mixing with protools

[toadies]

Ok, right now i uselly bus multiple tracks of same intrument to a stereo aux track. Is there a delay when I do that?

Ok nexts up is!

I read this in one of my mixing book.

buss all drum tracks and bass track to a stereo track, add compression, forgot what setting. then buss it out to another track and add EQ at about 3-4db at around 10khz i think and around 100hz.

Will i notice delay doing this twice?

[M.Brane]

Ok, right now i uselly bus multiple tracks of same intrument to a stereo aux track. Is there a delay when I do that?

Why not just group the faders instead?

Ok nexts up is!

I read this in one of my mixing book.

buss all drum tracks and bass track to a stereo track, add compression, forgot what setting. then buss it out to another track and add EQ at about 3-4db at around 10khz i think and around 100hz.

Will i notice delay doing this twice?

That looks like it was written for an analog mix.

Do you notice any delay when you do this?

There are delays when doing these things in a TDM system, but I don't believe it's a problem in PTLE/Free. Compensating for TDM delays is explained quite well in the PT manual.

[toadies]

i buss it like that so i can add EQ. to just one track.

[littledog]

I use a TDM system, and I don't know much about the native PT stuff. But bussing the sound through an aux channel DOES induce a very slight delay (like a couple of samples, i think). But it is so small, since you are sending all the drum tracks through it, it shouldn't matter.

However, in the second instance, I can't see the advantage of bussing everything to one aux for compression and then on to a second aux for eq. You can put the compressor plug-in and the EQ plug-in (and up to three others) all on the same aux channel. Makes for a tidier virtual mixing board and avoids another tiny delay.

[M.Brane]

Originally posted by toadies
i buss it like that so i can add EQ. to just one track.

LOL! That's what the inserts are for!

Unless your using an outboard analog EQ, but then why in the world would you do that?

[littledog]

Originally posted by M.Brane
LOL! That's what the inserts are for!

Unless your using an outboard analog EQ, but then why in the world would you do that?

Brane, you apparently aren't familiar with pro tools. If you send a whole group of individual tracks to a stereo buss, you can then use one instantiation of a compressor or eq to process all the tracks simultaneously. This is hardly unique to pro tools, though. You would do the same thing on an analog board using the subgroups.

If, as you suggested, you put separate plug-ins on every individual channel, it is far more processor intensive, to say nothing of more time consuming.

Anyway, there may be other ways to accomplish the same thing, but toadie's method seems as reasonable as any, and hardly laughable.

[toadies]

Originally posted by littledog


If, as you suggested, you put separate plug-ins on every individual channel, it is far more processor intensive, to say nothing of more time consuming.

Anyway, there may be other ways to accomplish the same thing, but toadie's method seems as reasonable as any, and hardly laughable.

yup thats right, saves more processor to add reverb or something.

[M.Brane]

Brane, you apparently aren't familiar with pro tools. If you send a whole group of individual tracks to a stereo buss, you can then use one instantiation of a compressor or eq to process all the tracks simultaneously. This is hardly unique to pro tools, though.You would do the same thing on an analog board using the subgroups.

That's fine if you want the same compression, EQ etc. on all those tracks.

If, as you suggested, you put separate plug-ins on every individual channel, it is far more processor intensive, to say nothing of more time consuming.

Hmmmmm. My ancient 400mhz G3 on a 50mhz bus has no problem with multiple EQ's & comps. It's when you start using lot's of delays & verbs that things get dicey.

I also believe that if you end up with EQ & comp plugs on every track, you really don't know how to record.

Anyway, there may be other ways to accomplish the same thing, but toadie's method seems as reasonable as any, and hardly laughable.

What I found funny was that he only wanted EQ on one track. Sorry, but I still think it's funny. I also think it would be a lot easier (and faster ) to just use an insert.

[littledog]

Originally posted by M.Brane
That's fine if you want the same compression, EQ etc. on all those tracks.

Compressing an entire drum kit is a fairly common practice. So is compressing background vocals as a group, string ensembles, or dozens of other examples. Of course, there's no law that says you have to do what anyone else does, but you might just want to try it sometime for fun.

Originally posted by M.Brane
What I found funny was that he only wanted EQ on one track. Sorry, but I still think it's funny. I also think it would be a lot easier (and faster ) to just use an insert.

I think we can give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant EQ'ing a stereo track - specifically the stereo aux from the bussed tracks. If you still think that's funny, I guess you are easily amused.

[M.Brane]

Compressing an entire drum kit is a fairly common practice. So is compressing background vocals as a group, string ensembles, or dozens of other examples. Of course, there's no law that says you have to do what anyone else does, but you might just want to try it sometime for fun.

What about for profit?

I think we can give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant EQ'ing a stereo track - specifically the stereo aux from the bussed tracks.

You know what happens when we ass u me.

If you still think that's funny, I guess you are easily amused.

I wish! you seem to be doing a pretty good job though.

'Nite, LD.

[littledog]

Ah! I get it now!

I must be a little slow these days.

Thanks for the heads up, "Brane"!