Cubase: sending FX channels to groups?

[wsaidah]

dont you just miss logic

[kagemusha]

no

[SJ_Digriz]

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,

-> Also, edited because it is doesn't matter to the issue. You should be careful about assuming who you are talking to. In this case you are making a pretty large error. Both in my age and hardware experience.

Each FX track is like the send channel on a desk. The return configuarion you are on about is provided by the fact that you can stack FX in that FX channel. The difference being you can have unlimited number of these configurations. So if you want source+reverb+delay, the source ->FX track +reverb+delay. Every track can be sent to that as a send and share its config.

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.

Use a group track. This is no different than having to jump through patching hoops in the real world to accomplish this. Besides there is no difference between an FX and a group track other than the FX tracks are more restricted. This is on purpose.

For the same reason that hardware has limitations that software doesn't, software has limitations that hardware doesn't. You are making a mountain out of a total nothing.

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.

We do this every day on hardware desks and I don't find SX to be any more limited. I would like a real implementation of a sidechain. But, even that is coming.

Also, I have Sonar and its routing is no different. It just doesn't have different channel names. I know having 3 or 4 types of audio channels is probably amazingly difficult to grasp.

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.

They added them for 2 reasons. So that you could serialize(chain) FX on a send channel. And, have as many as you want. They didn't miss anything, it doesn't need to change, other than side chaining which is on the way.

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.

You are stuck on the fact that somehow having to use a group track is a massive chore. There's no damn difference other than Cubase provides different types of audio tracks. This is a benefit not a limitation. To bad we can't just remove the FX tracks from your system and rename Group tracks to FX tracks. Then you would think everything is ok. You are stuck on something that is totally lable related and has nothing to do with functionality. CUBASE PROVIDES THE FEATURE YOU WANT, they just do it in Group channels.

There's no reason an FX return shouldn't
have every single option that an audio channel has - and several reasons why they should.

yes there is and I already said it. Send by definition feed to the master or alternate output for post level mixing. FYI you can buss an FX Track to an out and feed it back into an audio track. Just like a multiple buss mixing board.

Anyway, I'm over it now...I am resigned to a workaround - no huge hassle really.

This we agree on, there is no hassle and never was.

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?

->edited to remove return name calling.<-
You can send data through cubase tracks EXACTLY like you can in Sonar and PT. You can BUSS data close to the same. There are advantages to the way PT does it and there are advantages to the Cubase way. You can't buss in Sonar that I've figured out(it may be possible, I'm not a Sonar expert).

[SJ_Digriz]

Something just occurred to me. Kritikon, what audio card do you have? Is it multiple in/out or 2 channel in/2 channel out?

[SJ_Digriz]

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

This is exactly why these threads are so annoying. The answer is YOU CAN already do this. You use the danged Group channels. Or, you can buss the signal and bring it back on a seperate audio channel.

[SJ_Digriz]

There's no reason an FX return shouldn't
have every single option that an audio channel has - and several reasons why they should.

And there are a more reasons why NOT besides the the one I said before. A few to think on:

Simplicity - FX tracks are $$ easy to use. I don't have to worry about phase issues. I don't have to worry about feedback issues. I get easy level control. The fact that its pink in my view lets me know exactly where the output is going. So, if I just need a natural verb as a splash on the vocal groups this is the track type to use. No fuss no muss.

Performance - An FX track takes less system resources. If you put the routing options in then all of the PDC compensation requirements and other maintenance requirements of the group channel will be in play. You might as well just remove FX from the choice list.

[kritikon]

It's still not a sensible workaround. So I can chain FX - great, there are instances where that could be useful to me, but generally I choose not to, and I can chain them in other ways also... But I still cannot reroute an FX channel. And no, I don't particularly want to use loads of group channels for various reasons. It still means I have to use one extra set of channels each time I want to group multiple sources with FX, and I also have to be careful and preplan what groups contain what, especially because you can't reroute groups backwards within Cubase. We all know that how you plan a song at the start is not how you end up doing it. And I particularly don't want to have to go through every channel I've got running and reassign the routing because I've added channels later on in the song and I need to route it backwards.

Chaining FX is all well and good, but I prefer to keep separate FX on their own, and not all sources will necessarily use the same combinations of FX.

You insist that groups are OK for yourself...fine. Groups are not OK for me. I want to be able to reroute FX channels properly. Groups ARE a workaround and not a graceful one. And I have no idea where the feedback thing comes into it - how would I get feedback within s/w for any discrete channel unless I route it to have feedback? That's actually more likely to happen in the h/w world.

There are many circumstances just off the top of my head whereby for me to mix the way I can with a desk and easily do it with 8 group busses, I would now have to use something like 12 or 13 groups within Cubase. I don't want a 2-screen setup and neither should I have to. An FX channel in Cubase is not a group channel, and I should not have to use a group channel as an FX channel. And there's absolutely no way I'm going to start routing output out of my soundcard and then back in again just to get sensible routing. And by the way, I have a 2-in/multiple out card which are all via a patchbay, so I could do it that way. But that's even less graceful than the lack of routing on FX channels.

So you don't work that particular way...I do, and I would prefer it if Cubase implemented what I see as a not difficult feature to implement. Cubase sure is flexible in other ways, but just here and there they still have gaps and this is one of them.

Still....at least I can now route an FX to a discrete channel, which is definitely an improvement over VST. Still not quite enough though.

[ericj23]

i thought the reason you cant make feedback loops is that pdc goes out the window - logic doesnt have pdc so it can do this - but i think traktion has got it so its normally got pdc but it goes once feedback starts - that would be sweet but i have a feeling it won't happen soon

but just reinput from your sound card - ie using the internal mixer that they almost all have these days -on an audio channel and instant feedback

fx channels are just a quick convenient way of creating a global track that everything can send to - ie a global reverb - but in truth most of the things you would do would be in groups

but i still dont get your hatred of groups at all - so you have a few extras over your hardware mixer - but then you cant click on one button to get the especially configured mixer you have set up that shows all your sensible named group channels either

[kritikon]

No, I don't have a hatred of groups at all...I just prefer to use groups for secondary mixing, and summing certain groups of instruments and FX together, and usually for group processing. I want to be able to route my FX anywhere I like without the daft need to use up many more group channels than I have to. I don't like the limitations that it gives me by using groups for primary mixing of FX.

And extra CPU useage is fine by me if it takes that limitation away. To get the routing I want, I have to create so many groups that I doubt I'm gaining any CPU anyway - sometimes I'd have to recreate 2 instances of the same FX just to enable creative routing that would be possible with one instance with fully routable FX channels. And if that FX happens to be a 6 second impulse reverb, then it's entirely possible that'd create problems.

It's just that in so many ways Cubase and all of the other main hosts are the main hosts simply because they give you so many options on how to route, mix and generally compose music. Yet with this particular issue, the options aren't too attractive. If I want to be forced into working a particular way, then I would have bought a lesser host and followed its dictats. Cubase has always been my preferred choice because in most things I can make it work the way I want. Most things that's still true, so it's all good. But in this one instance I'm forced to work Steinberg's way, and I find it impractical, fiddly, screen-gobbling and annoying. it's making me work the s/w way, rather than having the s/w and the h/w way to choose from. And usually I happily mix and match the two.

[flex42]

FORGET fx channels, use group channels. IIRC the fx channels in SX are only still there because of backwards compatibility issues...

[Kim Lajoie]

FORGET fx channels, use group channels. IIRC the fx channels in SX are only still there because of backwards compatibility issues...

Not quite. FX channels have the advantage that they can receive signal from any other audio channel (except other FX channels). As kritikon said, using groups as FX channels is fiddly (at best!) because the available routings depends on the order of the channels.

For example - I'm starting a project, and I decide to set up a couple of send effects (maybe reverb and delay), and I use groups for that. Later, if I decide that I want to add another group channel (for a vocal bus maybe), I can't apply my effects sends to that group.

Forever,




Kim.

[SJ_Digriz]

You realize that bussing has nothing to do with tracks right? You can buss just like you can on a desk as long as your card supports more than 1 stereo in/out pair. It works EXACTLY like a multi-buss desk. You can then feed the input right back in on itself. SX-3 has the advantage of external paths being PDC comped now, so you don't even have to worry bout the delay incurred.

More food for the ignorant. I'll quit beating the dead horse about the group and FX tracks. If you haven't figured out that one is just a more restricted version of the other by now, you never will.

[kritikon]

If you haven't figured out that one is just a more restricted version of the other by now, you never will.

Exactly - I figured that out immediately when I got SX2. I don't like the restrictions, you do, so we're never going to agree on that one. And having to feed out and back into my soundcard defeats one of the advantages of using PCs for audio to me. It's all about workflow, and this issue is directly opposite to helping my personal workflow. I've had many years forming a habit of doing my final mixing mostly within 8 groups - it works for me, I like it and that's that. I don't like to have a screenful of numerous groups in Cubase that means to'ing and fro'ing across the mixer and sometimes needing to completely reassign everything to different groups to get the effect I need. Yep, I know I can work around it, and I'm resigned to the fact I have to for many occasions, but doesn't mean I like that workaround.

I still like Cubase of course. All the other advantages far outway this setback. But it really shouldn't be difficult for Steinberg to have implemented true FX channels rather than giving us them and then on the other hand telling us we can't use them. "Here's an FX channel...now go and use a group channel" that's just silly.

[Kim Lajoie]

Ooh, I just remembered - in the Export Audio dialogue box, there's a new pull-down menu that lets you decide where (which bus/channel) the audio is rendered from. It's a neat way to do a 'freeze", and I think you can also use it to render an FX channel to audio - which would effectively bring it back on a regular mixer channel. Of course, the downsides are that there's still no feedback available, and you can't easily adjust the sends TO that channel after it's been rendered.

Forever,




Kim.

[kritikon]

Cheers...that could be a useful addition. It at least makes it a little better.