Bus Vs. FX Rack??

[ClarkKent]

Whats the difference of mixing/adding effects through a bus or through the effects rack?
Is there any advantage or disadvantage?
Might be a dumb/noob question but I've always just used the fx rack in multitrack view.
The thing that makes me ask is I always see people saying "make sure you send it through a bus", "you gotta send it through a bus" or "if its not through a bus youre not doing it right".

 

[jimmys69]

Using a bus, you have better control. Not familiar with your program but I assume they all work similarly. With an insert (effects rack), you are placing the effect directly inline with the original signal. With a bus you can control how much of that effect is added. Plus you can send other tracks to that bus (effect) therefore saving CPU usage by not using an instance of the effect on each track. Things like parallel compression or eq are only possible this way as well.

 

[ClarkKent]

Using a bus, you have better control. Not familiar with your program but I assume they all work similarly. With an insert (effects rack), you are placing the effect directly inline with the original signal. With a bus you can control how much of that effect is added. Plus you can send other tracks to that bus (effect) therefore saving CPU usage by not using an instance of the effect on each track. Things like parallel compression or eq are only possible this way as well.

Ah, I see. And I was talking about in Audition.
So basically theres not a serious difference, just one is a bit more convenient?

 

[jimmys69]

No actually, this is a huge difference. Your effect can then be effected, eq'd, panned, sent to another bus, automated, turned into pizza, etc. Your best bet is to try it and see why.

 

[dobro]

Whats the difference of mixing/adding effects through a bus or through the effects rack?
Is there any advantage or disadvantage?
Might be a dumb/noob question but I've always just used the fx rack in multitrack view.
The thing that makes me ask is I always see people saying "make sure you send it through a bus", "you gotta send it through a bus" or "if its not through a bus youre not doing it right".

I put an EQ on just about every track in Multitrack, because it doesn't impinge on computer resources much, plus I WANT that kind of control on each track.

But if there are a number of tracks with the same effect applied (for instance, reverb on backing vocals), I'll send them to a bus and put the effect just on the bus - it saves resources, especially important with something like reverb.

That thing you quoted about 'if you're not sending it through a bus you're not doing it right' is bullshit. Do whatever you need to get the sound you want plus making sure your machine doesn't choke. If that means putting the effect on the track, then do that. If that means sending the track to a bus and putting the effect on the bus, do that.

 

[dobro]

Using a bus, you have better control.

Not really. Not always. You have more control when you put a parametric, for instance, on each track instead of putting it on a bus. You can EQ each track individually that way.

Not familiar with your program but I assume they all work similarly.

OP's posting in the Cool Edit/Audition forum. Think he might be using Audition or Cool Edit?

With a bus you can control how much of that effect is added.

You can control how much of the effect is added without using a bus, too.

Plus you can send other tracks to that bus (effect) therefore saving CPU usage by not using an instance of the effect on each track.

Yup.

 

[jimmys69]

Ok? I was just trying to give some advise to the guy. Sorry I stepped on a forum that I shouldn't have involved myself with. God forbid, I will never try to help someone with different software ever again.

In Cubase, there is an parametric already on every channel so I was not even speaking of such. So there is where I completely steered this guy in the wrong direction huh?

You can control how much of the effect is added as an insert yes. I said that you can have more control over the effect by using a bus. He asked why people said bullshit like 'if you're not sending it through a bus you're not doing it right'. I was only giving him the info as to why an arrogant prick might say such a thing. There is no best or right way. That is why I said 'try it and see why'.

Sorry if I struck a bad note with you for trying to help a new guy out by expressing my unbiased opinion in hopes that he will gain some insight and learn further from my comments.

I learned my lesson now. Thanks.

Jimmy

 

[dobro]

I'm not even a moderator, even though it says I am, so don't be so damn tender. I agreed with some of what you said. I disagreed with the part that I thought would mislead the guy asking the question. Simple.

 

[Bobbsy]

Frankly, the biggest difference is that with a bus you can add the same effect to a group of tracks at the same time. For example, if you want to add reverb to four backing singers, route them to a bus then add the reverb once. This results in a lighter processor overhead than running four separate instances of the same effect.

A pointed out, it can also be a convenient way of changing the wet/dry mix or panning of an effect (though there tend to be other ways to achieve this in an effects rack situation.

If you're used to using hardware mixers, think of the effects rack as an insert and the bus system like auxes--not exactly the same but near enough.

Bob

 

[jimmys69]

I'm not even a moderator, even though it says I am, so don't be so damn tender. I agreed with some of what you said. I disagreed with the part that I thought would mislead the guy asking the question. Simple.

I was just in a 'smart ass' mood. It's all good.