Track FX vs. Bus FX -ACID Product Family - MAGIX Community Forums Archive

Subject:Track FX vs. Bus FX Posted by: spinweb Date:11/13/2004 5:35:30 AM What are the advantages/disadvantages of using track vs. bus effects? If I have 5 tracks that I want the same effects on, should I definitely use the effects at the bus level? Does is save on processer load? I have a 1.8GHz Pentium 4, but it's chugging hard. -Rick
Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX Reply by: pwppch Date:11/13/2004 5:59:55 AM My basic rules of thumb. Use track FX to fix/adjust/change things on a track that are unique to the track. (EQ, Amp distoritions, filters, etc.) Use Bus FX to fix/adjust things at the output stage of the bus. Limiting, compression, "wave hammering" Use Assignable FX to provide a 'common" FX to multiple tracks. Reverbs, choruses. Of course each project and mix is unique, but this is how I tend to approach a mix. More out of habit from my old days of not having the physical numer of FX available in hardware that we are all so spoiled with today as software plugins.) Peter
Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX Reply by: JohnnyRoy Date:11/13/2004 7:44:39 AM Those are great rules of thumb. To add to that, Assignable FX (otherwise referred to as Sends on a hardware console) allow you to control the amount of signal that is sent to the FX pre or post fader. This gives you greater control that Track FX (Inserts) and Buses don’t allow. ~jr
Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX Reply by: pwppch Date:11/13/2004 6:49:10 PM I will add one more - because I always assume too much. Each "send" can be either pre or post on a per track basis. This can lend some additional flexabilty when working envlopes on the tracks. An Assignable FX works best in a "wet" only set up. That is, don't let the the FX do any mixing between wet and dry processed sounds. Let the ACID mixer produce the "dry" portion and use the "return" aspect of the Assignable FX to "sweeten" the mix. You can then tweak the output mix of each assignable FX to include some dry or lower the wet portion. This is useful when you have a chain of FX set up on a single assignable FX. I like to mess with the placement of the output of an assignable FX with in the mix. This can really help to "unmuddy" a mix by locating the output of a verb. (I heard this called once "spotting the verb" by an engineering friend. I liked that there was a "name" to associate with this technique, though I know it is hardly unique.) I find it easier to avoid chains with assignable FX sends. We let you have upto 32 of them, so this gives you far greater control. However, the power of doing some real funky processing using chains is fun to play around with. Peter

Subject:Track FX vs. Bus FX

Posted by: spinweb

Date:11/13/2004 5:35:30 AM

What are the advantages/disadvantages of using track vs. bus effects?

If I have 5 tracks that I want the same effects on, should I definitely use
the effects at the bus level? Does is save on processer load?

I have a 1.8GHz Pentium 4, but it's chugging hard.

-Rick

Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX

Reply by: pwppch

Date:11/13/2004 5:59:55 AM

My basic rules of thumb.

Use track FX to fix/adjust/change things on a track that are unique to the track. (EQ, Amp distoritions, filters, etc.)
Use Bus FX to fix/adjust things at the output stage of the bus. Limiting, compression, "wave hammering"
Use Assignable FX to provide a 'common" FX to multiple tracks. Reverbs, choruses.

Of course each project and mix is unique, but this is how I tend to approach a mix. More out of habit from my old days of not having the physical numer of FX available in hardware that we are all so spoiled with today as software plugins.)

Peter

Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX

Reply by: JohnnyRoy

Date:11/13/2004 7:44:39 AM

Those are great rules of thumb. To add to that, Assignable FX (otherwise referred to as Sends on a hardware console) allow you to control the amount of signal that is sent to the FX pre or post fader. This gives you greater control that Track FX (Inserts) and Buses don’t allow.

~jr

Subject:RE: Track FX vs. Bus FX

Reply by: pwppch

Date:11/13/2004 6:49:10 PM

I will add one more - because I always assume too much.

Each "send" can be either pre or post on a per track basis. This can lend some additional flexabilty when working envlopes on the tracks.

An Assignable FX works best in a "wet" only set up. That is, don't let the the FX do any mixing between wet and dry processed sounds. Let the ACID mixer produce the "dry" portion and use the "return" aspect of the Assignable FX to "sweeten" the mix.

You can then tweak the output mix of each assignable FX to include some dry or lower the wet portion. This is useful when you have a chain of FX set up on a single assignable FX.

I like to mess with the placement of the output of an assignable FX with in the mix. This can really help to "unmuddy" a mix by locating the output of a verb. (I heard this called once "spotting the verb" by an engineering friend. I liked that there was a "name" to associate with this technique, though I know it is hardly unique.)

I find it easier to avoid chains with assignable FX sends. We let you have upto 32 of them, so this gives you far greater control. However, the power of doing some real funky processing using chains is fun to play around with.

Peter