![]() ![]() You can then assign the output of a channel to a mix bus that you wish to send it to, and additionally assign that bus as the input to another channel. In some cases buses exist explicitly, independent of any channels. Generally speaking, there are a few different ways that buses are implemented inside different DAWs. Unfortunately there’s not room here to go into detail for each DAW, but here’s the general concept, followed by some links to videos that show the process for some of the most common DAWs. How you go about creating a mix bus-and indeed even the wording used to describe it-is going to be a little different in every DAW. We’ll look at these in more detail shortly, but first let’s look at how to create a mix bus. There are at least two other ways to utilize mix buses that can significantly help with organization and control in your mix: subgroups and aux channels. However, the master bus isn't the only mix bus you can create in a mix session. The master bus could also include things like EQ and compression for tonal shaping and “glue.” More on this later. This could be as simple as adjusting the overall level to properly utilize headroom and avoid clipping-although you shouldn’t get in the habit of using your master bus fader to control your monitor gain, rather, use the level control on your interface. The master bus gives you a way to make final adjustments to your full mix before the audio leaves your DAW. It’s also typically what’s routed to your speakers or headphones. Ultimately this is where your entire mix is funneled down to two channels and it’s what’s used to create the final stereo export, render, or bounce. It’s also usually a stereo bus-unless you’re working in surround-with left and right channels. It’s almost always created by default and is where any new channels you create in your DAW will be routed. The most common mix bus is the main stereo bus, also called the “2-bus,” or "master bus." If you only have one bus in your mix, it’s this one. I will add more to this thread as and when Studio One either pleases or frustrates me.What’s the difference between a mix bus and a master bus? I wonder if that’s because Mixbus was already doing some analogue modelling through the channel EQs, so the extra difference of adding a modelling plugin was less. On Mixbus, I wasn’t really aware of that. I also think Mixbus 32c must do more under the hood than I thought, because I noticed when I was adding plugins in Studio One, even before I’d touched a knob, that I could hear quite clearly the analogue modelling of, say, a Neve preamp or the difference between MJUC’s 3 compressor modes. ![]() ![]() I’m not totally sold on it, but further investigation is needed. I was expecting something quite subtle but there’s an obvious character even with the gain turned down. But… I’m surprised the Console Shaper, which is a plugin that operates on every track & bus, is so coloured. So far I’ve hardly had time to do anything with it. So, because I’m thinking about doing some more modern production with electronic percussion, virtual instruments etc, I thought I’d get Studio One. While I have successfully recorded & edited tracks from scratch in it, and there are some very well thought through things like the automatic crossfades and translucent waveforms etc, the virtual instrument and midi editing is pretty rudimentary and slip editing multitracked drums can be a slow process. For mixing, I really like it - the limitations of the fixed bussing scheme don’t bother me, and the VST implementation (apart from total lack of VST3, 32bit bridging & ARA capability) is very good in terms of signal flow & flexibility of routing inputs & outputs.įor recording and production it’s a bit less brilliant, though. I’ve been using Harrison Mixbus 32c for the last couple of years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |