Drum routing: Mixer 14:2 vs. SSL Mixer

[xRwu8]

I'm new to mixing in Reason, so I had a question for everyone about drum routing, which probably just comes down to preference and workflow. When using Redrum/Kong, do you typically:

A) send the individual drum samples directly into their own mixer SSL channels, add insert FX to each of those channels, and then route those channels to a SSL Mixer group bus for drum bus processing, OR

B) send the individual drum samples directly into insert effects, send those into a 14:2 Mixer for drum bus summing, and then send that summed stereo mix into a single stereo SSL Mixer channel (and then do drum bus processing on that channel)?

There's probably a million other ways to do it, but those seemed at a high level like the two most obvious ways. I guess I'm curious if anyone swears by one way because they've run into obstacles with the other way.

Method A seemed most natural to me, but visually it seems that Method B would be nice for containing literally every drum device and channel you're using into one collapsible insert rack space and when you need to focus on any drum issues just go there to tweak. Plus it prevents the SSL Mixer from being horizontally ridiculous

Maybe a downside of B is having to scroll through FX for all the drums to find the one you're looking for, although using Remark or Commentator would probably organize things nicely.

[jamiefbolton]

A. Keeps is simple and "normal" for me

[MannequinRaces]

A for sure. Ever since the SSL was added to Reason I have not used method B.

[xRwu8]

A for sure. Ever since the SSL was added to Reason I have not used method B.

Is that because of workflow preference or because of the SSL's sound? Or both?

[Loque]

I used B for a whole, but than switched to A. I find it easier to handle and have more control. I dont care how big the SSL becomes, because normaly i end up with a few buses - but tbh i rarly need to mix/correkt a lot in the end in the SSL.

[Gaja]

A everytime. Workflow is much smoother, it's easier to navigate and you have more possibilities without having to add fx devices. Also when you're mixing you're typically inside the mixer most of the time, and it sucks balancig vocals and snare if you have to jump back and forth between mixer and rack all the time.

[sdst]

I use the mixer 14:2 for drums, I find it more comfortable for that, the SSL Mixer gets too big

propellerhead should do something with that 14:2 mixer, the low and high pass filters would be good

[Loque]

I use the mixer 14:2 for drums, I find it more comfortable for that, the SSL Mixer gets too big

propellerhead should do something with that 14:2 mixer, the low and high pass filters would be good

Thats why there is the SSL...

[xRwu8]

Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning towards Method A with the SSL, though at some point I imagine I'll try B just to see how it works out.

Question about the SSL: when mixing with it, is it common for you to use only its built-in FX (comp/EQ/filters) and very few inserts on individual instruments because the SSL ones are already good enough? (e.g. using inserts only for surgical EQ/weird FX/coloring)

[Noplan]

In Reason you can hide/collapse SSL channels with your power of thought.

[selig]

To some degree if you really are on the fence, you'll have to either take our word for it or try it for yourself!!!

My 2 cents, coming from working on SSLs since the 80s is obviously to use "A". IF just for consistency, and having all faders on one page, that approach wins. I'm already used to scrolling on 80 input consoles (using a chair), so using a mouse to do the same seems SO much easier!!!

Plus, I'm a fan of the EQ and dynamics, which while they don't work for everything DO work for a good percentage of the rest. There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle for me, but that's one reason I started Selig Audio - to fill in the missing gaps IMO!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sdst]

I use the mixer 14:2 for drums, I find it more comfortable for that, the SSL Mixer gets too big

propellerhead should do something with that 14:2 mixer, the low and high pass filters would be good

Thats why there is the SSL...

yea but I like to keep things clean and the SSL Mixer can't hide channels, or I miss something?

I will use the mixer 14:2 for drums until i can hide channels in the ssl

[Loque]

Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning towards Method A with the SSL, though at some point I imagine I'll try B just to see how it works out.

Question about the SSL: when mixing with it, is it common for you to use only its built-in FX (comp/EQ/filters) and very few inserts on individual instruments because the SSL ones are already good enough? (e.g. using inserts only for surgical EQ/weird FX/coloring)

I rarly use the built in Fx of the SSL. F.e. I prefere GQ-7 over the EQ, Dyamite for the Gate/Expander and i pick the Compressor depending on the use case. But sometimes i come back to the SSL...

[Loque]

I use the mixer 14:2 for drums, I find it more comfortable for that, the SSL Mixer gets too big

propellerhead should do something with that 14:2 mixer, the low and high pass filters would be good

Thats why there is the SSL...

yea but I like to keep things clean and the SSL Mixer can't hide channels, or I miss something?

I will use the mixer 14:2 for drums until i can hide channels in the ssl

And you have 14 EQ, Gates, Comptessors and so on in a Combinator. If that is more clean for you, keep it...

[sdst]

And you have 14 EQ, Gates, Comptessors and so on in a Combinator. If that is more clean for you, keep it...

Yes, and I can hide it.

[tibah]

I think B is fine when you are used to the old way of doing sub-mixes in Reason prior to the SSL mixer introduction. A is just so more elegant and even people that are "used" to the B, will probably now use this, as this was one of the most feature wishes I can recall.

Then again, using Kong and only built-in effects, you can pretty much do everything in that one unit. Though, even I'm so used to using e.g. the SSL filters and EQ now, that I probably would still not do it this way. But hey, I'm the guy who is using Redrum instances with one sample each, instead of one with multiple outs...

[C//AZM]

And you have 14 EQ, Gates, Comptessors and so on in a Combinator. If that is more clean for you, keep it...

Yes, and I can hide it.

If it works for you, then great but if you're a constant tweaker like me(LOL) then you appreciate the mixer channels NOT being hidden.(psst bring down that HH for the 20th time)

[EsotericSound]

I'm new to mixing in Reason, so I had a question for everyone about drum routing, which probably just comes down to preference and workflow. When using Redrum/Kong, do you typically:

A) send the individual drum samples directly into their own mixer SSL channels, add insert FX to each of those channels, and then route those channels to a SSL Mixer group bus for drum bus processing, OR

When I'm working with Redrum or Kong's drum designer, I always do option A primarily due to habits I picked up when I was at audio engineering school in the 90s. Back then, we would go over the fundamentals of placing mics on a drum kit so that each part of the kit gets it's own channel.

When I use loops to accentuate drum parts from a Redrum, I usually just use the stereo out of the OctoRex; although occasionally I will find every snare and kick slice and send those to individual outs for their own processing.

[xRwu8]

When I use loops to accentuate drum parts from a Redrum, I usually just use the stereo out of the OctoRex; although occasionally I will find every snare and kick slice and send those to individual outs for their own processing.

Yeah same here, which makes me tend to avoid using rex loops. Stereo out from OctoRex rarely satisfies me, and the level of control I want with each sample requires routing each slice type to its own output.

The problem is that often loop slices contain two different hits, for instance, a snare and a kick, which means the MIDI note for that specific slice should really be deleted and replaced with two simultaneous MIDI notes: one for a different kick-only slice and one for a different snare-only slice. Otherwise the processing (EQ/comp) on that slice will shortchange one of those hits.

I'm up for the slice-splitting/output-assigning challenge when making a song in a genre like drum and bass, which pretty much requires layering beats with loops, but I try to avoid it otherwise.

What I definitely like doing is finding really good slices from rex loops and loading them into Redrum on their own

[ravisoni]

B for me so far, but so many tutorials that I see on mixing are mostly in pro tools or logic, and they usually route every single sound type to a different track. I'm intrigued and want to try that, but putting redrum in a combi with 2-3 send effects on 14:2, and using SSL as a bus channel for the drums just works for me. Sure, sometimes it may mean putting EQ on 2-3 drum slots, but I don't mind the routing. Then there's also the thing about having each hi hat on a mixer channel that I'm not gonna EQ or gate or do any other dynamic fx from the channel strip on.
In short, I treat the SSL like a mixer for bus tracks mostly.

[QVprod]

A.

Saved as a template. The introduction buses in R7 eliminated the advantage of using the 14:2. Having access to all faders in the mixer is easier to work with, and even if you don't use the channel strip for a particular channel, it doesn't add any extra dsp processing by being there.

I also like having separate insert slots for each individual drum so that I'm not searching through a combinator to find eqs/comps. That's one of the most annoying things when using drum refills like RDK or BFD core.

[Goriila Texas]

I use B for two reasons.

1. I pretty much mix/polish my drum combis upon making them,so all I have to do is turn up the volume. The frequency range of the sounds I use usually require me to remove the same frequencies that the snare uses to remove mud,which allows the snare to cut through the mix. So I rarely need to turn the volume up on it. I mix around my kicks so I never adjust those,so being in a combi is all I need.


2. I'm a multi DAW user so having everything in a combi allows me to route to a direct out easier. IMO using the SSL for every sound is kinda messy.

[The Tone Ranger]

I use B for two reasons.


2. I'm a multi DAW user so having everything in a combi allows me to route to a direct out easier. IMO using the SSL for every sound is kinda messy.

Being a multi DAW user is why I use A. I can just bounce mixer channels and mix in Pro Tools.

[Goriila Texas]

I use B for two reasons.


2. I'm a multi DAW user so having everything in a combi allows me to route to a direct out easier. IMO using the SSL for every sound is kinda messy.

Being a multi DAW user is why I use A. I can just bounce mixer channels and mix in Pro Tools.

I feel you on that but I'd rather just record in S1 thru rewire in 32bit float,instead of going through the hassle with stems. Just easier for me if that works for you cool.