Old 10-05-2015, 07:30 AM   #1
mykrobinson
Human being with feelings
 
mykrobinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 1,146
Default Mix Buss Question

I have started watching Recording Revolution's "mix in one hour" series, which is quite helpful in getting a better understanding of how stuff works. If you've not seen them, check 'em out, especially if you think that the "hour" part of the title is silly. He explains why he did the series and it makes good sense, especially to someone who has historically over analyzed and mixed to death....

on the my question.

In this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BSYzOw4GA

He goes over mix buss processing. What I want to understand from those of you who do this stuff regularly, when you create a mix buss, I assume you route all your channels through this buss. But do you also kill their send to the main and just let this mix buss become the "parent" track? And if that is the case, why would you not just do this processing on the master track?

Thanks,
-myk
mykrobinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 07:35 AM   #2
Stews
Human being with feelings
 
Stews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykrobinson View Post
I have started watching Recording Revolution's "mix in one hour" series, which is quite helpful in getting a better understanding of how stuff works. If you've not seen them, check 'em out, especially if you think that the "hour" part of the title is silly. He explains why he did the series and it makes good sense, especially to someone who has historically over analyzed and mixed to death....

on the my question.

In this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BSYzOw4GA

He goes over mix buss processing. What I want to understand from those of you who do this stuff regularly, when you create a mix buss, I assume you route all your channels through this buss. But do you also kill their send to the main and just let this mix buss become the "parent" track? And if that is the case, why would you not just do this processing on the master track?

Thanks,
-myk
If you're going to send every track through it then there's no reason not to do it on the master track. Most people will just do it on the master track.

If you want the possibility of excluding some tracks from the processing you would send the rest of the tracks through it then, indeed, remove their master outputs.

On The Dark Side of the Moon, all tracks except the drums were treated with buss compression so that's an example of when you might want to exclude some tracks.
Stews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 07:37 AM   #3
mykrobinson
Human being with feelings
 
mykrobinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Tennessee
Posts: 1,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stews View Post
If you're going to send every track through it then there's no reason not to do it on the master track. Most people will just do it on the master track.

If you want the possibility of excluding some tracks from the processing you would send the rest of the tracks through it then, indeed, remove their master outputs.

On The Dark Side of the Moon, all tracks except the drums were treated with buss compression so that's an example of when you might want to exclude some tracks.
Thank you. In the video, he was using Pro Tools, so I wonder if maybe there is some difference in the routing, or as you said, it could be that he didn't necessarily want to process "all" the tracks.
mykrobinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 07:41 AM   #4
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykrobinson View Post
He goes over mix buss processing. What I want to understand from those of you who do this stuff regularly, when you create a mix buss, I assume you route all your channels through this buss. But do you also kill their send to the main and just let this mix buss become the "parent" track? And if that is the case, why would you not just do this processing on the master track?
Hi myk, I didn't see the video but I use mix bussing all the time. In fact I might have several busses for various reasons.

However, I nearly always have a Master-Bus where I'll put all my master FX, simply because I prefer to not to touch the main MASTER.

All routing will lead to this Master-Bus and yes, the Master/parent is unchecked on all tracks except the Master-Bus, you don't want to send any tracks to main MASTER twice.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 08:04 AM   #5
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
Default

I think protools sort of forces you to create a submix before sending it out to the master. Every mix I see online in PT is setup this way.

I also do it this way in reaper because of the way I set up my reference tracks.

I create a submix folder containing every project track. On the submix folder I setup my mix buss processing chain. The master only has metering plugs - no processing. Above the the submix I have a reference track (or multiple reference tracks) in mute mode. When I solo the reference track it bypasses the submix (due to solo precedence) and goes straight to the master. If I had processing on the master the reference track would also get this processing which would defeat the purpose.
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 08:59 AM   #6
Bouroki
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I think protools sort of forces you to create a submix before sending it out to the master. Every mix I see online in PT is setup this way.

I also do it this way in reaper because of the way I set up my reference tracks.

I create a submix folder containing every project track. On the submix folder I setup my mix buss processing chain. The master only has metering plugs - no processing. Above the the submix I have a reference track (or multiple reference tracks) in mute mode. When I solo the reference track it bypasses the submix (due to solo precedence) and goes straight to the master. If I had processing on the master the reference track would also get this processing which would defeat the purpose.
This is also achieved by sending the reference tracks straight to the Audio Interface stereo output, uncheck Master/parent send, and have them muted by default. For any metering comparisons I can always put them in the "monitoring fx" section.

Just an alternative way of doing it for those like me who just work on the Master bus.
Bouroki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 09:00 AM   #7
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

It's a comon technique. That's why real consoles have busses, daws are just emulating what consoles do.

In other words, for the most part (sub mixes aside) recording with consoles is done using direct outs which (on the better consoles) can be switched pre/post fx. The busses otoh are used more during mixdown for grouping signals. Even on a budget 4 bus console you'd have drums, guitars, keys, vocals, etc, on single bus faders.

It's been that way forever.

The way MixBus assigns it's groups harkens back to how real consoles work, just press a button to assign a track to a group bus.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:14 AM   #8
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
It's a comon technique. That's why real consoles have busses, daws are just emulating what consoles do.

In other words, for the most part (sub mixes aside) recording with consoles is done using direct outs which (on the better consoles) can be switched pre/post fx. The busses otoh are used more during mixdown for grouping signals. Even on a budget 4 bus console you'd have drums, guitars, keys, vocals, etc, on single bus faders.

It's been that way forever.

The way MixBus assigns it's groups harkens back to how real consoles work, just press a button to assign a track to a group bus.
Ha ha....great info...but I don't think the OP is asking about the DAW MixBus from Harrison, just the technique of using a mix-buss that is not the master buss out.
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:17 AM   #9
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

I know he wasn''t talking about MixBus (the product), but MixBus is the easiest example of that... it having dedicated mix busses, like real consoles, which few if any daws have?

Read it as "show and tell".
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:19 AM   #10
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
I know he wasn''t talking about MixBus (the product), but MixBus is the easiest example of that... it having dedicated mix busses, like real consoles, which few if any daws have?

Read it as "show and tell".
My bad.....
__________________
The Sounds of the Hear and Now.
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:43 AM   #11
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,881
Default

I'm at opposite end of potential usage spectrum here, but plz help if you can; as NO Mixbus3 V3 Demo.

Will I gain minimal benefit when sources are all VSTi played-in Audio (Spectrasonics, Ivory II) except for periodic live Vocals ? I get confused here with Stems vs Bus Tracks as not tracking/mixing live drums, etc.

Other than Harrison Plugs, what will Mixbus3 V3 add vs Reaper V5, Nebula 3, other VST ?
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:51 AM   #12
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
My bad.....
No problem. I'm certainly not the world's best communicator.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 10:54 AM   #13
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sostenuto View Post
Other than Harrison Plugs, what will Mixbus3 V3 add vs Reaper V5, Nebula 3, other VST ?
Workflow! All that emulation crap is for the birds IMO but workflow is what kills it for me. Harrison Mixbus has basic EQ and compression on every channel and more on the master without ever needing to open a plugin window and worry about which vst is "best" or have to cycle through tons of open VST windows to make adjustments while you mix.

It's amazing how much one can get done and how fast it happens when everything is right in front of you on the desktop. You can just get on with it.

If I were to ever get rid of my desk, I'd switch straight to Harrison or maybe even Reason Record for that reason alone

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 10-05-2015 at 11:00 AM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:09 AM   #14
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,881
Default

Would love to have, OR have had, any amount of Desk exposure .......

Really on thin ice here, and not doing much with Reaper Templates, but how is this different from Project saved with preferred VST (EQ, Comp) on Tracks and Master ? Honest question, not taking issue.

$80. is darn reasonable, and may just need to step up in order to learn ....
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:14 AM   #15
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sostenuto View Post
Would love to have, OR have had, any amount of Desk exposure .......
Daws make great "mixers" but there's quite a difference between a mixer and a recording console. The latter is what most daws don't do so well... probably because the vast majority of users either don't need those things or never had them and don't miss them.

All of the routing and things required to get something close to console functionality is indeed a workaround. It really should be there already. Most daws miss that target in multiple ways, from inflexible monitoring to inflexible soloing to master control in general.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:20 AM   #16
thewizrad
Human being with feelings
 
thewizrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I think protools sort of forces you to create a submix before sending it out to the master. Every mix I see online in PT is setup this way.

I also do it this way in reaper because of the way I set up my reference tracks.

I create a submix folder containing every project track. On the submix folder I setup my mix buss processing chain. The master only has metering plugs - no processing. Above the the submix I have a reference track (or multiple reference tracks) in mute mode. When I solo the reference track it bypasses the submix (due to solo precedence) and goes straight to the master. If I had processing on the master the reference track would also get this processing which would defeat the purpose.
Very cool, I like that.
thewizrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:26 AM   #17
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Daws make great "mixers" but there's quite a difference between a mixer and a recording console. The latter is what most daws don't do so well... probably because the vast majority of users either don't need those things or never had them and don't miss them.
Ha! ... I really don't even know what I'm missing

Never hesitate some $$ and effort to learn new things. Wondering if Mixbus 3 will provide 'some' of this experience.

@ Bristol Posse seems to think so.
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:43 AM   #18
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sostenuto View Post
Would love to have, OR have had, any amount of Desk exposure .......

Really on thin ice here, and not doing much with Reaper Templates, but how is this different from Project saved with preferred VST (EQ, Comp) on Tracks and Master ? Honest question, not taking issue.

$80. is darn reasonable, and may just need to step up in order to learn ....
In terms of final sound, probably not a whole lot. I'll leave it to others to argue about the sound of the desks and whatever.

However consider even a very basic rock mix with 16 channels, 2 busses and a master channel.

Even in this rather basic scenario, to gets what's immediately under your fingers on a good desk you're looking at having between 19-35 open VST windows all the time in a DAW. and that's before you even patch in any of the magic, fairy dust gear for the "money channel" like vox or bass or lead guitar

For something like Harrison or Reason you still have to mouse around a lot and may still wan't some magic , fairy dust VST for the "money Channels". But everything else is on screen without having 35 VST windows open and trying to figure out what is going on. So I wouldn't be able to mix with the computer screen turned off like I do at present but I wouldn't have to keep track of a boatload of VSTs just to get a decent static mix start point.

IME Mixing needs to be done quickly, with as few distractions as possible. the less time you can spend messing with the tech (mixing with your eyes), the faster you mix and the better results you get

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 10-05-2015 at 11:58 AM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 11:49 AM   #19
Magicbuss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
Default

You can definitely mimic the Mixbuss and Reason console style workflows by creating track/mix templates that include your favorite EQ and comp or a channel strip plugin.

The benefit with this method is that you limit your plugin options and force yourself to use your ears instead of your eyes (assuming the channel strip resembles something like an SSL channel - no graphs).

The downside is that you limit your options and that sometimes visual feedback is useful. Even with a great analog console guys were patching in external EQ's and comps because the console processing wasnt always the best fit for a certain track.
Magicbuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:06 PM   #20
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,881
Default

Thanks much guys! Always use twin 24" monitors, but unless VST3 sizeable Plugs __ screens are still jammed and overlapped.

@ Magicbuss _ must get more into Templates to help the workflow.

@ Bristol Posse _ never on the Pro side, but no problem understanding time pressures and distraction issues.



@ mykrobinson _ sorry for the ~hijack

Regards
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:10 PM   #21
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sostenuto View Post
Ha! ... I really don't even know what I'm missing

Never hesitate some $$ and effort to learn new things. Wondering if Mixbus 3 will provide 'some' of this experience.

@ Bristol Posse seems to think so.
I don't think you're really missing anything sostenuto, with Reaper's routing you can set up projects any way you want to.

Maybe if a person has worked with old analog counsels a lot, they might miss having everything in front of them. Or, heh heh, the glitter.

Or if you're one of those who simply like trying to create the old analog with the digital. There's nothing wrong with that, my hats off to them, it's all about doing what you like to do and having fun doing it. If having the analog look and feel helps you get there, what else can you ask for.

Personally I love Reaper's routing and use a lot of busses. Like I've mentioned I have a Master-Bus that goes to the MASTER on almost every project. To go along with that, I'll also have a Sub-Master that goes to the master.

The reason for the Sub-Master is because I usually only have a limiter on the Master-Bus. With the Sub-Master I can hit the limiter as hard or soft as I want to.

If I have drums in the project, I'll have a Sub-Bus for that. Same for orchestra tracks, I might have a buss for the strings and a buss for the horns, which will probably go to another Sub-Bus.

For me, Reaper's routing is a freedom from the old days.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:18 PM   #22
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sostenuto View Post

@ Bristol Posse _ never on the Pro side, but no problem understanding time pressures and distraction issues.

Even in a non paid scenario, mixing fast will usually get you better results. If most people think back to the very first mix they ever did, it probably sounded better than the next ten.
Why, because all we were worried about was getting it to sound good. no worrying about compressors, or emulation plugs or saturation or EQ.

If you can keep that "novice mind" outlook (just now with an understanding of how signal processing works and if it's needed), even mixing one's own material at home, it'll go fast and usually come out better.

First instincts are usually right and anything after that gets us into chasing our own tails down a bunch of unnecessary, second guess rabbit holes.

Anything that keeps the mixing process as simple as possible, with less need for choice and complexity, other than does this sound good or not, is OK with me

YMMV
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:31 PM   #23
Pook2000
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 304
Default

Hopefully not off topic, but does anyone actually route their busses out altogether, to a summing mixer? Does it make much of a difference? Or is it so subtle as to be inconsequential? Very curious about this one
Pook2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:41 PM   #24
Bristol Posse
Human being with feelings
 
Bristol Posse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern California
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pook2000 View Post
Hopefully not off topic, but does anyone actually route their busses out altogether, to a summing mixer? Does it make much of a difference? Or is it so subtle as to be inconsequential? Very curious about this one
If you have something with some major tubes (not starved plate but with enough voltage to make them work hard) and/or transformers it might be enough to make a difference you could hear.

If not, I doubt it would make any real difference at all. Especially if you're having to get everything summed down to just a few busses in the DAW anyway. Maybe if you're worried about "using all the bits" and pushing all the busses right to 0dB, it's a way to get back headroom in the master.
I route 32 channels to my desk and I can't say that it sounds better that way. I just prefer recording and mixing that way.

I've always felt that the main strength of a summing mixer would be that you can now patch in a few bits of hardware that you like into your busses without a whole bunch of latency drawbacks

Last edited by Bristol Posse; 10-05-2015 at 12:49 PM.
Bristol Posse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 12:50 PM   #25
sostenuto
Human being with feelings
 
sostenuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: St George, UT _ USA
Posts: 2,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
I don't think you're really missing anything sostenuto, with Reaper's routing you can set up projects any way you want to >.................>

Personally I love Reaper's routing and use a lot of busses. Like I've mentioned I have a Master-Bus that goes to the MASTER on almost every project. To go along with that, I'll also have a Sub-Master that goes to the master.

The reason for the Sub-Master is because I usually only have a limiter on the Master-Bus. With the Sub-Master I can hit the limiter as hard or soft as I want to.

If I have drums in the project, I'll have a Sub-Bus for that. Same for orchestra tracks, I might have a buss for the strings and a buss for the horns, which will probably go to another Sub-Bus.

For me, Reaper's routing is a freedom from the old days.
Hey Tod, many thanks! I watch your posts a lot and took note of your use of busses. This is surely a step I need to pursue for before starting in a very new direction. Not to say Mixbus3 isn't an intriguing option, but much more to learn by just improving current approach.
sostenuto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 01:42 PM   #26
Pook2000
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
I route 32 channels to my desk and I can't say that it sounds better that way. I just prefer recording and mixing that way.
Okay, that's interesting, and good to know. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristol Posse View Post
I've always felt that the main strength of a summing mixer would be that you can now patch in a few bits of hardware that you like into your busses without a whole bunch of latency drawbacks
Makes sense. So one isn't using it to glue everything together in itself, (as is sometimes touted), but rather as a means to conveniently route tracks to your outboard gear, as you suggest. Good to hear from the horses mouth. Thanks again
Pook2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 01:51 PM   #27
Pook2000
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
I have a Master-Bus that goes to the MASTER on almost every project. To go along with that, I'll also have a Sub-Master that goes to the master.

The reason for the Sub-Master is because I usually only have a limiter on the Master-Bus. With the Sub-Master I can hit the limiter as hard or soft as I want to.
Cheers for sharing your approach Tod. A question for you if I may regards your sub master? Can't you achieve the exact same my just going direct to the master? Sorry but the logic eludes me Hence I'd love some more info
Pook2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 02:11 PM   #28
Pook2000
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
Above the the submix I have a reference track (or multiple reference tracks) in mute mode. When I solo the reference track it bypasses the submix (due to solo precedence) and goes straight to the master. If I had processing on the master the reference track would also get this processing which would defeat the purpose.
Great way to set up, and A/B, a reference track! A good disciplined approach too! Top shelf. I will be trying that
Pook2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 06:47 PM   #29
Tod
Human being with feelings
 
Tod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kalispell
Posts: 14,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pook2000 View Post
Cheers for sharing your approach Tod. A question for you if I may regards your sub master? Can't you achieve the exact same my just going direct to the master? Sorry but the logic eludes me Hence I'd love some more info
Hi Pook, if you're talking about the Main Reaper MASTER, yes and no. Like I mentioned, I really like to leave the main MASTER alone, I don't like putting any FX on it at all unless it might be a metering of some kind. This avoids any possible screw ups that might unknowingly affect the MASTER.

By having a Master-Bus I can avoid this problem. Also by combining the Master-Bus with another bus, a Sub-Master, I can get the most out of a limiter.

I also do something similar to Magicbuss, I've also got a sub-bus set up for various reference tracks. I've got the mutes for this reference bus and Master-Bus grouped so I can easily A/B.
Tod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2015, 03:18 AM   #30
Pook2000
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Hi Pook, if you're talking about the Main Reaper MASTER, yes and no. Like I mentioned, I really like to leave the main MASTER alone, I don't like putting any FX on it at all unless it might be a metering of some kind. This avoids any possible screw ups that might unknowingly affect the MASTER.

By having a Master-Bus I can avoid this problem. Also by combining the Master-Bus with another bus, a Sub-Master, I can get the most out of a limiter.

I also do something similar to Magicbuss, I've also got a sub-bus set up for various reference tracks. I've got the mutes for this reference bus and Master-Bus grouped so I can easily A/B.
Great Tod. Thanks for sharing. It would seem good practice to approach the main master in this way, so I think I'll try it this way myself. At minimal it can't do any harm, and as you say, if it helps to avoid any screw ups that can't be a bad thing. P.
Pook2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:21 AM   #31
soundguy84
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykrobinson View Post
I have started watching Recording Revolution's "mix in one hour" series, which is quite helpful in getting a better understanding of how stuff works. If you've not seen them, check 'em out, especially if you think that the "hour" part of the title is silly. He explains why he did the series and it makes good sense, especially to someone who has historically over analyzed and mixed to death....

on the my question.

In this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_BSYzOw4GA

He goes over mix buss processing. What I want to understand from those of you who do this stuff regularly, when you create a mix buss, I assume you route all your channels through this buss. But do you also kill their send to the main and just let this mix buss become the "parent" track? And if that is the case, why would you not just do this processing on the master track?

Thanks,
-myk
Recording Revolution is fantastic and I think Graham is doing a lot for the home studio community, making the point and proving that we don't need super high end gear or crazy expensive plugins to make good sounding recordings and mixes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicbuss View Post
I think protools sort of forces you to create a submix before sending it out to the master. Every mix I see online in PT is setup this way.

I also do it this way in reaper because of the way I set up my reference tracks.

I create a submix folder containing every project track. On the submix folder I setup my mix buss processing chain. The master only has metering plugs - no processing. Above the the submix I have a reference track (or multiple reference tracks) in mute mode. When I solo the reference track it bypasses the submix (due to solo precedence) and goes straight to the master. If I had processing on the master the reference track would also get this processing which would defeat the purpose.
This is exactly what I do, and in my opinion the easiest most efficient way to have reference tracks in your session and ensure they're not being affected by the mix processing.

The only thing I have on my actual master is Voxengo Span analyzer, and Arc 2 room correction. Span is great for A/B'ing frequency response between the reference and the mix, and with its metering ensuring you're comparing at the same level.

Myk, that is my main reasoning I don't do all the processing on the actual master. And the way parent folders work in Reaper I personally don't find it necessary to un-assign anything on children tracks because the routing makes it work the way we think of a normal sub-group, with the added ability of groups within groups. What I mean is that any track that is inside a folder, is affected by all processing on that parent track, and will not pass to the Master buss if that parent track is muted. Hopefully that makes sense.
soundguy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:31 AM   #32
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
This is exactly what I do, and in my opinion the easiest most efficient way to have reference tracks in your session and ensure they're not being affected by the mix processing.
A lot of this stuff is just a generation of users who haven't really used mixers much, so it all seems or is new to them. A lot of it really is just basic routing and only seems complex if you have no background in basic routing.

For example, reference tracks: You can put a reference track in any song, mute it, and just directly assign it to any output, assign it to the same hardware output where your speakers are, in any decent daw, bypassing the master fader, and just toggle solo to hear it. Pretty simple really.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:36 AM   #33
soundguy84
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
A lot of this stuff is just a generation of users who haven't really used mixers much, so it all seems or is new to them. A lot of it really is just basic routing and only seems complex if you have no background in basic routing.

For example, reference tracks: You can put a reference track in any song, mute it, and just directly assign it to any output, assign it to the same hardware output where your speakers are, in any decent daw, bypassing the master fader, and just solo it to hear it. Pretty simple really.
Understood, but to me that method misses out on a very important benefit of being able to directly compare frequency response of your mix to the reference track(s) using an analyzer on your master. That is one of the most important steps for me personally to ensure my mixes translate on different systems. But to each their own.
soundguy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:37 AM   #34
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tod View Post
Like I mentioned, I really like to leave the main MASTER alone, I don't like putting any FX on it at all unless it might be a metering of some kind. This avoids any possible screw ups that might unknowingly affect the MASTER.
Personal preferences aside, it doesn't matter unless you need master FX to behave like post fader inserts, then yes, stage a pre-master bus. Otherwise, there's literally no difference at all. The master fader and bus is literally no different from any other fader or bus.

Last edited by Lawrence; 10-07-2015 at 09:46 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:40 AM   #35
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundguy84 View Post
Understood, but to me that method misses out on a very important benefit of being able to directly compare frequency response of your mix to the reference track(s) using an analyzer on your master. That is one of the most important steps for me personally to ensure my mixes translate on different systems. But to each their own.
Not really. In many cases you can easily send signals to the same frequency analyzer from different physical channels. No clue if Reaper's frequency analyzers accept side-chains or not though, but they should. At any rate, my comment wasn't really related to that. He was talking about hearing a reference track without it being affected by the master bus effects... which it would be if it goes though a master bus with FX on it.

Again, a person (not you) who doesn't understand basic routing makes these things way more complex than they really are. That's not a knock on anyone, it's just the reality, that if you don't fundamentally understand basic signal routing you end up working way harder than you should.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:51 AM   #36
soundguy84
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Not really. In some cases you can easily send signals to the same frequency analyzer from different physical channels. At any rate, my comment wasn't related to that. He was talking about hearing a reference without it being affected by the master bus effects.

Again, a person (not you) who doesn't understand basic routing makes these things way more complex than they really are.
Listening to a reference without it being processed by master mix buss processing is in fact exactly what I was referring to. That's why I quoted the method that I also use regarding using the sub-master for all your master mix buss processing, with the reference tracks being the ONLY tracks outside of the sub-master folder and they stay muted. This is in fact to me the simplest way to achieve that, without getting into individual routing of your reference tracks and trying to setup analyzer plug-ins to receive signals from different channels. Just drop it outside of the sub-master folder and you're done.

If the analyzer is on the Master (not the sub-master where the full mix is) then when the reference is solo'd that is what it is analyzing, when its not, its analyzing the mix. Its a quick and easy way to A/B it.

Not trying to argue, we're both making the same point and I agree simplicity for new users is best, and to me it doesn't get much simpler than that.
soundguy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:54 AM   #37
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
This is in fact to me the simplest way to achieve that, without getting into individual routing of your reference tracks
But there's no routing to do. Just assign it / them directly to a hardware output? You can assign any track directly to any hardware output. How that's not easier than setting up a bus and then routing all of those tracks to that bus to get to the exact same place is beyond my understanding.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 09:57 AM   #38
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
If the analyzer is on the Master (not the sub-master where the full mix is) then when the reference is solo'd that is what it is analyzing, when its not, its analyzing the mix. Its a quick and easy way to A/B it.
Again, if your analyzer is well designed and takes sidechains you can see both things at the same time, on the same single analyzer, no matter what channel it happens to be inserted on.

Not arguing, just saying, this stuff isn't exactly rocket science. And again, I have no idea if Reaper's analyzers can actually do that, never looked, but they should do that, show a split view with the signal from the channel it's on and the sidechain signal at the same time, to compare them.

If they don't allow that, sounds like an FR. See this below, I would bet every decent third party analyzer does that, takes in sidechains to compare two signals in a split view...



At any rate, nothing to debate. Personal preference is what it is.

Last edited by Lawrence; 10-07-2015 at 10:04 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 10:05 AM   #39
soundguy84
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New York City
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
But there's no routing to do. Just assign it directly to a hardware output. You can assign any track directly to any hardware output. How that's not easier than setting up a bus and routing all the tracks to that to get to the same place is beyond my understanding.
Agree to disagree then Assigning it directly do a hardware output is a routing step is it not? As opposed to just adding one track on top off all your mix tracks, click the folder icon on that track and you're done. But I suppose we're just splitting hairs at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Again, if your analyzer is well designed and takes sidechains you can see both things at the same time, on the same single analyzer, no matter what channel it happens to be inserted on.

Not arguing, just saying, this stuff isn't exactly rocket science. And again, I have no idea if Reaper's analyzers can actually do that, never looked, but they should do that, show a split view with the channel it's on and the sidechain signal at the same time, to compare them.
Right, and while I agree its even better to see both at the same time, now you're getting into side chaining and extra routing, and isn't the whole point to keep it simple?

Anyway, more than one way to skin a cat. Both methods accomplish the same thing.
soundguy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2015, 10:07 AM   #40
Stews
Human being with feelings
 
Stews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Again, if your analyzer is well designed and takes sidechains you can see both things at the same time, on the same single analyzer, no matter what channel it happens to be inserted on.

Not arguing, just saying, this stuff isn't exactly rocket science. And again, I have no idea if Reaper's analyzers can actually do that, never looked, but they should do that, show a split view with the signal from the channel it's on and the sidechain signal at the same time, to compare them.

If they don't allow that, sounds like an FR. See this below, I would bet every decent third party analyzer does that, takes in sidechains to compare two signals in a split view...



At any rate, nothing to debate. Personal preference is what it is.
How would one go about sending the reference track to the sidechain of an analyzer inserted on the master track?
Stews is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.