I propose to have a brief discussion on the following since it covers various subtleties on the consequences of certain routing choices one might make while introducing effects into your mix.

Suppose you have certain like instruments routed to a group channel for group processing such as compression etc.
Down the line you decide to apply reverb to these tracks as a send fx.
One option could be to use the individual sends from each track (not the one on the group track).
You set your reverb just right and then you notice you need to bring some of these instruments up or down in level.
The issue here is that if you move the individual channel faders so as to preserve the wet(reverb)/dry ratio, you would have to make corrections on the compressor inserted in the group track.
Alternatively, if you feel you could use the group channel fader to achieve the desired level, you´d be altering the reverb/dry ratio and you´d have to go to each individual send and correct for it.
A workaround could be to use the Group Channel Send for the reverb but then you wouldn´t be able to send pre fader in the case of tracks being too low in level in the mix. I suppose this last setup brings about other problems as well but they don´t come to mind right now.

I hope you can share your thoughts on this. I have a feeling these issues come with the job and what we have to learn is what setup is best for each situation. Nevertheless I think this topic will be helpful to more than one as these things have real impact on your mix. More than one would guess.
Anyway, thanks in advance.

I use Cubase 5 so I apologize if I use terms specific to it. It shouldn´t be hard to make the connection with the relevant terms on your own DAW though.

 

Check this out, I just watched it on the weekend:

Groove3.Ableton.Live.Tips.and.Tricks, the video named 'Utility Volume'.
I know it's for ableton live, but is this something like what you're after?

 

I don't know if I understand the problem in the right way but I would do this(I'm a reaper user):

Make 2 group channels. 1 with compression and 1 with reverb and put it on 100% wet.

Route all dry sounds to the compression channel and route those same dry sounds to the reverb channel.

Now you have all the control you want:

1. you can trim the individual levels
2. you can determine for each drysound how loud it is sent to the compressor channel
3. you can determine for each drysound how loud it is sent to the reverb channel

The only disadvantage is that the reverb is from the dry sounds, not the compressed sounds.

If you turn up a dry sound, you can turn down the slider to the send, not bringing the compression or reverb out of balance.

Because you put the reverb on 100% wet, you can determine with the channel fader how much reverb you want in your mix.

In reaper you have the choice to send the dry signal to the master. That way you would get parallel compression. (hearing all dry sounds, the compressed channel and the reverb channel).But you could also cut off that sound so you will only hear the 2 channels; the full compressed sound and the reverb sound.

In Reaper you can automate the volume of how loud you send a dry sound to a send channel. So you can, for instance send a kick louder in the compressor on the chorus and let it back off in the verse, or something like that.

Is this what you are looking for? Is it doable with Cubase 5?

 

Ozmosis, thanks. I´ll check it out and post here as soon as I can.

Manducator, thank you. Your way hadn´t occur to me. Sounds like another good routing choice. It´s definitely doable in Cubase 5.
You stated the advantages of this setup very clearly as well as the disadvantage of having the dry (no reverb) signal sent to the compressor. Which may not be what you want, depending on the situation.
I will point out other downsides off the top of my head as I did with other routing setups on my first post and see what we can come up with.

-Having 2 group tracks for the same set of instruments defeats the purpose if your setup is intended to reduce the number of tracks for easier stem mixing. If not, it makes perfect sense.
-If you had the chance to watch the Steinberg Dvds on Internal Mixing you should know about the "tracks inside folder routed to group channel inside same folder". The advantage of this setup is that if you use the individual channel sends for your send fx, then you could use the solo button on the folder track to listen to wet solos, and the solo button on the group channel to listen to dry solos. Very handy in some situations. I can´t see how this setup could be compatible with yours, Manducator.
- Also, remember that in many cases you are sending VARIOUS tracks to the group channels and these types of setups (as well as some I stated in my first post) can easily turn into a multi-parametric mess. What I mean by this is that you adjust one parameter of a channel or insert or send fx and you immediately have to correct for it in other channels/inserts/send levels/send fx etc.

For now I think my initial assumption is still valid. Every setup seems to serve its own purpose and we need to learn the advantages of every one. That´s why contributions such as manducator´s are great. Now we have at least 4 or 5 different valid setups. Unless someone comes up with a gold one that serves many purposes, is easy to mix, simple, elegant, and doesn´t turn into a multi-parametric thing...we are gonna have to live with all of the above.

I invite anyone to share their thoughts. This stuff doesn´t seem to be on books. At least not in a detailed way.

 

Ozmosis. I´ve watched the video. It has nothing to do with the issue I was talking about. The video covers automation and the best way to modify all automation already recorded. Thanks anyway.

What I´m trying to find out is: Is there a routing choice regarding effects and groups which serves best for most situations or do we have to accept the flaws of each and learn to choose which one will work in a particular situation?

 

It's more of a "personal workflow" thing than a "situational thing" for mixing. When talking about FX sends, the first thng that pops into my head is reverb. You gotta have reverb. I can only speak from tracking/mixing rock music, but reverb is an absolute must-have effect on many tracks. It's the "pan knob" for depth. I generally look at delays and reverb as the same category. And when I setup group bus/sends, I treat them as the same. The trick is keeping it organized and using a method that makes sense to you inside your DAW of choice.

I use Reaper - but it doesn't matter...folders and track groups are paramount in keeping your sanity in check. I recently watched Groove3's "Mixing Rock" tutorial and it's VERY solid stuff....but the way that cat has 10 bazillion sends going at once is crazy. I personally am very anal about how my tracks are laid out. There is a folder made for EVERY instrument group. And sometimes there are sub-folders under that. The two most complex groups for my music are always guitars and vocals. I'll use guitars as an example. I have a "master" guitar folder. Under that are FOUR more folders: Rhythm Left, Rhythm Right, Fills/Riffs, and Solos. I'll have multiple tracks under each of those. When it comes reverb time, I do what's best for the song (which is always the golden rule to follow). Do I want a master guitar reverb that effects ALL the guitar tracks? If I do, I setup a send/bus track next to the master guitar folder and send the whole guitar folder to it....and that way I have a master fader to control everything. If I want separately controlled reverb for specific groups (I usually do), then I create a separate reverb/delay track inside whatever folder I'm working with. So perhaps my rhythm guitars are using a separate reverb as the extra fills. The solo guitar(s) is always using something different as reverb defines depth....and solo's need to poke out the font and center just like lead vocals. So there's a good example as to why you need separate sends/bus tracks for different reverbs. Some folks like to have a folder for ALL their sends/buses - and that totally makes sense. I like to keep my sends/bus tracks inside the folders for the instrument using them. That makes the most sense for ME.

Another huge contender for getting it's own bus track is parallel compression (which I use constantly). I almost always use it with bass and vocals. And usually the kick gets some love there too. But my sends/buses tracks for such things still reside inside whatever folder that I'm easing the extra compression into. The biggest help for me is track icon usage. If it's a send/bus track, I use a big fat "BUS" icon for that track so I don't ever get it mixed up with the actual instrument when tweaking faders.

 

Nightmoore, thanks for taking the time to share your way of working. I agree with everything you said although it doesn´t have much impact in the resultant sound itself. I mean, it seems to me that the things you described have more to do with layout, housekeeping, etc. Which is fine, I too am very tidy in that way. But could you share your thoughts on the actual differences in the mix as a consequence of choosing this or that fx routing? If you need examples just read the above posts.

I´ll put foward a problem to start things off in the right direction. This is only one of the many different situations that could arise in mixing.

-You have your usual individual drums tracks (kick, snare, OH, etc)
-You decide to route them to a group channel in order to be able to treat as group and eventually adjust the level of the whole drum kit so as to mix by "stems" or whatever.
-Somewhere down the line you realize you need to compress the kick and bass together to make them sound as a unit.
-PROBLEM: You now need to route the kick track to a kick-bass group track and end up having the kick in 2 separate group tracks.
What if you applied processing to the drums group track? The kick in the group track gets processed one way while the unprocessed kick goes to the kick-bass group and gets processed another way.

I know these aren´t really "problems". I´d just like to know if there are better ways of doing these kinds of things.

 

Ahhh. I understand a little better what you're asking now.

Methinks you might be doing electronic/dance/hiphop maybe? I only say this because of the example you used there. I can only tell you what I would do....and like I said before, I'm 90% rock or pop/rock when it comes to song-crafting.

I'd personally never have the kick and my bass tracks mixed into the same bus. Well, besides my master buss (lol). I totally understand the whole "glue together" concept. And I quite often will run something like FabFilter's Pro-C (just barely kiss it) or Wave's Kramer Master Tape on my main stereo buss to achieve that very thing. I'm also digging Slate Digital's VCC plug for that sort of "glue". Sometimes I'll do it on my master drum folder to help it all gel better (as my kick is almost always parallel compressed....it tends to smash through anything). But in that specific example you made, you spoke of the two absolute toughest things to mix together. When it comes to bass and kick, I'd say 90% of the problems out there consist of getting them to separate and avoiding low-end "thump-mud" as opposed to getting them to blend or compress together.

Anyhow, I'm prob not the best person to give advice on that. All I can say is I can't think of any situations where I would ever need to treat the kick and bass as one unit (outside of rhythmical tweaks). I do believe that rock mixers are more concerned with the bass fundamental frequency in the 300 range (where you can still hear the actual note). I know with other types of music, the sub-150 area is a bigger deal for the energy and pure bass punch. And of course that area is dangerously close to the kick's fundamental core. I find most problems in the low end department are EQ related.

 

Ok. Very helpful tips from all of you on the cases exposed in particular although they were meant to be just examples. What about the big picture? How would one go about trying to avoid the multi-parametric thing I posted earlier where one fader movement brings about having to correct parameters on every plugin and fader in the send/inserts group/channels chain?

Keep it coming, soon we will get somewhere interesting.