Group Channels

[xstatic]

Yeah, analog consoles dp have a finite number of busses. Mine only has 24 Luckily there is 10 aux sends to help relieve that burden.

 

[The Audio Cave]

You can't send a track to more than one group...

Okay, I'm confused.

Is this an LE limitation? In SX3 you can send the same track (pre or post fader) to up to 8 different groups, output channels, FX channels or any combination of the three. If you need more than 8...

Create a folder track. Put as many copies of it as you want in there (duplicate track menu item) and send to 8 more *anythings* for each instance/track. Collapse it when you finish.

Honestly, on any mixing board I've ever seen analog or digital, you can only *send* any single mixer ch up to the maximum amount of sends available on each mixer channel. You can't send 9 signals when you only have 8 sends. This is not a "routing problem", this is how mixers are built. If it had 12 sends per ch you'd be limited to sending a single channel to 12 *anywhere(s)* using the sends.

Same thing with inserts... you can't use an insert slot that doesn't exist. There's only so many *per channel*. So instead of calling it a routing problem (which it's not) petition Steiny for 16 sends per channel?

I would also submit that a routing matrix that allows duplicating a track's pre or post fader signal to just about anywhere else (like Reaper I guess), while being a great feature that I wish I had in Cubase, isn't really a send unless you have control over the amount and direction you're sending... i.e. level and pan control. At the bare minimum level control.

Well... actually ... technically it is... but not a very flexible one if you can't adjust the amount you're sending or pan across a stereo bus. Probably cool for addressing outboard hardware without burning up the internal sends and inserts though.

Or is there level and pan in the matrix? I haven't delved that deep into Reaper. Can you (for instance) build a cue mix to a group channel using the matrix seperate from the main mix and adjust levels and pan into the group? If you can then I'd certainly call those "conventional" sends.

Why would anyone want to send to more than 8 groups?

Actually I have no idea... but as I illustrated it's not hard to do.

There is at least one *real* limitation in Cubase routing. You can't send FX ch's to other FX ch's. No big deal I just use group ch's for FX busses.

Same exact thing but with more routing flexibility.

You can send a group to another group but only if it was created after that group, groups created earlier are unavailable. Another "limitation" designed to prevent circular routing as in Group1-> Group2 -> Group1.

People complain about it but it makes perfect sense to me. Those digital "feedback loops" would be horrible and might (??) damage your audio hardware?

It would take more intelligent software coding logic to say ... "You can send to a group created earlier but only if nothing in the group being sent is already contained in the group you're sending to.." Much harder to do and to control.

So when you say "You can't send a channel to multiple groups" that must be a LE/SE/SL limitation? I don't get it.

 

[xstatic]

I think you ahve misunderstood the original question. Channels in Cubase SX have 8 inserts and 8 sends. In addition however there is a direct output routing at the top of each channel. This is what the question concerns. How to route the output of a given channel to multiple busses but still have all 8 aux sends open.

Analog consoles are limited by their TOTAL amount of busses, and not just auxes or groups. For example... My console has 10 aux sends, a stereo out, 24 busses, a tape out, and an insert send. This means that each channel could technically be routed to 38 different outputs. This means I could route the channel to 27 different outputs that would all be at a level dedicated by the channel fader, 1 that was pre fade, and 10 that are switchable by the aux position so could be discreet mixes.

 

[NL5]

As Xstatic pointed out, I think "The Audio Cave" misunderstood the question.

I run a hybrid setup, and I wanted to be able to send tracks out of more than 1 output w/o using the FX channels (which is what I do know). There are many reasons for this, and I can easily do it on my little mixer, but I want to do it in software so I have 100% recall ability. Also, I know I can duplicate the channel. but that just wastes a bunch of resources that are in short supply already............

 

[xstatic]

Gunnar, technically, it should not really waste any resources duplicating except for screen real estate. I guess it would though if you were to want say the same compressor inserted on each channel that was being routed to the different groups. There are definately reasons that would come up as to why none of the tricks listed in here would not work very well, but there is almost always some sort of workaround

 

[NL5]

Gunnar, technically, it should not really waste any resources duplicating except for screen real estate. I guess it would though if you were to want say the same compressor inserted on each channel that was being routed to the different groups. There are definately reasons that would come up as to why none of the tricks listed in here would not work very well, but there is almost always some sort of workaround

The problem with duplicating the track is, I want most of the outputs to be post insert/fader, so I would have to duplicate all the plugs.

BTW - there are workarounds - I was just thinking that it should be a feature that would be in Cubase. I was really hoping that I was just missing something, but it appears that it is not an option at this point. No Biggie.

 

[The Audio Cave]

As Xstatic pointed out, I think "The Audio Cave" misunderstood the question. I run a hybrid setup, and I wanted to be able to send tracks out of more than 1 output w/o using the FX channels (which is what I do know). There are many reasons for this, and I can easily do it on my little mixer, but I want to do it in software so I have 100% recall ability. Also, I know I can duplicate the channel. but that just wastes a bunch of resources that are in short supply already............

Ah... when you said "send I thought you meant send bussing. You want to duplicate a pre or post signal from a track to multiple hardware outputs. Sorry for the misunderstanding and the long and wrong reply. I kinda felt like I missed something and now I know I did!

In the spirit of fellowship I'm going to launch Cubase and see if I can help you.
I'll be back later. (some minutes and some head-scratching later) Ok... I'm back. You have to use serial groups that cascade to your hardware outputs. Say what? Each track will burn one send and have available closed paths (that you open when you need them) to any output... a matrix.

Open (right click) this image in another browser... (I couldn't put a graphic in the post) http://theaudiocave.com/1.jpg

The fiirst track is obviously the audio track. The next track is a folder channel that contains 3 groups. The bass track has a pre-fader send at unity into the first group, the 1st group the same to the 2nd and the second to the 3rd.

Each send on each group is preset to unity gain and turned off. Notice all of the pre-fader buttons are lit also. Now in your daw (if you had 21 hardware outputs) you would assign each of those group sends in succession to a seperate hardware output on your hardware (saving the last send for sending to the next group) and name them... 1-7, 8-14 & 15-21.

In this graphic I'm not in the studio so I only have a single stereo output "ASI) Multimedia yada, yada...) In the studio I would assign each of those sends to a different ASIO output and name them (in the sends) 1-7 in group 1, 8-14 2 in group etc. through group 3.

Note: Do this without an audio file loaded in the session and save it as a template.

Now I can send that audio track to any or many or all of those 21 outputs and I only burned 1 send on my audio track. To send that audio track to hardware output 9, I go turn on the "power" button on the send named "9", which goes to output 9.

If you had a template with say, a folder which had 24 other folders in it and each folder had 4 groups in them... , You could have a 24X31 matrix where any of 24 tracks could go to any of 31 output (or multiple outputs by switching multiple "power" buttons on) on your hardware. Your template might have 24 mono audio tracks where each individual track is already set up with a pre-fader send to it's own individual 1st group and cascading.

If Cubase allowed copying and pasting or duplicating group channels this would be really easy, I built that one in about 2 minutes. But it doesn't so you have to manually build each one. Or you can build them as you need them. You'll need one "group matrix thing" for every audio channel if you want an "anything to anywhere" matrix. Grab a beer sit down and just build it. Then save the template... and make a copy and put it somewhere else.

Note: I wonder if afterwards you could use macros to open the paths (i.e...open output x on selected track) without even opening the folders? If so your matrix would be invisible on a single skinny track. Hmmm...

It can be done. I wish it had a matrix like Reaper's though.

If you try it let me know... and oh yeah... pull all of the group's faders down all the way and make sure they aren't assigned to any outputs "normally" at the top of the mixer or in the Inspector..

 

[The Audio Cave]

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.

It is. Steiny invented the idea some years ago with System Link. V-Stack is pretty cool.

 

[travelin travis]

It is. Steiny invented the idea some years ago with System Link. V-Stack is pretty cool.

I wonder if it's half assed like their audio routing?

 

[The Audio Cave]

I wonder if it's half assed like their audio routing?

Touche'

I have to admit that Cubase users are feeling the heat of the industry "cycle" a bit. They (Steinberg) sat back and watched users complain about PT and got the jump on them with some things like ADC. Cubase users gloated to PT users about ADC and some other stuff... and still do.

What goes around comes around... Reaper huh? That name has to be ... a message?

 

[NL5]

Wow Audio Cave!

I think my brain just fried, but I will try this and see how it works. Not sure if I understand it. I have never used "folder" tracks. I do have 52 Outputs, but some are dedicated to effects anyway, so it's more like 32 actual direct hardware out channels and 20 effects channels out. (These have hardware outs as well)

Cool.

 

[NL5]

Man, I am a dumbass.

I still don't understand what the heck a folder track is, but as I was trying to set it up, I noticed that I can DIRECTLY make a send go to any hardware output. And, I can have MORE than 8 send effects. DOH! Each channel can have only eight sends, but the different channels can have different sends. I am thinking like a hardware mixer, where the "sends" are all the same for all the channels. I had been setting up a fx channel with no fx, setting its output to a HW output, and using the send for that channel as a second HW out.

Problem completely solved!!!

 

[The Audio Cave]

I still don't understand what the heck a folder track is.

It's a container for other tracks. When projects start getting large I put similar items in folders (just drag a track or many tracks and once and release it "over" the folder) for instance all background tracks or all drum tracks. That way when you collapse it you have more screen space. You can even edit across tracks in a folder while the folder is collapsed, audio and midi, like cutting a section of 24-48-72 whatever tracks at once and moving the entire group of tracks or edits around ... all on one collapsed folder track.

You can even nest folders... folders inside of folders. If you have a very large project you can drag the track(s) out you want to edit and leave the rest in a single track sized folder... and still have plenty room on the screen for plugin windows and the mixer etc. Or a VSTI with 16 outputs like FL Studio, I put all of those channels in a folder track and collapse it until I need to write automation or render them or something.

... but as I was trying to set it up, I noticed that I can DIRECTLY make a send go to any hardware output. And, I can have MORE than 8 send effects.

Yeah... you can send and return to hardware devices. I thought you already knew that and that it still was limiting you in some way I couldn't really understand. With all the talk of a matrix I wanted to try to build one.

Each channel can have only eight sends, but the different channels can have different sends. I am thinking like a hardware mixer, where the "sends" are all the same for all the channels.

The sends can go to FX, Groups or hardware outputs and every ch's sends are independent from every other ch's 8 sends. You can even dedicate (SX only ? dunno) hardware outputs to external effects and do something that AFAIK only Cubase and Nuendo do... actually "ping" the hardware, and listen back on the return bus, to determine the round trip latency.

ADC for outboard hardware. Another native daw first for Steinberg along with track lanes (you do use lanes right?) , the actual VST standard itself, System Link and the list goes on and on. Which is why Yammie bought 'em.

How many other daws can open multiple projects at the same time? Not launch two different instances of the program, but have 2-3-4 projects loaded at once (like MS Word docs) and switch between them copying and pasting parts in the process? Pro Tools can't even do that.

Certainly not Reaper...

 

[NL5]

You can even dedicate (SX only ? dunno) hardware outputs to external effects and do something that AFAIK only Cubase and Nuendo do... actually "ping" the hardware, and listen back on the return bus, to determine the round trip latency.

ADC for outboard hardware. Another native daw first for Steinberg

This is why I have stuck with Cubase. I have most of my hardware comps/effects/etc as hardware "plugins". It's the shit!

along with track lanes (you do use lanes right?)

WTF are lanes???

I am really a dumbass......

 

[The Audio Cave]

No you're not. You just don't know the app yet.

Here's a graphic of a single track with multiple takes in lanes. The purple button in the picture opens/closes them. The audio on the bottom plays (when collapsed the one on top plays). To comp that track and get all the best parts playing across them you would...

1. Drag the mouse through them and select all the takes.
2. Get the scissors tool and clip, clip, clip, clip in-between the audio parts splitting all the takes at the same time in the same places in to multiple smaller parts.
3. Mouse-click away somewhere to de-select them.
4. Select the mute tool.

That takes about 15 seconds for a lead vocal chorus. Maybe a minute for a long verse.

5. Play the loop/song and start muting parts... ugh! mute that , yeah... that sounds good... color it red or blue or something so you remember it sounds good, mute it and listen to another.

When you mute a clip/segment on a lane the one just above it plays instead. You can go through all of the combinations if you want until you have the perfect "composite" track just by clicking parts on/off with the mouse. When you're done collapse it back to normal and you're done, and it looks like a single track, and all the parts of all the takes are still there on the track in case you decide you don't like one later.

This is one really cool thing about Cubase. When you "record over" something you really are recording physically "over" it in layers. It doesn't move to a playlist or a pool somewhere. The new part just lays on top of the last. You can have hundreds of takes and all of them will stay right there on the timeline.

Which is also why punching in is so easy. And another reason why Reaper (god bless it) still has a very long way to go before pro users will dump Cubase for it.

 

[NL5]

Ok, that I have done. I usually do it in the project window though because it's faster. But, when there are a lot of takes, and parts being taken from a lot of different takes, I use the "lanes" - didn't know that's what it was called.

Thanks again though for helping me see the light!