Hi everybody

I'm an absolute begginer in mixing tasks, so i'm becoming mad trying to recreate this (see the video below) in Mixbus!
I'm trying to learn by myself through tuts, manuals and so on, but it's obvious that sometimes one needs some help from the Pros! *yes*

It doesn't matter what i do, i can't accomplish having a channel with the original signal (the bass in the video) and the distorted one (the distorted bass in the video) working independently in Mixbus as he does in the video. Finally i've learn how to do pre and post fader in Mixbus, but i don't know how to create an AUX ¿bus?. I've tried to send the bass to mixbus1 while keeping the master button activated in both (ie: track and mixbus1) thinking that this way i could have both signals at the same time, but the only thing i get is that if i low down mixbus1 fader the effect diminishes on the original signal (which i think is how it has to be), but if i low down the track fader then mixbus1 loses the signal from the track. I've tried also to create a new track and try to send the output from the bass track either as a send and insert to the new one, but surely i'm doing something wrong because i get the same results as with mixbus1 in the sense that if i low down the bass guitar track the new track loses signal (as i think it's also how it should be) .

So, my question is: is it posible at all to mimic what that guy is doing in the video with Pro Tools, but this time in Mixbus ?!. I guess the answer is yes, so the next question is ... How ?!
Oh yes! almost forget another question ... If someone could explain me also what's the usefulness of doing that in a real mix i would be eternally grateful to him/her too.
EDIT: Whoops, forget to say that i'm using Mixbus as a whole and not conected to another DAW as a mixer. Also don't worry to be so technical, if i don't understend something i'll ask.

So, as i've said above i'm an absolute beginner in mixing tasks but i want to learn, so i hope you'll be patient with me and you'll not send me to the hell with that newbie question! *no* (just joking)

Here's the video from "The Recording Revolution" channel in YouTube (BTW a great channel to follow):

Thanks for all!

 

Send you to hell for asking a question about music production? Not on my watch! I'm by no means a pro and I don't use Mixbus but I'd love to help you out. First let's dig into the theory: The purposes of an auxiliary track are many but let's start with the main ones:
1) To save computing resources
2) To allow you to have finer control by separating the effect from the original signal so you can do things such as eq a reverb return.
3) to allow you to create an environment for your mix by adjusting your settings only on one device instead of the 30 devices you would need to change if you were using it simply as an insert on each track. An example is having the same reverb settings for multiple instruments in the mix.

In order to apply an effect to each instrument in your mix you would have to use a device on the insert of every track which would obviously consume a ton of resources. Imagine if you had 30 tracks and wanted reverb on all of them. Without 1 aux channel and 1 reverb device on that channel you would need 30 effects (one on each track). Aux tracks solve this problem by providing a track that you can send part of your original channel signal to and therefore you only need 1 device. This also offers you finer control by separating the FX signal from the original channel that you are working on. Using reverb as an insert combines the effects into the original channel and you lose flexibility this way. To regain this flexibility you need to separate these processes so you can make fine adjustments to the effect yet leave the original signal untouched. What do I mean? Well for example if you wanted to eq just the reverb portion of the signal you would be unable to do this if you were using an insert unless the reverb had eq built in. Let me clarify in case you are confused: If you put the reverb as an insert on your bass track and put an eq after you would basically be eqing not only the reverb but also the original signal and this is undesirable. The original bass might sound perfect the way it is but what you really want to do is apply a filter to only the reverb. This is a common method if you would like to make it less noticeable since reverb becomes apparent or audible particularly in the high frequencies. Another good example is panning a reverb to the opposite side that a signal is coming from. If your original signal is panned left a little you might want the reverb to come from the right a little. Using reverb as an insert makes this impossible to accomplish but it's a small task for an aux channel where you can simply set the pan direction of only the effect.

Now I'll tell you how I do it in Cubase because it's really simply and it will be the same in all DAWs. I add an FX or group channel, let's stick with FX for clarity's sake in this example as this is the equivalent of an Aux track in other DAWs. Then I put a distortion plugin on my FX channel and simply create a send to my newly created FX track (done from the original bass track) and dial in my desired send amount. Make sure the distortion plugin is on 100% wet (which means 100% effected) in this scenario because you're not using it as an insert and you can control the send amount instead which accomplishes the same end result or in other words the how much of the effect you are mixing in. The more you send to the reverb the more reverb you get on that track. Hopefully this will help you but in case you have some questions or need further clarification please don't hesitate to ask.

 

the second answer was made by catalyst and i think its very clear.

to answer your 1st question here it is,



go to track tab and choose add track\bus, choose bus, setero or mono



right-click under the fade word in the new created bus in the mixer window and choose new insert

then




and to finish




sorry for the mess,
hope it helped

 

Me2audio
Perfect! I was just about to start taking screenshots of my mixing session in an effort to clarify. I don't have Mixbus installed and this will be more helpful to fraggle. You saved me some extra work so thank you for your clear illustration of setting up an aux send and routing a track to it. Perfect example of a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

@Catalyst

no problem anytime
well you save me some time as well on the the explanation and probably i couln´t explain it better than you *yes*.
good to see teamwork in audiosex

Perfect example of a picture is worth a thousand words.

true , if the picture is not manipulated for bad intentions, (out of topic, just theories )

 

Me2audio
Yes my friend teamwork is alive and kicking at AudioSex.
And LMAO on that last comment.

 

Thanks a lot for your quick answers mates!
Catalyst: I was just joking with regard to send me to the hell by such newbie question *yes* (i've added a clarification note in the original post already)
Me2Audio: Thanks a lot for taking your time capturing screenshots to make a very clear tutorial on how to setup a send channel in Mixbus.

Going back on topic: i've made already what you told me with succes, but i'm afraid that this is not exactly what he's doing in the video *no* .

After my post, i run Reaper and tried to do the same he's doing in the video in it ... and i get it to work like he does in Pro Tools (ie.: i'm able to lower down the fader in the drumloop track while still listening the same drumloop with a reverb in the AUX track, that makes possible to mix the two together at your own pleasure to get the sound you're looking for. So, to my limited understanding what he's doing in fact (and that's what i've done in Reaper too) is the following:

Code:

Original Track Signal----------> Channel Strip (Fader) ---------------->\
|                                              \                                
PRE-FADER                                           ---> Audio interface output.
|                                              /
|----> Aux Channel Strip with some effect --->/

So, to my limited understanding it is like you have two channels with the same input signal so they can process that signal independently and then you can mix both to get the result sound you're looking for. This is accomplished by sending the Bass track PRE-FADER to the Aux track (like in the diagram above). As i've said i've get it to work in Reaper, but i would like to do also the same in Mixbus. I know that post/pre fader in mix bus depends on where you put the send/insert in the channel strip: above or below the "---fader---" tag. But i'm unable to get it to work. So, sure i'm missing something based on my own non-experience, but perhaps some of you (Me2Audio?) know how to do it based on my explanations above

Thanks a lot again to both!
Now i'm going to continue experimenting with an eye watching the thread for any posible answer.

 

fraggle83
Not a problem fraggle, always glad to help. It seems to me that you're understanding the way the signal flows so that's going to work in your favor. I believe that you would be looking to set it up post fader so that as the original bass fader is pulled down so is the reverb. This would mimic how reverb works in the real world as when the source gets quieter so does the reverb and otherwise if you slide the fader down on the bass you would only hear the reverb. Once that's set I would check my send levels to ensure that this is properly set up and you're correctly sending signal to the aux track distortion device. Turning on the send is not enough because you also have to dial up the amount slider. Honestly if I were you I would use another DAW to learn on as Mixbus seems a little more complicated than you might need. I think Cubase or Studio One would be a better fit for you. I need to run out and get a few things at the store but I will investigate further when I get back to see if there is something I missed or something I could suggest. Maybe in the meantime Me2audio will figure out where you might have made a mistake as he actually uses Mixbus whereas I'm mainly utilizing Cubase and a little FL Studio.

 

You don't know me, but I LIKE A LOT the complicated things! (see if not [rascacio, rico88, and myself] quest to give a solution to the problem of AGM not working in Windows, in "our" sister web site). So if you don't mind i'll stay with Mixbus (i need also to repay my investment ). No, talking seriously i like a lot to learn new things, you know, and i've always thought that more complicated = more things you'll learn by own experience (which BTW is the best way to learn, through trial/error method - and let me say too, that i've always applied this philosophy to all aspects of life). Challenges are the fuel that allows me to understend more and more the life we all live ... or going back on topic, to learn how music is made while i still have not finished a complete track *no*. Also i've never considered this knowledge just for me alone, but especially to gift others when they are in need for it. If you look at the thread i've mentioned above, rascacio and rico88 where ready to give up any hope for the problem to be solved and wait for a new release, but i entered there, "took them" both with me, and joining our knowledge we eventually solved the problem. And that's the best joy one can get from life: solve a problem and learn a lot of things at the same time to be able to help others when they need it. And i'm pretty sure (for the things you write) that you think more or less the same. I'm i wrong ?! I don't think so! *no*

But, sorry for going out of topic, Mr. Moderator , this will never happen again!
Now i'm going to sleep because it's late at night here in SP (02:30am), and mind needs also some relax to be able to work at it's fullest when awake.
So, see you tomorrow

 

sorry fraggle83 , i didnt read properly

you are right, the way i explained is not what you asking for, so if you want a pre fader bus follow this,

i will use (names) bass for instrument, bass saturation for aux, and saturation for the pre send




then on the instrument track right-click on the instrument track (bass) and choose send



when the menu pops up make sure you click add



then rename (if you want) the send to saturation (it´s more easy to see it afterwards)



then



then






that should do it, :dancing:

Catalyst is right about DAW issue, in those DAW´s this type of thing (and other stuff) is straitfoward, but if you like complicated things is up to you

have fun
Make music

 

fraggle83
Absolutely man I'm the same way in life and learning. However to better illustrate my point let's take an example: if there are two textbooks before you and one is easier for you to understand and work with why would you take the textbook that is going to be that much harder? And in the end who knows if that harder textbook would teach you the topic better as it may just waste your time with understanding the particular way the author chose to explain the subject. In the end any DAW will get you to where you need to go but will you enjoy the ride? Plus this doesn't exactly equate to your analogy concerning solving problems since you will still be arriving at a solution you'll just be doing it in an application that works more intuitively. Remember the challenge is more about overcoming the issues that arise in music production than it is overcoming your DAW. I do understand though if you either bought the software or invested a lot of time in learning it because at that point you might as well continue. To me part of learning is finding the most efficient and practical way to assimilate information so you can move on and continue your thirst for knowledge in other areas. Music production is one of the most difficult endeavors you will undertake so why not give yourself a helping hand to limit frustrations because eventually you're going to get tired of researching every little thing that you're going to want to do. Trust me you'll have enough of that even with a DAW that works just like you do. Finally if I had one piece of advice for you in terms of progressing in music production it would be that finishing mixes is going to do more for you than reading up on every little thing during the process because as a beginner the learning curve is so steep with so many disparate subjects that you can read an encyclopedia and still not have the most important part which is real world experience and that extends to topics such as ear training as well. So get some mixes under your belt and continue your studies simultaneously or you will get caught in the worst of traps.

Me2audio
I'm actually surprised he wants a prefader send as most effects are usually done postfader unless you're doing something outside of the ordinary in terms of sound design.

 

you are right Catalyst,

i think the reason (or one of the reasons) he wants a pre fader send is because he can set the overall volume for the effect,

and then he can be tweaking the volume (or for automation purposes) of the instruments during the mix stage and the volume of the send will be unchanged,
it all depends on the workflow, tastes or the person mixing.

well , i dont know, i´m no good with words, i might start post pictures to express myself

 

Me2audio

 

Good morning guys!

Thanks a lot Me2Audio, the second try made the trick! I'd seen the "add" button already, but i didn't knew what was the real purpose of it, so i didn't even tried to click on it . Now i know that i can add an "AUX audio out" (am i using the words/concept right ?) to get an additional audio out from any track and route it whenever i want using pre or post-fader. Thanks a lot for the help to you both, you made my day! *yes*

So, the right procedure in Mixbus is:

01. Get a track already recorded
02. Create a send in it and assign a mono/stereo out(s) by clicking on the "add" button in the "creating bus" dialog box.
03. Make it pre-fader by moving the new send above the "---fader---" tag
04. Create a new stereo/mono bus track.
05. Edit the in(s) and assign them to the audio out(s) we've created in the step 02.
06. Now you can add whatever effect(s) on the bus track and mix it with the clean signal on the audio track, *intependently*.

Well, in fact there was no purpose at all besides trying to see if was able to do the same in Mixbus. Also, i didn't knew exactly what was the real use of it in a real mix session, hence my second intitial question (which BTW you have fully answered here (in the quote i mean)). Anyway, the real purpose (beside trying to mimic this in Mixbus) was also to learn something more about Mixbus through experimentation ... and i must say that this has been fully achieved thanks to your help (yours and Catalyst).

So, thanks a lot mates!

 

Simply put, because that's what i've made all my life, i don't know why *no* . On the other hand, let me say that i will took both, but i will start reading the "much harder" first, going back and forth to the "less harder" to clarify some concepts i could not understant in the "much harder" one. And if i didn't understand neither the "much" nor the "less" then i will look for someone that i could know he or she knows the topic quite well (as i've made it here).

With regard to that, personally i've never rejected anyone for their views, because i've always though that one can learn anything from anyone. What makes the difference, is the kind of mind you have. I'm not that kind of people that believe the first thing they see or listen. No, i'm a doubtful person by nature. So, as i've said above, i will look for someone phisically if i can't find what i'm looking for in the books, but that doesn't mean i believe him or her on anything he or she could say. That means that i will not stop from putting them a lot of questions up to the point that maybe they could come to realize their own contradictions about the knowledge they could have about the topic *yes* . On the other hand i've always thought that we can learn from anybody in the world, no matter what he/she says or do, because in fact the're teaching us the real person we are if we're able to listen to ourselves through them.

Of course i enjoy the ride, why not ?. I understand your approach, based on the productivity/practicability of it, but also in the time (or the learning courve) one needs to get the real thing out of it. And probably i would have this approach too if i were working in the record industry (now that things are going really fast and everybody wants to learn things really quick to get some quick profit out of it before it can be too late). But i'm not there, i'm merely a home user that enjoys tinkering with all that, that's all. I know it takes time to get used to working with Mixbus, and that it's not an easy one, but it's powerful and it's also as if you had the real thing at home (that's why i bought it now it's cheaper BTW). How i couldn't enjoy that ?.

I could agree with that, but again ... if i'm not mistaken, you're talking about the practicability/productivity of it. But now, let's say you have an experience with Cubase after all this years. Now do you remember the very first time you had to work with it (or any previous DAW/Tracker you could have previously used) ? Does it was intuitive then, or it has become intuitive over the years ?. If you had only Mixbus then and had learned to work with, how would you consider Cubase now ?. What i mean is that the so called "intuitiveness" is depending on many other things and not in itself alone (one thing is not intuitive by itself).

The thing here is that i've never get tired of researching, and when i finally give up some research is either because it has no solution at all or because i don't have enough knowledge to solve the problem nor i know someone to help me on that (though internet is a real valuble tool nowadays to get the help you need - if you know, of course, some other languages beside your mother language, mainly english).

Thanks a lot for the advice, but i'm afraid it will not work with me for the things i've said above "in between the lines" (if you know how to read them). In fact a "squared" learning has never worked with me, since i was in school at 5. Personally, i've been always against traditional ways of learning, with a teacher telling me "stop asking, this is like that! period!". I don't mean you're telling that here of course, so don't take it as an offense. It's only that at 5 i used to skip school at recess time just to go near the beach, to reflect about life while looking to the horizon *yes* . You don't need to say it, i know already i'm not a "normal" person!

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

BTW, have you watch the interview to Edward Snowden ?!

 

@ fraggle83

glad it worked for you

now you know that you can add a send and assign it´s output to a certain Aux\Bus to get an additional...

yes is correct, but step 2 should be more like:

02. Create a send in it and assign a mono/stereo out(s) by clicking on the "add" button in the "creating bus" dialog box.


keep experimenting, and if you come across another "wall", let me know and i will try to tell you how to climb it, or how to break it apart

 

@Me2audio

Thanks a lot for your help and correcting me with the right words to use when talking about that. I've fixed also the step 02. as you've suggested.
And again, thanks a lot too for your offering in helping me if i have some other "wall" with Mixbus.
Definetively there's a great comunity here!

 

Concerning the intuitiveness of one application over another I can say that though there are many complicated things about Cubase that I may not be aware of or that I haven't fully explored since day 1 it worked with me rather than against me which is why I thought it might work for you. I've also heard many good things about Studio One and some other DAWs that I have only breifly experimented with. I am actually just like you as I am just a hobbyist tinkering with sound in an effort to find knowledge, catharsis and connection. I actually haven't been doing this for that long when you compare to a lot of the amazing talent you will find here on the forums. I also am less than traditional when it comes to education as I am very much the same way you picture yourself. I've actually always shied away from school and am better doing my learning on my own though I can't discount the value of asking questions from more experienced musicians than I. It was my pleasure to provide assistance in your thirst for knowledge. I'm really glad that you have everything sorted now and I'd like to also thank Me2audio for all his excellent help. Finally yes I did hear about Edward Snowden as I have been reporting on it here at AudioSex since the news broke in an effort to make sure everyone sees this most important of stories. In the process I discovered the extraordinary strength and hope of the wonderful folks here at AudioSex which was a truly uplifting experience on this darkest of days. Until next time fraggle

 

thanks for the nice words guys, i will see you around *yes*