Cubase What's the difference between FX and Group?

[Architeuthis]

What is the difference between an FX channel track and a group track???

FX tracks are limited
Group channel tracks are not.

you can't send an audio output to an FX track
with Group tracks you can

FX tracks do not have inserts
group tracks do

is this the only difference?

[ahja]

Yup. FX tracks are kinda pointless, in my opinion. I always use group tracks for my 'sends', more flexible.

[kritikon]

What is the difference between an FX channel track and a group track???

FX tracks are limited
Group channel tracks are not.

you can't send an audio output to an FX track
with Group tracks you can

FX tracks do not have inserts
group tracks do

is this the only difference?

Yup...although you do have inserts on FX channels. If you check again, you'll see that the FX itself is placed as an insert on a normal-looking channel, with the same number of inserts.

And I agree with Ahja...I too don't see much point in FX channels. The whole point of having dedicated channels as FX returns is so that you can do everything you can with a normal channel. There are many times I want to route FX returns onwards to groups for group processing, along with their source channels. So I tend to use groups. The only point of them I see is a minor ease of setting them up, is all.
I suppose having FX returns a different colour than other channels makes them more easily identifiable in the mixer...but if CUbase had a properly user-configurable GUI, you'd be able to designate your own colours etc to channels.

FX channels are more of the fluff that is just bloat within SX. Not that there aren't thousands of other more useable and useful features - which is exactly why I still use Cubase...but it's still just fluff IMO.

It seems like there are too many little slip-ups within the design of Cubase that showed to me that Steinberg for some reason lost their grip on workflow and actual user-functionality. It used to be so intuitive (still is to a lesser degree...) and it was obviously designed by and for people who were active musicians. Little things like non-routable FX returns tells me that the designers who designed that part don't use real desks (probably never have), and consequently don't know how true flexibility should be implemented.

It's not anything big enough to make me want to change my host...but it's a minor irritation. In fact, I find it's not only Steinberg...I haven't come across any main host that is truly as flexible as a fully features desk. What I'd like is maybe an option to have patch cables similar to ABL Pro etc - so you can route inserts and direct outs to other channels etc. I used to be able to do things like that on a desk - have 2 or even 3 outs from one channel routed to various different things - I'd use the inserts as outs when I needed to, use the direct outs, tape outs, and even bring sends into play. I could route busses to busses backwards and forwards and all over the place. Can't do that in most hosts without creating a shitload of groups, busses and god knows what else. Do-able, but visually and useably tedious in the extreme.

One of many reasons I still hanker after a proper desk again - one day I'll take the plunge back into the fun world of hands-on mixing. Trouble is (of course) that any host is a damn sight cheaper and takes up less space than any decent desk...


I dunno...maybe other hosts handle FX returns in a better way than Cubase...surely someone must?

[Architeuthis]

you do have inserts on FX channels.

oops, I meant sends.

[sumpm]

Sorry to revive an old topic, but FX Channels are not worthless fluff, they are SENDS.

They ARE the sends in Cubase. Where else could you share a reverb for multiple trakcs to save cpu? Also, you can control how much of the signal is sent to each send, there is no way to do that with a group Channel. A Group Channel is a BUS.

[matt42]

Sorry sumpm, but I use groups for that exact purpose, so really your wrong there.

A bit off topic, but what really pisses me off is only being able to route groups to groups that were created later(sorry if thats not worded well).

For example I creat a group for my drums. But then later decide I want a sub group for the ambient mikes. So I create a group track for the ambients. However as this group was created after the original drum goup it cant be routed there. But I could route the drum group to the ambient group (if I wanted). Sorry to vent but that is really, really stupid and pisses me off no end.

I'm just going to have to pay for an Ext licence to get the routing flexibility I want in cubase.

[sumpm]

Sure it IS possible to use a Group Channel like a SEND. Say you have all of your guitar tracks, and you set their output to a Group Channel and insert some compression on it. This would be using a BUS like a SEND. But with a send, you can leave the original output as the main BUS, and route some of the signal to SEVERAL SENDS. So if you had a send with delay on it, and a send with reverb, you could specify in the send section for the guitar track HOW MUCH of the signal you want to send, and it will basically duplicate your tracks sound.

If you were to route the output to a Group Channel, your output from the guitar track would be limited to that one channel, vs multiple sends. SENDS are quite different from busses if you understand this

[ericj23]

i always thought fx channels were there so that when you need to send from agroup channel to a group channel that is older, which you can't do, you can send both to an fx channel instead

but the advice about having a default song with a bunch of buses already created but hidden is very wise

measn you cant run into this problem

[Watto]

*edit* This was directed at sumpm's post.

That's what I was thinking.

[jdg]

dood, u can use groups as 'sends'

try it.
make a group.
go to a send slot, click.. u see you can select that group to "send" to, just like a send.

i think the "sends" in cubase are now legacy items.
they do have a few features that a different.
for example... if u have an FX track as a send, u click the "e" on the send.. it pulls up the pluggin editor...
if u do that when you're using a group in a send.. it pulls up the group channel.

[Majken]

The FX Channels and Groups are identical except for where they're placed in the signal flow. FX Channels are placed after Groups. Meaning Groups can send signals to FX Channels but not vice versa.

FX channels also cannot be assigned as the ouput channel of Audio and Group Tracks.

/Majken

[Watto]

Oh, well, you learn something new every day!

[bduffy]

dood, u can use groups as 'sends'

try it.
make a group.
go to a send slot, click.. u see you can select that group to "send" to, just like a send.

i think the "sends" in cubase are now legacy items.
they do have a few features that a different.
for example... if u have an FX track as a send, u click the "e" on the send.. it pulls up the pluggin editor...
if u do that when you're using a group in a send.. it pulls up the group channel.

That's what I was going to say: that Groups appear as Sends, so you can use them just like FX Channels, and that the only real reason to still have FX Channels is that you can instantly call up the Send Effect from the source channel; that is the big difference. Now, they should allow you to send or bus anything to anything, in any order. That would be a great gesture on Steinberg's behalf, and hopefully that's coming in Cubase 4.

[sumpm]

I stand corrected. I now see that Group Channels do appear in the send section, I had never even tried. Considering the limitations of FX Channels (not being able to set the output to another Group Channel, or FX Channel due to the placement in the chain) I don't see any reason for FX Channels. For now on, I will use Group Channels instead.

[bduffy]

I stand corrected. I now see that Group Channels do appear in the send section, I had never even tried. Considering the limitations of FX Channels (not being able to set the output to another Group Channel, or FX Channel due to the placement in the chain) I don't see any reason for FX Channels. For now on, I will use Group Channels instead.

Well, the reason is as I said: you can click the "e" and the effect send will appear. Small, perhaps useless, but it's a difference. Groups are more flexible; that's how I had started mixing in SX 1, then they ditched the whole Sends panel!