Cubase: sending FX channels to groups?

[kritikon]

I thought when I got SX2 that this would be one of the real advantages from VST5.1 - full PDC, real FX returns on channels and the ability to then send my FX returns to groups to process with enhancers etc alongside the instruments.

Now, it ain't any big problem I can't workaround, because I can still use FX inserts on groups and then reroute that group to another group. (In fact I can see advantages with that as the FX will then be true stereo etc.)

Have I missed something? I've reset some things to old behaviour and wondered if I may have knocked off the capability to route FX channels to groups by doing that. But so far the only routing option I get with FX channels is Master output Manual ain't no use here either. (Although I did learn 15 different ways to bounce while I was trying to find a hint in the manual )

So have I done something silly with my settings or can you seriously not route FX channels to groups (seems like a really odd omission, if so)

Using SX2.2.something by the way. And if SX2.2 has this glaring omission, can any SX3 users tell me if this has been introduced - I didn't see anything in the online manual about it. I didn't go to SX3 because I was fairly happy so far with SX2...but I bought it after the cutoff date, and would be able to get the cheaper SX3 upgrade, and this would be a feature that'd make me do it.

Ta in advance.

[Kim Lajoie]

Nope. You're not missing anything. FX channels go straight to output busses. Use groups instead.

Mind you, FX channels can host a chain of up to eight VST plugins, so you can still do things like chorus->reverb->exciter chains.

Forever,




Kim.

[spaceman]

well, see.. in Sonar you can..

[Kim Lajoie]

well, see.. in Sonar you can..

Yeah? Well SONAR's made by a company named after a piece of music with a racist title.

Let the flames begin!

Forever,




Kim.

[kritikon]

well, see.. in Sonar you can..

Want to swap?

[Chickenman]

I stumbled across this in Menudo (nuendo )for the first time today, very interesting.... well, not really

[spaceman]

well, see.. in Sonar you can..

Want to swap?

S4 for SX3? hmmmmmmmmmm no

[SJ_Digriz]

Another post devoid of proper information. You guys kill me. The different tracks serve different purposes. Sonar mixes all track types and makes you create and set all the routes as you go. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. But, in Cubase a track type is nothing more than a pre-configured track with rules. So, you should use the track type that does what you want. There are advantages to that.

FX tracks = Sends on a mixer. Sends by definition feed outputs. So in Sonar think of FX tracks as creating an audio track and assigning some FX to it and connecting its out to an already configured out. In the original versions of SX you only had a limited number of sends and they could not be serialized. In SX-2 and > you can config and save as many send chains as you like, but they will all feed directly to an out as a direct split of the intial signal. Remember, having true sends is required for mixing/mastering. You DON"T want your sends looping around and getting altered by other FX because you want every audio signal hitting it to have the same params applied. That's what a send is for.

Group Tracks = Summing of individual tracks. So, if you want to split your signals and cross talk FX and that stuff, this is where you would do it. But, the real purpose is to provide summing busses for mixing.

The send channels of each individual audio track can be sent to any combination of those track types or outputs. In other words, there really is not the perceived "limitation" in track routing that is suggested in this thread. You just need to learn how to use SX.

[kritikon]

The send channels of each individual audio track can be sent to any combination of those track types or outputs. In other words, there really is not the perceived "limitation" in track routing that is suggested in this thread. You just need to learn how to use SX.

No, it is a limitation. As I already said, I have an adequate workaround by using groups, so I know my way around a mixer thanks. In fact if the mixer in SX was a pro desk, I'd be pretty unimpressed with it...in fact, I wouldn't buy it. As we're into lessons on mixing and routing - a real desk would give you 3 or 4 options with aux returns.
1. Use the inbuilt returns and feed direct to master
2. Use inbuilt returns and route to groups.
3. FX returns direct to channels
4. FX returns direct to inline channels.
With a decent desk, both the inline and main channels would both have the full routing options to groups etc.

And there are damn good reasons for returning FX to proper channels (or at least inline channels)...you want to keep the FX you applied to those instruments that go to a group with the same group for any further processing - otherwise you risk those FX sounding too detached from the source sounds. And if you do use channels to return to, then you damn well expect to be able to route them onto groups.

So, yes, I can use FX as inserts on a group. Which then means I have to use a valuable group set and leaves me only 7 others.
So here's a scenario which is an eminently reasonable way to mix....

Drums - I use a reverb on some or all drums. I use a delay on some drums. So in Cubase I have to put the reverb on a group as an insert. I have to use the delay on a group as an insert. I then have to route the actual drums to a 3rd group along with the reverb group and the delay group.

I send my kick and bassline to a group to give them some separate bass compression or whatever.

I have a set of instruments that use a particular delay and/or reverb...could well be both. So I route the reverb to a group, the delay to a group (I have to, to enable me to then group process the instruments+FX!). So that's another 3 groups. I might want to compress this whole group - which I'll do on the 7th group.

I also have another set of instruments which I'm going to want to use an enhancer on - of course all of these have their own FX too - probably a delay and maybe a reverb, so I go through the same process, as I need to enhance the FX along with the source sounds. Oh wait! I'm already up to 10 groups...how f**king stupid is that for a way to mix (I admit I haven't yet checked out how many groups SX allows me to have...I'm assuming it's still 8 - used to be in VST5.1....so my apologies if I can have more than 8 )


Either way - that is a ridiculous limitation on me that I never used to have with my last desk - I'd simply route all my FX returns to the inline channels so that I could lowcut them etc, then route them to groups to co-process with the source sounds. And yes, I regularly did use all 8 groups, but it was enough in all but the most unusual circumstances. And don't tell me to enhance the whole shebang, because there are also extremely useful reasons to enhance and/or compress individual groups separately - and I never ever enhance a whole track - it's an amateur way of mixing.

So if I'm limited to 8 groups, to enable me to mix in the flexible way I need to, I can't do it within SX, simply because some idiot overlooked the obvious need to enable FX return routing to groups.

I do workaround it - got used to that with VST5.1 - I simply do alot of bouncing of group channels or channels+FX, but I shouldn't need to.

So don't lecture me on routing - I know exactly why mixers are set up the way they are. And I know exactly what a blunder it is that SX loses some of those features. If FX return channels cannot be routed to groups...that is an omission, not me being unable to use a mixer - if I had my mixer back again, I could actually do it.

Thanks

[Kim Lajoie]

Cubase SX has something like 64 or 128 groups. Not likely you'll run out.

Forever,




Kim.

[kritikon]

Cheers Kim...good to know that at least I have a workaround then, even if it is cumbersome.

And SJ_Digriz...

You DON"T want your sends looping around and getting altered by other FX because you want every audio signal hitting it to have the same params applied. That's what a send is for.

Complete and utter bollocks, mate - you do with FX what you want to. Learn how to use a mixer before spouting that type of crap. With a real desk the whole idea of routing is to let you mix in any way you want - so if you want a source+reverb delayed as a whole, then you can do it quite easily. If you want to feed a delay back onto itself to give filtered or resonant delays, you also can do it. S/w hosts are supposed to be a replacement for h/w. Using several groups just to achieve any of the aforementioned methods is not a reasonable or graceful way of doing it. Ask anyone with any experience of using desks why they return FX to channels and you'll get several useful reasons. Steinberg obviously know it was a feature they omitted in VST5.1 otherwise why did they implement FX channels in SX - unfortunately they didn't go the whole way - I think it's you who needs to learn to use a mixer, not me who needs to learn SX.

However, as Kim helpfully pointed out - I'm not limited to 8 group channels so I can work around the omission. So I don't need to buy another host...doesn't have to make me happy with it though.


And...

The send channels of each individual audio track can be sent to any combination of those track types or outputs. In other words, there really is not the perceived "limitation" in track routing that is suggested in this thread. You just need to learn how to use SX.

You missed the point again - I was asking about the returns. I know where the sends can send to. I don't have any issue with them. If you can't reroute a return, then it is not a true mixer channel. There's no reason an FX return shouldn't have every single option that an audio channel has - and several reasons why they should.

Anyway, I'm over it now...I am resigned to a workaround - no huge hassle really. Not worth me getting worried about. But when some snot-nose tries to tell me how to mix in a s/w environment that is a poor replacement for a true desk (and by the way, I used to run on a 48-channel desk...so I know what I'm talking about) then I get peeved. Give me a shout when you suss out how to work your Behringer Eurorack, eh?


And again, thanks Kim. Short simple and informative answer. Saved me an hour or so churning through the manual again.

[Kim Lajoie]

I wish FX channels were just like regular channels too. That'd be killer. I'd keep sending the channels to themselves for crazy feedback effects.

Forever,




Kim.

[Peller]

Unlike SX and many others, Pro Tools handles this properly, because it makes a distinction between tracks and buses. You get 32 (or 16 in LE) buses. Any track can use any bus as an input or output, any send can go to any bus, and any plug-in can key from any bus if it supports side-chaining.

Which is good.

[rollasoc]

Ok, when I read the original post, I thought it was a bit mad and why would you want to do it (especially sending effects back into themselves).

Now after reading all the replies, I'm convinced that we should be able to use FX channels like regular channels. I want to be able to loop effects back into themselves... (just for effect er like feedback).

Rollasoc (learning something new everyday).
http://www.hairthieves.com

[rollasoc]

Ok, when I read the original post, I thought it was a bit mad and why would you want to do it (especially sending effects back into themselves).

Now after reading all the replies, I'm convinced that we should be able to use FX channels like regular channels. I want to be able to loop effects back into themselves... (just for effect er like feedback).

Rollasoc (learning something new everyday).
http://www.hairthieves.com