Insert/sends in different thread.

kgirl72

kgirl72

New member
Hey guys,

Any chance anyone wants to go here and offer their two cents? We've been discussing the hardware methods of inserting/auxiliary bussing. When we think of this in computer terms it seems still just a bit different. It's really heading in a Cakewalk/Sonar direction. Or really, just maybe software in general, but the confused among us seem to be using Cakewalk software.

Link to other thread here

Thanks!
-Kirstin
 
You beat me to it, Kristin. ;)

I got sidetracked at work, and couldn't post yet.

My questions are going to surround PA9. Unfortunately, most of the in-the-know guys around here are probably all using Sonar 3 by now, or at least 2.2, most likely.



Say I've got a vocal track. Dry. I add a reverb effect to it. How can I get the verb on it's own track?

I use the console view, (to many people chagrin around here, it seems hehe :eek: ,) and I'm guessing that instead of applying the verb to the track, I put it in one of my aux tracks.

Then, adjust the aux setting on the vocal track to hear what it does.

I'm not near my computer right now, and so I'm possibly WAY off just for that reason.

Can anybody shed some light on how this can work?

Thanks,

-Speedy
 
er, that is, assuming I'm using Cakewalks effects.

In the dreaded console view, I see my vocal track, and the aux section.

I put an effect on the aux.

I press play, and adjust the levels accordingly to hear what I want.

How can I get that Aux track with just the verb on it to be it's own separate track that I can do with what I want later?
 
Speedy VonTrapp said:
How can I get that Aux track with just the verb on it to be it's own separate track that I can do with what I want later?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't think you can do that...
 
that's something I don't know that we can do. I was thinking about that the other day too. I don't think the auxiliary can be mixed down per se. If you have the effect on the aux, maybe the only way is to mix down the actual track, and can we select only the aux buss as something to mix down? I never even looked at that. Meaning, can you eliminate the dry track and just mix down the effect? Can you? Otherwise, you would copy the track, and then set to maybe pre fader, then turn the volume down all the way on the track? Would this in effect be the same? So, you have one dry track, one with the effect only. Why couldn't you just copy the track, insert the effect, then set it to 100% wet, then mix the two tracks.

I think actually that the limitations are fairly endless, so we could confuse ourselves all day. There are probably 20 ways to do anything.

-Kirstin
 
so, you could mix down ONLY what is in the aux? Not what is on the dry original? Basically, one totally dry, one totally wet?
 
Just the Aux bus! :)

As far as I have understood, the bus'es works almost like the tracks. :)
 
So, in Sonar 2, what if...

you have the aux buss enabled in a track with pre selected, not post. You turn the volume of the orignal track to -INF, (and the trim to the lowest point?) and then set the aux to 100% wet, set your parameters, til you're only hearing the wet signal.

Wouldn't bouncing this track to a new track with the trim and volume controls all the way down allow you to have the wet effect only on another track?

I'm testing the waters, but I wouldn't know really how to set the parameters totally...if the send should go to 6, or maybe the return on the auxiliary all the way up...the verb amount on the effect all the way up, etc. etc. See, there may be 20 ways to do each thing. Although, isn't this exactly the same (even bouncing the aux track as in Sonar 3) as copying the track to a new one, and putting an all wet signal in place of the dry one? What am I missing? At this point, you could blend the two, and basically have the same set up? I like thinking of these kinds of things.
-Kirstin
 
so far, it isn't working--I'm applying the aux return, but the track it mixes down is all dry. It doesn't seem to "apply" the effect, but rather, to mix down the "amount" of signal (dry) routed through the aux buss.

Interesting. I'm still not sure there isn't some way to do this, that we may just stumble upon. I'm optimistic to a point, but when I start to get REALLY confused, I'll quit!!!!

-Kirstin
 
I'm an ex-Cakewalk PA9 guy, so I guess I'm allowed in here :)

If it were me, I'd copy the track to a new track, then apply the effect using an insert at 100% wet - it's probably quicker and cleaner than doing a mixdown because you're not changing the gain going through the main bus.

I still to this once in a while if I'm running low on CPU and I need to trim down the number of realtime effects plugins I'm using. In fact, I did it last week to do the Hendrix reverse reverb trick:

1. Copy the track to a new track
2. Reverse it
3. Apply thick reverb (100% wet) destructively
4. Reverse it back to normal and mix to taste

:D
 
Okay, this time, I put the aux into a different master bus...B. When I set up the effect on the aux buss, I set the return to 6, or all the way up. I set the effect itself to 100% wet, and then the volume and trim on the original track all the way DOWN. This way all you're hearing is the aux buss on pre fader. I think. Would that be right? And, just out of curiosity, as an aside, is the send on the aux buss and the send on the track itself really about the same thing?

Anyway, I still have to mess with the parameters totally, I didn't really think about the aux being set to post or pre, but in any rate, when I then bounced that to a new track, I left all the volumes of the dry signal down, selected buss B on the mixdown, and left all the checks in place. Now, I have a stereo reverb in my other track, which can be routed through the A buss, as is the original, and you can mix to taste. At this point, however, the effect is APPLIED. So, you can't change the signal. But, it would save on cpu space...you could disable the effect for the time being and just play two tracks. I'm not sure what the benefit of this is, or if it's really a fully wet signal. Anyone have any comments on this?

-Kirstin
 
And, Sean, your way is easier. I think I was getting to that point somewhere in the thread, but I'm not sure I know what I'm getting myself into. Seems to me that finding a way to bounce the aux buss is really the same as what you just said!!!!

Much faster, though, you can leave that effect loaded in the original track, just disabled, and then adjust if necessary! So, the ability to make later changes without having to copy/paste a NEW track, then re-apply a new destructive edit would be cool too, I suppose.

God, the world is a nutty place. Too many options if you ask me. Sometimes even driving down the street and seeing all the places you didn't know existed, and you won't have time to get to them all...it's so frustrating.

Kind of why I like that commercial that talks about "finishing" the Internet. Don't know which company, but you know what I mean. Too much stuff!
-Kirstin
 
If you were using a stereo reverb plugin (like Acoustic Mirror), you'd have to change the copied track to a stereo track first, making sure the mono track got copied to both left & right sides to make sure it worked right.

...OI...

...Maybe it's not so easier after all :)

It's times like this I figure life's too short to stress about everything you're missing. Just grab onto what you have and enjoy the ride :D
 
Tex just said, in the other thread, that a good way is to assign the track to a separate buss (I assigned the aux track to a separate buss) and then apply the reverb effect to the buss as an insert and then record the buss itself that has the insert on it. Crazy stuff...
-Kirstin
 
Don't people use the acoustic mirror and Sir and stuff on mono tracks sometimes? I know when I bounced it down, off a mono track, on the other buss, as I discussed a couple of posts back, that I am able to mix it down as a stereo. If I have a vocal track say, and it's mono, when I run it through acoustic mirror, will it sound different than if I converted the vocal to stereo first? Don't we generally want mono vocals, among other signals?

Man, a whole new can of worms is emerging...but it is a good thing. See how much we're learning today?

-Kirstin
 
Wow, it seems like the effect going to the sub-buss and then bouncing that effect-only output to a new pair of tracks is the best software patch method. I was going to suggest a hardware patch between an extra pair of sound card outs-to-ins just like if you were sending to an external hardware effect box, but I think you nailed it without the 'wires. :D
I for one always like to print my (external) verbs to new tracks, mostly to get then into ACKUS, but it's also nice to have them there to tweak later. Sometimes once there in there, when you make new volume changes on the source tracks you get wet/dry mix changes you might not have expected or tried which can be interesting.
You also get to track several different effect patches from the same 'box'.
:)
Wayne
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top