Subject:Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Posted by: pHuNzOnE

Date:7/9/2009 9:06:22 PM

I thought I had my head around this, then I went out and confused myself.

Other than the fact that an 'Assignable FX Bus' can receive from a Synth bus, is there any practical advantage to using one over a 'regular' Bus if you are just sending from audio tracks?

I searched and all I found was this:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=1&MessageID=642768

That's why I thought it was maybe only necessary for Synth Bus sends ... and what it did with audio tracks was just redundant to what you can do with a 'regular' Bus ... since you can already control the amount of send from the 'Universal Slider' in the track channel.

Or ... is there some 'wet/ dry' mix mystery I'm overlooking?

Thanks ...

pHuN

Subject:RE: Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:7/10/2009 7:12:52 PM

bump

Somebody?

or ...

C'mon, SonyPCH, you must have some short take on this? Not looking for a dissertation, just a quick pointer.

pHuN

Subject:RE: Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Reply by: pwppch

Date:7/11/2009 9:26:43 AM

Sure, I always like to help out newbies get an understanding of basic mixing principles and concepts. It is a typically point of confusion for guys new to audio and mixing like you. I know many a self proclaimed audio gurus that didn't understand these basic concepts, so don't feel bad about not being able get your head around it.

ACID (and Vegas) model a typical small format console (I orginally modeled it after a Mackie 8 bus I had.)

You use an Assignable FX bus - or a send/return pair - so that you can affect mutlple tracks/stems/synths consistently.

The point is you don't have to add the same reverb or chorus to every track or bus. You set up a Assignable FX busses and then send all tracks/busses/sysnths you want to be affected.

Typically the FX you place on the assignable FX bus is producing only wet ouput.

Your tracks and busses should be set up for "post" fader behavior. That way changes to the gain of the track bus are reflected on the "send". The typical application of a pre fader send is to create a headphone mix.

Google Send Bus, Aux Send, Audio Mixer, etc . You will find loads of introductory type information on basic mixing techniques and signal flow.

It is worth while reading and you will probably learn things you never knew you didn't know and clear up some really bad assumptions that begineers like you tend to make.

There is a lot more detail on what can be done and how the virtual plug-in has changed some of this. Feel free to ask more questions. I am sure that the more experianced users here will be chiming in to help you learn the ins and outs of sends and stem mixes.

Peter

Subject:RE: Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:7/11/2009 12:14:33 PM

TY Peter ... but I think you missed my point. I'm no pro, but I'm not as much of a 'newby' as you imply.

Since prior to AP 7 'Assignable FX Bus' did not exist on the Acid platform I always set up sends by using the prior 'Bus' type, what I referred to as 'Regular Bus' in my post.

Then I would use the 'Universal Slider' in my track channels to send to the bus where my fx was instantiated.

That's why I asked the question here about the specifics of the new to AP7 'Assignable FX Bus' vs. the prior and continuing 'Regular Bus' in AP7.

As far as I can tell the only difference is that the 'Assignable FX Bus' accepts sends from the Synth channels ... something you couldn't do before. And I guess it makes the sends more transparent/ convenient than having to dig for the 'Universal Slider.'

As far as the audio sends, I don't see any functional difference.

As I said before, I'm not looking for a dissertation ... which you nearly graciously provided.

Just: what (besides receive Synth sends) can the new 'Assignable FX Bus' do that the old 'Regular Bus' couldn't/ can't?

As a side note, I have always felt that the Acid help menu was the best of any DAW as far as how comprehensive it was. That's why I was a little surprised to be unable to find any discussion of 'Bus' vs. 'Assignable FX Bus' when I searched.

Thanks.

pHuN

PS Al Gore may have invented the internet, but I invented googling. ;)

Subject:RE: Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Reply by: pwppch

Date:7/11/2009 12:57:01 PM

As I said before, I'm not looking for a dissertation ... which you nearly graciously provided.

I tried to be brief, but you are missing a lot here, so I can only be as limited in my explnation as the topic requires.

Since prior to AP 7 'Assignable FX Bus' did not exist on the Acid platform I always set up sends by using the prior 'Bus' type, what I referred to as 'Regular Bus' in my post.

Assignable FX Busses are not new. They have been in ACID since 3.0. What ACID Pro 7 added was the ability to send from a bus - Sub Bus, Synth Bus, and the new Input Bus.

The inability to send from a synth bus and sub bus (particularly a stem mix) in previous versions was a very bad limitation that we corrected. We recieved many loud and long complaints about this.

Their purpose is the same as it has always been: A dedicated FX send/return that permits tracks/stems mixes/softsynths to be processed consistently. They also provide a level of mix control.

(FWIW: You can now set up a send/return pair with external hardware FX using the A sub bus routed to hardware and an input bus.)

Yes, you could achieve this with a sub bus. The main difference between a sub bus as a send and the Assignable FX Bus is that the later has an input gain control This is important so you can easily tweak the over all input to the FX chain with out having to adjust the gain of each "sender" to the FX bus.

Also note that by default the Send from a Track to a Sub Bus is PRE fader. The Send from a Track/Bus/Synth to a FX Bus is POST fader. This is important because typically you want the "send" to an FX to follow the gain (and envelopes) of the sender.

As I stated before, the main purpose of sending to a Sub bus is to set up a Cue/Headphone mix for Busses routed directly to hardware. In this case you would want the ability to do a head phone mix that is what the 'talent' wants rather than what the main mix sounds like.

Note also there is a way to permit the pan of the sender to be included or ignored. This can be very important depending on how you want to mix.

Of course this is all dependent on what you want to accomplish in your mix.

I will bring your suggestion on a help topic of the difference between a sub bus and FX bus to our doc team.

Peter

Subject:RE: Assignable FX vs. 'regular' Bus

Reply by: pHuNzOnE

Date:7/11/2009 4:24:07 PM

Peter ...

Thank you for your succinct and comprehensive response.

Best regards.

pHuN