Cubase What's the difference between FX and Group?

[sumpm]

You can do that via sending to Group Channels, pre-fader, no?

If you are talking about sending from the FX track, FX Channels can neither be routed to, nor sent to Groups, or FX Channels; limited.

No, I know; I'm saying if you wanted to route that drum trick you described, you could send to Groups instead of FX Channels. Or maybe I have no clue what you're trying to do.

Yeah, I do send to groups, that way, I route all of their outputs to another single group to control the overall volume. YOu had it exactly right. I tried this setup as described, and hit a wall when I wanted to route the FX to a Group, so I switched the whole setup to Groups.

[bduffy]

You can do that via sending to Group Channels, pre-fader, no?

If you are talking about sending from the FX track, FX Channels can neither be routed to, nor sent to Groups, or FX Channels; limited.

No, I know; I'm saying if you wanted to route that drum trick you described, you could send to Groups instead of FX Channels. Or maybe I have no clue what you're trying to do.

Yeah, I do send to groups, that way, I route all of their outputs to another single group to control the overall volume. YOu had it exactly right. I tried this setup as described, and hit a wall when I wanted to route the FX to a Group, so I switched the whole setup to Groups.

Ah, so!

[matt42]

Not that it's a big deal, but I had previously thought that no backwards routing was a crude way of avoiding a feedback loop.

Surly it would be simple enough to allow groups to be routed just about anywhere, only blocking routings that would result in a loop.

[kritikon]

That the FX can't be routed to another channel but the master bus is logical, isn't it? Tell me one example where you want to route it "back" or in this case "forward" it.

Considering you say you come from an analogue background...you seem to have missed alot of the finer niceties of using a real desk.
Desks have one up on hosts such as Cubase specifically because you can route sends all over the place. I used to make it a common theme to have my returns routed to main channels; sometimes to the in-line channels (if I was running short of main channels) and very often to groups. It's not anything unusual or strange...it's standard procedure to return to proper channels. There are a number of reasons that you really do want and need to have flexible routing for returns. The budget desks used to have simple sends with a simple return controlled only by one volume knob...pitifully poor control, and that was one of the many reasons those desks were budget. Quite frankly, I wouldn't piss on a cheap desk that could only return sends to the master buss. That's ridiculous - it simply isn't good enoughfor a serious desk.

One of the main reasons for wanting to route returns is so you can feed the FX into a specific group alongside the original channels they are sent from. e.g. you send the drum channels and the reverb (or whatever FX you're using) on those very same drums, into a group channel for your dynamic and or Eq control. Same with the instruments. I would always have instruments to one group, drums to another, maybe kick and bass to another, and I damn well need to have the FX sent to those groups of instruments under the same control. You might want to compress the shit out of the drum group, you might also want to have a little overdrive on them, you might very well want to roll off some bass Eq too...and then you have the drum FX which are uncompressed, undriven and un-Eq'd !? No way. That sounds very noticeable, and sometimes quite odd.


Of course a send should be routable - that's exactly why us oldsters grumble about SX - because it doesn't do something that we very easily and very regularly used to do with any decent desk, and still can do.

And that's exactly why we have to use groups as sends.


And as for this distinction between FX channels and groups...I think someone in this thread hasn't realised that you can send to a group from any channel pre-fader. That way your original channel remains perfectly useable with its own fader volume, and you use the send to the group EXACTLY the same as you do a normal send. You mix in the group channel over the top of the source channels exactly the same way you do with a return volume control.

Okay, this is a good example. Then again that can be realised different, too - however then each channel uses inserts rather than the group.

No. You miss the point again. You put the FX as an insert on a group channel. Then you merely use channel sends to send differing amounts of each channel to that one group with that one FX on it. And you can chain the group insert FX the same way as you can on an FX channel. Using groups uses exactly the same amount of CPU as a send.

[kritikon]

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.

Hmmm...I re-read that post again. You lambasted poor sumpm, and it's obvious it's you who doesn't really fathom the use of sends.

Well the FX channels aren't useless anymore if you use FX chains.

You can use FX chains in exactly the same way on group channels.

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).

Which is exactly why we used groups in Cubase VST...so that you could chain together FX. But in SX, of course the sends are redundant in that aspect, as groups can chain up exactly the same number of FX as any send channel.

The main difference between FX and Group is:
- Groups are for "grouping" single channels together for better mixing.
- FX channels are your send channels.

No...groups are for whatever you use them for. Group channels can be your sends.

The group channels are usually not routed by the "send bus" but the "routing" options on top of the channel strip.

Wrong. I regularly use groups to send multiple instrument channels to. You click pre-fader and simply use the send set to "group".

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).

Wrong. Yes, the FX are inserts on the group channel...but they are mixed in over the top of your source channels exactly the same as any send is. Your insert FX is simply set to 100% wet. I think that's the main thing you've probably failed to realise? Your group fader is exactly the same as your FX channel fader or a send volume knob. Possibly you should go back and look long and hard at an FX channel and spot that the FX it uses is also simply inserted into the FX channel.

Sends are awesome to save up a lot of CPU power, especially if you use the same FX over and over.

Using a group as a send uses no more CPU. You use exactly the same FX and exactly one channel. And you can route as many source channels to it exactly like an FX channel.

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.

OK, I'll concede that one advantage that an FX channel has. You can use them post-fader. Personally it doesn't bother me, as I don't muck around with faders hardly at all apart from fade-ins and fade outs.

Oh hang on...you can still send a channel to a group post fader too. So that advantage has just gone "pooof" in a little cloud of smoke up its own arse. Hmmm.


No...the only difference is that an FX channel is red. And you can't route it like you want to on a real desk. And if you've never routed aux returns on a desk - I suspect you've probably only used small desks. It's something you tend not to do on small desks, as you have a very limited number of channels. Believe me, when you have 24 and above...you very quickly realise the benefit to your mixing of being able to send your returns anywhere you need to.

You obviously have forgotten the bit about sends, that cannot be separated from it. You have a send...you need a return. Every desk with any aux send has some sort of aux return. An FX channel in Cubase is exactly that - the aux return. And we have been trying to tell you that you can (and I regularly do) use a group channel as an aux return. It's architecture is exactly the same. A desk has aux returns, SX has aux returns. Desks returns can be main channels, in-line channels, groups or a dedicated knob. SX's returns can be main channels or group channels, and the FX channel simply replaces the dedicated return knob.

[bduffy]

Well. I hope that sets that straight. Kritikon has posted; resistance is futile.

I still like the "e" function, however.

[kritikon]

Well yeah...I like using "e" every now and then...who doesn't?

You're right - that little button is possibly the one and only thing that makes an FX channel any use. Cubase has irritated me for years...they screw things up sometimes right royally...then they add one tiny little feature that almost makes it alright.

So frustrating - you hate them, then you have to love 'em. I think they must only employ schizophrenic coders/designers. Or possibly Bipolar ones. Or both...

[bduffy]

Well yeah...I like using "e" every now and then...who doesn't?

You're right - that little button is possibly the one and only thing that makes an FX channel any use. Cubase has irritated me for years...they screw things up sometimes right royally...then they add one tiny little feature that almost makes it alright.

So frustrating - you hate them, then you have to love 'em. I think they must only employ schizophrenic coders/designers. Or possibly Bipolar ones. Or both...

Yeah, or just really indecisive.

I've been saying it a lot lately; I get tired with Cubase sometimes, and a little while ago I was thinking of jumping ship, but man, after trying other things and especially after seeing Pro Tools LE in..."action", I felt a renewed enthusiasm for Cubase. I finally bought SX 3 and I don't think I'll ever be leaving. It's just too damn powerful and nothing else works like it. Maybe one day if I become a Mac-head...

[Kingston]

It's just too damn powerful and nothing else works like it. Maybe one day if I become a Mac-head...

...I would totally go back to Logic. I would probably poo in the SX3 packaging and send it back to Steinborg as a finishing touch.

It only *barely* gets the job done as of yet, and at least I'm already used to it, but I have just as much experience with logic and I can't help but feel the longing.

[bduffy]

It's just too damn powerful and nothing else works like it. Maybe one day if I become a Mac-head...

...I would totally go back to Logic. I would probably poo in the SX3 packaging and send it back to Steinborg as a finishing touch.

It only *barely* gets the job done as of yet, and at least I'm already used to it, but I have just as much experience with logic and I can't help but feel the longing.

OMG, that's f**king hilarious. Thanks for that image, Kingston!

Yep, I know you got the big love for Logic. Luckily I never got to use it much, and Nuendo was already a Big Kahuna compared to what I was using at the time. I'd love to know what I'm missing, but for now, ignorance is bliss.

What I heard of your music sounds pretty awesome mixed on it. if that's any consolation.

[Compyfox]

Well then I guess I overslept a lot of the essential stuff with mixer desks, etc. However I never learnt it different, so thanks for the hookup - your learning never stops indeed.

Let's see if I'll need the "group = send" feature once (oh wait, I used it once for creating a dedicated subbass channel cause I used up all routings already, or doubling a voice - hah!), or what SX4 brings (sidechaining, ARRR!).

Sorry for causing a fuzz. In the end, the sound is what counts. And I don't mind the FX busses. As somebody who switched from VST5 directly to SX3, I really appreciated the chaining possibilities in the FX bus, and my old tracks worked fine in SX (despite the fact with tons of loading warning messages).