Parallel Mixing: Send vs Clone

B

BeagleFaceHenry

Member
When parallel mixing, what is the best way to create the parallel track? I see people doing it 2 different ways and I don’t see a difference. Does one method have advantages over the other?
1: Clone original track, so you have 2 identical tracks. Add effects to the new track.
2: Add a pre-fader send from the original track to a new aux bus. Add effects to the aux bus.

The best reason I can think of is #2 saves time if you re-track. And I guess #2 could be used to create some stereo. Did I answer my own question?
Thoughts?
-j
 
Reason just allows parallel tracks, pretty much using #1, but you don't have two separate recordings (so it's like #2.) It's kind of a blend of the two methods. Reason uses a new track as the new bus...AND it's one click to accomplish. Super easy.
Not sure, but I'm pretty sure you can do something similar in Reaper by sending to a second channel without having separate audio files...
I sometimes record two separate tracks on my bass (at the same time) to simulate my 18" & 2x10" cab setup. It is a major pain to make any edits, but it's not hard to re-track. You just arm both and go...
 
I do it either way depending on my whim and/or what I'm trying to accomplish.

I think a send is better in more cases because it's just one file to deal with. Aside from re-tracking, there's also any editing or item-level automation you might want to apply to both tracks. Reaper (like most DAWs) has a way to group items together across tracks so that some of that can be done on one and reflected on the other, but most of the time it's just easier to use a send.
 
The only difference it could make is if your DAW doesn't have plugin delay compensation on the buses. You would have to be using a pretty old DAW for that to be a problem, but that used to be a thing.

Other than that, it doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top