Are busses absolutely nessisary

"Are buses absolutely necessary?" Just try mixing without the main bus.

Vegas Pro has predefined effects and submix buses, which is less versatile but much quicker to set up than the generic buses in software like Pro Tools. Setting up an effects bus is a one click operation, and the send faders are automatically added to every channel. Same with submix buses, and you get both send faders and simple output assignment options automatically added. For the 99% of the time I don't need any fancy routing it saves time and hassle.
 
Last edited:
Did you say what DAW you're in? Reaper has universal tracks, so this is one way to do it. Other DAWs are more restrictive, so that you have specifically to create a buss or an aux or something weird that will work differently in a number of ways from every other track in your project.
Yeah I'm using reaper. I also like Adobe audition (older version) for its simplicity
 
Yeah, some DAWs are stuck in a relatively rigid paradigm inherited from hardware. It almost makes sense from that perspective. It can be restrictive and/or require more messing around than necessary, though.


I personally don't. I'll name the track for what it is. A drum submix bus will be called "drums" and usually actually be a folder. A reverb "aux" track will be called "verb"... I guess maybe if I expected somebody else to have to work with my project I might label a little differently, but when it's just for me, I'm lucky if anything gets named at all. :)

This 'aux' u speak of... OK, I kinda got the hang of grouping similar instruments and sounds and creating a bus, adding an effect, which effects the whole group. What is thus 'aux' u speak of?
 
In most daws which use this arrangement a track is your source, aux track is destination, and the bus is the connection between the two.

"I'm sending all of my vocal tracks to my reverb aux track via bus 1+2", or whatever.
 
A bus is a bus, but not a buss. lol

An AUX is something you bus to.

Some DAW's word things differently but it is all the same in the end.

In Cubase the only things actually called a 'bus' are input and output channels. But there are Group Channels, FX Channels, etc. These are basically AUX channels that you send to. Which I believe is what would be called 'busing to an AUX'?

Steen said it well. I just made it complicated like Cubase does...
 
The generic meaning of "bus" is any point where multiple signals are combined.

In the Pro Tools (etc.) world, "buses" are used as intermediate stages between "audio tracks", "aux tracks" and "master faders". All tracks and faders can host plugins. The classic effects loop is a parallel path from audio track sends, through a bus to an aux track, and then from the output of the aux track to the main mix. A typical submix group is a series path from audio track outputs, through a bus to an aux track, then to the main mix.

Vegas Pro is similar to Cubase in that effects ("Assignable Effects") and submix group buses ("Bus") are predefined. Send faders are automatically added to all channels for both, and output assignment selection is automatically added for Buses. Inputs and outputs are called inputs and outputs.

It's helpful to specify the software you're using and how it uses terms like "bus". The specific use of the word varies a lot between software.
 
In Reaper any channel can be an auxc, or a bus, or a duplicate or an instrument. So to use a channel as say, an aux for reverb just put the verb on a new fhannel, set the mix control to completely wet in the VST, and then go into the I/O box and add receives from the channels you wish to add verb to, obviously you can also send it from the channels themselves, and using the send level from those individual channels' I?O. Usually I am setting up four aux "styled" channels, one with a short delay, another with a long delay, another with some kind of ambient room, and another with a plate or hallf reverb. Additionally, I am grouping drums and part of that group may include separate verbs that receive only drum signals and are routed to the drum group channel instead of the L'R master channel. That allows you to do cool things like slam the drum mix with compression, or EQ them, or put a flange on them to set a bridge or a little section off with some ear candy. The way Reaper sets up channels is by far the best I have seen, the routing can be anything you can imagine. Just remember if you are grouping to take tho individual channels out of the L/R send.
The other advantage to sending to an aux for effects versus putting the effect on the individual channel is eliminating the need for having to constantly tweak the wet/dry balance in an individual channel, and not having important channels like the lead vocal passing through VST unnecessarily. Of course these "sux" channels are for reverb and delay, things like chorus and saturation are applied to individual channels. The other advantage is now you are free to treat the reverb effects with EQ and compression, which can really make them sing, which would be impossible on an individual channel without also affecting the source track. Have fun.....
 
In mid-eighties TEAC- America terms, "busses" is the generic sub, effects, aux .

(not TEAC)Something for the DEVO Teen to pursue audio ****
 
Buses vs. Busses | Merriam-Webster
Yeah know, when I see words like that buses seems like it out to say a long U.

Is it mic' / mics'? Where's the long I come from. And donn't me started with 'mikes :p :)
I think you forgot to type at least one word in each sentence. :)

Backl to the original question: A bus is anywhere two or more signals can come together. So yes, buses are absolutely necessary, especially the main or master bus, since that is where everything is mixed to.
 
I think you forgot to type at least one word in each sentence. :)
Yikes yes. Some massive typos there! Shoot. I should fix them.

Backl to the original question: A bus is anywhere two or more signals can come together. So yes, buses are absolutely necessary, especially the main or master bus, since that is where everything is mixed to.
As in the bus bars in your electrical panel. :)
 
I do not apply a one size fits all approch. I do each track. I feel every track has to have its own place. And I never apply reverb on a master.
 
A bus is what a group of people use to take a ride to get to somewhere together...same with audio tracks with a ton of destinations
 
I'm thinkin' you and Lady Greyhound would make a cute couple : ) And there is the tape loop buss -two to one and one to three
 
I do not apply a one size fits all approch. I do each track. I feel every track has to have its own place. And I never apply reverb on a master.

Using a bus doesn't mean that all tracks get the one size fits all approach. If you are giving tracks reverb, it makes sense to use the same reverb on the tracks, because that provides for cohesiveness across the sonic landscape. But you applying different levels allows each track to have its own space. Using a bus does not prevent this.

I too would generally not apply reverb on a master. That is definitely a one size fits all approach. Having said that, in a couple of days I will be doing just that. I will be recording a choir in a very dry room, which is a bit unfortunate. But after the event I reckon I'll be sprinkling a fair dash of reverb over the whole thing to give it life.
 
...I too would generally not apply reverb on a master. That is definitely a one size fits all approach. Having said that, in a couple of days I will be doing just that. I will be recording a choir in a very dry room, which is a bit unfortunate. But after the event I reckon I'll be sprinkling a fair dash of reverb over the whole thing to give it life.
Sounds like an interesting challenge. :) I've never done anything like that. Give us a peek into the process later?
 
Sounds like an interesting challenge. :) I've never done anything like that. Give us a peek into the process later?

Happy to oblige. This is scheduled to happen this coming Friday. I'm recording a school choir in their 'multi-purpose' room. This is a big room that they use for all manner of things, including performances. But it is dry as dry. This makes it ok for bands, but the room gives no help to acoustic acts, and specially to choirs . . . it's like singing into a vacuum cleaner . . . it just sucks the life out of it. That's not good for recording, but it's even worse for the singers, because the room gives them no acoustic support.
 
Back
Top