Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

question about buses

Feb 23, 2012 8:21 PM

I'm using parallel compression these days, and I've got some questions about different ways of doing it in Audition.

 

* The first way is to clone the vocal (for instance) to a second clip on a second track and compress the hell out of it and adjust levels to taste.  It works fine, but there are two disadvantages.  First, if I want it EQ'ed the same way as the main vocal track, I have to run another parametric on the second track and that draws on computer resources.  Another disadvantage is that if I adjust the level of the main vocal, I also have to then tweak the level of the compressed track.  It would be nice if I could somehow lock the levels of the two tracks so that if I adjusted one, the other automatically followed suit.  Is that doable in Audition?  I think not, right?

 

* The second way is to send the vocal track to a bus and compress the hell out of it.  The problem here is that if I turn down the level of the vocal track, there's less compression happening on the bus, so it changes the sound.  To keep the same amount of gnarly compression on the bus sound, I'd have to tweak the threshold.

 

Okay, is there a way to do what I want to do that I haven't thought of?  I want to be able to adjust the level of the vocal and have the same relative amount of compression on the parallel track/effect.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2012 10:42 PM   in reply to therealdobro

    Try using an Aux send to the bus and make it pre fade.  This will stop fader changes on the main track affecting what is sent to the bus.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 24, 2012 4:26 AM   in reply to Bob Howes

    Or you could use a second bus for the direct signal and mix the compressed/uncompressed using the bus faders.

     

    P.S. I couldn't find the Pre/Post switch on the Send channel until I expanded the Track header a bit.

     

    Message was edited by: ryclark

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2012 1:40 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    It's a different approach which might have some advantage since it gives you overall control of your track level with the channel fader but allows you to balance the relative levels of the parallel paths using the bus faders.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2012 1:09 PM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    Okay, here's an issue.  (I'm working in Audition 3, right now, so I'll have to try this out in 5.5 later to see if the same thing is happening.)  After I rigged a pre-fader send on the bass track to a bus with a compressor on it, the bass track is audible when I'm soloing other tracks.  This shouldn't be happening, right?  I tried the same thing in another session in Audition 3 and got the same results.  The only way I can hear just the solo'ed track is if I click the send power switch on the bass track.  This shouldn't be happening, right?

    Why not? If you send a pre-fader signal to another buss, and the mute is applied at the fader stage for that signal channel, as per normal, then if the bus isn't muted, any signal sent to it from anywhere will still be audible - unless you mute the bus you sent it to as well. Sounds to me like you don't have much experience of real mixers...

     

    Just to make it a bit easier for you, have a look at the channel block in this Roland mixer which should make it a little clearer. This is an absolutely standard layout from a monitoring point of view.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 3, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to SteveG(AudioMasters)

    Steve your link seems to have gained itself an extra "http://" at the end. So it doesn't work unless you remove it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 12:41 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    As you've discovered, pre fade auxes also tend to be "pre the on off switch" as modelled after hardware mixers.  For many/most applications this is desireable.

     

    For example, a main use of pre fade auxes in live work is to feed on stage monitors.  Often you don't want these to lose sound even if you solo a different channel in your headphones to check a mic problem or something .  In situations where you MUST silence whatever the pre fade aux is feeding, you just have to mute the output--for example, on a show I recently did, there was a fade to silence I had to perform live and it was necessary to fade the monitors on stage too or the audience would still hear music from there even if the FOH was silence...I just pulled down the monitor output at the same time I was fading the FOH.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 2:08 AM   in reply to ryclark

    ryclark wrote:

     

    Steve your link seems to have gained itself an extra "http://" at the end. So it doesn't work unless you remove it.

     

    Yeah, my bad editing - sorry. But absolute shame on Adobe for making it so damned difficult to do this at all. Why can't they simply have two boxes in the 'insert link' field, one for the link and another for a sensible name for it?????????????

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 2:07 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    I always thought that when you solo'ed a track, that it automatically muted everything else.  In this case...no.

     

    Er, no. There are two basic soloing models, and in Audition you can choose the one you want to use in preferences. The original default model (which is crap) says that every time you hit a solo button, you hear that channel, but if you hit another solo button it doesn't cancel that, but adds the second one to the solo feed. This used to happen on cheap mixers where the solo buttons weren't physically linked and they didn't use an electronic sub-control system. In practice, not actually a lot of use.

     

    After a lot of complaining (most of it from me, I think) the other 'professional' model was adopted. In this one, 'solo' does exactly what it says on the tin - it solos whatever you hit, and that's all. This is the equivalent of hitting every appropriate mute button on every other channel. And if you change what you solo, it cancels the previous solo setting - which as far as I'm concerned is exactly what should happen.

     

    After struggling with all of this for a long time, Audition's mixers now pretty much conform to what a real mixer does. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is as it should be.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 2:13 AM   in reply to SteveG(AudioMasters)

    Aw, c'mon Steve....you don't think Adobe could provide features available in pretty much every other modern piece of forum software, do you? 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 2:22 AM   in reply to Bob Howes

    If the product developers behaved the same way that the website developers do, Adobe wouldn't exist.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 4:37 AM   in reply to SteveG(AudioMasters)

    Another Muting scenario that was a necessity on hardware mixers was that if you muted one channel amongst several that had reverb applied via a common bus you would want the reverb tail to continue for the muted channel rather than be cut dead. Therefore bus muting is usually kept independant from Solo or Channel Mute.

     

    Then on larger hardware mixers you would often have PFL (PreFade Listen) and Solo In Place options available to you. Audition's Solo is now more equivalent to the Solo in Place option.

     

    This may help:

     

    http://www.thedawstudio.com/Tips/Solo-Button.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 1:40 PM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    So...ahem...what about the option for a similar choice regarding pre-fade soloing, whereby you could select pre-fade solo with or without busses being muted?  I know, I know...this isn't the way a real mixing board works.  But why not build options into the software that allow the user to have Audition act like a real mixing board, or as a virtual mixing board with other capacities?  If you can make it do exactly what you want it to do, that's a good thing, right?

    No it's not a good thing at all. The whole point is that people used to real desks can transition easily between them and Audition without having a whole load of hassle.

     

    So, if you wanted to add a Solo-safe option, that would be fine, because they exist on real desks - but you'd want it to remain working the way everybody thinks it does, otherwise instant confusion could result. What you wouldn't want to do is put options onto solo or mute buttons that didn't exist in the real world - very simple, and plain common sense really.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 2:15 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    Okay, I thought you'd say that.  But (and there are two 'buts' to this) software mixing *is* my real world, so if I have an option to do something the way I want, then that's good.  For me at least. 

    Fortunately, if just one person wants to do something strange and non-standard, it doesn't matter very much. If you don't get loads of other people clamouring for the same thing, it'is because in the real real world, it isn't a lot of use. And adding a load of strange facilities just because it's possible to do them leaves the options settings cluttered up with a load of stuff that could potentially confuse users - quite unnecessarily.

     

    And here's the second 'but': if Audition's default setting mimic traditional mixing desks, where's the harm in offering alternatives that extend the range of the software's capabilities?

    Already explained that. But I'd add that pro users aren't going to be particularly impressed with a load of strange facilities that nobody's found the need for before either. What we want is software that does what's required without being cluttered up with extraneous junk, and is accordingly easy to use. Adding functions which say more about a users' inabilty to construct a mix adequately than adding anything of practical value isn't the way to go, especially when there's still a backlog of more useful functions to add...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 10:14 PM   in reply to therealdobro

    Well, the prioritisation of the developers time is certainly a major issue from what I know.

     

    However, there's a fine line between building in flexibility to suit a range of users and building in a level of complexity that might become confusing to people who expect things to function in a certain way.

     

    In this case, I wouldn't worry about a mute button not killing a pre fade aux send because that's simply the way I expect it to work.  If it DID mute a pre fade aux, I might have a few moments of head scratching until I remembered an option tucked somewhere on a menu.  However, if I really need to hear just the original track soloed I can always mute the bus I'm feeding with the aux send anyway.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 2:16 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    I read reviews of software plugins in SOS magazine for instance, where the (pro) reviewer praises a plugin for successfully emulating a well-know piece of hardware and also for going beyond the capacity of the hardware and adding new and useful functionality that the original didn't have. 

     

    Okay, show me a single example anywhere of a software reviewer saying that about a software-based mixer... and Bob's POV is quite correct.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • SteveG(AudioMasters)
    5,602 posts
    Oct 26, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 2:50 AM   in reply to therealdobro

    therealdobro wrote:

     

    But if I ever come across anything like that, I promise to resurrect this thread with a link or quote.

    The reason that you find additions made to plugins is that there's no operating standard for them in the first place - they are all conceptually different. But I'm reasonably confident that my POV on what you add or don't add to mixers is also the one that the rest of the world adopts - simply because there are commonly accepted standards, and it's common sense to stick to them.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points