It would make alot more sense if the FX channels had audio inputs with monitor auto activated. Just like the Aux channels in ProTools. Then they could be used for external effects.
And then again there are specific features for that in Cubase SX 3.
/Majken
Cubase What's the difference between FX and Group?
-
- KVRian
- 1023 posts since 8 Apr, 2003 from Östersund
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
-
- KVRAF
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Well the FX channels aren't useless anymore if you use FX chains. For example: Gated Reverb (Reverb -> Gate), Delay which is distorted and then compressed (Delay -> Distortion -> Compression). This wasn't possible before Cubase SX, where you only had one FX module for a send available (unless you used a multi FX module, which were rare).
The main difference between FX and Group is:
- Groups are for "grouping" single channels together for better mixing.
- FX channels are your send channels.
And the difference between using a Group channel as a send and the FX channel (which is the send).
- The group channels are usually not routed by the "send bus" but the "routing" options on top of the channel strip.
- The effects you use in the group channel are INSERTS, which means, the sound will be "put through" rather than "added" (like a Send usually does).
Sends are awesome to save up a lot of CPU power, especially if you use the same FX over and over. They're also better to control if you want to add different amount of (most classic usage i.e.) Reverb or delay. If you use them as inserts, you have to tweak a lot if the volume fluctuates, but with sends, the ammount of the sended signal (pre-fade for example) is always the same.
Not to mention that an FX channel has an advantage over Group Channels: it works with mono and stereo signal (if the FX bus is Stereo). If you want to use mono FX on a stereo group channel, only one channel is affected (the left one, you can try that with SimulAnalog Guitar Suite for example). With Sends, no problem (but guitar amps are usually a nono - unless you want to distort the FX chain).
You see - sends (FX channels) have a reason to be in Cubase.
The main difference between FX and Group is:
- Groups are for "grouping" single channels together for better mixing.
- FX channels are your send channels.
And the difference between using a Group channel as a send and the FX channel (which is the send).
- The group channels are usually not routed by the "send bus" but the "routing" options on top of the channel strip.
- The effects you use in the group channel are INSERTS, which means, the sound will be "put through" rather than "added" (like a Send usually does).
Sends are awesome to save up a lot of CPU power, especially if you use the same FX over and over. They're also better to control if you want to add different amount of (most classic usage i.e.) Reverb or delay. If you use them as inserts, you have to tweak a lot if the volume fluctuates, but with sends, the ammount of the sended signal (pre-fade for example) is always the same.
Not to mention that an FX channel has an advantage over Group Channels: it works with mono and stereo signal (if the FX bus is Stereo). If you want to use mono FX on a stereo group channel, only one channel is affected (the left one, you can try that with SimulAnalog Guitar Suite for example). With Sends, no problem (but guitar amps are usually a nono - unless you want to distort the FX chain).
You see - sends (FX channels) have a reason to be in Cubase.
-
- KVRer
- 19 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
wIt seems like Steinberg needs to make up their mind on this issue. Since you can't send the output to anything but a PHYSICAL bus, once you use one, you'r limited to the output. If Groups can double as FX Channels, then simpler is better, no need to add things for redundancy right?
Cheers
-
- KVRAF
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I'm perfectly fine with that - coming from mixing with analog equipment only, I can relate to the system. It's simple, it works.
Think about it if Steinberg would cut off the Send bus (or the FX bus in that case). What about those who used that bus actually? Maybe you don't need this bus, but others sure appreciate those functions. And I'm one of them.
Think about it if Steinberg would cut off the Send bus (or the FX bus in that case). What about those who used that bus actually? Maybe you don't need this bus, but others sure appreciate those functions. And I'm one of them.
-
- KVRer
- 19 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
But what differences do you see, other than the 'e' button differences? With FX, you can only route to physical busses, and Group Channels are exactly the same, except you can route to other Group Channels
Cheers
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
That's how I see it. Personally, I like FX Channels (because of the "e" thing), but you should be able to re-order and route them at will, I think.sumpm wrote:But what differences do you see, other than the 'e' button differences? With FX, you can only route to physical busses, and Group Channels are exactly the same, except you can route to other Group Channels
-
- KVRAF
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Didn't I say it?
- Group Busses in Stereo mode can't use MONO plugins at all
- Group Busses are for "grouping" (combining) several channels into one bus for better mixing
- Group Channels weren't made for "sends" unless you want to do some "creative engineering/mixing".
The "send functions" can work as ultimate routing tool. You can send from regular channels (VSTi/Audio), from Group Channels, from Send channels (ammounts) to a certain bus (either add the FX to an audio channel, or create double/tripple routings from one audio channel to 2 different group channels, etc).
Did you even read the manual? Do you even grasp the potential of what Cubase is capable of? Did you even use an analog mixer to understand the purpose of "Groups" and "Sends"?
If not, no wonder that you ask "can't that be simplyfied" or "why not remove the FX bus".
If you're happy with your "Group FX" routing, fine. I won't say anything against it. But don't scream for simplicity or "throwing something out", if this is an essential, not to mention logical feature since the old days of mixing.
EDIT:
That post was mainly aimed at sumpm.
- Group Busses in Stereo mode can't use MONO plugins at all
- Group Busses are for "grouping" (combining) several channels into one bus for better mixing
- Group Channels weren't made for "sends" unless you want to do some "creative engineering/mixing".
The "send functions" can work as ultimate routing tool. You can send from regular channels (VSTi/Audio), from Group Channels, from Send channels (ammounts) to a certain bus (either add the FX to an audio channel, or create double/tripple routings from one audio channel to 2 different group channels, etc).
Did you even read the manual? Do you even grasp the potential of what Cubase is capable of? Did you even use an analog mixer to understand the purpose of "Groups" and "Sends"?
If not, no wonder that you ask "can't that be simplyfied" or "why not remove the FX bus".
If you're happy with your "Group FX" routing, fine. I won't say anything against it. But don't scream for simplicity or "throwing something out", if this is an essential, not to mention logical feature since the old days of mixing.
EDIT:
That post was mainly aimed at sumpm.
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
-
- KVRAF
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Sorry for being harsh, but I just can't understand why cropping off an essential function if it has a reason to be there. It's not like "mixing" is a new thing, or "send busses" are totally new and not needed at all.
This system comes from years of audio/mixing technology. Okay, some routing is limited - but for a reason - and that's for years, even though Cubase added functions, that're not that "simple" to realise with hardware or other sequencers. Like I said, if you can work with Group Channels only, that's perfectly fine. But I need my sends with my FX busses (and I appreciated the option to make chains in that bus, to create new sounds for "sends" - in the hardware world, that's difficult to realise).
And I use the group channels for "grouping" instrument sections (drums for example, strings, vocals), then adding a compressor, or additional EQ, do low-pass sweeps, etc - I can automate the Group Channel rather than touching the individual faders. I can also turn off the VSTi/audio channels in Cubase and have a way better overview of my setup.
This all has it's reasons - which was the main message of my posts. No stab towards you.
This system comes from years of audio/mixing technology. Okay, some routing is limited - but for a reason - and that's for years, even though Cubase added functions, that're not that "simple" to realise with hardware or other sequencers. Like I said, if you can work with Group Channels only, that's perfectly fine. But I need my sends with my FX busses (and I appreciated the option to make chains in that bus, to create new sounds for "sends" - in the hardware world, that's difficult to realise).
And I use the group channels for "grouping" instrument sections (drums for example, strings, vocals), then adding a compressor, or additional EQ, do low-pass sweeps, etc - I can automate the Group Channel rather than touching the individual faders. I can also turn off the VSTi/audio channels in Cubase and have a way better overview of my setup.
This all has it's reasons - which was the main message of my posts. No stab towards you.
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Hey man, I'm just saying it was getting pretty rough and you know someone's gonna take it personal in a "host" thread. I do appreciate the Cubase-love though. 
Boy. Hosts. Never can quite get them right.
Boy. Hosts. Never can quite get them right.
-
- KVRer
- 19 posts since 29 Oct, 2003
@Compyfox
I've never read the manual, only pieces that I had to lol. I'm not trying to invade your world. It just seemed that the Groups doubled as FX Channels; even in the send section. So I wouldn't suggest that the send feature be removed. It just seemed the 2 were nearly identical, and it still does, minus the names.
I am not extremely familiar with hardware systems, and I am unsure of what you mean by the chains in the send. Obviously Group Channels are useful for Grouping...hmm. But since they DOUBLE as sends, even if they weren't intended to be, they work exactly the same.
Believe me, I'm not trying to argue, nor do I want to flame. I could really care less if the features change, I was just commenting.
I do see the benefit when using "mono FX", although haven't encountered (not knowingly) such animals, and seems a limitation of Groups.
P.S. Please don't ask me if "I grasp the power of Cubase." Come on, behold the mighty...... I promise, I won't ask you "to fathom my libido." just havin fun
I've never read the manual, only pieces that I had to lol. I'm not trying to invade your world. It just seemed that the Groups doubled as FX Channels; even in the send section. So I wouldn't suggest that the send feature be removed. It just seemed the 2 were nearly identical, and it still does, minus the names.
I am not extremely familiar with hardware systems, and I am unsure of what you mean by the chains in the send. Obviously Group Channels are useful for Grouping...hmm. But since they DOUBLE as sends, even if they weren't intended to be, they work exactly the same.
Believe me, I'm not trying to argue, nor do I want to flame. I could really care less if the features change, I was just commenting.
I do see the benefit when using "mono FX", although haven't encountered (not knowingly) such animals, and seems a limitation of Groups.
P.S. Please don't ask me if "I grasp the power of Cubase." Come on, behold the mighty...... I promise, I won't ask you "to fathom my libido." just havin fun
Cheers
-
- KVRian
- 1023 posts since 8 Apr, 2003 from Östersund
Compyfox: I'm sorry but you're wrong. Your right about groups and sends being basic mixing tools and how they're normally used. However, in Cubase the two are almost identical.
There used to be a difference back when a send rack was used in Cubase SX1. However now that they're actual mixer channels the Groups can be used the very same way as FX channels. Both handle mono, stereo and surround settings. Both can be assigned as sends.
The only real reason I see for using an FX channel is that groups can always send to FX channels cause they're later in the signal flow. If you use groups as FX sends you could end up with drumkit groups that can't send to the reverb because it's earlier in the signal flow.
bduffy: What I mean is that the FX channels should have a proper input which could be selected from the soundcard inputs. That way you could use sends to a soundcards output and then connect hardware effects to that, which is then routed back through one of the soundcards inputs. Select this as the input of the FX channel and you'd have a standard FX hardware send.
If I remember correctly this is how it works in ProTools. Which is rather handy compared to creating an audio channel as the effect input and remembering to place it in monitor mode to actually hear the signal.
But like I said, with Cubase SX3 there's a special function for External FX bus'es.
/Majken
There used to be a difference back when a send rack was used in Cubase SX1. However now that they're actual mixer channels the Groups can be used the very same way as FX channels. Both handle mono, stereo and surround settings. Both can be assigned as sends.
The only real reason I see for using an FX channel is that groups can always send to FX channels cause they're later in the signal flow. If you use groups as FX sends you could end up with drumkit groups that can't send to the reverb because it's earlier in the signal flow.
bduffy: What I mean is that the FX channels should have a proper input which could be selected from the soundcard inputs. That way you could use sends to a soundcards output and then connect hardware effects to that, which is then routed back through one of the soundcards inputs. Select this as the input of the FX channel and you'd have a standard FX hardware send.
If I remember correctly this is how it works in ProTools. Which is rather handy compared to creating an audio channel as the effect input and remembering to place it in monitor mode to actually hear the signal.
But like I said, with Cubase SX3 there's a special function for External FX bus'es.
/Majken
-
- KVRAF
- 14740 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Pardon me, but I don't get this part at all. You can't send a drumkit to Reverb, but with Groups it does? There's a big bug in your rant. So please elaborate more on that - convince me that the FX busses are useless now.Majken wrote:The only real reason I see for using an FX channel is that groups can always send to FX channels cause they're later in the signal flow. If you use groups as FX sends you could end up with drumkit groups that can't send to the reverb because it's earlier in the signal flow.
Also... try to put the SimulAnalog Guitar Suite (the Marshall Amp) into a Stereo Slot or a Surround slot. Then you'll see if "mono plugins" work flawlessly with SX3.
Speaking as someone who mixed on a hardware basis, I still say, FX busses have a reason to be there. Okay they have a volume fader now (which is kinda useless), however Groups don't fill the FX channel (send) gap.
And regarding that "routing" thing. Cubase could always route wildly. From audio channels via routing at the top, plus Sends to certain group channels, send channels, and back. That was even enhances with the SX series. Cubase is not limited at all in that term.
But whatever floats your boat and works best for you. For me it does how it should be (Inserts, Groups, Sends - like a real mixer).