Setting up a Drum Bus

[andrushkiwt]

will I lose the pan values when sending that bus to the Drum Bus via the main outs?

I mean, just listen to it and figure it out? You can hear, clearly, if something isn't spread the same. Mute one and play the other, and then again on the other bus. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, you should be able to hear the differences in pan between a track and its bus.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Think about what?

Does that not make sense to you? If so, what part. The parallel signal routing or the fader management?

Naw that's ok. You can go ahead and explain what you think you're talking about and how you think it contradicts my statement.

Most of the time most people use a bus as a submix of some set of tracks so that once the balance between those tracks is set, the level of all of them can be adjusted with respect to the rest of the mix without having to change all of their faders. That won't quite work if the "bus" is not exclusive - the only way for those tracks to get to the master mix.

Yes, sometimes we also want to do something else to all of those tracks at once. Maybe we want to EQ or compress them all at once. Well isn't that about the same thing?

Frankly I think that if all your fancy parallel drum craziness leaves you with five different faders to mess with, but don't want their relative balance to change once you've got them dialed in, but you might want that mix up or down in relation to the rest of the mix...


To the OP - I don't know ProTools, but this FPM (whatever) thing you're talking about sounds like it might be some proprietary term for what everybody else calls Post-Fader Sends. A Pre-Fader send usually will not turn what it sends up or down as the track fader is moved. Pull the original track's faded all the way down and you've still got full signal being sent to wherever you're sending it. Most of the time these also ignore the track's pan settings. Post-Fader Sends do respond to the fader and pan settings of the track itself. They come after the pan and fader. Most sends have their own level and pan adjustments that are applied only to the signal being sent. In a Pre-Fader Send, it would be the only adjustments. In a Post-Fader send, they are applied on top of whatever the track controls are doing.

 

[jkuehlin]

Naw that's ok. You can go ahead and explain what you think you're talking about and how you think it contradicts my statement.

Most of the time most people use a bus as a submix of some set of tracks so that once the balance between those tracks is set, the level of all of them can be adjusted with respect to the rest of the mix without having to change all of their faders. That won't quite work if the "bus" is not exclusive - the only way for those tracks to get to the master mix.

No. This is completely wrong. The gain staging to the input transformers and attenuators of your bus channel are affected by the post fader sends on the console. Some consoles like the Neve VR and Trident B's don't really allow you to bypass the gain stage on the bus channels when you route post fader, but you can if your re-route post EQ prefader. Even when you do, the potentiometers on the input sides are not true bypass. Heat, Slate, and the Waves VCM summing sims are designed to work the same way. It creates an obvious problem, but that is precisely what VCA technology is designed to accommodate. VCA's are not busses as they do not contain audio paths. So yes, can still get it to the master mix, yet the bus CAN still indeed still be exclusive.

Here's a link that explains the difference between a subgroup and a VCA group. How To Use VCA Groups | Sound On Sound.

If you bus your outputs to a subgroup without splitting the console feed by fully normalling at your patchbay or assigning to a VCA master, you have to re-adjust the input attenuators on every fucking piece of gear on your whole damn rack as soon as you make a level adjustment. Especially when you have hyper sensitive outboard units like a Voxbox, 1176 or an echoplex. Many of the patch bays can not be toggled between half and full normal modes because the default path is soldered to the output terminals on the back. So you'd literally have no way of getting into the outboard unit without routing through a conventional bus, thus committing your send levels to your bus fader (or mini fader) position.

Yes, sometimes we also want to do something else to all of those tracks at once. Maybe we want to EQ or compress them all at once. Well isn't that about the same thing?

Sure. Buss to a subgroup, then patch to the insert of the subgroup. That wasn't the guys question in the original post. He seemed to be confused about how, when and where to feed the parallel busses. Hence his comment on prefaders, post pan, and sends.

Frankly I think that if all your fancy parallel drum craziness leaves you with five different faders to mess with, but don't want their relative balance to change once you've got them dialed in, but you might want that mix up or down in relation to the rest of the mix...

So what? Then assign the channels in your subgroup to a VCA, and if you're console doesn't have the option, then simply feed the subgroup post pan pre fader in the DAW.

You have do deal with 5 or so parallel faders one way or another. It doesn't matter how you get to your 2 bus, you still have to place your crush tracks, your time based processing, your imaging plugs, and your verb feeds on parallel chains. You can try to side-step this by using plugins like Blue Cat's patchwork, but its more trouble than its worth. It essentially creates a customizable 2x3 or whatever parallel/series matrix inside an insert slot on a DAW. Weather you manage 5 faders on your console, or 5 faders inside of Patchwork, you're still managing 5 faders. There's no way around it. Personally, I want the control for any parallel chain on the mixer infront of me, where I can see them, and get to them easy. If you start stacking shit inside of a plugin that holds other plugins, it becomes harder and harder to assign parameter to a control surface, and it limits your visual feedback.

 

[jkuehlin]

Pro Tools w/ the Apollo Duo interface. Was the guy from the video I watched correct about the FMP (not FPM like I wrote earlier) being the only way to keep a track's pan value when sending it to a bus (which would mean that sending tracks to a bus, via the output drop menu, doesn't carry the pan values with it).

I understand what you're asking a little better now. Your question is definitely of signal flow in nature, but I thought your question had more to do with gain staging than it actually does. The answer to your actual question is no. Its not the only way to do it. But it is the most practical. There are other ways possible, but they require a concoction of signal gymnastics that only accomplish the exact same task.

Theres a pretty big mess of information here. I understand the objective. To preserve your pan arrangement at your bus. I'll attempt to prioritize the solutions accordingly.

-If you feed the outputs of mono channels to a subgroup, then you do not need to engage FMP. Because any subsequent send FROM said subgroup, AUTOMATICALLY follow pan arrangements.
-But if you feed the SENDS of a mono channel directly to an aux, then YES you may want to engage the FMP. Because the send will not automatically do so.
-If you feed the sends of a stereo channel directly to an aux, then NO you do not need to engage the FMP, unless you want the changes to the stereo source.

I'm sure if you realize this too: FMP is an option. All it does is save you from having to adjust your main pan, then execute the same change on your bus send. It is not mandatory. So to imply that you MUST to use the FMP to accomplish that task is incorrect. You may do it manually instead. We're merely clarifying semantics here. But I mention it to not assume. Sometimes when people are following video tutorials, they don't realize that certain steps may not be mandatory or necessary.

So I'll either do both, send all the drum tracks to a bus by setting the main track output to a stereo Aux, as well as, sending both OH's to that same bus via the send (as well as the output). I've recently been using an OH bus that I eventually send to the Drum Bus, but if I send my OH's, via the send, to create an OH bus, will I lose the pan values when sending that bus to the Drum Bus via the main outs? Hopefully you followed that!

Heres what I would recommend. Send both of your kicks (kick in, kick out) to a kick subgroup. Send both of your snares (snare top and snare bottom) a snare subgroup. Send all of your toms to a subgroup. Send your overheads (left, right, center if you have one) to a subgroup. Send your room mics to a subgroup unless your room mics is mono, then don't bother. That way you don't have to give your aux panning assignments a second thought.

Now what you do with your subgroups becomes more open ended. You may want to send your kick and snare subgroups to a parallel compressor. You may want to send your toms subgroup to a parallel reverb. You may want to send your overheads to a tape saturator etc... But you can also send your entire drum mix to a crush track (like the diagram at the beginning of this thread). You don't have to choose between parallel compression and a crush track. Do them both. Some guys use multiple reverbs along side crush tracks (as also seen on my screenshots).

I'm definitely gonna try the "crusher" bus next time I'm on PT. This is just used for drum tracks, right? Whoever mentioned the crusher bus made it a point to have a deep understanding of parallel compression. I've never tried this method...is there a good article, forum thread or video you could link me to that will help me better understand. I could Google it myself, but there are some many search findings I thought that you might be able to make things easy for me if you know of any specific places that have proper explanations and execution details.
Thanks.

Forget parallel compression for a sec. Think parallel processing. That can mean anything. Parallel reverbs, parallel compression, parallel imaging, parallel delays, whatever.

All this means is that a processed signal is running along side a dry signal. So you start with a dry vocal. Bus send the vocal to the reverb. Then blend the reverb with the dry vocal. Its simply having a wet/dry mix knob, but having it with 2 faders instead of a wet dry knob. Make sense?

Same goes with compression. Dry signal on one fader. Compressed signal on another fader. Then you balance the two faders.

All the crush track is doing is parallel compressing the entire drum set. All of the subgroups you created are getting mashed and glued together at one big mean ugly bus-stop. You can use this to get punch, grit, slam and cool vibey energy into a drum track.

Here's why you need to get good at compressing before attempting this though. You're dealing with a lot of compression at that point. If I use 3 comps on a snare, 5 comps on rack toms, 2 comps on the overseas, and 3 comps on my room mics, then send all that compressed madness to a crush track too, if all your compressors are set correctly, you entire mix turns to shit real real fast.

Its a very good investment of anyones time to look at ways guys stack multiple compressors on drums and vocals in particular. Hope this helps.

 

[adam79]

This is a very strait forward (easy to follow) example how this would be done in a pro environment. If you have any questions about the signal flow or routing, feel free to ask.

I'm going to post a video of this in a sec, if I can figure out how to do it.

The mp3 of the actual mix (JMK 1) is attached below the pictures.

In your Mix View pictures is VTM the Slate Virtual Tape Machine and VMR the Slate Virtual Mix Rack? I just did a search on VTM and VMR plugin and that's what came up. The VTM is just one plugin, but the VMR is a giant bundle. Are you using one particular compressor from the VMR bundle? Is it your go to (I noticed that it's on almost everything)? If yes, what's the name of it? Thanks.

 

[jkuehlin]

Yup. That's it. Here's the drums with all channels solo'd, including crusher, verbs, and 2 bus.

...This isn't actually the best demo for stacking compressors, but I pulled it to illustrate parallel processing. The tracking studio actually tracked with heavy compression, so not a whole lot more was needed in the mixdown.

 

[jkuehlin]

On each screenshot, the corresponding channel and plugin insert are selected (white).

 

[jkuehlin]

two more

 

[jkuehlin]

Aw fuck this lame as fucking uploader

 

[BroKen_H]

Jhuehlin: Most of us are not dealing with mix desks. Most of us are doing this in the box. The end result you have achieved is stellar. Not arguing. But I don't follow much of what you're saying, because it simply doesn't exist in my world. What Ash is saying makes perfect sense. Send the drums (and parallel processing and side chained compressors) into a single stereo drum bus so you can control the overall dynamics, EQ, etc of the entire drum package makes sense to me. I use Reason, and have a digital 9000J in the box, but it isn't like the SSL I recorded on (from the mike side) in Denver in the 80s. I have no idea about how a Harrison varies from an SSL or a Trident...I just have my DAW and some rudimentary knowledge. I think, at least for me, what you are saying may make sense when I have more knowledge, but for now I feel like a 7th grade math wiz in advanced analytical geometry class...

 

[jkuehlin]

three......

 

[jkuehlin]

two.....

 

[jkuehlin]

one.... finished. Those are the drums.

 

[BroKen_H]

On each screenshot, the corresponding channel and plugin insert are selected (white).

That's an amazing signal chain for a kick. I've done a bit of parallel with a straight, compressed and sub on a few tracks, but I never thought of paralleling the reverb as well...food for thought. Thank you!

 

[jkuehlin]

Jhuehlin: Most of us are not dealing with mix desks. Most of us are doing this in the box. The end result you have achieved is stellar. Not arguing. But I don't follow much of what you're saying, because it simply doesn't exist in my world. What Ash is saying makes perfect sense. Send the drums (and parallel processing and side chained compressors) into a single stereo drum bus so you can control the overall dynamics, EQ, etc of the entire drum package makes sense to me. I use Reason, and have a digital 9000J in the box, but it isn't like the SSL I recorded on (from the mike side) in Denver in the 80s. I have no idea about how a Harrison varies from an SSL or a Trident...I just have my DAW and some rudimentary knowledge. I think, at least for me, what you are saying may make sense when I have more knowledge, but for now I feel like a 7th grade math wiz in advanced analytical geometry class...

Yeah. I got it. When I figured out (in the second long response) what he was really asking, my recommendation to him was basically what you just said. But with multiple drum busses instead of singles though. Kick, Snare, Toms, OH. Simple as that

 

[jkuehlin]

That's an amazing signal chain for a kick. I've done a bit of parallel with a straight, compressed and sub on a few tracks, but I never thought of paralleling the reverb as well...food for thought. Thank you!

Sure no prob. The kicks are sort of running parallel because the Slate VMR comps all have a wet/dry knob. This allows the comp to function sort of like a parallel comp channel, without chewing up 2 faders.

If you look closer at the mix, there's actually 5 kick drums and 4 snares. Its kinda part of what producers are doing these days to get junk sound 'Yuuuge' as Donald (Duck) would say.

 

[adam79]

Yup. That's it. Here's the drums with all channels solo'd, including crusher, verbs, and 2 bus.

...This isn't actually the best demo for stacking compressors, but I pulled it to illustrate parallel processing. The tracking studio actually tracked with heavy compression, so not a whole lot more was needed in the mixdown.

What is a "2 bus"? Is that a term or just a regular stereo bus? So you basically have two drum busses. 1 that's not processed and the other crushed?

 

[adam79]

Are using one specific comp. from that plugin bundle, or u switching 'em up?

I only have 4 mics to work with (not sure if I already mentioned that).. a pair of MCA SP1 LDC (although advertised as LDC's, they're prob more medium sized), one SM 57 and a crappy $40 Shure mic. I've been using the Glyn Johns technique on the drums and it seems to be working well. It's hard to get a good sound on the kick w/ that crappy Shure...its really boxy sounding. I think it's partly the mic's fault, part tuning...I've been waiting on a buddy of mine to come by and tune them for me. The lack of any acoustical treatment also doesn't help much. Still though, it sounds half decent.

 

[adam79]

Oh ya, one other question I keep forgetting to ask.. I've recently been sending my two OH mics to a stereo bus (via the sends) and then sending that bus (via the main outputs) to the drum bus. When sending the two OH mics to the OH bus, I've been sending each on it's own mono bus...meaning if the OH Bus I'm using is Bus 7-8, one OH mic will be sent to Bus 7 and the other to Bus 8. Is this how it's usually done, or is it more personal preference than "the right way"? I guess this question would work for any two mono tracks being sent to a stereo bus.

 

[ashcat_lt]

^^^That depends on what you want for relative pan position, though there are ways to change that once it gets to the bus. To a certain extent it depends what you intend to do at the bus itself, but it's mostly about what makes most sense to you.