member: 37533 wrote: Ok, now I get why your using “just three” buses. Sorry I’m sidetracki

No biggie pal it's all good.
My thinking in reducing to three main sub group busses is that it might also help to reduce the amount of processing inserted on the master stereo Bus as well. And, allow me to use lighter and specific forms of GR on the three busses as opposed to using the same GR for everything. I get the whole "stereo buss compressor for glue" thing. But often there's a fine line to too much or too little, and setting a couple different compressors at various settings each (HPF attack release ) as well as types of GR (different compressor for Front bus with vocals than Rear buss with drums and bass) would alleviate having to use just one type on the master stereo. And, it should easily allow me to adjust the levels of entire sections of instruments as opposed to turning them up or down on the track level.
Like I've been saying, it's just a thought and something I want to try. It may end up just being a waste of time.

kmetal, post: 453534, member: 37533 wrote: Post fader reverb send set up on vocal to taste. Happy with amount of reverb, but want to turn vocal down without effecting how much vocal verb is in the mix.

Ahh okay I see what you're saying now, Kyle.
In that scenario, in Samplitude, the best way would be to set your aux send to pre - but if you decided that you do want the effect to lessen as you drop the dry track's level, you could simply latch your dry track to the aux return "channel" - this would allow you to bring down the aux/FX RETURN, pulling the effect out of the mix while you drop the level of the dry track fader. If you want to go back to keeping the aux return at the same level, and you want the effect to remain the same level regardless of your dry track fader level, simply unlatch the dry and aux return channels.
This might also be a point where you want to consider setting up some automation, to record your fader moves of the dry track and the aux return - either together or individually. I don't know if you can automate aux sends in Samplitude or not, I've never tried doing that because I've never had a reason to, but you can most certainly automate the level of the aux return.
FWIW :)

DonnyThompson, post: 453541, member: 46114 wrote: This might also be a point where you want to consider setting up some automation, to record your fader moves of the dry track and the aux return - either together or individually

Not that you should never do it, but automating the output of a reverb sounds unnatural. It normally doesn't happen in real life unless someone's closing a door to the room where the reverb is happening or something like that.

Latching/unlatching doesn't really save much effort over readjusting the send. It's kind of a non-issue. How much reverb you want on a given channel and how much channel+reverb you want in the mix are typically separate decisions, so they have separate controls. For most people, wanting to control the channel and its associated reverb amount separately is the rare exception that can be addressed by compensating with an aux send adjustment that's the reverse of the channel fader adjustment.

pcrecord , audiokid , Boswell , bouldersound , kmetal , dvdhawk , @Makzimia , Kurt Foster, etc al
Update...
So far, I'm liking reducing my subgroup busses to just three. As opposed to having a separate group buss for each "section" of instruments (drum buss, guitar bus, keys bus synth bus, vocal buss, etc), reducing to these three Front-Middle-Rear has proved beneficial in several ways. The first is that I find myself using far less processing, both at the track level and on the Master Stereo Buss, the second is that I can choose different forms of GR for each of the FMR groups - for example, FET for the Rear, Opto for the Front, etc, the third is that it allows me to tweak volumes for specific sections with one fader move, and last, it really cleans up the layout of the mixer GUI.
I've set up a template for this mix layout in Samplitude - I generally don't use mix templates but I wanted to keep this one handy. I think it's important to mention that I do insert GR on each of the FMR busses, because I prefer to mix into buss GR as opposed to getting a mix and then inserting compression or limiting afterwards.
Anyway, these are the benefits I've found so far. I wouldn't go as far as to refer to it as a breakthrough, game changing method, but I do find that it's working for me at the moment.
FWIW :)
-d.

Sounds good - keep us posted!

DonnyThompson, post: 453568, member: 46114 wrote: pcrecord , audiokid , Boswell , bouldersound , kmetal , dvdhawk , @Makzimia , Kurt Foster, etc al
Update...
So far, I'm liking reducing my subgroup busses to just three. As opposed to having a separate group buss for each "section" of instruments (drum buss, guitar bus, keys bus synth bus, vocal buss, etc), reducing to these three Front-Middle-Rear has proved beneficial in several ways. The first is that I find myself using far less processing, both at the track level and on the Master Stereo Buss, the second is that I can choose different forms of GR for each of the FMR groups - for example, FET for the Rear, Opto for the Front, etc, the third is that it allows me to tweak volumes for specific sections with one fader move, and last, it really cleans up the layout of the mixer GUI.
I've set up a template for this mix layout in Samplitude - I generally don't use mix templates but I wanted to keep this one handy. I think it's important to mention that I do insert GR on each of the FMR busses, because I prefer to mix into buss GR as opposed to getting a mix and then inserting compression or limiting afterwards.
Anyway, these are the benefits I've found so far. I wouldn't go as far as to refer to it as a breakthrough, game changing method, but I do find that it's working for me at the moment.
FWIW :)
-d.

Nice D!! Beyond the workflow advantages you’ve mentioned, do you notice anything sonically different / better / worse?

Interesting stuff, Donny!

This may relate somewhere to why a 2 DAW system (summing OTB and capturing / mix downs on a second (uncoupled DAW) sounds appealing to me, and why I have mastering software and additional 2 bus duties on DAW 2. You may be onto something here.

DAW 1 is the back end of a mix (the channels of musical parts),
OTB is the middle/ submix / presence,
DAW 2 are 2 bus duties where I focus the majority of a mix on the acoustic space (stereo reverb (Bricasti M7) and all related to the mastering of a mix.

It could be you are breaking these steps down in a similar way on one box.

Apollo allows basically this when you use the virtual channels out instead of out direct to monitor outs. I have no idea how it works with bouncing yet, not tried it, I assume doing real time instead of offline is required.

I think it's very interesting regarding the variety of the nomenclature being used here to describe the same or similar functions. Obviously a product of each individual DAW system being used. I'll give you my workflow and see if makes any sense to anyone.

I'll have to remind everyone that I use ProTools HD as my DAW so MY nomenclature will probably reflect this. Also, since the release of PT12HD I'm way behind the curve of what the system will do. Things that I have to do manually have little quick commands now.....

Let's start with the tracks. The individual tracks. Drums for example since these are actually multiple instruments in so many ways. My first use of "sub-masters" or "Aux Sends" are for breaking up the kit into different 'layers'. I group the kik and snare together as a sub-mix. I do most of my processing at the individual track level including ALL that is needed to process the tracks to a clarity level I'm going to want later on. On the Aux that I assign these to, I'm able to process more if needed. Usually only a comp of some sort to get that 'poke-thru' we all love.

I'm going to divert for a moment to point out that when I'm NOT being lazy (which is never.....almost) I can and sometimes do re-record this aux track to a new track especially if I feel its completely done. This is to free up the CPU load on a very busy session. I will then mute everything before it. This only if there's 50 tracks or more and a lot of plug-ins. You can always go back and a tweak is easy.

Okay back to the program. I then sub-mix my toms separately. I will also edit all of the track sounds of the open mics at tracking from these. I get ambient from elsewhere and don't need the tom mics poking through and adding db's of crosstalk. I can also add a verb or use a VST of tom sounds to control the impact and the length of the hits. The reverb on this will ALWAYS be sent the signal through the PT I/O mixer through the buss and will be it's own track. I NEVER put the verbs on the drums directly on the instrument it's being affected by. This sub-mix/Aux send can be effected by anything I'd like at this point. Usually nothing but on occasion a comp strapped across this buss.

Then I take ALL the overheads, room mics, hi-hats, everything thats brass in nature and sub-mix this into another Aux. If the overheads start to overwhelm the room mics I'll take them out of this mix and put them by themselves.

At this point in time, all the outputs from the Aux's are being sent to the stereo master buss, but not the individual tracks. It makes for better math on the 2buss.

This all happens for all the instruments, all the vocals, everything gets an Aux/sub sent to the 2 buss.

Then I build the real Sub Mixes. A Drum master, Vocal Master, Git master, Key master, etc etc. All of these as stereo auxes and all the tracks associated with each will be bussed and THESE will then be outputted to the stereo buss master.

But I'm not nearly done. After I get this all tweaked including ALL the automation on the individual tracks (I don't generally automate fades in the aux/sub tracks) ...IF I'm happy with these the way they are I build my path to the final mix. I call this track my PRINT track. I will add another Aux/Submaster( called SUB ...which in PT has all the abilities to add plugs and use the I/O) and I will also make a simple stereo track (Print). Through my buss I/O I will then take every one of the SUB Mixes through the use of the buss's and send them all through the new AUX (called 'Sub') and through this bussed to the PRINT stereo track and record it all in real time to PRINT. No conversion change anywhere. And the cpu usage at a minimum as the processing it is now dealing with is only that processing that is on the SUB MIXES. This is where I put my final comps. I like the SSL buss comp across the drums. An LA2A across the vocals. A Neve 33609 across the keys. An 1176 across the guitars and so on.

NOT simple but it doesn't sound simple either. And no smearing of the signal. No collapse of the 2 buss. AND....here's the cool thing....you can mix in real time if you want to ride faders.

My mastering house gets this stereo WAV file at it's original conversion. Even though he get's it with all the processing I did to this point, there's nothing on the master. If I have done my diligence then the signal at the output isn't fluctuating all over and makes his job simply one of flavoring the mix and getting it up to CD level standards. I can tweak it easily if it needs it at this point.

A ways back in the process, had I wanted or needed to use the VCA masters I could have. The VCA masters group the tracks so they are effected by the level set in the VCA but still allow you to adjust the individual tracks in any way you want without effecting any other track in the group. ALSO....turning up or down the VCA does not affect the relationship of the effects to the individual tracks they might be assigned to. The VCA ONLY affects to overall output of the group to wherever it's output is assigned to.

Make sense?

Davedog, post: 453594, member: 4495 wrote: At this point in time, all the outputs from the Aux's are being sent to the stereo master buss, but not the individual tracks. It makes for better math on the 2buss.

This all happens for all the instruments, all the vocals, everything gets an Aux/sub sent to the 2 buss.

Then I build the real Sub Mixes. A Drum master, Vocal Master, Git master, Key master, etc etc. All of these as stereo auxes and all the tracks associated with each will be bussed and THESE will then be outputted to the stereo buss master.

You haven’t printed anything yet right? It’s all just routing to this point?

Also when your mixing at a track level into the sub, are you looking for the best balance of the tracks on their own, or are you keeping the entire song in mind, as far as track by track level? In other words for say ‘drums’ are you setting things (track by track) so that they sound best as drums, and waiting to make them coherent (balance wise) until your “building the real sub-mixes” using the drum master, ect.? Or are you keeping the end result in mind level wise even at the track level?

Is the advantage to using VCA fader vs Grouping the track faders and adjusting them all at once, keeping your track level gain stage in tact, and separation from post fader sends? Are there any outer advantages vs just pulling down the entire group?

Especially sending to a sub mix bus, I could see where group fader adjustments could mess with say a compressor insert on your drum mix bus. Am I seeing wrong?

If you were doing any sort of parallel compression on the drums, say thru an aux send and aux return track, would that feed into your drums sub mix or two bus ?

Do you ever run parellell off the drum sub mix, feeding the parallel track to the 2 bus?

Do you send to effects busses on the track level, sub mix level, both ? Do effects busses get an “effects master” for the sub mix as well?

I’ve adopted a somewhat similar workflow as yours and find doing the summing and processing in steps to deliver a clearer punchier end result. I think of it like a tree, starting out with altering the leaves, then the branch, and eventually down the trunk. Sorry got a little hippie right there lol.

kmetal, post: 453595, member: 37533 wrote: You haven’t printed anything yet right? It’s all just routing to this point?

That's correct. I don't print until the very last.

kmetal, post: 453595, member: 37533 wrote: Also when your mixing at a track level into the sub, are you looking for the best balance of the tracks on their own, or are you keeping the entire song in mind, as far as track by track level? In other words for say ‘drums’ are you setting things (track by track) so that they sound best as drums, and waiting to make them coherent (balance wise) until your “building the real sub-mixes” using the drum master, ect.? Or are you keeping the end result in mind level wise even at the track level?

Yes. I am still listening to the drums as a whole thing even at tracking! But that's just me and is definitely influenced by the years on tape with limited everything.

kmetal, post: 453595, member: 37533 wrote: Is the advantage to using VCA fader vs Grouping the track faders and adjusting them all at once, keeping your track level gain stage in tact, and separation from post fader sends? Are there any outer advantages vs just pulling down the entire group?

I use this on occasion. My point of including it here is to answer the earlier questions about affecting the processing added to a group through just grouping through an aux as opposed to retaining the relationships of the processing when grouped through a VCA master fader.

kmetal, post: 453595, member: 37533 wrote: If you were doing any sort of parallel compression on the drums, say thru an aux send and aux return track, would that feed into your drums sub mix or two bus ?

Do you ever run parellell off the drum sub mix, feeding the parallel track to the 2 bus?

I do use some plugs with a parallel compression as part of their voicing. I never look at the 2 buss as anything I'm going to care about in the end since I combine everything from the aux subs and the master buss into my real time recording of the song into a stereo render.

kmetal, post: 453595, member: 37533 wrote: Do you send to effects busses on the track level, sub mix level, both ? Do effects busses get an “effects master” for the sub mix as well?

Sometimes both. Usually I will buss the track through a send which I drive the effects with. I very rarely use any time based effects inline on an individual track. Almost ALL of these are also individual tracks driven through the buss from whatever track I want effected by them. I have also found that in my chain for the , for example, reverbs ..I will put a preamp of some kind as the first plug-in inline before the reverb. That way I will have a 'driver' from the preamp plugin as well as EQ and depending on the plugin maybe some saturation. All of the I/O on the PT mixer come with their own set of faders so I can clearly balance how much of the track I'm hitting the effect track with as well as driving it INSIDE the effect track to its output. It really allows me to clean up any effect I happen to chose for this especially verbs. I generally only use tape based echos and plates for verbs. My favorites right now are the J37 tape machine plugs for echos and an EMT 140 plate for verbs.
The ONLY time I will use a time based effect inline on a plugin stack is for a lead guitar part. Kind of like using a pedal board and how the signal is effected at each point in the stack. I don't really like multi layered effects as single use plugins and prefer individual effects as part of the chain. I don't need my compressor as part of my echo unit and viceversa.

I think when you (Davedog) say "aux send" you might mean "aux track" instead. In PT a send is a separate fader on the track. When using an aux track as a submix group bus you simply assign the output of the tracks directly to it (well, via what PT calls a bus), so the track faders are directly controlling how much the aux track gets. It's (normally) when you use an aux track as a parallel effects bus that you would use sends, typically post fader, from the tracks.

Yes. In PT these are actually Aux Tracks. The "send" comes from years on a console. The point is I use the I/O to "send" this signal PREFADER for any send to an effects track. I make them pre fader because I don't want the relationship to change with any fader moves. This way I can use a preamp as the first device in my effects track plugin chain to drive the effects while using the send fader from the original track as my master to the effects....NOT the original fader in place on the original track. Post fader for the assigning of the Aux submasters.

I used to use these effects sends post fader and noticed a lot of weird artifacts from certain kinds of reverbs and having to be very critical in my fader adjustments on the original tracks.

And yes they are sends through the I/O.

I think these are all great examples of individual preferences for workflows. I do not believe there is a "wrong" way to mix, unless of course you aren't happy with the final render, at which point you just have to back up and see where you did something that didn't "work".... but as far as mixing layouts, every cooker has developed their own method that works best for them, and for their DAW platforms as well. It may or may not be exact - or even similar - to the methods that others use, but if it's working for you and you're happy with the results, then that's all that matters.
This recent change I've made in my mixer layout has benefitted me in other ways, too. It's made me re-examine some habits I'd picked up over the years that weren't always good habits.
Time will tell if I stay with this layout, but for now I'm liking the results.
IMHO of course. ;)

Donny , can you post something you have done in the past here with an A/B of your new workflow ?
That would be cool to hear :)