Is "bus processing" a superfluous term

[BroKen_H]

Oh, I don't know. There was something incredibly straight-forward about using discrete pieces of equipment. You couldn't help but know exactly what's going on.

Even as a newb, it was pretty obvious how it all worked and why gain staging is important. Now that everything is in one magic box, there is nothing to help you visualize signal flow.

Pros and cons.
Love Reason for that very reason. I've got a trasport and an SSL 9000J in front of me to track. I've got the board and a rack for effects to mix. If I want to add an effect, I actually place it in a rack and wire it up. If I want to change the signal chain from Reverb>EQ>Compressor to Compressor>Reverb>EQ, I just rewire (literally unplug and replug on the back of the units). It just feels like hands on analog...without all the headaches.

 

[joey2000]

Mixing was when you played the multi-track tape through the mixer and outboard gear and recorded it onto a 2-track deck. Sometimes you would put compression and/or EQ on the mix buss to make the song work the way it should. The resulting 2-track stereo tape was the master.

Mastering was when you took the 2-track master and processed and transferred it to the lathe to cut the disc.

I think even then there was more to mastering, like lining up the songs to have a similar volume, working on the arrangement of the songs on the album, etc.

But I think I follow you: basically it sounds like when you're changing the songs themselves ("internally" if you will), that's mixing, even if you do them similarly all at once. If it's just volume adjustment or other things about the songs relative to each other, it's mastering. And of course there's the CD production/etc type stuff.

Although some definitions I found would disagree; as you say, it's become fuzzy due to changing technology.vv

Anyway, appreciate the replies; this has definitely helped (even though it will be largely moot for me).

 

[Farview]

But I think I follow you: basically it sounds like when you're changing the songs themselves ("internally" if you will), that's mixing, even if you do them similarly all at once. If it's just volume adjustment or other things about the songs relative to each other, it's mastering.

It would have been much easier if I would have said it like that...

 

[RFR]

When you put it into the historical context where the words derived from, it will make a little more sense.

Mixing was when you played the multi-track tape through the mixer and outboard gear and recorded it onto a 2-track deck. Sometimes you would put compression and/or EQ on the mix buss to make the song work the way it should. The resulting 2-track stereo tape was the master.

Mastering was when you took the 2-track master and processed and transferred it to the lathe to cut the disc.

Anything up to the point the song was deposited on the 2-track tape was mixing. Everything after that was the process of creating a production master, which is mastering.


Everyone is getting confused because both things can be done in the same box and at the same time. But it doesn't change what's happening.


BTW, this is the same general reason why newbs don't understand signal flow as easily as we used to when we actually had to physically plug on piece of equipment into the next.

In the old days, often the whole process was done by different people in different places.

One studio was used for tracking.

One studio was used for mixing.

And a mastering facility was used for mastering.

Different people wearing different hats, doing their own specialized function.

None were emotionally involved in the music as would be the solo home recordist trying to wear all hats himself.

Nowadays, with the immense computing power available, one may try to do it all.

It can get confusing.

 

[joey2000]

It would have been much easier if I would have said it like that...

lol

Holy crap you mean I'm right?

Appreciate the replies all!

 

[Chili]

None were emotionally involved in the music as would be the solo home recordist trying to wear all hats himself.

That, right there, says a lot. I'm not sure what exactly, but it says a lot. Honestly, I never quite looked at home recording in that light, but you are right. We are emotionally attached to our projects when most pro studios aren't.

 

[ido1957]

I hardly use aux sends anymore. I group vocals on one bus, guitars on another, bass tracks on a third, keys and pads on one or two, one for drums/percussion. Only reason I use aux sends is to, for example, apply a set reverb to all the instruments, but something different on the vocal.

Anyone ever use EQ on an aux? Something I've never seen a use for, but maybe there are real world applications I haven't considered...

Ya - if the stacked backup tracks get overly harsh in a certain area, or parallel compressed bass if I need to tame the lows a bit.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The problem with parallel eq is the phase interaction you'll get if both paths get mixed. FIR filters are the way to go there.

I hardly use submix buses anymore. Lately I've been doing all my eq and dynamics at the channel level. And I've been using one shared reverb accessed by aux sends.