Group Channels

[zed32]

Yes, I wish Cubase did this task more efficiently, but it is possible none the less so lets not pretend that Reaper is all of a sudden better for having this option. It just does this same specific task in a slightly more efficient manner.

and is there a problem with doing something more efficiently?

 

[NL5]

If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you do where you need to route the same audio to more than 8 groups?

You can only send the audio to ONE group. I assume you are referring to using the aux fx tracks, which is what I do now, but most of those are used for verb's, delays, and other fx.

Like I said originally, it's not something I can't work around, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something - especially since every mixer I have ever owned had atleast 8 group channels - I would think a software mixer would do the same.

 

[JoeNovice]

Just curious.... Why would you want to send to multi groups anyway?

 

[xstatic]

and is there a problem with doing something more efficiently?

Absoultely there is nothing wrong with doing something more efficiently. I just wanted to point out that it is basically the same in that sense and that it is not a feature that Reaper offers that can not be done in Cubase. Realistically, the same thing can be done in Cubase with just a couple of extra seconds of use. I am all for more efficent though

 

[zed32]

Just curious.... Why would you want to send to multi groups anyway?

because that's how the man works!

maybe he has different groups for different types of effects, or different placements within the mix, or different volume envelopes, or different panning evelopes, or different blah blah woopty woop.

either way, i'm sure he has his reasons.

 

[rnms]

I'm not sure if this will work for what you want, but KVR Audio has a free plug-in called Senderella that helps overcome some of the routing issues in Cubase. I haven't tried it, but it was mentioned in Sound on Sound recently.

Here is the link: http://www.kvraudio.com/news/2685.html

Senderella is a great little plugin and does increase internal routing considerably.

 

[VSpaceBoy]

You only have 8 sends, that is the problem. It is normally enough to do it that way, but I want to be able to route more channels. I can do it on the console, but I was hoping Cubase could do it.

Why not route one of the sends to a group, then just use up all of the sends in that group, to OTHER groups?

 

[NL5]

Why not route one of the sends to a group, then just use up all of the sends in that group, to OTHER groups?

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure that I follow you. There are only 8 sends. The sends in the group channels would be the same sends in the regular track channels, wouldn't they?

 

[VSpaceBoy]

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure that I follow you. There are only 8 sends. The sends in the group channels would be the same sends in the regular track channels, wouldn't they?

Wow.. some things seem to be tough for me to type out and make sense. I just sat here and typed up this long shpeel on how I route my drums to read it back and scratch my head.

Anyhow, just experiment with the routing. You can only buss one track (or group) to a single group at a time. But you can use the sends over and over again to successive groups.

 

[xstatic]

I think what he is suggesting is to duplicate the track you need more than 8 routing possibilities for. Use the first of those two to route to your typical aux (FX) sends. Use the second track (duplicated one) to route to all of your typical bussing areas by assigning the aux sends in post fade mode to your different audio groups. You could even take this one step further by stereo linking the channel faders so for mix purposes you only have to grab one fader. It would be like having all of those features by enabling a second inspector window (actually 2 seperate tracks though). Or thinking of it as a channel with 2 EQ's, 2 master outs, 16 inserts, and 16 aux sends

 

[travelin travis]

after you get tired of trying to find a work around for cubase's lack of routing capabilities, fire up reaper. you can use rearoute (in reaper) to send audio back and forth to other applications (cubase). or you could just ditch cubase.

when you want a new bus in reaper, just create a new track and click the i/o button of each new track to assign the inputs and outputs or just use the routing matrix. you can rename your sound interfaces ins/outs. i renamed mine to.............IN 1, IN 2,........OUT 1, OUT 2, etc.

 

[timthetortoise]

Man, I just got into Reaper and hadn't even seen the Rearoute thing. That'll definitely help out next time I'm mixing. Thanks

 

[travelin travis]

yea, just wait until reaper has the networking thing worked out. using a separate pc as an effects processor or sound module sounds like a killer idea.

and i can't wait for reabrain, so that i can route my thoughts straight to pc.

 

[timthetortoise]

Yeah, the VST link in Cubase is pretty useful. I'd like to be able to do it without having to have a soundcard with S/PDIF support though. If Justin implemented it like parallel processing systems, where it's all done across 802.x, that'd be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Have a cluster sitting in the closet and just the main system out in public. Hell, I could have 3 enterprise-grade servers doing the processing over gigabit ethernet and then have a little 300MHz machine doing all the front-end drawing and impress the shit out of people (now if only I could afford those servers...). Still, Reaper has already taken the place of Cubase (odd, because Cubase took almost a year to get streamlined into my system). Bye-bye Steinberg!

 

[vaultstudio]

I've spent a lot of time recording and I honestly can't think of a situation where I needed to send the same track to multiple group channels.

I'd like to know what it is he's trying to do too... there's plenty of experienced Cubase users on here that may know an alternative...

because that's how the man works!

maybe he has different groups for different types of effects, or different placements within the mix, or different volume envelopes, or different panning evelopes, or different blah blah woopty woop.

either way, i'm sure he has his reasons.

 

[NL5]

I've spent a lot of time recording and I honestly can't think of a situation where I needed to send the same track to multiple group channels.

Yep, I can't figure out why EVERY console and mixer I have ever seen has the ability to send a channel to any or all of the group channels. Seems like they could save a TON of money on switches don't ya think? (btw - there is almost 800 of those switches on my little console )

As far as what I need to do that for - there are many reasons - the biggest being parallel compression. I like to compress the OH's, and I like to NUKE the room tracks. The problem is, that takes up two aux fx tracks, leaving me with only 6. Which, is usually how many I use, but sometimes I'd like to have more available. I use the aux tracks on the console now, but I thought since EVERY mixer I have ever seen can send channels to any or all of the groups, you would think Cubase would do that as well.

 

[JoeNovice]

I thought since EVERY mixer I have ever seen can send channels to any or all of the groups, you would think Cubase would do that as well.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong....


I don't think that analog boards are made to send one channel to multi-groups. It is possible only because you need the option to send a channel to one of the groups.

In other words....


It's not meant to send a channel to multi groups. The ability to do so it only a result of designing the flexibility to send one channel to one of many groups.


There are other ways to obtain compression without aux or grouping, like inserts for the OH.

Not saying you shouldn't do it your way. Man if it works then go for it. I just stating that I've never heard or read of that technique.

 

[NL5]

There are other ways to obtain compression without aux or grouping, like inserts for the OH.

Please explain how you do parallel compression using inserts on a channel.

 

[JoeNovice]

For analog you use a half-normaled patchbay and bring the return in on another channel.

For digital you duplicate the track and add a compressor as an insert on the duplicate.

Then balance the levels.

 

[vaultstudio]

You're not getting an argument from me on analog consoles... no question about it... It's just why you'd want to do it "in the box" when there's alternatives. If you're talking two overheads/room mics, why not just duplicate the tracks and squash the duplicates?

Not trying to stick up for Cubase, but an analog console does have a finite number of group channels. If you told me Cubase was being changed to only allow a fixed number of group channels, I'd probably be pissed. If Mackie said I could have a mixer with a virtually unlimited number of group channels, I probably couldn't afford it. Not trying to be confrontational, it's just that over the past 6+ years I've been working "in the box" I can't seem to think of a time when I said "I need to route this track to multiple groups".

Yep, I can't figure out why EVERY console and mixer I have ever seen has the ability to send a channel to any or all of the group channels. Seems like they could save a TON of money on switches don't ya think? (btw - there is almost 800 of those switches on my little console )