When your DAW doesn't have an aux channel capability...

Twiddler

Twiddler

of the Nurgulated Plupper.
Something you can do with an aux channel is to take the same sound and treat it differently to the main signal, than blend the two differently treated signals back together again to make something like fairy dust, or unicorn vomit, depending on your preference.

Apart from making a copy of the audio channel and fiddling around with very delicately balanced things until you feel a need to run into the forest to scream, is there some cool way to make a pseudo-aux channel that will do the same thing?

I'm running Cubase SX3 version 5 or 6 from about 2005, I think. It's in the studio, not here. :)

All thoughts read with great interest.
 
Yes, thanks! I've been doing that and sometimes it works ok. Wondering if there's something cunning that somebody does that I don't know yet. Always worth an ask! :)
 
Why are you using a 20 year old daw when you can just download reaper?

Anyway, what you can do is set up an effects send on the channel. The effects buss that you have to set up is really the same thing as an aux buss. Assign the output of the effects buss to the same place that the original track goes.
 
Well, SX3 was fine, vbut things have moved on and something like Cubase Artist is soooooo much better. I'm a Cubase user, always have been and there is no point swapping to something that means 15-20 years of shortcuts and experience needs to be thrown away. However - I'm totally stuck for what you are trying to do here? I can't remember if SX3 has the features I think it has, but the advice to simply duplicate the track is by far the simplest way to do it, and does not have, from memory any issues - but you do need to make sure that if it asks you to reuse or use a new version of the audio file, you select new, so whatever you do to the audio does not update both. I think SX did this, but you've missed so many great possibilities I think you're making music with one ear and one hand tied behind your back. SX was pioneering at the time with audio AND MIDI, but it's a total dinosaur now and I'm amazed it runs on modern windows - you are, aren't you?

Duplicate the track, make sure the audio file is a new version, if it is NOT, then simply export that one track twice with two different file names, and reload both as new tracks, then mute the old one - then you have two perfectly synced identical tracks to apply your ancient tools to.

Seriously - the current version 12 has so much, the price is great value for what you get and most of your old processes will still make sense. SX3 was great, but I was using this in college, and many of the students now have grown up kids of their own. SX3 is not good, and for how long will it work before something makes it unusable? Not long?
 
grimtraveller said:
Maybe he likes it, is comfortable with it and doesn't want to use anything else.
After all, he is acquainted with the Nurgulated Plupper. 🤜🏾 👶🏾 🤛🏾
Click to expand...
I get it, and I'm not trying to be elitist, but the problem is directly related to the fact that he is using software that is old enough to graduate high school.

The best answer to the problem is to update, especially now that there are so many low cost and free alternatives that have all the functionality that is expected.
 
... I agree, but Cubase users on old versions would need to start again with new software, the same software but a current version is much, much simpler, because you don't need to start from scratch - and if he's lasted this long on Cubase, I'm guessing he likes how it works!
 
Having been a cubase/nuendo user since the early 2000s, coming current would be just like starting over anyway. There were some major changes along the way.

I get what you are saying and I did give the work around.

I'm just grouchy because I've spent every day for the last two weeks being "tech support" for a few people who have purposely kept themselves 20 years behind. Now, they want to connect to a rent a car with android auto and use waze. Not really knowing how to use the smart phone, or a car with a touch screen and, being scared of tech, having said 'no' to every permission on their phone that has popped up in the last 6 years they've owned it.

I might be a little sensitive to people having problems that haven't existed in more than a decade...

My apologies.
 
Farview said:
Why are you using a 20 year old daw when you can just download reaper?

Anyway, what you can do is set up an effects send on the channel. The effects buss that you have to set up is really the same thing as an aux buss. Assign the output of the effects buss to the same place that the original track goes.
Click to expand...
Well, there's a very long story there, the one-paragraph version of which is here: https://homerecording.com/bbs/threa...i-want-to-hear-your-story.338786/post-4671609 - but the short answer is "if it works, don't fix it"!

I like the idea of making an fx channel. Not tried that. I tend to duplicate and treat differently and blend the two together. An empty fx channel sounds feasible. Thanks! :)
 
Farview said:
Having been a cubase/nuendo user since the early 2000s, coming current would be just like starting over anyway. There were some major changes along the way.

I get what you are saying and I did give the work around.

I'm just grouchy because I've spent every day for the last two weeks being "tech support" for a few people who have purposely kept themselves 20 years behind. Now, they want to connect to a rent a car with android auto and use waze. Not really knowing how to use the smart phone, or a car with a touch screen and, being scared of tech, having said 'no' to every permission on their phone that has popped up in the last 6 years they've owned it.

I might be a little sensitive to people having problems that haven't existed in more than a decade...

My apologies.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. It's kind of surprising that a user of software that far back is not still stuck in the tape realm. I mean, isn't that usually the hangup/desire to match? If one moves to the software version of recording, it seems that wanting newer technology in software would be the incitement, not something that hold it back.

I really almost want to buy Twiddler Cubase Artist 12 just so he can see if he likes it. Is there a demo of Cubase? I haven't had reason to pay attention to that.
 
Twiddler said:
Well, there's a very long story there, the one-paragraph version of which is here: https://homerecording.com/bbs/threa...i-want-to-hear-your-story.338786/post-4671609 - but the short answer is "if it works, don't fix it"!

I like the idea of making an fx channel. Not tried that. I tend to duplicate and treat differently and blend the two together. An empty fx channel sounds feasible. Thanks! :)
Click to expand...
Right! I get that man. But you will likely be surprised at how much more streamlined Cubase has become. Yeah, it might take you few hours to get used to it, but you will have tons of help via here and elsewhere to make that super easy. Just a thought...

Oh, and welcome to the forum! 8-)
(y)
 
rob aylestone said:
Well, SX3 was fine, vbut things have moved on and something like Cubase Artist is soooooo much better. I'm a Cubase user, always have been and there is no point swapping to something that means 15-20 years of shortcuts and experience needs to be thrown away. However - I'm totally stuck for what you are trying to do here? I can't remember if SX3 has the features I think it has, but the advice to simply duplicate the track is by far the simplest way to do it, and does not have, from memory any issues - but you do need to make sure that if it asks you to reuse or use a new version of the audio file, you select new, so whatever you do to the audio does not update both. I think SX did this, but you've missed so many great possibilities I think you're making music with one ear and one hand tied behind your back. SX was pioneering at the time with audio AND MIDI, but it's a total dinosaur now and I'm amazed it runs on modern windows - you are, aren't you?

Duplicate the track, make sure the audio file is a new version, if it is NOT, then simply export that one track twice with two different file names, and reload both as new tracks, then mute the old one - then you have two perfectly synced identical tracks to apply your ancient tools to.

Seriously - the current version 12 has so much, the price is great value for what you get and most of your old processes will still make sense. SX3 was great, but I was using this in college, and many of the students now have grown up kids of their own. SX3 is not good, and for how long will it work before something makes it unusable? Not long?
Click to expand...
Lol! Thanks very much for your answer, and yes, your memory of SX3 is very good as that's the way I roll when this needs to be done. It's not such a big deal as I can usually find a way around most things, I merely wondered if anybody here had any cunning strategies that I hadn't tried.

It's true that I'd love to upgrade the whole system completely someday, but what with family and life and so on, a new bells and whistles DAW is a fair way down the list of priorities to be honest, especially when the system I already have is mostly working just fine.

It's pretty Heath Robinsonian with a number of diverse elements that don't seem to like each other very much. It runs on XP, which is the last decent/reliable version of Windows, although I would have to say that 11 seems to be pretty trouble free so far. The main studio computer is completely isolated from the internet by design. If there is anything needed for upload or download, a memory stick works wonders.
 
grimtraveller said:
Maybe he likes it, is comfortable with it and doesn't want to use anything else.
After all, he is acquainted with the Nurgulated Plupper. 🤜🏾 👶🏾 🤛🏾
Click to expand...
Loool! Thanks very much! As it happens, I do quite like it, I'm well used to it by now and my plupper is indeed profoundly nurgulated. Ask my daughter. She knows.
 
rob aylestone said:
... I agree, but Cubase users on old versions would need to start again with new software, the same software but a current version is much, much simpler, because you don't need to start from scratch - and if he's lasted this long on Cubase, I'm guessing he likes how it works!
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks again. As previously mentioned I don't have the resources just now for the latest Cubase. I'll need a newer computer and a new OS and the full works really. Maybe someday I'll get an upgrade, but for now, the system must remain, however bonkers that may seem.

Started out on Cubase v. 2.01 on the Atari 1040ST. "Best computer game ever written!" is how I used to describe it in the early 90s.
 
jimmys69 said:
Right! I get that man. But you will likely be surprised at how much more streamlined Cubase has become. Yeah, it might take you few hours to get used to it, but you will have tons of help via here and elsewhere to make that super easy. Just a thought...

Oh, and welcome to the forum! 8-)
(y)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I really appreciate it!

I've had this version of Cubase since rebuilding the studio in 2008. Funnily enough, in the old studio we had a TSR-8 and I still have the reels we recorded back then, although I don't have such a machine now and goodness knows if one will ever turn up.

Life takes all kinds of twists and turns and it's certainly never dull. I just try to keep the beat going for as long as I can in between the madness. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top