Going to buy Tracktion... few questions

[klangbastler]

http://pro.magix.com/en/independence/in ... .1013.html

download this free version of the independence sampleworkstation and the free library at the bottom of the same page. the quality is amazing for a free tool.

you need to program some midifiles to make it play.
i don't know if the free version of melodyne that comes with tracktion, has the option to generate a midifile. maybe check that.
then you could play the bassline on your guitar, make melodyne generate a midifile from it and use that. it will have more groove and dynamic compared to a mousemade midi.

[chico.co.uk]

This is worth getting, if you've not already. It's free, but 64 bit only, so will only run in the 64 bit version of Tracktion.

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/sampletank3free/

[thomasross20]

Is there an up-to-date Tracktion guide?
I'm reading this nice concise Mackie one:

http://www.mackie.com/de/products/track ... _ch06.html

What is the difference between a sub-mix and aux send/returns - both output several tracks to another in order to process so I don't see the difference.

[frankvg]

With a submix you route several tracks (so the complete output) to one track (usually for further processing or be able to control volume in one go). With aux send you send only a certain amount of the signal to another track.

So for instance when using a reverb on a mixbus it will need lots of dry signal. For an aux reverb one would set it to only wet and control the amount with the aux send.

[thomasross20]

OK so have I got this right....

Sub-mix:
For every track selected, the WHOLE TRACK is pushed to the new channel open-loop (no feeding back). And this is after all filters on each of these tracks. Any FX applied are the same for every track re-routed to this new channel.

Aux send/return:
This acts like an FX loop - each track can re-route to this new channel via the aux-send and re-routed back to the source track via the aux-return. Each track can have a DIFFERENT amount of FX applied by adjusting the aux-send level. Does this simply fed to the new channel a fraction of the dry signal?

I'm confused about where the aux-send and return filters need to be relative to the volume/FX filters.

Anyway you give the aux-send filter (on this new channel) a bus name and re-direct all aux-send filters to it. Then somehow it knows how to return to the original track (I'm not sure how). It has to return because you might have further FX to go through before each track reaches its stereo output?


I think I understand the example at the bottom of that page I posted.... they have two aux-sends in series. The one on the left (singer) has reverb applied and then... I assume this goes through the one on the right so reverb voice is added to the dry track and the singer can listen to this on a new channel?
BUT I though the whole point was that the signal was fed back.
Does the reverb voice not feed back to the dry voice track and make it have reverb for all to hear??


HOLD on..... have I made an incorrect assumption? The Mackie page mentioned creating an FX loop when talking about aux-send and returns... but now I think there is NO return to the original track. It is again open-loop sending to some new track. Is that right?? But if so, how do you apply TWO different FX to each track - if 2 new channels, how do they combine?
My head is really hurting now!

Is the FX applied in parallel with the dry signal... or if it only goes to aux return then do we never hear the original track again?

Or maybe... the signals aren't fed back, simply played in parallel with the originals. Does this mean if I reverb on this new aux-return track and after the aux-send on the ORIGINAL track I have chorus.... reverb will NOT be applied to the input of the chorus?

Any track sent to the reverb aux-return track will have the SAME reverb parameters applied... it's only the amount of dry signal fed through that differs...? Not much difference from the sub-mix then..?

[klangbastler]

Is the FX applied in parallel with the dry signal... or if it only goes to aux return then do we never hear the original track again?

yes, the return track is applied in parallel to the original track signal. the track itself stays untouched and outputs as before.

[klangbastler]

Or maybe... the signals aren't fed back, simply played in parallel with the originals. Does this mean if I reverb on this new aux-return track and after the aux-send on the ORIGINAL track I have chorus.... reverb will NOT be applied to the input of the chorus?

yes.
there is only a "send" happening to the returntrack (that's the track where the return" instance sits and receives the sendsignals).
nothing returns to the original track from there.
you would have to place the chorus on the returntrack behind the reverb, to make the reverbsignal be processed with it.

keep in mind, that on returntracks with reverbs, the reverb is normally set to full wet, so you only have the pure reverb there. the "direct" signal without verb is handled through the track.

most of the time the aux send is placed behind the trackvolume (postfader), so when you change the volume of the track, the direct to reverberant balance stays the same.
otherwise you would have to change the reverb volume (via send or the reverbtrack itself) all the time, when changing track volumes while mixing. now imagine you send from numerous tracks at the same time, which is pretty common while mixing ...

[klangbastler]

Any track sent to the reverb aux-return track will have the SAME reverb parameters applied... it's only the amount of dry signal fed through that differs...?

yes

Not much difference from the sub-mix then..?

totally different concepts!

the submix track is in serial order "behind" the tracks and sums them all together. all effects happening on the tracks are applied and then the signal is fed into the bus.

the return track is in parallel to the original track and receives different amounts of signals from the tracks that send to it. where the send sits in the effectschain of the track, specifies at which point in the chain the signal gets branched off and is sent to the returntrack.
this is very flexible and opens a lot of possibilities on how to apply effects in a mix scenario.

before you were speaking of an effectsloop on the track itself:
digital effects where a processed signal needs to be mixed with the dry unprocessed one have this "loop" built in. you always have a dry path that can be mixed with the processed part of the signal.
so they just need to be inserted in the track.
when you want to have a series of effects in an effectsloop on a track itself, then you have "racks" in tracktion, a unique feature.
it allows you to do all sorts of routing with virtual cables, to build your effectschain. parrallel or serial as you want, even three or four parallel chains if you need that (be careful with levels ).

[pough]

HOLD on..... have I made an incorrect assumption? The Mackie page mentioned creating an FX loop when talking about aux-send and returns... but now I think there is NO return to the original track. It is again open-loop sending to some new track. Is that right?? But if so, how do you apply TWO different FX to each track - if 2 new channels, how do they combine?
My head is really hurting now!

It's not a loop from the perspective of the track. It's a loop from the perspective of a (hardware) mixer. Output from the mixer > through effects -> back into mixer. It comes back to a different point on the mixer, though - the effect return channel. That's how you can, for example, share reverb with any number of unrelated tracks.

So the drum kit pieces in a drum sub-mix might all share a compressor and EQ, but you could use a send to feed a bit of just the cowbell to the same reverb that the vocalist also sends to.

[thomasross20]

OK, got it!

So these are 3 powerful things (rack filters, send/aux return, sub-mix)... When I worked with T2 before I only ever used filters on each track separately.

In your experience, which of these do you use the most?

[klangbastler]

depends on the task, but i'd say i use submix busses the most.
i mostly mix recordings of acoustic instruments, often multiple microphones for single instruments.
with submixbusses i keep things organized and develop groups and a hierarchy of level adjusting, to work towards a balanced mix. this also incorporates eq and compression/limiting on tracks and submixes.

most of the time i have 1 - 3 aux returntracks additionally, to get the room/reverbsound i need/want for the mix.

racks are used in special cases, where certain routings/effectchains are needed.
these are special room/reverberation scenarios for example, to place instruments on certain spots inside a room (front/back and left/right). this can get pretty complicated, so when i get a good mix in a simpler way, i spare the headache ...

other music styles and mix-techniques may have completely different approaches.

[thomasross20]

Just connected my Line 6 Toneport UX2.
There is an input 1 and input 2 - I assume because it's stereo in! Why is this> Why not just record a mono track?

[jabe]

Just connected my Line 6 Toneport UX2.
There is an input 1 and input 2 - I assume because it's stereo in! Why is this> Why not just record a mono track?

Some effects produce stereo output. I've a Zoom 4040 that does. It can produce sounds that "swirl" around the listener.

With Tracktion, you can treat two inputs as two mono inputs or one stereo input, choosing on the Settings page.