Cubase: sending FX channels to groups?

[SJ_Digriz]

Exactly - I figured that out immediately when I got SX2. I don't like the restrictions...

No, as long as you see it as an actual restriction to possibilites then you don't understand it.

"Here's an FX channel...now go and use a group channel" that's just silly.

You couldn't have made my point any better. You are stuck on a label. You have some mystical reason why if it says "Group" that it isn't right. Getting hung up on what the channel is labeled is what is silly.

[SJ_Digriz]

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.

You can buss back into a track and do the same thing without haveing to have it be offline. You can then keep the bussed audio track.

You can use that same export to populate a lane for you.

Or, you can just dump the file in the pool and use it as you wish.

There are other things you can do with the bussing/exporting options. Keep in mind that you can macro the key commands so that you can do some on the fly one time exports without having to re-channel things manually all the time.

[kritikon]

No, as long as you see it as an actual restriction to possibilites then you don't understand it.

No...it's you who refuses to see the restriction. If I want to go from point A to point B, I want to be able to choose to do it directly, not to have to go from point A to point C and then onto B. Why can you not see the distinction between an FX channel and a group channel? Personally I find it extremely obvious. So you're happy using 15 group channels...I'm not.

All you're doing is reiterating workarounds that I'm well aware of. I'd rather not use those workarounds, thanks. But I have to if I use Cubase. But I really don't understand why you're trying to tell me that a workaround is exactly what I want...I keep saying that I don't want that workaround, I'd rather have the direct solution that is a given option within a h/w desk - depending on the desk, you're not even limited to routing to only one group. You're trying to tell me you know all about routing, but you refuse to see lack of routing on a mixer channel as a problem. I know exactly what I can use group channels for - FFS I could start from scratch using only group channels if I choose to but that's just f**king stupid.

So an FX channel is a cut-down group channel - I know that already. I'd actually be happier if Cubase stopped pretending to have FX channels as fully implemented mixer channels and just stated in the manual that if you want flexible FX returns, then use a group channel instead. That is still not what I want though. I've already given good reasons why I prefer not to use silly amounts of group channels, so just give up will you?

If you accept tortuous routing as OK, then goody for you - personally I know there are less tortuous options.

[SJ_Digriz]

If you accept tortuous routing as OK, then goody for you - personally I know there are less tortuous options.

LOL, I won't let it go because if anyone is following they realize that you are talking nonsense. It helps people understand that a lot of the mis-information is based on people who refuse to let go of menu names and titles. If the interface was in Greek and you couldn't read it, then someone just showed you to select the 3rd name from the track list to do what you want, you wouldn't even be having this argument.

Also, half of what you want to do is accomplished by bussing and has nothing to do with FX routing. And, that bussing works EXACTLY how a desk does it. You send it OUT, then patch it back IN. You can have feedback loops all day, its not a work around, its not a cludge, in fact it works great.

[SJ_Digriz]

Here is one example of using an FX Channel in a Feedback loop without using Group channels.

Feedback Loop

*Audio Track 1 uses a send to the FX channel Pre Fader. The channel Fader controls the dry signal to the Master out.

*FX Channel to Buss 3/4

*Audio Track 2 is patched to and then monitors Buss 3/4. Again use a Send to the FX channel Pre Fader. This is your Feedback loop and is controlled by the Send Lvl. You use the Track 2 Channel Fader to control the Wet Effect lvl.

Dude, it took me all of 2 minutes to set that up. It works perfect. It doesn't take 40 tracks. It is ultra flexible because you can control the feed lvl and mix of every part of the stageing.

So, let me know what's wrong.

[kritikon]

So your workaround is to patch out and then back in? i.e to go D/A then A/D just to do a simple routing? That is not a neat way of doing it by any means. I've got to convert twice that way. To me, increasing conversion stages is a negation of one of the whole reasons for me using PC audio. I fail to see how you think that is an acceptable workaround. Even though I have good converters, there's no way I'm going to do that. I've already stated that what I want is the ability to route digitally and preferably internally directly from an FX channel without using up an extra group channel.

If I use a group channel to enable FX routing, by definition, I have to utilise 2 group channels if I want to group that FX with my source sounds. If I do this with every grouping, I can quickly get to 16 group channels. And then I have limitations on which groups I can reroute to which group. What part of me not wanting 16 group channels do you not understand?

So a reasonable solution is for me to convert twice to achieve what I want...get real dude...you're the one misinforming.

[ericj23]

he hasnt gone da and then ad

duh

what sound card do you use ?????

every card i've had - yamaha, m-audio and emu allowed easy routing within the card so no conversion happens

you can group your source sounds with the group fx return on one channel too - you send both to an output channel - get a card with virtual outs - emu again does this as do others

and what is this shit about 16 group channels - is you just dont liking with that many ? That i completely understand but its not that abd - at least you can't run out of the things

i still dont get the hatred of fx channels - they are a convient way of getting a global effect where the routing is never a concern

[SJ_Digriz]

and kritikon continues to stupidify the world.

[kritikon]

And SJ_Digriz continues to be obtuse.

[Sascha Franck]

Hm.
I don't seem to understand some things here. Or maybe I do but I just don't understand the "why" behind it.

Until VST 5 things were quite logical to me.
You'd use a send effect (loaded in the rack) to use the normal (well, normal for outboard mixing) FX send > FX rack > FX return routing. Fine, that's just exactly how hardware consoles do it (using a completely stripped down aux return channel, often only represented by a single return level knob).
From what I know, FX channels in SX2/3 have replaced the send FX rack (at least it's just not there anymore), with the additional (and welcomed) option of chaining FX. Again, just what you'd do in a hardware situation when adding, say, an EQ after a reverb.
Not yet comparable to what it'd be like when routing an effect device (or a chain of them, for the matter) to two mono or one stereo channel on a hardware console. Things such as sends are still missing.

OK, until VST 5 you would use a group/bus channel then, setup your FX as inserts there and run your sends to this group channel.
This would be like the more or less exact representation of a hardware console, running a send into an FX unit, returning it to whatever "real" channel strips on the board.
What you could do in VST (3/5) was then to setup a send on that group channel and feed it back into the same group, in case you wanted.
In SX, I can still send to group channels, so using them as FX returns is perfectly possible.
There's sends on those group channels as well, so I can send out things.
BUT (!!!), there's no way to send the group signal into the same group again - which would perfectly be possible on a hardware console AND which was perfectly possible in Cubase VST.
All you seem to be able to do is to send things to:
- FX channels (those don't provide groups as an output option).
- Further groups - but it's ONLY possible to use higher numbered groups (that's more or less the way Logic does it).
- Output channels.

None of these options seem to offer feeding back a signal straight into the group channel in question. So, to me it seems that creating internal feedback loops is now impossible in SX.

And please don't tell me I'd need a card with more than a stereo out to realize any feedbacks, because that's totally NOT what this thread is all about!
So, for now your example completely fails, SJ, as it's using some "Bus 3-4" for the FX channel, not an available option on any 2 I/O card.
It should be do-able entirely within the SX mixer.
But (and from what I can see that's all kritikon's question was about) it isn't.

Actually, when you think about it, for some people this might be quite a drawback (and it's a step backwards from what VST offered for sure).
Things aren't comparable to a hardware console either - so, kritikon is actually right on that point, SJ. On a hardware console it'd be just the easiest thing to send some FX return channel back into the FX unit.

[SJ_Digriz]

When SX went full PDC the send back to group went away. The ability to send back to the top may become available again when SideChain makes a showing in VST3. We'll see.

However, that wasn't the point of this post. Kriticon went on and on about about how limiting the routing is and how much work has to be done to do something simple. I'm just pointing out that the routing is not that limited. He is hung up on a silly label more than anything. For the most part it works exactly like a hardware mixer(which Krit insists it doesn't). Like using the audio card as the Aux-Send/Return. Anyhow, I'm not saying that the channels routing couldn't be more available. Just that it isn't the cludge that Kriticon is representing. There are reasons why it is the way it is. Otherwise we would be dead<--"sorry, had a Matrix flashback".

Not yet comparable to what it'd be like when routing an effect device (or a chain of them, for the matter) to two mono or one stereo channel on a hardware console. Things such as sends are still missing.

Can you give an example? I don't quite follow whats not there for send purposes. You have both, Mono and Stereo FX channels as well as Groups. A send on a mono channel to a mono channel is now Mono, not summed stereo like SX-1(which didn't have FX channels of course).

BUT (!!!), there's no way to send the group signal into the same group again - which would perfectly be possible on a hardware console AND which was perfectly possible in Cubase VST.

Every console that I've used does bussing to achieve this. I'm not saying some of the digital mixers might not have a way to do this directly, but it's actually harder to do it on a d8b than it is within SX using the card as the aux Send by a wide margin. The number of steps is crazy and you have to plan it out WAY in advance because it messes up the session maps.

All you seem to be able to do is to send things to:
- FX channels (those don't provide groups as an output option).

Don't get caught in this trap. FX channels ARE the sends FROM VST/32 days that have been expanded. In the old VST and SX-1, the sends Always fed outputs, not back to other tracks or channels. We asked for and recieved the ability to have chain FX in the sends like you would an Aux channel on a board. It's very handy and I am happy to have it. Maybe they will improve this channel type when VST-3 makes its way into the system though.

- Further groups - but it's ONLY possible to use higher numbered groups (that's more or less the way Logic does it).
- Output channels.

That's because downhill mixing makes sense. We may see some additional routing options when SideChain kicks in. But, I bet it messes with the PDC and performance like it does in Sonar.

None of these options seem to offer feeding back a signal straight into the group channel in question. So, to me it seems that creating internal feedback loops is now impossible in SX.

hmm..I don't know why my example isn't internal feedback. I haven't figured out what the fuss of using the audio card is. Ok, so a 2 channel card can't do it. Err...you might not be able to have 16 feedback loops(is this a problem? god I hope not). I'm running out of reasons.

On a hardware console it'd be just the easiest thing to send some FX return channel back into the FX unit.

It is NOT a quick flip of a button to route a channel back on itself even in the hardware world. You use the board busses in conjuction with the aux sends or patch bays or effect returns to do it. This is no different than my using the audio card patch technique. You may not always see a physical representation of the return channel like you do in my example, but it's there.

Maybe there are digital mixers that I haven't seen that do it directly. I see primarily analog mixers around here, but the d8b we use most days actually tries to stop you from doing this and admits it in the doc. But I would love to see a picture of a software interface for a digital mixer showing a dropdown for the channel send listing itself as a destination.

And, to be real real real clear..I understand that people WANT to have free routing from every channel to every other channel. But, to achieve the same results isn't that difficult in most cases, which is what this thread was about. This constant hand wringing over trivialities is rediculous. I can think of a couple of situations that actually DO require some silly group cascading to achieve, but feedback isn't one of them. It works doing the buss routing.

[Sascha Franck]

[lots of things I allready know and never doubted snipped]
hmm..I don't know why my example isn't internal feedback. I haven't figured out what the fuss of using the audio card is. Ok, so a 2 channel card can't do it.

That's just the very complaint. A 2 channel card won't do it. An internal, digital mixer plus a bunch of internal, digital effects should IMO provide 100% the same options as a hardware console. Creating feedback loops is one of these features.
Impossible with SX - I do even understand it's caused by PDC reasons, still, it's not possible (unless you're rerouting through your card which again isn't possible on 2 I/O cards).

It is NOT a quick flip of a button to route a channel back on itself even in the hardware world. You use the board busses in conjuction with the aux sends or patch bays or effect returns to do it.

Nonsense. As soon as you have your FX returns running into one (or more) fully featured audio channel(s) it's the easiest thing ever to create a feedback loop. It's exactly ONE turn of a knob (a send that is, feeding the FX device running into the channel).
I've done that several times by my own and there's nothing easier like it. No need to use any bussing or whatever. Just Send -> FX Device -> FX Device output into channel in (as said, A VERY common setup).

[Chickenman]

Surely he'll understand now?

[SJ_Digriz]

Just Send -> FX Device -> FX Device output into

Ok, read my post again. I fully understand that you can use the effect DEVICE outputs for this in the hardware world. This is NOT the channel output. Hopefully the VST-3 spec will address this routing.

Again, I know that the routing would make certain things easier. My point is there are alternatives that aren't that difficult.

Also, please explain the send thingy that I quoted. I actually respect your understanding of the apps Sascha. I want to make sure I know what it is you are referring to there.

[stefancrs]

I have never understood how a host should effectively implement mixer feedback loops.
Should it be per-sample feedback? Otherwise the result would heavily depend on buffer sizes.

Or am I missing something about what you guys mean with "feedback loop" here?