Aux send question

[benherron.rrr]

Ok sends are somthing that really really confuse me.
dont get me wrong I know what they are.
A few things that i could really use to have cleared up are. . .
If I have a vocal part that is divided up into say 2 tracks the reason being there is a slight over hang from the verse into the chorus. I would create an aux channel and send both vocal tracks to it at 0db would i get both the dry vocal and the effected vocal coming through at the same time? thus making the volume twice as loud. Ive always thourght that aux sends were somthing used to place the same effects on 2 tracks, but i dont know if im going wrong there? when i use it like this it just seems to throw my mix out of the window.
if it helps im using cubase. i know its a rather newbie question but there ya go

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If I have a vocal part that is divided up into say 2 tracks the reason being there is a slight over hang from the verse into the chorus. I would create an aux channel and send both vocal tracks to it at 0db would i get both the dry vocal and the effected vocal coming through at the same time? thus making the volume twice as loud. Ive always thourght that aux sends were somthing used to place the same effects on 2 tracks, but i dont know if im going wrong there? when i use it like this it just seems to throw my mix out of the window.

Ben, it sounds as though you have the basic concept of sends correct, but may be having a problem with the overall concept of gain structure.

First off, I assume that since you're talking software-based mixing (Cubase) that when you refer to 0dB, you're talking about the digital scale of 0dBFS. In such a case, you probably should not be sending your tracks to the aux bus at anywhere near 0dBFS. In fact, you normally should not be seeing anything in your mixer running that hot. Your peaks should be more along the lines of -12 to -6dBFS (roughly speaking).

Second, yes, during the overlapping parts of your vocal tracks, the overall volume on the aux bus will be increased. It will probably not be a neat doubling of volume as you suggest, because the vocals probably do not neatly sync in perfect waveform phase, but where there is coherency there will be an increase in wave amplitude. If I were in your place, I'd pre-mix the amplitude of the two tracks, either by simple volume automation at the overlaps, or by creating a vocal "stem" mix before sending it to what I assume is a reverb. Or another option would be to apply the reverb separately to the two vocal tracks instead of putting it on an aux bus.

Third, as far as the wet/dry mix, that depends upon how you set it up. Again, there are a couple of ways to skin that cat. If you have a full-wet verb on the aux bus, you would create the wet/dry ratio by mixing the aux return with the dry vocal tracks in the overall mix. Or, some (most?) reverbs allow you to set the wet/dry mix coming out of the reverb itself. In such a case you could simply set the wetness on the verb itself and not worry about mixing the wet and dry tracks in the mix.

HTH. If that just brings up more questions, ask away!

G.

 

[Farview]

First off, I assume that since you're talking software-based mixing (Cubase) that when you refer to 0dB, you're talking about the digital scale of 0dBFS. G.

I'm pretty sure he's talking 0db as in unity gain. Cubase has a scale on the auxes that goes from infinity to +6 (the same as the scale on the faders)

Anyway, I'm not sure what the question is.

When you use an aux, you are sending the dry signal to a buss. (FX buss, output buss, group buss, etc...) If you put an effect on that buss and set the effects mix to 100% wet, then the only thing coming out of that buss will be the effect. Of course, the dry signal from the tracks will still be sent to where ever those tracks are routed to. You will hear both the dry and the wet.

Yes, the more tracks that you route to the same place, the more level you will have there.

 

[noisewreck]

Third, as far as the wet/dry mix, that depends upon how you set it up. Again, there are a couple of ways to skin that cat. If you have a full-wet verb on the aux bus, you would create the wet/dry ratio by mixing the aux return with the dry vocal tracks in the overall mix. Or, some (most?) reverbs allow you to set the wet/dry mix coming out of the reverb itself. In such a case you could simply set the wetness on the verb itself and not worry about mixing the wet and dry tracks in the mix.

Just wanted to clarify this a bit more, at least in regards to Cubase.

There are two ways you can setup sends in Cubase, pre-fader or post-fader. The difference between the two is, when you setup the send post-fader (this is the default) the overall volume of what comes out of BOTH the source channel and the send will depend on both the track level AND the send amount. OTOH, with pre-fader sends, the send level and the track level are independent.

With post-fader sends you normally want to have your reverb (or any other FX) full wet and controll the wet/dry balance with the SEND level. In this scenario you will ALWAYS hear the dry signal, so the end result is that you'll never hear a full wet signal (only the reverb in this case) with post-fader sends. What this also means is that if you DON'T have your reverb set as full wet, you'll hear the dry signal coming out of your track channel AND some of the dry signal coming out of your FX channel, which will mess with your overall levels.

With pre-fader sends you can achieve full wet results by bringing the level all the way down on the main track, and then adjust the level of the reverb by using the SEND fader. When the track level is all the way down, you will not hear the dry signal, and will only hear what's coming out of the SEND channel, IF your Reverb is set to full wet. However, with this arrangement, you can play with the dry/wet control on the Reverb unit.

I am sure I made things a bit more complicated and everything is clear as mud now, but I'd suggest you go to the help menu and read up on the FX sends section. It should make things more clear.

One other thing I'd do, if you have the vocal on two different tracks, I'd group them to a group channel, and then use the send on the group channel to send it to reverb, to make sure they both get the same treatment.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I'll boil it down for you:

Using an aux send parallel effect you set the effect to fully wet and adjust the level in the effect or at the aux bus output. You don't need any dry signal coming back from the aux bus or it will add to the volume of the track. You can vary the amount of effect on each channel with the channel aux sends.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Thanks Glen.

So I should be treating the send tracks the same as i should treat the others? Like I said I having being using aux sends to control to tracks. Like the exmaple I gave with the vocals, If i have two vocal tracks that i want to be mixed the same (same EQ, same delay, same reverb etc) that is how i have been using sends but from what you said that means with eq it would be less effective, so it be better to create a preset and place it on each track to make sure they are the same or bounce the two vocal tracks onto one.

Sorry, its a really stupid simple question.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So I should be treating the send tracks the same as i should treat the others? Like I said I having being using aux sends to control to tracks. Like the exmaple I gave with the vocals, If i have two vocal tracks that i want to be mixed the same (same EQ, same delay, same reverb etc) that is how i have been using sends but from what you said that means with eq it would be less effective, so it be better to create a preset and place it on each track to make sure they are the same or bounce the two vocal tracks onto one.

Sorry, its a really stupid simple question.

Don't apologize, it's a reasonable question.

As I mentioned earlier (and has has been shown by example with the other fine posts here) there are several ways to go about it; some of it can boil down to personal preference. Personally, I'd avoid the whole aux send thing in this case and either submix or probably group the vocals and then process them as one right in the project space.

I don't have a good explanation why, but for some reason, even though on an analog board I use aux sends all the time - usually out of physical necessity - I tend to find them cumbersome and fairly extraneous in a digital DAW setting. I'm not saying that's "the right way", just a personal style preference.

G.

 

[Farview]

Thanks Glen.

So I should be treating the send tracks the same as i should treat the others? Like I said I having being using aux sends to control to tracks. Like the exmaple I gave with the vocals, If i have two vocal tracks that i want to be mixed the same (same EQ, same delay, same reverb etc) that is how i have been using sends but from what you said that means with eq it would be less effective, so it be better to create a preset and place it on each track to make sure they are the same or bounce the two vocal tracks onto one.

Sorry, its a really stupid simple question.

To do what you are doing, you are better off using group tracks. then send the output of all your vocal tracks to the group track. You don't need to use the auxes for this purpose.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Thanks Glen.

So I should be treating the send tracks the same as i should treat the others? Like I said I having being using aux sends to control to tracks. Like the exmaple I gave with the vocals, If i have two vocal tracks that i want to be mixed the same (same EQ, same delay, same reverb etc) that is how i have been using sends but from what you said that means with eq it would be less effective, so it be better to create a preset and place it on each track to make sure they are the same or bounce the two vocal tracks onto one.

Sorry, its a really stupid simple question.

I think setting up a submix group bus is one good way to handle the eq, but you could just save a preset from one track an apply it to the other. There isn't one right way. I'd still usually use an aux send for the effects, but I have been known to insert them right on a track or group bus. If you insert an effect you usually can't apply eq to it without also affecting the track or bus. About 25-30% of the time I use eq to shape a reverb, so it has to be an aux send rather than a track or bus insert. You should be able to assign the aux effect to the same group bus as the tracks.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Hey sorry for saying thanks just to glen at the time I wrote the reply I could only see his post, being stupid I must of missed the others. On that note I would like to thank everyone who has replied it has been of great help. .

Ok here I go again . So I was using fx/aux sends to mix tracks that required the same treatment, which was messing up the gain and effect of what I was attempting to achive. when really what i should be doing is grouping the tracks, (the two vocal tracks) and adding the inserts. Am I right?

Which brings me to a new question, I was awear of grouping tracks but I only thourght the use of that was changing the levels simultaniously and for general organisation. for example if you do a drum submix you can get all the pieces set perfectly and later on in the mix if the volume needs changing you can alter the drum kit as a whole without messing up the over all mix of the drums. If i understand what you guys have said (sorry like sounding overly nooby) then using grouping I can also do the same with inserts. making it so that if i add a reverb to the inserts on one vocal track that also puts the same reverb on the other track (so long as i grouped them), If i change the EQ on one track it will make the same change on the other e.t.c is that right?

If so could anyone tell me how to set that up in cubase (5), if not ill look in the maual but im a bit useless with manuals.

On top of this ive got to say, Ive learnt more helpful things through being on this forum for 2 weeks then I did studying it at school and now uni in 2 years! You guys are amazing!

 

[noisewreck]

Which brings me to a new question, I was awear of grouping tracks but I only thourght the use of that was changing the levels simultaniously and for general organisation. for example if you do a drum submix you can get all the pieces set perfectly and later on in the mix if the volume needs changing you can alter the drum kit as a whole without messing up the over all mix of the drums. If i understand what you guys have said (sorry like sounding overly nooby) then using grouping I can also do the same with inserts. making it so that if i add a reverb to the inserts on one vocal track that also puts the same reverb on the other track (so long as i grouped them), If i change the EQ on one track it will make the same change on the other e.t.c is that right?

Not exactly. The settings on the individual channels still belong to the individual channels, so if you EQ one channel, it will only affect that channel regardless whether it's grouped with other channels or not. If you want to affect all the channels in the group, then you'll have to EQ/FX/fuck with the group channel itself.

So, in Cubase 5, create a Group Channel, and rename it "Vox Group". Then, route the outputs of the individual vocal channels to the group (in the Mixer, this is the drop down menu at the top of each channel, click on it, and you'll see "Vox Group" listed in the menu). Now, you can put a reverb as an insert on the Vox Group and play with the dry/wet mix on the reverb until you're happy. OR, you can then setup an FX channel, put your reverb there, full wet and then go back to your "Vox Group" channel and send the Vox Group itself to the FX channel with reverb on it. You can also insert an EQ and compressor on your Vox Group, which will then affect the sound of both vocal channels the same way.

I hope that clears it up.

 

[Farview]

Which brings me to a new question, I was awear of grouping tracks but I only thourght the use of that was changing the levels simultaniously and for general organisation. for example if you do a drum submix you can get all the pieces set perfectly and later on in the mix if the volume needs changing you can alter the drum kit as a whole without messing up the over all mix of the drums. If i understand what you guys have said (sorry like sounding overly nooby) then using grouping I can also do the same with inserts. making it so that if i add a reverb to the inserts on one vocal track that also puts the same reverb on the other track (so long as i grouped them), If i change the EQ on one track it will make the same change on the other e.t.c is that right?

You might be confusing grouping with linking.

When you link the tracks, all of the faders in the group move.

When you use a group channel (project->add track->group channel), You are sending the output of all the tracks that are routed to it to the group channel. You can, for example, send drum tracks to it and compress them as all together. Or send a bass DI and amp signal to a group to EQ and compress the mix of the two signals. Or send all the vocals to EQ, compress, etc.. together.

It is not the same as compressing or EQing each track separately, you are mixing the signals from all the tracks you have sent to it and processing that mix.

Yes, you can send all the vocals to a group and use the aux send of the group to a reverb.

Once you add the group channels, you go to the mixer and up at the top, you will see the routing. The top one is where you select the input that you record in the track, the one underneath that is where the output of that track goes. It probably says 'main buss' or has the name of your interface... Click on it and select the group channel that you just added.

Now go to that group channel and open it up. Everything works the same way as the normal channels.

 

[benherron.rrr]

Perfect!!!!

Thankyou guys exactly what I wanted to achive! and a little more knowlage along the way